Solar Roof - <AUTHOR> https://www.tesla.com/blog/solar-roof <comment><USER2> Yikes. I just signed a contract for a new roof here last month, it's going to cost about $12k. Just did the estimate for the Tesla Solar roof... $80,300, so $87k if I want the battery too. I can barely afford the $12 right now, the $80 is just so far over it's not even close, even with how much I save over the years in electricity.

That being said, I love these things, so hoping it gets cheaper in the coming years.

<comment><USER3> I don't really see the selling point, or value here.

Tesla's calculator estimates $40,500 for a roof that generates half our power needs, and should provide $20,400 worth of energy over 30-years.

Add in a PowerWall and federal tax credit, and I'm still losing $15,400 over 30-years.

If I put that same $40,000 in an index fund that got the stock market's historical 7% average, and waited 30 years, I'd have $308,000.

To put it in another perspective, the last estimates I got for a solar system that covered 100% of our average power needs came in at $32,000 installed, before the same $11K tax credit that Tesla includes in their calculations.

So, I could pay under $20,000 for a "traditional" solar system that covered 100% of our energy bills, or $40,000 for a Tesla solar roof that covered 50% of our energy bills.

That's quite literally half the value, at twice the price.

If I put in a traditional solar system tomorrow, it would pay for itself in year 9. If I put in a Tesla solar roof tomorrow, I'd still be out $15K at year 30.

<comment><USER4> >If I put that same $40,000 in an index fund that got the stock market's historical 7% average, and waited 30 years, I'd have $308,000.

Are you doing the math all in present dollars? Because the return is 7% after inflation but >10% before. So you'd have >500.000 in 2047 dollars. In this case it's important to do that adjustment because you're doing an investment upfront for payoffs over 30 years so the value of money adjustment is extremely important. It should only make your case stronger though if you haven't done that yet.

<comment><USER5> Energy prices, and thus savings, are certain to increase over that 30 years too. Quite likely at a rate exceeding inflation.

<comment><USER6> Energy prices have been mostly flat relative to inflation for 40 years, and there's a reasonably good chance that they will start dropping appreciably (at least during peak daylight hours) as solar continues to make major inroads.

<comment><USER7> That's true in a lot of places but not really in California, where there's a lot of customers for solar. I don't need to go into the reasons why. It's California.

<comment><USER8> Why so? California's climate is pretty optimal for solar generation and there's a lot of desert waiting to be covered in solar panels.

Solar is not going to have a similar impact on (say) Ireland in the next 30 years.

<comment><USER9> More solar will likely result in higher grid energy prices, since people will buy a lot less energy while the grid costs the same to maintain.

<comment><USER10> Solar can also reduce grid costs, by e.g. shaving the yearly peak power demand, which is usually a summer afternoon so it's not clear cut.

Probably the bigger impact is bad incentives for the people building the grid, who are often able to do what they like and get a guaranteed percentage return on top, which pushes them to spend more than they need to. This has been particularly pronounced in Australia I believe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Not sure why all the negative energy.

They are going after the portion of the market that would replace their roof with a high end material, and are interested in solar.

If you are a home owner in this situation, you could consider investing into your home. The roof will pay dividends over the next 30 years, and is attractive and durable.

I think it will do extremely well. Perhaps the best opportunity is in new construction. Imagine having 50k more baked into your mortgage, but having your roof lower your ongoing energy costs! Great potential in that market, could also optimize the roof designs for power generation.

<comment><USER12> yeah there is little economic incentive for anyone outside of California will to retrofit these onto an existing house. Take Texas for example a large house in Dallas is $500k I used the provided calculator on the Tesla site and the roof install will cost $211k! that is not justifiable on a house this expensive.

<comment><USER13> Right. Outside of dense, expensive cities, the %of house value goes up since houses cost less AND the roof sizes also go up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I have always been a huge fan of a quick transition to sustainable energy sources. There is just one little thing I don't understand.

Why they expect people to make electricity at their homes? You can buy a little piece of land in a dessert, put solar panels there and distribute the electricity to other places. And you don't have to climb on any roof during the installation or the maintenance.

It is not profitable today in a free market to bake your own bread or to plant your own vegetables. Because if it is done in a large scale by professionals, it can be made much cheaper while keeping the good quality. So I don't understand, how the home-made electricity could economically compete with the professional energy farms of the future.

<comment><USER15> It's the right question to ask.

Home electricity costs around $0.15/kWh, while power plants sell electricity to the grid for around $0.03/kWh. The difference pays for installing and maintaining the grid and local distribution wires to your home. Depending where you are (I live in a forest, where a tree falls on the power lines a few times a year and they have to send out guys in a bucket truck to fix it) it's expensive.

Because of net metering, home solar panels effectively get paid the home rate. It's kind of unfair. If you have enough solar panels to zero out your home bill, you're getting something valuable (reliable nighttime power) that cost money (to install and maintain the wires) for nothing. But that's the system we have.

Sometime before we hit 100% solar power, the system will have to change.

<comment><USER16> My electric costs are 0.035 USD/kWh here in Europe (Czech Republic).

Wth is wrong with the USA? It seems like you're getting screwed over everything. 10x electricity, 100x healthcare and education - is US market really just a bunch of colluding monopolies?

<comment> def- I couldn't quite believe your numbers, and couldn't find any confirmation for them: [http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/images/4/4...](http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/images/4/4f/Half-yearly_electricity_and_gas_prices_%28EUR%29.png)

[http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php/...](http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php/Electricity_price_statistics)

<comment><USER16> Hm, that seems unusually high, really wonder where these stats come from. Is every eurostat statistic distorted like that?

Here's a chart of energy prices on a Prague energy exchange, currently it's about 30 EUR/MWh = 0.032 USD/kWh. I pay a bit more than that (incl. distribution) with a good tarif (low cost broker), but even conservative people I know who don't renegotiate energy prices get about 0.06 USD/kWh incl. all distribution fees.

That said, electric distribution network in our country is probably underinvested. Is the premium you're paying in US based on distribution network cost?

[http://www.tzb-info.cz/ceny-paliv-a-energii](http://www.tzb-info.cz/ceny- paliv-a-energii)

<comment><USER17> Still seems low for retail. In Europe, the UK has very low costs with ~12-13€c/kwh, high cost countries such as Germany are more around 25-30c/kwh (taxes and renewable energy charge).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Tesla acquired SolarCity in November in a deal worth $2.1 billion.

At the event, Musk said Tesla's roof would price competitively with normal roofs and could even cost less.

"It's looking quite promising that a solar roof will actually cost less than a normal roof before you even take the value of electricity into account," Musk said at the event. "So the basic proposition would be: Would you like a roof that looks better than a normal roof, lasts twice as long, costs less, and, by the way, generates electricity? It's like, why would you get anything else?"

<comment><USER19> I'm 21, thus I have no idea what roofs normally cost. I assume they're very very heavily below ~80k? For a "regular" house, what would a roof cost? 4k? 10k? 500?

<comment><USER20> My roof is 1600 sq ft. It had a metal roof on it, which is considered more expensive than asphalt. It was 40 years old, which is the how long metal roofs are expected to last. I replaced it myself for around $2000. Most of the cost was $1600 for the metal roof. Then there was $400 in special nails and trim parts and sealer. It would have cost a little more if it wasn't metal before since I'd have to have added the spacers. Metal and asphalt replacement are sort of DIY possible, but asphalt is dirty heavy work. Metal is less dirty and dangerous, just remember to wear leather gloves. Also probably don't attempt if one's roof has more than a couple gables etc. It's better if you've done it before in any case. To have someone else replace the roof would have cost at least twice as much. Could be three times as much in some parts of the country.

If I were to have switched to slate or terra cotta or glass solar tiles I'd have to tear down the roof and rebuild it because normal houses in the US are not designed to hold that sort of weight, it requires a stronger roof structure, and sometimes stronger walls to hold the heavier roof. Possibly the rest of the structure would have to be reinforced as well. Doing this correctly requires a consultation with a licensed structural engineer. That sort of roof rebuild would cost from $20,000 - $50,000 depending on the scope needed according to the engineer, and that's before adding the roofing materials.

<comment><USER21> +1 for adding in the cost to support the extra weight.

Many homes, even ones they're building now, are not designed to support anything more than a few layers of standard asphalt shingles.

BTW, it's ridiculous that we're talking "down" to asphalt shingles now because of this. Some of those come with 50+-year warranties now...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> In modeling whether this makes sense, I looked at my annual electricity bill, which comes in at about $1,800/year. That's not enough savings opportunity to justify a ~$70,000 roof+batteries.

However, when I add 2 electric cars, the savings nearly triple [0]. Instead of buying gasoline, I'll be paying for electricity.

At $5,400/year, spending $70,000 starts to make some sense.

On the other hand, if I put up ugly panels and still use the Tesla batteries, aren't I going to save a lot more?

[0] 24,000 miles/year, 225 miles @ $10 per charge, vs. 25 mpg @$3/gal

EDIT: Corrected KWh charge... $10 is cost for one charge.

<comment><USER23> What's your goal though? If it's just to save money then it makes more sense to drive a beater gasoline car.

If the goal is to help the environment, it's probably still better to buy a beater gas car and buy carbon credits with the difference. Also there are tons of other things you can do like downsizing, eating less meat, biking to work, etc.

<comment><USER24> Tesla's entire offering is trickle-down environmentalism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I think Elon got ripped off on his last shingle roof. The bar chart is nice but off by at least 150%. I've had many roofing subcontractors as clients past and present in Northern California. Based on an average of 870 roofs in 2016 for Single Family Residential homes in the bay area, Asphalt shingle roofs are $3.12 per square foot for materials and labor. The highest was $5.75 psf and the lowest $2.35 psf. Note that the SF bay area is considered one of the most expensive in roofing market. Also note that Solar City has a poor reputation in the industry for hard selling larger than needed residential solar systems.

<comment><USER26> The roof launch event was very clear that this is a product that competes against premium roofs. Asphalt shingle roofs aren't premium roofs. As an example, for high-end housing developments, many of them do not allow asphalt shingle roofs.

If that's not your thing, great. Then this isn't the product for you.

<comment><USER27> The article specifically cites a source talking about asphalt shingle roofs: "The price was calculated for a roof where 35 percent of the tiles are solar (solar tiles cost more per square foot than non-solar tiles), in order to generate $53,500 worth of electricity, which according to Consumer Reports would make a solar roof more affordable than an asphalt shingle roof."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> For a counterweight let me present this interview[0] with the CEO of "the largest privately held solar contracting company in America", near the end of which he says several disparaging things about Tesla's roof, including,

> When I saw the demo he did at Universal Studios... What I saw was a piece of > glass that looked like it had a cell in it. The challenges he's going to > have is, how are you going to wire it? Every one of those shingles has to be > wired.

> Roofs have valleys and they have hips and they have pipes. … How are you > going to work around that? How are you going to cut that glass? Are you > going to cut right through the cell?

The latter question is perhaps answered by the posted article, "Solar Roof uses two types of tiles—solar and non-solar." So Petersen's question is moot, the glass/solar tiles don't have to be cut to fit in a hip or around a flue, that will be done to the non-solar tiles that look the same.

The question of wiring is open: imagine the grid of wires that have to underly that roof, and getting them all put down without a break or a short, by big guys with nail guns (if you've ever watched roofers at work -- it isn't a precision operation).

Then Petersen goes on to say,

> So I would say for the record ... it'll be cost-prohibitive. ... For $55,000 > I can give you a brand-new roof that will last forever — 50 years — and I > can give you all the solar you can handle. ... (Musk's) product is going to > be north of $100,000.

The graph in the posted article does not directly address total up-front installed cost, but rather tries to combine cost with some anticipated lifetime energy return -- a procedure with a LOT of variables and assumptions. I would like to see real numbers for a Tesla roof, $/sq.yd installed.

