Connect with us

News

Do you own your Tesla or does your Tesla own you?

Published

on

Among all the hype and excitement about the wonders of self-driving cars — an age that Elon Musk says could start next year if regulators allow it — comes an interesting thought by a writer from the LA Times, asking whether we control our vehicles or does the manufacturer of the vehicle have a control on us? Let us explain.

Tesla issued a press release last month about the company’s new autonomous driving hardware. In the statement Tesla made it clear that owners would be able to share their car with family and friends using its Full Self-Driving capability, but prohibited from using it to generate income through competing ride sharing services such as Uber and Lyft. But in an age where ownership is largely dictated by a person’s action of purchasing something to own, such as a Tesla, do you really own it if Tesla can dictate how you use your car? Can you truly say you own it?

The issue comes down to the End User License Agreement (EULA). This legal agreement dates back to the 1980s when software companies began attaching one to their programs. At the time, there wasn’t much opposition from customers, regulators, or courts. Today, every EULA is thousands of words of dense legal jargon largely unintelligible to the average person (and most lawyers).

Corporations are constantly seeking ways to maintain control over their products after they pass into the hands of consumers. John Deere prohibits farmers who buy its software enabled tractors from doing their own repairs. According to the Los Angeles Times, General Motors has told the U.S. Copyright Office that motorists who purchase its cars “mistakenly conflate ownership of a vehicle with ownership of the underlying computer software in the vehicle,” even though the vehicle is basically inoperable without the software. Hewlett Packard and Lexmark printers are programmed to reject other makers’ ink cartridges.

Tesla doesn’t prohibit people from working on their cars, but it severely restricts access to repair manuals. Even when access is granted, as required under Massachusetts law, the cost is prohibitive for most individuals. Is it fair to say a car you can’t repair yourself and cannot use as you see fit is truly owned by you? Or are you merely a licensee of the technology contained within it?

The question for the future is what happens when and if Mother Tesla decides to further limit how owners can use their cars? Geofencing is common today. Top speed can be electronically limited. What if Tesla decided to cooperate with law enforcement to limit the maximum speed of cars owned by people with multiple moving violations? Would Tesla ever shut down the operation of one of its vehicles at the request of the police or federal authorities? Could Tesla disable a car it the owner falls behind in loan or lease payments?

No one is saying that Tesla is planning any of these actions, but the ability to implement them exists. All it takes is appropriate language in the EULA to make it all legal. Tesla’s ban on using its cars for Uber or Lyft duty may not give most people pause, but it means the company has already taken one step down a slippery slope. Tesla owners need to be vigilant for further intrusions on their rights as owners.

Advertisement
-
-

"I write about technology and the coming zero emissions revolution."

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Elon Musk updates the SpaceX timeline for Mars

Published

on

Rendering of a colonized Mars by way of SpaceX
Rendering of a colonized Mars by way of SpaceX

Elon Musk has updated his timeline for when humans will walk on Mars and for when ships will simply get there.

The objective of getting to Mars has been one of Musk’s biggest goals since becoming a serial entrepreneur and realizing that time on Earth is limited. Musk has said several times he hopes to die on Mars, and not by impact.

Musk now believes that people will be on Mars in “roughly 5 to 7 years.” He said that a Mars lander will get there “a few years sooner.”

The response from Musk comes after NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said that SpaceX’s biggest priority is the Moon and not Mars. Because of this, Isaacman conceded that he believes nuclear power and propulsion investments will provide “potentially the pathway with the fewest miracles required to put four people on Mars in the next 10 to 15 years.”

Advertisement
-
-

Of course, this is what NASA can do through taxpayer funding and nuclear investments, he added.

Musk’s grand ambitions are much more optimistic than most, and it is certainly a double-edged sword. This is not the first time timelines for Mars have been somewhat lofty, especially to those normal thinkers like you and me, not super geniuses like Musk.

SpaceX Board has set a Mars bonus for Elon Musk

In fact, the SpaceX and Tesla frontman has said on at least a dozen occasions that we could be on Mars in the coming years. Musk said 2020 would be the big year as early as 2009. In 2020, he was “highly confident” of a landing in 2026, and had even said 2024 in a best-case scenario.

