They paid for x range and received x range. They were given a standing offer to increase that range for a cost significantly less than the cost of replacing or physically upgrading the battery.
Now if they had paid for 120kwh batteries and received 120kwh batteries that would only deliver 100kwh of range then we'd be having and entirely different conversation.
Yeah, it's an idea. Either that or they could more enthusiastically push the idea that if you disagree you should explain why, rather than down voting.
Generally if someone makes a solid argument or valid points, regardless of whether or not I agree with them then I upvote them. If I disagree I try to reply and explain my perspective.
I reserve downvotes for absurd or baseless remarks, attacks, and other noise.
People like to downvote off topic or sarcastic remarks, I generally ignore them (neither upvote/downvote) because I think making light of topics isn't necessarily a bad thing and can engage people in a discussion.
* I say generally because no one is perfect and I don't strictly adhere to the above.
That's pretty much exactly how I operate as well. I think it would be a good thing if HN tried to encourage this behaviour, perhaps by reinforcing the initial guidelines on signup with things like reminders when down-voting controversial comments.
Net-net probably? Less batteries, lower weight, better performance, lower environmental impact from the waste of mining and throwing away that extra lithium you didn't pay to unlock...
If you buy a 4 piece of chicken nuggets at McDonalds and they're out of 4 piece boxes so they put your 4 nuggets in a 9 piece box for you, have they cheated you out of 5 nuggets? No.
Then why, if you pay for 100 kWh capacity, and they give it to you in a battery capable of 120 kWh capacity are they suddenly cheating you?
Did you pay for the higher capacity? No.
Did you get the capacity you paid for? Yes.
Are you able to buy up to the higher capacity? Yes.
That's one way to look at it but it belies the fact that the box was designed and intended for 6, not 4. They didn't force and extra 2 in the box, it's not out of spec.
I actually looked on the McDonald's website but couldn't find anything but the 4 pack. I remember working their in the 90s and they had at least 4 different sizes (like 4, 6, 9, 20).
I don't have any problem with them giving me extra capacity if they are unable to deliver what I paid for. What I do object to is them giving me extra capacity, but trying to prevent me from using it. And then claiming it is illegal for me to take a hacksaw to their lock they left on my car.
Yes. And the person paid for 60 kWh of battery capacity. They didn't pay for 75 kWh of battery capacity. The true capacity of the battery is irrelevant so long as it delivers the capacity the person paid for.
Tesla didn't sell the vehicle as having a different curb weight, or a specified number of 18650 cells contained in the battery pack. They sold it based on having a 60 kWh capacity which it does.
Why do you feel entitled to the additional 15 kWh?
It's not about entitlement, it's about the fact it's there. It's about how it feels. It's different when someone sells you something that does 2 things, then tells you that unless you pay them more it'll only do one, forever. It's a nagging feeling. It's mine now, not theirs. Then they ask for tons of money, don't give you anything new or different, just enable the product to do what it could already do -- what I "already paid for." Cost to deliver: $0. Charge: $$$. It's not rational, but it's how people behave and think.
You're not getting downvoted because you're wrong. We know you're right. But you're telling us our feelings are wrong, and people don't take that well haha. We all agree on the facts.
I'm not telling you that your feelings are wrong. Saying "I don't like that Tesla sold a 75 kWh capable car as a 60 kWh car" is perfectly acceptable. Saying "Tesla sold me a 75 kWh car that performs like a 60 kWh car" is also valid though misleading because it belies the truth that the buyer wanted a 60 kWh car.
Calling it ransom or extortion isn't just misleading, it's an outright lie.
You're free to feel what you want about the situation and express those feels but I feel that it's harmful and toxic to then make false assertions because you feel bad about a situation.
Its the opposite of the hacking spirit where you make something do more than it is supposed to. Something many people here take an interest in - its in the name Hacker news.
> They sold it based on having a 60 kWh capacity which it does.
The thing is, it was their decision to give a battery capable of 75 kWh, not mine. And it's OK that they have software to limit it to 60 kWh. But it's not OK (obviously in my opinion) for them to prevent me from modifying the software to bump it up to 75kWh. I bought the car, I should be able to do what I like to it.
I actually don't really even have a problem with them including some sort of DRMish thing to prevent me from changing the software, but it shouldn't be illegal for me to try to circumvent it. Again, I bought the car, it's mine now, I should be able to do what I like with it.
I understand that Tesla didn't make the IP laws. What bothers me is that they use those laws in this manner.
Because the fact that they can do such a thing at a profit means the market is inefficient.
Imagine that instead of having a single Tesla, there were two identical companies each selling half of what the actual Tesla does.
Now one of them could offer an unlocked 75kWh version at $1 more than the locked-to-60kWh version (since they cost the same to make and they are profitable) and would capture all the market, so the cost of those two products should be the same.
So Tesla essentially can only do this because they have a monopoly on Tesla-or-functionally-identical cars.
They paid for x range and received x range. They were given a standing offer to increase that range for a cost significantly less than the cost of replacing or physically upgrading the battery.
Now if they had paid for 120kwh batteries and received 120kwh batteries that would only deliver 100kwh of range then we'd be having and entirely different conversation.