> ... if Tesla knows that it can’t deliver unsupervised self-driving on HW3, it needs to let owners know right now and stop selling the software package to HW3 owners without a clear plan to make things right. Otherwise, this quickly becomes fraudulent.
they are delivering updates as of now, it's just how FSD it will be lol. It seems like the model will be a quantized version of what will be on HW5 Robotaxi.
HW3 owner, tesla allows me to do a transfer to a new car, my car is getting into 5 y.o. zone. I'll probably follow the path of transfer.
I Just came from 30h+ driving long weekend. FSD did 25h+ of that driving. It's definitely a value even in its current form, probably not as expensive as Tesla charges thought.
I did this. They transferred it and it worked for a month, then they pulled it from the new car and now I have to repurchase. What a joke. Next car will be a Rivian.
... or wait until all HW3 models are recycled. Is this a viable strategy? Sell a feature that never arrives and the owner puts the product in the trash and never has used/accessed that feature? This was announced 2016.
I don't know anything about the industry, or definitions, or terms used. I'm just "a person in the street in a hurry".
"Unsupervised" sounds like you can take a nap in the back while the car takes you somewhere to me.
What's an appropriate safety standard the self-driving car must meet to make that safe enough? I'd say that the self-driving needs to be as reliable as a human driver.
If someone said that the average human driver has some kind of failure (loss of attention causing accident, feels unwell and needs to pull over, etc) once every 122,000 miles, that sounds about right to me.
>Let’s be honest. Tech is rarely supported with software updates after 5-7 years. Tesla Hardware 3 is entering that zone. It is becoming obsolete and normally, it wouldn’t be a problem, but Tesla sold a Full Self-Driving capability package for up to $15,000 based on this hardware that it never delivered.
>At the minimum, it will have to reimburse that, but owners can even argue that they bought the car because Elon Musk told them it would become self-driving over time and become an “appreciating asset.”
>This could quickly become a very large liability for Tesla, and the way it handles it is also important.
[delayed]
key bit:
> ... if Tesla knows that it can’t deliver unsupervised self-driving on HW3, it needs to let owners know right now and stop selling the software package to HW3 owners without a clear plan to make things right. Otherwise, this quickly becomes fraudulent.
they are delivering updates as of now, it's just how FSD it will be lol. It seems like the model will be a quantized version of what will be on HW5 Robotaxi.
HW3 owner, tesla allows me to do a transfer to a new car, my car is getting into 5 y.o. zone. I'll probably follow the path of transfer.
I Just came from 30h+ driving long weekend. FSD did 25h+ of that driving. It's definitely a value even in its current form, probably not as expensive as Tesla charges thought.
I did this. They transferred it and it worked for a month, then they pulled it from the new car and now I have to repurchase. What a joke. Next car will be a Rivian.
huh? Can you share more details? why do they force you to do so? what was their justification?
p.s. I was looking at Rivian, but it seems like their delivery of affordable cars is in limbo.
What if you don't want a new Tesla but want the FSD you already bought?
... or wait until all HW3 models are recycled. Is this a viable strategy? Sell a feature that never arrives and the owner puts the product in the trash and never has used/accessed that feature? This was announced 2016.
> According to most experts, Tesla needs a ~1,000x increase in miles between disengagement to deliver on its unsupervised self-driving promises.
So they need 122,000 miles between disengagement? Really? That's a rather crazy standard.
I don't know anything about the industry, or definitions, or terms used. I'm just "a person in the street in a hurry".
"Unsupervised" sounds like you can take a nap in the back while the car takes you somewhere to me.
What's an appropriate safety standard the self-driving car must meet to make that safe enough? I'd say that the self-driving needs to be as reliable as a human driver.
If someone said that the average human driver has some kind of failure (loss of attention causing accident, feels unwell and needs to pull over, etc) once every 122,000 miles, that sounds about right to me.
Is think it should be at least 165 000 miles in the US, that's what waymo claim anyway.
>Let’s be honest. Tech is rarely supported with software updates after 5-7 years. Tesla Hardware 3 is entering that zone. It is becoming obsolete and normally, it wouldn’t be a problem, but Tesla sold a Full Self-Driving capability package for up to $15,000 based on this hardware that it never delivered.
>At the minimum, it will have to reimburse that, but owners can even argue that they bought the car because Elon Musk told them it would become self-driving over time and become an “appreciating asset.”
>This could quickly become a very large liability for Tesla, and the way it handles it is also important.
Sounds like fraud to me