Tesla has been known for turning the automotive industry upside down (iConic, 2016). For years now Tesla is basically the only option for a fully electrical vehicle with an extensive range. Besides this, they have been seriously piloting with self-driving vehicles. Meaning that a Tesla is loaded with high-tech hard- and software and continuously connected with the HQ of Tesla. This might feel in favor of their customers, but is it?
During hurricane Irma, Tesla remotely extended the range of all Tesla vehicles around Florida with a 60-kilo-watt hour battery (AD, 2017). Around the year 2006 Tesla gave customers the choice to buy a 60-kilo-watt hours battery pack or, for several thousand dollars more, a 75-kilo-watt hours battery pack. Remarkable is that these two types are hardware wise the same. The only difference is the software itself. With the extended battery package, your range will increase with about 50 kilometres (USA Today, 2017).
The only thing Tesla needed to do is to activate the software and all Tesla drivers located in the Florida area would suddenly have an extended range to ‘’get away’’ from the hurricane. At first sight, this might look very generous of Tesla, however there are a few aspects that need to be considered here. First, why did customers need to pay several thousand dollars more for a simple software upgrade, knowing that the hardware of the vehicle is the same (Bloomberg, 2017). Besides that, this ‘generous’ gift of Tesla, almost costed them noting.
The second concern would be ownership, since Tesla can simply remotely configure your vehicle. This is raising the question who the real owner of the vehicle is, since you, as a driver, cannot really do anything about it. This puts Tesla in a powerful position. Another concern is privacy, knowing that your vehicle is 24/7 connected with the control room of Tesla. The amount of data they could have gathered about you probably will be impressive. Who knows what Tesla is going to do with all this data.
Tesla might always be a step ahead, providing customers with something that feels like value added for them, but in fact in the future is only beneficial for Tesla itself. You better think twice, when Tesla announces something new. Who knows what they are up to and will we even be involved in it?
References
Agrawal, A.J. (2016) How Tesla Has Turned the Auto Industry Upside Down, iConic, https://www.inc.com/aj-agrawal/how-tesla-has-turned-the-auto-industry-upside-down.html, 20th of September 2017.
Bremmer, D. (2017) Dezelfde Tesla, maar toch slechter, Algemeen Dagblad, https://www.ad.nl/economie/dezelfde-tesla-maar-toch-slechter~ace1b349/?utm_source=whatsapp&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialsharing_app, 20th of September 2017.
Bullard, N. (2017) Tesla’s Irma Aid Hints at the Future of Connected Cars, Bloomberg, https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-15/tesla-s-irma-aid-hints-at-the-future-of-connected-cars, 20th of September 2017.
Della Cava, M. (2017) Your Tesla may have secret powers, USA Today, https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/09/11/tesla-offers-irma-fleeing-owners-temporary-range-boost/653684001/, 20th of September 2017.
Hi Jasper,
I would like to discuss several statements you make in your blog post. First off, you’re wondering ”why customers need to pay several thousand dollars more for a simple software upgrade, knowing that the hardware of the vehicle is the same.”
Tesla introduced the upgradable 60 KwH version of the Tesla Model S to give customers a more affordable option for electric driving. And while customers who bought the upgradable 60 KwH Tesla Model S basically bought a car with the same battery as a 75 KwH version, they also paid a lower price. By the way, I actually think it’s rather handy to have the ability to upgrade your battery life, as you might find out after you have bought the car that you need an extended range. Moreover, the fact that you don’t charge your battery to full capacity (60 KwH instead of 75 KwH) could actually be beneficial for the battery life of your Tesla, as charging a lithium battery to full capacity is actually more harmful than charging it to for example 80 percent (http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/archive/the_high_power_lithium_ion).
Moreover, from the supplier’s side it makes sense to use software to differentiate between models with different capacities instead of offering two completely different batteries. Imagine how much more production costs would come into place if Tesla had two different production lines: one producing 60 KwH batteries and one producing 75 KwH lines. Implementing only one production line that makes 75 KwH batteries is way more cost- and time-efficient.
Regarding your statements about ownership, I think this is a case of personal preference. Although I agree with your statement that it is kind of scary to know that your own car can be configured remotely by someone else, I personally think that the chances of Tesla taking over my car at a random point in time is extremely small. And I have enough faith in Tesla’s security so that my car cannot be taken over by random people.
The point of personal preference can also be said about your statements regarding privacy and Tesla gathering data. I think the chances of Tesla doing something malicious with the data they gather about you is extremely small and just like any other big company they will probably use the data to enhance customer experience and make things for you more efficient. I think nowadays you basically have to accept that companies gather your data and whether that is a good or bad things is up to you. However, if you don’t want your data to be gathered, you’re basically condemned to a life without a smartphone, social media, devices using Internet of Things et cetera.
All in all, I think it is really easy to jump to conclusions about the extended battery life without thinking about Tesla’s side of the story. Furthermore, I think that the fact that Tesla offered people a free temporary battery upgrade in times of need is still a nice gesture and in my opinion there has been way more fuss about it in the media than there should be.
Thanks for your starting the blog post Jasper. It proved to be an interesting read and you raised some good questions.
With regards to the software question it is obviously clear that more extensive software is more expensive. The fact that the hardware is similar should not matter. BMW and many other car manufacturers actually also limited car performance using engine-chips software (replacing the chip containing the software would release the full power of the engine, but still).
In reaction to the privacy and security concerns I disagree with Oscars post and share your concern about privacy sensitive data. There is no way around the collection of your personal data, however handling this personal data should be done with my permission. In addition to this if I want my personal data to be deleted (forgotten) I should have the possibility to request this, luckily the EU is passing new GDPR regulations solving many of these concerns.
In regards to the remote configuration: “Everything is hackable”. I believe that Tesla has enough security engineers working round the clock to prevent any penetration or hacking of Tesla software. Often however it is not a system error but a human error, what if I forget to “update” my car software, or when I am out of reach for Tesla’s Remote Updates? I guess it will just be a question of times before the first reported “Tesla hackings”