The point is, the range has varied, and it’s anyone’s guess when we’ll get there. This latest adjustment to the timeline is typical of Musk, and while the Moon has seemingly taken priority over Mars, it is still worth mentioning that the ultimate goal is to make life multiplanetary, and it starts potentially with the Red Planet.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

SpaceX gets an absolutely crazy price target after rough IPO

Published

on

Credit: SpaceX

SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) got an absolutely crazy price target rating from Raymond James after the company experienced a tough first few weeks following its Initial Public Offering (IPO).

Despite the tumultuous start, SpaceX has plenty of believers, and the company’s massively successful Starship launch last Friday, its 13th test flight of the massive rocket, went so smoothly that Raymond James analysts pushed its price target on the company to roughly 7 times its current trading level.

SpaceX Starship just nailed something it’s never done before

The firm officially put a “Strong Buy” rating and an $800 price target on the stock. It currently trades at around $113. Its all-time high is $225.64, reaching this trading level shortly after shares first went public.

Raymond James’ price target is tied to the firm’s confidence after Starship’s 13th test flight. Analysts at the firm said it was an incremental step that reduces engineering risks, citing the widely successful heat shield test that CEO Elon Musk recently detailed, the smooth deployment of Starlink V3 satellites, and a successful in-space engine relight.

SpaceX also managed to see Starship splash down safely in the Indian Ocean, while the Super Heavy Booster fell down to the Gulf of America with no incidents.

It is interesting to see these launches have such a tremendous impact on the stock and what investors think of it. After SpaceX initially delayed the Starship launch last week, shares fell tremendously. Most probably did not realize that the stand-down is a standard practice, especially if everything is not perfect.

Advertisement
-
-

The mission was initially aborted due to an issue with Raptor engines. This was resolved, and Starship launched last Friday after another delay on Thursday, which was caused by weather.

Now that analysts have seen what SpaceX launches are capable of and how impressive the feat is, firms are adjusting their price targets accordingly, making it known that they have high expectations for the space exploration company.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk responds to Volvo’s latest LiDAR decision

Published

on

(Credit: Tesla)

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has responded to reports that Volvo is officially discontinuing the LiDAR sensor on two of its cars.

Volvo announced that it would officially scrap LiDAR systems on its EX90 and ES90 vehicles in various markets. In Norway, owners will get a €1,800 compensation for features that will never arrive due to this decision. There will be no option to remove the unit from vehicles, either.

The issue stems from Volvo’s supplier, Luminar, and its bankruptcy filing. Luminar will no longer be able to supply LiDAR units to Volvo for the EX90 and ES90, effectively axing any use the unit has on vehicles. Volvo will phase out the data collection processes via the LiDAR system, and it will not be utilized whatsoever.

Musk saw the story on X and responded, stating:

“I did try to warn them. Humans drive using neural nets and optical sensors. Same is true for robot cars.”

Musk has been publicly vocal about his disdain for LiDAR systems, once calling them “a fool’s errand,” as he has consistently kept the outlook that they are not needed for effective self-driving.

The typical example used as evidence for this by Musk is humans themselves: made with only eyes and memories, humans are capable of navigating a car by using what they can see and what they’ve personally experienced on the road.

Elon Musk argues lidar and radar make self driving cars more dangerous

“Same is true for robot cars,” Musk says, as Teslas have eight exterior cameras that help see everything surrounding the vehicle, and a neural network that analyzes behavior and tendencies with every mile driven.

Tesla is a vision-only self-driving company that ditched sensors and radar several years ago in favor of cameras. Behind this effort, the company has established a reputation for having one of the most robust self-driving platforms in the world.

Musk’s big bet with Tesla on its self-driving program’s strategy has widely paid off. Other companies continue to utilize things like LiDAR, radar, and sensors for effective self-driving, but Tesla has shown that there is more than one way to give consumers a strong and accurate driver assistance suite.

Advertisement
-
-

The real question is: who will be the first company to take Musk’s advice and attempt a self-driving platform based on cameras only, or even license FSD for themselves?

Continue Reading