Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday September 12 2017, @11:28PM   Printer-friendly
from the interesting-implications dept.

Tesla remotely extends the range of some cars to help with Irma

As Floridians in the path of Hurricane Irma rushed to evacuate last week, Tesla pushed out a software update that made it a bit easier for certain Model S and Model X owners to get out of the state.

Tesla sometimes sells cars with more hardware battery capacity than is initially available for use by customers, offering the additional capacity as a subsequent software update. For example, Tesla has sold Model S cars rated 60D—the 60 stands for 60kWh of energy storage—that actually have 75kWh batteries. Owners of these vehicles can pay Tesla $9,000 to unlock the extra 15kWh of storage capacity.

But last week, Tesla decided to temporarily make this extra capacity available even to Floridians who hadn't paid for the upgrade to ensure they had enough range to get out of Florida ahead of Hurricane Irma. A Tesla spokesperson confirmed the change to Electrek. The extra 15kWh should give the vehicles an additional 30 to 40 miles of range.

Pay to unlock the full potential of your battery.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Wednesday September 13 2017, @11:31AM (5 children)

    by FakeBeldin (3360) on Wednesday September 13 2017, @11:31AM (#567176) Journal

    Most sentiments here are so negative, completely ignoring that the owners got what they paid for: a 60 kWh battery. On top of that, that version has better battery life than a normal 60 kWh battery. On top of that, you can upgrade it to a 70 kWh battery for less money than a physical upgrade would cost.

    "Boo hoo, Tesla is so evil! Selling a 60 kWh battery instead of a 70 kWh battery!"
    Guess what: Tesla *also* sells the 70kWh version of that car. If you want that one, you're free to buy it.
    You bought a 60 kWh version? Congratulations, you're now better off than had you bought an electric car with a 60 kWh battery from a competitor.

    If I own it, I have the right to use it

    Again:
    1. You bought a 60 kWh battery car, you got a 60 kWh car. And yes, you get to use it.
    2. Moreover, you have the right to buy a software upgrade to gain more use from it. You most likely also have the right to rip out the battery
            and the firmware, and hook the battery up yourself with your own power management scheme to whatever you want to hook it up to.

    "Boohoo! My car can become better but I'd have to pay!"
    Well, you can also just obtain a different, better car. Likely you'd have to pay for that too.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2017, @05:54PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2017, @05:54PM (#567336)
    I'm curious, would you still be so adamantly on the manufacturer's side if it were, say, notebooks being sold with 128G of physical RAM, but you had to pay them extra fees to be able to access more than 96G of it?
    • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Thursday September 14 2017, @10:04AM (1 child)

      by FakeBeldin (3360) on Thursday September 14 2017, @10:04AM (#567713) Journal

      If I had paid for a notebook with 96 GB in there, yes.

      Upgrading such a notebook would be much better than a notebook with 96 GB physically in there:
      instead of having to find out what memory fits, hunting online for what is a normal price for that kind of memory, buy 32 GB extra memory, wait for it to arrive, and then having to open the machine to physically install the memory (either myself or even going to a shop to have that done by someone else), I just pay money, do some clicks and tadaa! More memory.

      All sorts of incompatibility problems (DDR3 / DDR4 / EC / ...; but also compatibility with how the memory banks are currently used) avoided.
      Let me put it this way to you: if you could upgrade the memory in your current computer in two ways:
      1. get physical memory, install it
      2. a few mouseclicks and a reboot
      and the cost of these options is similar, would you go for #1?

      • (Score: 2) by Justin Case on Thursday September 14 2017, @11:55AM

        by Justin Case (4239) on Thursday September 14 2017, @11:55AM (#567745) Journal

        if you could upgrade the memory in your current computer in two ways:
        1. get physical memory, install it
        2. a few mouseclicks and a reboot
        and the cost of these options is similar, would you go for #1?

        Absolutely.
        1. There's more to life than simplicity. I am not afraid to learn stuff, like how to open the case or what's compatible with what.
        2. Physical memory can be redeployed in the future as circumstances change... because it's mine.
        3. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread and a thousand other places, when the owner (not you) of the device can change its capacity through software, the owner (not you) can also take away functionality capriciously or maliciously. You should not be giving that kind of power to the owners (not you) of your life for a spoonful of convenience.

  • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Wednesday September 13 2017, @10:29PM (1 child)

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 13 2017, @10:29PM (#567512) Journal

    Boohoo!

    You can certainly sing the praises of defective by design; to be sure it is popular among many groups and there is no shame in doing so among wide swaths of humanity.

    Of course, that doesn't make it not defective by design, and doesn't garner support for it by those opposed to items that are defective by design.

    • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Thursday September 14 2017, @10:10AM

      by FakeBeldin (3360) on Thursday September 14 2017, @10:10AM (#567715) Journal

      Strawman much?

      "Defective by design" is about lack of user choice. As I pointed out, there was plenty choice.

      You don't have to buy the reduced version, you can buy the full version.
      That's not defective by design, that's defective by user choice. And unless you're advocating removing choices from users, users are free to choose to buy lesser versions of hardware - and companies are free to deliver that in any way economically viable for them.