What's new
By:

Interim CEO claims L2++ EoY and L4 by 2029

I'm sort of surprised we haven't seen any class action type lawsuits against companies selling promises that don't come to fruition. I mean, I loved FSD for the 6-7 years I had my Tesla M3 but it never came close to me renting it out as a taxi like Elon promised. ("It will MAKE money for you.") I know that's a looser case of "selling a feature," however, if I pay $6,000 for DDPro on a 3 year lease and it doesn't even happen until 2 years in...well, um...yeah. (I get you are paying for hardware but my point stands...you paid for something that you didn't get in time...should there be a rebate?)

(I had to buy the full FSD package 2 times after first car totaled and they would not transfer...had to purchase again which insurance didn't cover...)
 
borski said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/2008601212590190955
Click to expand...
Wait, what? I tried to find descriptions of the hardware but can’t. What is in the Air’s DDP vs. the Gravity’s DDP2?

I thought both Air and Gravity had (but apparently not):

What’s the actual Air hardware (and can someone confirm the Gravity is correct)?
 
Saksak said:
Wait, what? I tried to find descriptions of the hardware but can’t. What is in the Air’s DDP vs. the Gravity’s DDP2?

I thought both Air and Gravity had (but apparently not):

What’s the actual Air hardware (and can someone confirm the Gravity is correct)?
Click to expand...
Just because they’re both using Orin doesn’t necessarily mean the chips are the same. The Gravity is no doubt on a newer generation Orin chip.

Gravity also has dual Nvidia Orin systems for redundancy. Not 100% sure of the Air has this.
 
I swear Elon made false promises for 2 years about FSD's future to boost stock and it would not surprise me if Lucid is over-promising to accomplish the same since they are at a low on the stock exchange right now

That said the FSD that has HW4 has is pretty dang good, my dad won't leave Tesla for that reason alone as driving as an octogenarian it is very useful
 
Guess that I am an outlier here but am happy with my 2023 AGT's DDP. I did not buy with the expectation that FSD would be delivered and until and unless it is six sigma I would not depend upon it. That and my guess is that upgrades would probably require hardware installation not just OTAs. Whether Lucid would comp existing owners of DDP cost free hardware upgrades is a good question, but not one that I would lose sleep over.
 
victoryroad said:
Guess that I am an outlier here but am happy with my 2023 AGT's DDP. I did not buy with the expectation that FSD would be delivered and until and unless it is six sigma I would not depend upon it. That and my guess is that upgrades would probably require hardware installation not just OTAs. Whether Lucid would comp existing owners of DDP cost free hardware upgrades is a good question, but not one that I would lose sleep over.
Click to expand...
I'm absolutely thrilled with my Lucid Air and couldn't be prouder to own what I consider the best damn vehicle on the road today - the driving experience, range, luxury, and spaciousness are simply unmatched in the industry. The car has been flawless in its current state with no issues whatsoever (knock on wood), and I genuinely love everything about it. However, while I'm completely satisfied with the vehicle itself, I do have reasonable expectations that Lucid will keep their promises, especially considering we paid $9,000 for the Dream Drive Pro package. At that premium price point, I expect them to deliver exactly what was promised when we made that significant investment. I trust in the brand and remain confident in my purchase, but I'm looking forward to seeing Lucid follow through on their commitments and deliver the features we paid for.
 
  • Hmm
Reactions: DBV
Sid432 said:
I'm absolutely thrilled with my Lucid Air and couldn't be prouder to own what I consider the best damn vehicle on the road today - the driving experience, range, luxury, and spaciousness are simply unmatched in the industry. The car has been flawless in its current state with no issues whatsoever (knock on wood), and I genuinely love everything about it. However, while I'm completely satisfied with the vehicle itself, I do have reasonable expectations that Lucid will keep their promises, especially considering we paid $9,000 for the Dream Drive Pro package. At that premium price point, I expect them to deliver exactly what was promised when we made that significant investment. I trust in the brand and remain confident in my purchase, but I'm looking forward to seeing Lucid follow through on their commitments and deliver the features we paid for.
Click to expand...
Did you not see the screenshot I posted above from Nick T saying Air is NOT getting it? I had the same expectations as you 🙄
 
raleighone said:
I'm sort of surprised we haven't seen any class action type lawsuits against companies selling promises that don't come to fruition.
Click to expand...
There have been, and continue to be: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanoh...ng-tesla-lies-are-finally-catching-up-to-him/

So far there hasn't been much definitive in the US, because these sorts of civil suits span years, and Tesla has had a reasonable defense by claiming a puffery defense -- obviously nobody should be taking Musk seriously, as his job is to playfully exaggerate. I suspect someday we'll see a settlement issuing partial refunds to "FSD" purchasers.

