1334
Unpatchable AMD Chip Flaw Unlocks Paid Tesla Feature Upgrades (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
159 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Original source: https://www.blackhat.com/us-23/briefings/schedule/index.html#jailbreaking-an-electric-vehicle-in--or-what-it-means-to-hotwire-teslas-x-based-seat-heater-33049

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 66 points 3 years ago (1 child)

Which should be illegal. I get not adding a feature, but software unlocks or subscriptions to hardware you paid for is absurd. Also see Tesla batteries.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -72 points 3 years ago* (3 children)

    You didn't pay for it.

    Tesla includes it at loss because it's cheaper than making you a special version without it, and it opens up new sales by reducing the price (e.g the originally locked batteries let them sell a substantially cheaper car than they could have otherwise)

    Subscriptions for that should be banned, but including heated seats and making you pay once to access them is fair game.

    Manufacturers dont owe you anything for free.

    Edit: also, short of something like FSD which depends on future work from Tesla, I don't think they have a right to prevent you from bypassing a lock and accessing those heated seats if you can

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 46 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    If you pay to add a feature to a product that was previously not available, sure, that makes sense. But in this case, at the point of the transaction, and they hand over the keys, the ownership of the product is now 100% transferred to the customer. They should and can do whatever they want with their property. A manufacturer equipping a feature because it's cheaper is frankly not the customer's problem.

    Imagine buying a house but you only get access to certain rooms. They set the price, the customer just pays for it. If they want to cover the cost of adding the heated seats feature, then add it to the starting price.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Imagine buying a house but you have not get access to certain rooms.

    A bit off topic but that’s kind of how condos work btw. You don’t actually own the apartment or townhouse, you just own shares in a corporation that gives you the right to live in that space, with some severe restrictions.

    Often you don’t have the right to mow your own lawn, you can’t keep certain things on your balcony, you can’t have a dog over a certain size, etc. It’s kind of nuts tbh. They give you the illusion of owning the space, but it’s a very restrictive form of ownership.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    The automotive equivalent of that would be a lease rather than a purchase though, as I see it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    Well no, a lease is literally a lease. People do lease houses too you know. When people “buy” a condo, that’s not a lease.

    The point I’m making here is that the housing analogy doesn’t work (“Imagine buying a house and not being allowed to X”) because people literally “buy” houses and are not allowed to do basic things that you’d assume come with house ownership.

    I’m not defending that this is ok. For me buying a condo would be as ridiculous as buying a DRMed Tesla.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 3 years ago* (2 children)

    See my original edit which was before this reply, and my follow up to another person on the same post replying like you.

    I'm not objecting to unlocking heated seats. I do object and consider something like FSD entirely different though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Your original reply stated that "including heated seats and making you pay once to access it is fair game" is what prompted my reply. Users shouldn't be paying for it if it comes with the product, disabled or not.

    I have no qualms about subscriptions for FSD due to continuing developments and improvements, and the fact that it requires a service running AI/ML models to operate. However the drastic subscription cost changes over 3 years raises an eyebrow. From $5000 in 2019 to $15000 in 2022 is quite a drastic change. They certainly have the right to price how they want, but definitely an insane pricing model.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child)

    If your problem with my statement is that Tesla shouldn't even be allowed to charge them for it in the first place then we'll have to disagree. They can sell whatever product they want with features locked away. If people don't want to buy a SR because it doesn't have heated seats without a fee then don't buy it.

    Trying to make heated seats a subscription is where I'd draw the line and say regulators should step in.

    And again, no qualms with people jailbreaking heated seats

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    I see where you're coming from. And I also agree with the subscription heated seats.

    I think we might actually be advocating for the same thing lol. I was making the argument that manufacturers should have a one-time price for things that are packaged along with the product (with the exception of features like FSD that requires a continuing service to operate and evolve), but jailbreaking static features like heated seats is fair game.

    However, your post got me thinking... If it is reasonable for FSD to be a subscription model, how are FSD updates different than, let's say, your phone having updates and security patches? We don't currently pay for new versions of iOS or Android. Granted the complexity and stake of FSD is greater than a phone, it is similar fundamentally

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    We don't pay for phone updates, but there is software out there that's a buy a version and get all updates to that version, but not a new version.

    E.g buy 5.0, get 5.1, 5.2, 5.2.1, 5.3 etc but not 6.0

    Usually that kinda software stays on a version for years.

    My Jetbrains IDE is a subscription fee like that. Yearly fee gets you all major version updates, but you keep it as is if you stop paying.

    Phone updates don't come for the life of the car phone either.

    Would you pay a yearly fee to continue getting updates for your now no longer being updated but perfectly fine otherwise phone? I would.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    Would you pay a yearly fee to continue getting updates for your now no longer being updated but perfectly fine otherwise phone? I would.

    Good question. At that point I'd explore replacing the OS altogether with GapheneOS or LineageOS.

    When it comes to cars though, I don't find FSD an appealing enough value to continue paying (or even begin to pay in the first place). But to your point, that doesn't mean Tesla shouldn't price it how they want and people to buy it if they wish.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Actually, yes.....when you leave a lot with what you bought, you did, indeed, pay for it.

    Their shitty business practices to exploit consumers are designed to favor their decisions as a net gain. And usually, it is a safe bet. An easy win. Hell, even in this case it still will be. Last I checked, they were turning a profit.

    When the consumer finds a win, it's not "getting something for free.". It's a small victory for the consumer on a bad business decision by the company. The companies sure use a lot more loopholes than the consumer to squeeze a buck out of everyone. They assumed they would make money giving things away as a deceptive practice. Most times they win. This time, it didn't work out for them. Oh well. Free market and all. I'll not be losing any sleep over it tonight.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -14 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children)

    You left with the hardware, and accepted that it was locked. You didn't pay for access to it.

    In my edit which was well before your reply, I explicitly stated I'm okay with you bypassing a lock like that to gain access to heated seats. You have a right to modify your car and tough luck if tesla didn't protect it well enough. That's not your problem, that's theirs.

    FSD is another matter though. It's actively developed software that's pushed to the car if you paid for it. Software that will in the future push liability onto Tesla if they are successful. Tesla doesn't have any obligation to provide that software, updates, or access to it regardless of any hack that's done, and I imagine the NHSTA would even require them to devise a way to prevent access due to liability issues that might arise.

    Edit: one is accessing something you own but don't have access to through a hole they left open. The other is piracy/theft

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    The unjust power companies have over their users through their proprietary software is far more worrying for us as a society than some users having unauthorized access to software on a product they own (not "piracy", that's a propaganda term from the film industry).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 5 points 3 years ago (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •