But if Ford was to develop something better than any other car company - say, a car with the greatest acceleration - I would like them to be able to charge different price depending on whether the purchaser is the police force or a car racing team.

Nails are very much a commodity product, so once again competition would prohibit the supplier from charging much more than the cost of production. But let's say that a chemical company developed a superior adhesive such that a carpenter could save an hour on some types of construction jobs. The value of a carpenter's time is much more in the United States than in Indonesia, so I would like the chemical company to be able to charge much more for the same adhesive in the US compared to Indonesia.

Think about it: some guy changes the suspension on his car, making it super tight, puts racing wheels on - and then claims an issue on 'warranty' when something happens due to his modifications?

It's definitely within reason to forfeit a warranty if someone hacks up the product with their customizations.

There's no way an auto-manufacturer can provide warranties for parts, which depend on other parts - that have been altered.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that is true either. I am probably more politically active than most, in that I will actually contact my representatives about issues I consider important. My representatives have, in some cases, been more tech savvy than most as well. And yet still there is little real change in technical fields, because the overwhelming majority of politicians are not aware of the real issues and implications and the briefings they get come from the very big businesses who stand to gain the most from additional laws and variations on the theme of regulatory capture. If the only people running in an election are all like that, who do you vote for if you want something else?

I see a few plausible ways to improve the situation. Firstly, voting with our wallets works if and when there are better alternatives available, and sadly is often far more flexible, far more effective and far more quickly effective than voting in an election.

Secondly, if we can raise the issues to a high enough level of public awareness that they start to become politically relevant, then the politicians will start caring enough to get better briefings and explore more points of view. The danger with this one is that with technology issues, people often only start to care when something significant and bad happens to them personally or to someone close to them, and it may be far too late to fix the underlying problems by then.

One of the possibilities I find most interesting is that in the current political climate in the West, the established political classes are deeply unpopular, and in some cases rival movements are picking up serious interest even if they're a little bit crazy just because they're not the old guard. This also leaves the door open for much more savvy people to enter politics who might never have considered doing so before, and if even a few people who care deeply about some of these issues manage to get into power within national governments, we could start to see some real change.

And of course, there is always the option that many people will take in real life: ignore the restrictions/laws and get away with it. I don't like this one at all personally, because it means those who work within the system are always losing out to those willing to break the rules, but there's no point denying the reality. For example, what are Tesla really going to do to someone who violates this rule? If they start routinely breaking the cars somehow then they're going to face an existential threat to their brand. If they sue the customer, there's a fair chance that they will lose after their terms are found to violate consumer protection laws in enough jurisdictions to kill their whole strategy.

The sad thing is that the final option is often "good enough" for enough people that we don't build enough momentum to push for the other better ones, so the law-abiding but better-wanting citizens lose out as usual.

It won't sound evil. They will just tell the politicians that in order to invest huge sums of money they need guarantees, that the uncertainty of not binding their customers hinders job creation and investment, etc. Nothing is new in that playbook, since from their point of view it's actually not even wrong. It's not like they have to come up with some outrageous lies. Today it's Tesla, but that process has been going on for a long time. It's just too good: Control over a stable income stream instead of the ups and downs of the free market. It also appeals to people working in those firms, so again not actually clearly "evil".

It also appeals to a lot of people in our allegedly "uncertain and dangerous times" that there is ever more "order" and control. They actually have a point: The more complex out systems become, which includes the state, the more dangerous failure and the harder a recovery. Are our systems becoming more unstable? If so the trend explains itself, because that calls for more certainty and control - since changing the system itself seems to be no option because nobody knows how and what to change it to, or at least there is no trace of a consensus. So, more order and control it is.

Warranties on physical goods have a long history (in the US) of being void if the owner makes certain changes. Should that apply to software?

(great comment btw)

It's an issue of patent, copyright and rent seeking. We are so far down that rabbit hole globally, and governments have given far too much for it to be recoverable. Who do I vote for to get wholesale scaling back of IP law? What do I do knowing there's unlikely to be candidates promoting this stance?

Or, we start demanding that software, when purchased as part of a physical device, does not reduce the rights customers have to their physical device.

Im not saying its hard to find them yet, but at this point 2 out of 3 toasters at my local grocery store have software in them - simple software, not connected, but software nonetheless, in a device that needs none, a device that has worked mechanically for decades with no issue... Everything is going that way though, becuase its easier to design something with software rather than figuring out how to make a piece of machinery make a decision mechanically - it easier to just use sensors and software...

