Hackers were able to exploit the AMD Secure Processor which allows them to jailbreak the infotainment system. The hackers believe that they can run any software they want and essentially unlock any features that are software-locked. It’s “un-patchable” short of a hardware updates from Tesla.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] wozomo@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Fuck yeah, subscription-unlocks for existing features on cars should be illegal, and until it is I fully support all jailbreaking/hacking of these companies’ products

[–] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 year ago

subscription-unlocks for existing features on ~~cars~~ anything should be illegal

Reminds me of when my ISP wanted to charge $2/month to enable Wi-Fi. A monthly fee to just once remotely flip a switch on hardware already in my house. I went out and bought my own router for $60 and it paid for itself many times over at $2/month.

This sort of thing absolutely needs you be illegal before companies have us renting every feature of every physical product around us.

[–] profdc9@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah, and then Tesla will shut down your car remotely and refuse to fix it because you customized your own car. Because you don't really own your car, you license it because Tesla can turn it into a paperweight at any time.

[+] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fuck yeah, subscription-unlocks for existing features on cars should be illegal

...what? Do you have any idea how much it cost to develop that software? You realize you'd just be arbitrarily jacking up prices and forcing people to buy shit they don't want?

[–] wozomo@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

…am I having a stroke? Isn’t the subscription-model literally “forcing people” to pay a higher base price because the car includes expensive (but disabled!) components that you then have to pay more money to unlock?

It’s a question of paying extra for a car with costly (to manufacture) subscription-locked features that you don’t want and won’t use vs being able to buy a stripped-down, base model with hand-crank windows, no?

Am I getting whooshed rn? That’s the only explanation that makes sense, that I’m missing the sarcasm or something.

[–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

…am I having a stroke?

I think maybe yes.

Isn’t the subscription-model literally “forcing people” to pay a higher base price because the car includes expensive (but disabled!) components that you then have to pay more money to unlock?

Depends on the product but generally no.

In the case of FSD the only hardware included is the cameras and processor, which is used for lots of different purposes. It's a software-unlock because you are paying for the development of the software.
Generally it costs more money to create separate production lines for different hardware than it does to just put the hardware in every vehicle. This is why Tesla has so few hardware configurations and paints, and why other manufacturers don't have itemized options, they only sell them in packages.

That’s the only explanation that makes sense, that I’m missing the sarcasm or something.

Or that you don't understand how production lines work.

[–] wozomo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I understand the theory behind the production-line savings, but 100% do not believe that those savings will be passed on to the consumer, and am unconvinced that it actually is more cost-effective/materially efficient (incentive-wise, it’s in the best interests of the car manufacturers to convince us that this will be a good thing for us in the long-term).

They’re manufacturing the various components (like seats) on totally separate lines from the car and then assembling them. If every single component manufactured is the fanciest, priciest version—if every seat has a heater, a fan, and internet connectivity so it can be activated or locked—that’s certainly going to result in a more expensive base vehicle price vs manufacturing lower-tier components and feeding them into the assembly line as necessary.

A great example would be the Tesla batteries. They’re absolutely not putting the same battery in each car and then locking the ability to charge it beyond a certain point. Materials costs are a huge factor.

A non-vehicular example would be phones. There’s a reason why every iPhone doesn’t have the same components that are just subscription-locked.

The FSD side of things does feel different, though, I agree with you there. You’re paying for a consistently-updated, software-based service, but that’s not at all comparable to having to pay the original manufacturer to activate, say, the blind-spot indicators on a used car (unless they’re coming out and upgrading your mirrors from time to time).

[–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

They’re manufacturing the various components (like seats) on totally separate lines from the car and then assembling them.

Literally every component is assembled on separate lines. This doesn't mean anything.

if every seat has a heater, a fan, and internet connectivity so it can be activated or locked—that’s certainly going to result in a more expensive base vehicle price vs manufacturing lower-tier components and feeding them into the assembly line as necessary.

I mean at some point yes, but also not really. Things like cloth seats are just thrown into the lineup to create pricing tiers, they don't actually cost less.

A great example would be the Tesla batteries. They’re absolutely not putting the same battery in each car and then locking the ability to charge it beyond a certain point.

Actually, they've absolutely already done that several times.