The delay in outcomes certainly sets a bad precedent for other CEOs to exaggerate capability, though. This basically becomes a "tomorrow problem" and when you're a startup depending on sales to stay afloat the incentive to just outright lie becomes extremely strong. How much lying crosses the line, and would it ever become personal criminal liability (the only thing a CEO actually cares about)? Don't bet on it.
 
Sounds like I need to get in the EV/auto MFG industry, tons of promises, zero responsibility for delivering on them, it's like a new world Bernie Madoff except you don't have to ponzi the money you just keep it, it's brilliant!
 
The solution to this would be to change the accounting rules so that car companies, or anyone else for that matter, have to defer 100% of revenue unless all of the advertised features for the product are available when the customer buys it.

Everyone talks about “software defined vehicle” like it’s a good thing… it’s a facade.

First of all… It’s a silly thing to make a big deal about. There are more computers in the car, so there is more software. There’s absolutely nothing magic about that… And in fact, companies that are bad at software produce even worse products when they have to write more software.

Second… It makes it even easier for companies to ship half finished junk and then “fix it later “… Software companies used to do this back in the 80s and 90s, and they had their hands slapped. It’s about time that happened to companies in other industries as well.

From my perspective, it’s not OK to ship something that’s half done just to make revenue and then promise that things will be delivered later… As we’ve seen from numerous companies, sometimes later never comes. To the best of my knowledge, no one has offered a rebate or a refund for promised features that never showed up on various products.
 
GoFast said:
The solution to this would be to change the accounting rules so that car companies, or anyone else for that matter, have to defer 100% of revenue unless all of the advertised features for the product are available when the customer buys it.

Everyone talks about “software defined vehicle” like it’s a good thing… it’s a facade.

First of all… It’s a silly thing to make a big deal about. There are more computers in the car, so there is more software. There’s absolutely nothing magic about that… And in fact, companies that are bad at software produce even worse products when they have to write more software.

Second… It makes it even easier for companies to ship half finished junk and then “fix it later “… Software companies used to do this back in the 80s and 90s, and they had their hands slapped. It’s about time that happened to companies in other industries as well.

From my perspective, it’s not OK to ship something that’s half done just to make revenue and then promise that things will be delivered later… As we’ve seen from numerous companies, sometimes later never comes. To the best of my knowledge, no one has offered a rebate or a refund for promised features that never showed up on various products.
Click to expand...
The SEC has little time to determine if there is false advertising or whether an asterisk next to a claimed feature adequately discloses the feature won't be available at launch. That is up to the buyer - caveat emptor.

Apple wouldn't be able to recognize any revenue from iPhones, since Siri has not reached the level of what they promised?

I believe the term software defined vehicle refers to software that can adjust the operation of the car, not just that software is running on the car. I would argue that tuning software for ICE cars is part of "software defined vehicle". Suspension settings, transmission settings, etc. can be software defined vehicles. But, it is the fact that the software can be changed, not that something uses software. A turn signal turns on because of software - but the timing can't be adjusted because you would rather it went faster or slower or quieter or sprint mode.

As a 2020 Model 3 owner who bought FSD, I was crazy. On the other hand, I wanted to experience the development of the feature - I loved the updates and the evolution. I was an aware buyer. Don't regret it for a moment.

I do understand that we would all like future-proofing - but we should also have learned that PCs, Macs, iPhones and cars evolve and do more every year. Planned obsolescence or development? I remember the 60s, when your car was outdated every September, with a completely new body style and interior.

Love this forum!
 
GoFast said:
Everyone talks about “software defined vehicle” like it’s a good thing… it’s a facade.
Click to expand...
Owners of Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, and similar vehicles from 10 years ago would disagree. When your RAV4 has a climate or navigation bug that wasn't map-related, you lived with that bug forever in that vehicle.

And when the manufacturer or Tier1 figured something new out, it only went into new vehicles, never into the vehicle you owned.

And when there was a recall, you had to bring the car in for service - even it was a software fix.