I think there's room for profiting from driving Uber. (I also agree that it's a good bit less than it appears based on the cash-in and cash-out every week.)

No I won't. It's simple economics that I won't.

Assuming a future where I can choose to rent my car's free time to a ride sharing app. You just told me that I'd be able to make just as much money locked into a single customer as I would if different customers had to compete to rent my car's free time.

And yes blah blah blah I could buy a different type of car. But market forces don't break this sort of monsopoly until "what app can I rent my car's time to" is the TOP purchase differentiator to a very sizable portion of auto buyers.

Even if there would be no damages, imagine getting your car back to go somewhere with your family and it smells like a bad kind of party.

I could very easily see if you go to the same mechanic and they input your mileage between visits and a system having a reasonable chance of getting scheduled maintenance correct based upon time or average mileage.

I've never heard of a company pulling data from a car OTA to do this type of work. (some car insurance companies are a different story though)

Yet the media will probably spin this as "people just don't care," as they usually do with privacy issues. It's very much an awareness and education issue.

No, it doesn't, at least not necessarily.

I also bought a Toyota last year. They called on a regular timed schedule that had nothing to do with my actual usage pattern. We got a call to come in for our 5,000 mile service when we'd just completed the 10,000 mile service.

It may be a feature of the higher-end models, but it's definitely not something the 2015/2016 Corollas seem to do.

I bet if you were willing to waive the warranty they'd stop calling you. But, being as how the warranty on cars is now 5+ years, and that the maintenance variance among owners is high, I don't see this as a bad thing.

Granted, it's not happening to me (yet), so I might complain too.

Call it anything but, please don't call it an ownership.

If you support it, why? Otherwise, your comment adds no more substance than me saying "I'm against this." and offering no further explanation.

I would add, though, that whether the next generation accepts it or not is not really the problem. It won't likely be viewed as a positive thing, whether they accept it or not. Why should the next generation have to accept something that is a net negative for them, just because the current generation has decided for them that it's how it's going to be?

The next generation will just get cancer as often as we do. Why bother trying to curb smoking. (okay, this one would be for my grandparents).

Sure we don't like taxation without representation, but the next generation will grow up with and won't mind. Why bother changing it.

If you really wanted to complain about the govt being over powered and taking over stuff you own, you could point out Civil Forfeiture.

Liability with respect to the operation of physical products is well understood. There are private standards that insurance companies and courts are familiar with (for example: Underwriter Labs, NIST, NSF, ANSI). If your product passes the relevant standard, and a customer causes harm with the product, then you've got a great argument that your company should not be held liable for that harm.

Software licenses almost always just try to disclaim any and all liability entirely. "THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS-IS AND IS NOT FIT FOR ANY PURPOSE"--anyone who has read a software license has probably seen language like that.

Then on top of that, software is increasingly networked with centralized services. Tesla's self-driving technology, as described so far, will be dependent on data made available over the network--like whether the radar return at a given location is a known billboard. So liability will attach to not just the car, not just the software, but also the real-time service run by Tesla.

Companies use liability as a major reason to restrict the rights of consumers. We need industry and legal frameworks to allocate liability for software and services like we have for physical goods.

It looks like they are attempting to prohibit driving people for money, not connecting the car to unauthorized software. "Revenue purposes" is the exact words they used.

Their lies don't become any more compelling when you repeat them.

There are frequently limits put on use by sellers even when things are sold outright. You can purchase prescription drugs, but you can't just give them to anyone, or resell them without limits. You can often get software licenses for educational purposes that are not to be used for business. You may not like such restrictions, and certainly I don't think they should be made mandatory for everybody by law, but I don't think making it illegal for a company to make such rules is a very good idea. The easiest solution is simply to not purchase the offending product.

Edit: as regards the commercal/non-commercial mods, I think it's reasonable to imagine that they are trying to avoid the commercial insurance snafus that have entangled ride-sharing apps. When you accept money for a service you put yourself into a bunch of liability positions. And in this case, the liability is on the creator of the self-driving program.

And I like my iPhone walled garden just fine.

That wasn't protecting themselves from litigation. That's saying "this car is ours, you just get to use it, and we control how".

Just like you cannot get a service manual for Tesla vehicles. Except in MA, where it's required by law. Where you have to make an appointment, go into their office, and view the manual on-site, and can't take it with you. I believe you also have to pay a fee to do so, or at least did.