[0] [http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/04/from-summer-job-to- sol...](http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/04/from-summer-job-to-solar-king/)

<comment><USER28> OK I just put my address into the calculator and I think the thing's bogus. Without asking anything about my house size or my solar exposure, based solely on my address, it gives me a hard figure ($53,100) for the roof cost and a 30-year energy income of $76,100.

I call bullshit. First, I do not believe they actually know the size of my house or the orientation of the (numerous) roof pitches to the sun. Spoiler: it's only 1300 sq feet and the longest roof ridge is oriented NW-SE, far from optimal for exposure.

Then there are the three very large oak trees that shadow it from three sides.

Then there is the fact that my utility is a local one, not PG&E, and I doubt they took the different rate structure into account. And if they did, how the F do they know what Palo Alto utilities will charging in 10, 20 or 30 years?

They don't know. The whole calculator is a bogus fantasy toy.

<comment><USER29> That's actually exactly the data they're getting from Google's project Sunroof. I'm not sure how correct that data is, but I haven't seen many complaints.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm so absolutely excited for solar power. Tesla's Solar Roof, their PowerWall batteries, electric cars. It's all just painting such a bright future. Certainly Tesla has no monopoly on it, but they've made it sexy and are pushing the bleeding edge forward. Props to them.

We recently signed a contract to do an installation on our house (with a local contractor, not SolarCity). It can't happen soon enough! We'll have enough panels and batteries to be 100% off-grid throughout the entire year, plus get a good chunk of change back from the Net Metering every year. Pay off is only 8 years!

That installation is enough to cover our normal electric usage. Longer term I want to replace our gas appliances with electric and replace the car with a Tesla. Then we can double our solar installation to keep pace and BAM we will be 100% clean energy and off-grid. All while saving a bucket of money.

The thought of running off grid in the middle of a Southern California suburb? People might think me crazy, but guess what? At least we're doing our small part to save the planet, and saving money doing it. So who's the crazy one?

<comment><USER31> Going off grid means you need a lot more batteries, which need materials and energy to make.

Switching from gas to electricity for heating is a bad idea if there's still coal power stations in use, if you're not selling your excess power to the grid, they're going to turn on that coal power plant again.

Sharing power is a much better idea than trying to store it in batteries, unless those batteries are in a car

<comment><USER30> > Switching from gas to electricity for heating is a bad idea if there's still > coal power stations in use

You misunderstand. Our solar installation will be expanded to cover the appliances. We'll be 100% off-grid.

> Going off grid means you need a lot more batteries

We only need 3 PowerWalls to cover all our needs (~1 for our needs now, 3 for when we have electric appliances and a car). That's not "a lot more".

> Sharing power is a much better idea than trying to store it in batteries, > unless those batteries are in a car

Huh? Why would sharing power be a better idea? Solar panels generate the majority of their power in ~4 hour window. Energy storage is _mandatory_.

<comment><USER32> Sharing power via net metering is better (for the environment) because there's no conversion loss from charging a battery.

<comment><USER30> Perhaps I'm not understanding the argument. My interpretation is that y'all want me to dump all my excess power during the day into the grid, to power other homes that don't have panels, instead of charging a battery. And that's somehow better for environment.

But ... when night falls, and I'm not generating any more power, where am I supposed to get power? Do I just live without power every night? And everyone else does too? Cause the only alternative is to burn fossil fuels to power everyone's homes during the night. Fossil fuels being perhaps the most inefficient solar batteries available to us.

And yes, fossil fuels _are_ batteries. Solar batteries in fact. It's just that they have an unimaginably terrible conversion loss, not to mention they're highly destructive to the environment, and take millions of years to charge. If they ever do recharge, which is unlikely, since our planet is not likely to revisit the eras that gave rise to significant quantities of them again.

I think I'll stick with lithium cells with their "conversion loss" of 80%, that take up a small portion of a wall in my house, and last for decades.

<comment><USER31> My points are: 1. To go completely off grid, compared to 80% off, takes many more batteries, and is therefore inefficient.

2\. Using those batteries a lot every night wears them out more.

