Another advantage is that it doesn’t force people to initially buy the higher version because “what if I end up needing it in the future” (like what Apple does with non-upgradable storage). It lets you buy the cheaper version for now, with the possibility to change your mind later.
Comment on Elon Musk reveals Tesla software-locked cheapest Model Y, offers 40-60 more miles of range
CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 4 months ago
From the article…
Over the years, Tesla has periodically offered cheaper vehicles with shorter ranges, and rather than building a new vehicle with a smaller battery pack, the automaker has decided to instead use the same battery packs capable of more range and software-locked the range.
I can see business wise why they would want to do that, but P.R. and public perception wise, that’s one step forward, two steps back.
realharo@lemm.ee 4 months ago
ch00f@lemmy.world 4 months ago
It’s tricky. It’s not like BMW locking heated seats, a trivial feature, to nickel and dime the owner out of $300.
Reducing the battery capacity severely alters the value of the car possibly dropping it into the range of more budget conscious buyers.
There are benefits too. Less wear on the battery by not using its whole range, faster charging to “100%,” and more potential value when it comes time to sell should the buyer want to unlock the extra range.
Leave it to Tesla though to bungle the PR and completely lose the narrative.
deranger@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
Yes it is; it’s exactly that.
Or they could not reduce it for the same production cost…
There are no benefits. You could simply unplug at 80%.
This is such a cope ass response.
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Let’s just say it’s 50% battery capacity and range for simplicity.
As each cell dies, it can use another cell to replace that one, it would effectively double the life span of the battery.
ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
That’s… not how battery packs work
ch00f@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Yes, but perhaps some money is saved by not having to manage multiple production lines for multiple battery capacities and also having to predict how many of each capacity is going to sell so you’re not stuck with cars nobody wants?
Right, after you just paid more for battery that you’ve decided not to use. The benefit is that it’s cheaper for the customer.
deranger@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
It’s only cheaper because they inflated the price from a limitation they created. There is absolutely no reason to limit the battery capacity in software in this manner other than to create an artificial divide to upsell people on the “”higher”” capacity.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 months ago
You misunderstand, having a larger battery that is not used to full capacity makes it last longer. If you unplug at 80%, you need to have paid the extra price for the bigger battery.
deranger@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
There is no “larger battery”. It’s an identical battery with different software limitations on the charge level.
tabular@lemmy.world 4 months ago
If I own the car then either those are all my batteries or someone else has abandoned their property in my car.
ch00f@lemmy.world 4 months ago
You don’t have to buy the car. People aren’t getting conned here… They would buy a more expensive version of the car with a higher range if they thought that would suit their needs.
tabular@lemmy.world 4 months ago
If it’s a profitable decision then it has the potential to become the de facto standard standard and so simply not buying it isn’t enough.
The manufacturer using software to lock use of hardware in people’s own cars is an attack on ownership rights.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 months ago
You are 100% right it improves the lifespan, and when selling it, a battery in better condition makes the car worth more.
I think somehow some people misunderstand your post? Or they don’t get how it can be an advantage to have a bigger battery than you pay for?
ch00f@lemmy.world 4 months ago
It’s funny how frequently this business model is used in the digital space, but when it comes to physical hardware, people freak.
Like look at movies. Does anybody really think it costs substantially more to deliver the 4K version of a product over the HD version? Everything, Everywhere, All At Once is $12 on Blu-ray on Amazon. It’s $20 on 4k UHD.
The movie was mastered at 4k or higher, so why not just give you the UHD version with the Blu-ray version? The physical disc can’t cost more than a few cents to manufacture.
It’s because some people have decided they don’t need 4k and are happy to take a shittier version of the product for a lower price.
Don’t get me started how much people hate when content is included on the game disc locked behind a paywall yet somehow have less of an issue when there’s day 1 downloadable content also locked behind a paywall.
tabular@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Perhaps typical people can more easily understand how a physical device might work. People probably understand gears and electricity more so than “software” (never even heard of source code or binaries).
deranger@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
None of those other behaviors you describe are any less shitty. “Look, Tesla is doing the same shitty things as other corporations, they’re not so bad!” What a terrible argument.
For the record I pirate my content for the reasons you describe; I also don’t fuck with AAA games with day 1 DLC or paywalled content. Those get pirated or purchased on a heavy discount later.
Got any compelling argument as to why this software nerf should exist?
lightnsfw@reddthat.com 4 months ago
That just means they could be selling the full range version cheaper. You’re getting the same hardware. It’s insane. Not “tricky”.
ch00f@lemmy.world 4 months ago
No. The additional price of the full-range version is partially subsidizing the lower priced version. People are willing to pay the current price for the longer range version, why would they lower the price?
lightnsfw@reddthat.com 4 months ago
That makes it even worse!