However, they know that won't hold up in the court of public awareness/opinion, and that if people messing with their Teslas end up causing lots of problems, that legislatures and regulators are more likely to clamp down on self-driving cars generally. Which is the opposite of what they want.

If Tesla's APIs can't handle input spam, that's on them. That's a very predictable and easily-solved problem. The entire point of an API is to expose a limited surface area so that you can easily interoperate while maintaining control and responsibility.

> Or screws up the location and sends a passenger a dozen miles from their intended destination? Or where the Tesla algos find a route it's been given to be undriveable and just turn back? Sure, you and I would rightly hold the modder accountable, but that's because we understand how this stuff works. Everybody else will see "Tesla cars" not working right, and that's a huge headache and liability for Tesla.

If Uber sends your car to the wrong location, then that's that. No big deal. People go to the wrong locations themselves all the time. I don't see how this is an Uber-specific problem, and I don't buy the argument that people are smart enough to hook their Tesla up to Uber but too stupid to understand who's at fault when the car correctly navigates itself to an incorrect location.

> And I don't think they'll ever ban people from going to places - as long as you use approved Tesla tools to request that destination.

There is no "approved Tesla tool" to connect to Uber. What happens if they modify their "approved Tesla tools" so they won't auto-drive you to a Burger King?

They don't have to be, for the same reason that you don't have to understand Maxwell's equations to understand that it's possible to cause a fire with bad wiring. The concept of "the user modifications caused the problem" is not beyond the public understanding. Anyone who cares about more details than that can take the time to understand them but those are not the people you have to worry about.

> It's not the same. A bureaucrat's rules are mandatory for everybody. Tesla has competitors who may choose a different route.

Your arguments either apply or they don't. Their competitors are not in a different situation and there are not very many of them. They'll likely all make the same choice.

> A self-driving Tesla is not an iPhone, because an iPhone is unlikely to run somebody over or block a freeway. Risks are relevant.

That's the point. You don't want a black box in control of life or death situations. You want something the user can understand when they're capable of it, so that the 2% of users who are can identify and fix problems that will affect the other 98% before it turns into deaths and liability.

Opening up the car could reduce their liability, because it gives them somewhere else to point the finger sometimes, and a large population of people willing to find and fix problems. If they control the car entirely then all the liability is always on them and no one can help them when they make a mistake.

> Maybe in the future, when such things are more familiar, Tesla will feel confident enough to open their products up to modders. But right now? When even the idea of self-driving cars is a challenging sell, and they're being criticized for it not being secure and consistent enough? No, not now.

Right now is when the precedent and expectations are being set.

>They don't have to be, for the same reason that you don't have to understand Maxwell's equations to understand that it's possible to cause a fire with bad wiring. The concept of "the user modifications caused the problem" is not beyond the public understanding. Anyone who cares about more details than that can take the time to understand them but those are not the people you have to worry about.

You try convincing the public of that. Every time a Tesla has caught on fire, it's been reported on in numerous news outlets. Despite the fact that thousands of gasoline cars catch on fire every year, people are worried about much rarer, milder lithium-ion battery fires. It's a new thing, so it gets way more scrutiny. People aren't always reasonable, and regulations are often made based on perceptions of danger, not actual risks. I think Tesla is not being unreasonable in thinking that "well, it's the owner's fault for messing with it!" is going to come off as anything but mealy-mouthed blame deflection. Even if they're in the right.

>Your arguments either apply or they don't. Their competitors are not in a different situation. They'll all make the same choice.

So whatever choice Tesla makes, all their competitors will also make? Or, in the case of Uber's in-development car, probably already have made? I think you're according them more influence than they really have. The point stands that whatever Tesla's choice on this matter, it does not apply a legal obligation on their competitors to do the same. So it is not "no improvement".

>That's the point. You don't want a black box in control of life or death situations. You want something the user can understand when they're capable of it, so that the 2% of users who are can identify and fix problems that will affect the other 98% before it turns into deaths and liability. Opening up the car could reduce their liability, because it gives them somewhere else to point the finger sometimes, and a large population of people willing to find and fix problems. If they control the car entirely then all the liability is always on them and no one can help them when they make a mistake.

But that's the thing - they don't want to be pointing the finger anywhere because that's almost always bad press for them. Throwing blame just looks bad. While helpful users are certainly an asset, it's mostly as a resource for identifying problems, not attempting to solve them on their own cars. Trying to aggregate, understand, vet, and integrate users' solutions is a huge and difficult undertaking, and not something that I think they want to attempt while trying to roll out a reasonably consistent product.