I worked at an OEM where a Product Manager tried killing my bringing OTA to our vehicles with the line: "Why would I spend any time and effort improving a vehicle we've already sold?" I won't name the OEM, but luckily I was able to get enough support to completely override that Product Manager. My point is that attitude existed in OEM for far too long, and I think there are some who still think like that.
 
tmichael said:
I do understand that we would all like future-proofing - but we should also have learned that PCs, Macs, iPhones and cars evolve and do more every year. Planned obsolescence or development? I remember the 60s, when your car was outdated every September, with a completely new body style and interior.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone would disagree that everything has a shelf life. The car or PC etc. that you buy today is obsolete (tech wise) in a few years time without anyone really needing to tell them that. The issue here is that automakers like Lucid are going out and saying the hardware is future proofed to get you to pony up extra cash and then after the fact they start backpedaling and saying "oh yeah, it's not capable of doing what we promised".

They've already started backpedaling on the Gravity. The showed off things in the demo drives like the AR, Camp Mode, Streaming Apps etc. The car came pre-loaded with that video of showing what's to come. In the latest software update they sneakily edited the video and removed half the stuff they sold the early adopters on.
 
Smorgasbord said:
Owners of Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, and similar vehicles from 10 years ago would disagree. When your RAV4 has a climate or navigation bug that wasn't map-related, you lived with that bug forever in that vehicle.

And when the manufacturer or Tier1 figured something new out, it only went into new vehicles, never into the vehicle you owned.

And when there was a recall, you had to bring the car in for service - even it was a software fix.

I worked at an OEM where a Product Manager tried killing my bringing OTA to our vehicles with the line: "Why would I spend any time and effort improving a vehicle we've already sold?" I won't name the OEM, but luckily I was able to get enough support to completely override that Product Manager. My point is that attitude existed in OEM for far too long, and I think there are some who still think like that.
Click to expand...

It is certainly a double edged sword.

As a comparison, I have not had a single issue with any of the advertised features in my 2016 Cayenne. It is certainly not as sophisticated as current vehicles, but what's there not only works, but works really well.

Without OTA, manufacturers had to actually finish the product before they shipped it, because making fixes in the field was very very expensive for them. They had an incentive not to ship something that wasn't finished. That Financial incentive is no longer there. You could argue that manufactures should worry about their reputations… But short term thinking seems to prevent that from happening.

At its worst, OTA lets manufactures ship half finished products, and make promises to fix them later. For $100,000 plus, I don't expect to be a beta tester, no matter how many excuses people will make for "new companies."


At its best, OTA allows reputable manufacturers to have a better user experience by fixing bugs via software without having to bring the car into a dealer, and by adding new features that surprise and delight their customers. Sadly, I'm finding these reputable manufacturers are few and far between.
 
GoFast said:
Without OTA, manufacturers had to actually finish the product before they shipped it,
Click to expand...
Well, without OTA, Tesla probably would not have survived. And Lucid probably would have been toast, too.

And if you go back far enough, OEMs like Jaguar took advantage of sports car enthusiasts willingness to buy their XK series vehicles (XK-120, XK-140, XKE (aka E-Type), etc.) with all sorts of hardware bugs. Jag would fix them, and when the design was refined enough, they'd put the tech into their sedans, whose buyers were much less tolerant. This worked for them then, and OTA is simply the modern day equivalent.

It's fine that there are people who are not willing to be beta testers, but OEM startups don't need everyone to buy their vehicles. The bugginess of Gravity is by now well-enough known that I suspect there are few who go in not understanding what they're getting into.
 
i dont think anyone is saying ota's are bad; but its hard to accept a lack of deliverability on roadmap items when core fundamentals of the UI seem to not be there (at least for a significant percentage of owners)

that would be like a surgeon who says they are going to cure cancer but can't diagnose a cold
 
Last edited:
It’s more like you have the surgeon, cancer researcher, pharmacist, X-ray technician, nurse, etc. all working together to take care of you. Even for software, you’ll have different teams working on different parts of the software.
 
I really don't understand your counter point to mine, are you insinuating that I don't understand there are multiple teams who work on both cars and people? If so I do believe that to be true...to circle back my point was how are you going to trust a Dr. or a MFG to do this amazing feat if more remedial tasks are too challenging...

Please do let me know if I'm missing something from your point @Saksak
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top