Tesla restored autopilot feature to used car, saying the whole thing was a "miscommunication"

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2020/02/14/tesla-restored-autopilot-featu.html


Miscommunication = “We didn’t realize you were going to communicate our shitty policies to other people”


Tesla’s policy will be like a lot of companies: be as shitty as possible without negatively affecting shareholder value.



Whoo boy. That “explanation” makes things worse, actually. It just reinforces that the car’s features are constantly in flux, vulnerable to the whims of various people at the company making arbitrary decisions. “Your car has this feature! Unless it doesn’t! Or does, depending on how we’re feeling that day!”


One more reason to stay away from the Internet of Crappy Things.


Agreed, but this loss of ownership rights has been seeping into more and more everyday things. I hope the next time I need to buy a car, I can still get one I own rather than just hold a license to (subject to the capricious whims of the company).


Our corporate overlords have had a minor reverse in their war on ownership, but do not think that they have given up.


I suspect Tesla’s policy will just be, “Whatever we can get away with. Disagreements will be mediated based on how widespread the negative PR is.”


This. If I want a vehicle that I don’t own, I’ll lease or rent one. (Let’s be honest- a lease is just a longer term rental.)


I’m still trying to get my head around exactly what the policy is, here.

Is Tesla’s stance that the option is licensed to the owner, not the vehicle? So anytime one is sold with software options, those options are yoinked?

Please tell me this is not what they’re saying. I’m not throwing rocks at Tesla; I legitimately don’t understand this.


Honestly, it does sound like a case of the accountants not talking to PR before removing the features.

Tesla gets a ton of news coverage, but its market share isn’t big enough to get away with John Deere level shenanigans. I’m surprised they don’t have a strong policy for things like this, where the opportunity cost to prevent an irate customer is close to zero.

These are the facts
The original owner paid extra for “autopilot”
It was bought back from that owner under CA’s lemon law so he didn’t actually pay for it.
The car was sold at auction to the dealer after being fixed and probably went for more as it had “autopilot”
Removing “autopilot” was probably technically correct but as it (probably) bolstered the sale price removing after the auction it was dishonest at best.

1 Like

is it too strange to imagine in the future tesla cars will have a quarantine mode that they can just activate to make disgruntled users go away?


Pretty soon the Repo man won’t even have to steal back a car—Tesla will just remotely tell it to drive itself to the impound lot.




A negative Tesla story on Boin Boing? I for one am shocked!

(how many days since a positive Musk or Tesla Story? hmmm don’t have time to look back that far,)

Okay I looked, back in November when autopilot avoided some ducks.) 8-10 negative stories since then with the worst propagating the “sudden acceleration” FUD without noting that it was ONE short-seller that made the claim on “behalf” of hundreds of people.


If it really back, or is it set to re-disable on that long curvy bit of road that driver frequently takes?

Murder Most Feature?

‘Not really owning the product you purchased.’

1 Like

“Exactly what Tesla’s policy is here is hard to say, though. The automaker did not respond to multiple requests for clarification or comment.”

Tesla continues the “not talking” bit. “Miscommunication” soldiers on.

1 Like

Why does there need to be any obligation for balanced coverage for ole’ Musky?