"Tesla says on its website its FSD software in on-road vehicles requires active driver supervision and does not make vehicles autonomous."
Despite it being called "Full Self-Driving."
Tesla should be sued out of existence.
replies(9):
Despite it being called "Full Self-Driving."
Tesla should be sued out of existence.
This is called "false advertising", and even worse - recognizing revenue on a feature you are not delivering (a beta is not a delivered feature) is not GAAP.
That's just false advertising. You can't get around that.
I can't believe our current laws let Tesla get away like that.
I agree; the entire advertising industry is well known to be misleading and/or dishonest; it’s annoying and often hurts consumers.
> Tesla is asking for something like 15 000 dollars for access to this "beta",
The cost of FSD is $8000 for the life of the vehicle, $5000 for 3 years (includes free supercharging and premium connectivity), or as a no-contract, a la carte option for $99/month—which IMO is pretty cheap if you just want to try it out or if you only want/need it during special occasions.
> and you don't get two modal dialogs before you sign up for that.
Depends on how you purchase FSD; if done from the vehicle, you get the dialogs. If done at the time of vehicle purchase you get plenty of disclaimers and documentation about its capabilities—though not as obviously prominent and scary as modal dialogs. I haven’t witnessed a subscription purchase so I’m not sure if the dialogs are present during the subscription process; perhaps that’s where the scam lies but I doubt it.
> This is called "false advertising", and even worse - recognizing revenue on a feature you are not delivering (a beta is not a delivered feature) is not GAAP.
Perhaps in your opinion but, well… that’s not how the world works, nor the law. For decades orgs have been delivering revenue-generating products, marketed and labeled as “beta”; a product being incomplete doesn’t mean it doesn’t have value. Heck, most of the software we use is ever changing and often considered a beta release—but they still (usually) offer value. Remember, FSD is software, not hardware; I suspect folks are uncomfortable with what appears to be the new paradigm of cars that change their capabilities over time even while they demand regular new capabilities in other products like their phone or computer.
For what it’s worth, here’s the FSD disclaimer currently present on the Tesla website:
“Full Self-Driving (Supervised)
Your car will be able to drive itself almost anywhere with minimal driver intervention.
Currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. The activation and use of these features are dependent on development and regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions.”
Seems pretty clear to me.
Tesla doesn’t advertise; they rely entirely on word of mouth, storefronts (both online and physical), and publicity/news coverage. But the answer to your question is that, on their website at least, the text disclaimers for the FSD option are the same sizes as the disclaimers for other options like the Tow Package (the disclaimer for which says “Tow up to 3,500 lbs with a class II steel tow bar”) or the wheels (the disclaimer for which shows range estimates depending on the chosen wheel diameter).
> And if it is NOT actually full self driving, why call it full self driving?
To me, this is like asking why ISPs offer “Unlimited Data” plans that have very strict limits on what constitutes “unlimited”.
It’s important to remember that the phrase “Full Self Driving” has no legal or industry-standard definition. For the sake of this discussion, and as far as I’m aware, the FSD product has never been available for purchase or subscription without a parenthetical designation, e.g. “Full Self Driving (Beta)” or “Full Self Driving (Supervised)” which, to me, suggests Tesla is acting in good faith—well, at least as far as good-faith acts exist in our marketing-driven culture. It’s only been within the last year or so that Musk has talked about “Full Self Driving (Unsupervised)” which is, I believe, the designation for what will ultimately become the Level 4/5 autonomy product.
FSD is currently classified as Level 2 autonomy by SAE. While a Level 3 autonomy product is available in the US, it is: - only available in the Mercedes Drive Pilot product, - only available in CA or NV, - limited to 40mph on pre-approved roads, - only available during daylight/good weather conditions.
The difference between the real-world capabilities of Drive Pilot and FSD is quite stark; while FSD is not officially classified as Level 3 autonomy, it’s dramatically closer to what I believe most consumers would consider “autonomous driving” than is the Mercedes product. I only got to try it for a few days so it wasn’t a detailed comparison but my own experience with Mercedes product was disappointing when compared to Tesla’s product. IOW, while perhaps not semantically accurate, the product name “Full Self Driving” is far more accurate than any other available product offering.
> That's just false advertising. You can't get around that.
Product names are very rarely subject to scrutiny for being “false advertising”. Again, the phrase “Full Self Driving” has no legal or official definition. Should it have a legal definition? I don’t know, but I do know that the “Unlimited Data” plans from carriers and ISPs are widely understood not to be “unlimited”; I don’t love those kinds of product naming schemes but I’m not sure how the FSD case is any different from a legal perspective.
> I can't believe our current laws let Tesla get away like that.
Get away with what? IME, Tesla (and pretty much every org on the planet) carefully skirt the boundaries of the law. Sometimes, if they cross a legal boundary, they’ll become subject to investigation and possibly consequences but, in the case of FSD, the court has already dismissed the lawsuit claiming Tesla lied about its capabilities. They “get away like that” by not breaking the law. Until laws change, orgs will continue to be incredibly and often overly optimistic when discussing their products.