3\. There are many alternatives to fossil fuels at night, wind, tidal, solar salt heating, nuclear, biofuels. Whether it's better to share or store would depend on many factors.

a) What power sources are used on your grid b) What the demand is at each point in the day c) The transmission efficiency vs the battery conversion efficiency d) The resource cost of the batteries

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I understand where these people who are saying it sucks and it's too expensive are coming from. It is more expensive than normal solar panels.

BUT! How many wealthy people have beautiful houses that don't have solar panels? Why do you think that is?

Tesla has this cool factor that didn't exist for environmentally friendly things before. How many super rich people drove electric cars or hybrids before? Now Teslas are one of the cool things to have.

They are absolutely targeting a different segment of the population, but I think overall it's a very positive thing and it'll probably work.

</comment><comment><USER34> I'm super excited about all of the great stuff happening in solar recently, but whenever I read about the economics of home solar, I'm also always reminded of how stacked the deck is for wealthy people vs. poor folks. There's a very large federal tax credit for solar investment. That's great...but, people who can't afford their own home get no such credit, and there's no way for them to get such a credit. That's a super common trait for lot of incentives; they go to people who need them least. And, the people who are getting these incentives, are also using a lot more power (bigger houses, more power), and so even with solar, their huge houses may _still_ be contributing more to emissions than the poor folks who aren't getting any tax breaks living in apartments or rental properties.

I don't really have any answers on this, I just think it doesn't get talked about enough.

<comment><USER35> This is tautological; the reason poor people don't get a lot of tax breaks is because they don't pay a lot of taxes. The government does spend a lot of money helping poor people, but not via tax credits.

<comment><USER36> It's not a tautology because tax credits aren't the only possibility for providing incentives.

Imagine you worked for $10/hour, and somehow got put in charge of designing the incentives. Do you think they would look like this? I don't.

<comment><USER35> The tautology is in only looking at the subset of spending that's done through incentives, and then complaining that it disproportionately goes to people buying expensive stuff. That's what incentive means in this context: incentive to buy expensive stuff.

Anyway, you're coming at this all wrong. If I was in charge of designing this program, my mandate would not be to help poor people or rich people, it would be to increase solar power. How do you increase solar power? By paying for part of it. Who benefits? Whoever's buying it. Who pays to install solar power? Not poor people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> 2 self driving Teslas in the garage (making money when not used) $150,000

1 power wall battery pack $7,000

1 Solar Roof $80,000

Subtract

$15,000 in Federal tax credits for both cars

$5,000 in California tax credits for both cars

30% of 80,000 = $24,000 Solar Investment tax credit

$237,000 - $44,000

Grand Total $193,000

Calculate savings

$240 per month in gas

$100-$300 per month in electricity

$1000 - $2000 earned by the cars while not used by owner (10 years into the future)

$1340 to $2540 per month

$193,000/1340 = 144 months = 12 years to recover costs

$193,000/2540 = 76 months = 6.33 years to recover costs

Take away the income from the cars

$193,000/540 = 357 months = 30 years to recover costs

If PGE gives you money for putting excess electricity into the grid then you can recover costs faster.

<comment> semi-extrinsic I don't understand "income from cars" \- do you mean as autonomous taxis? Pretty sure you need to then take into account increased insurance, maintenance costs as well as taxes on that income.

Also if this autonomous taxi thing becomes a highly profitable gig (as you suggest), you'll quickly run into a big supply/demand problem. There's only a finite number of people who need mid-day cab rides.

<comment><USER38> > _There 's only a finite number of people who need mid-day cab rides._

Yeah, it's a contradiction in the business model. Everyone will be able to afford to own a Tesla because everyone will be able to make money from the cars driving everyone around?

<comment><USER37> There will still be a barrier to owning a Tesla due to the upfront cost of buying one. The fact that it'll be able to pay itself off over time is immaterial to the affordability of at time of purchase.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Oh wow. So that's disappointing. I was under the impression it was about the same cost as a new roof. I guess its _starting at_ that cost, if you want just a tiny little bit of electricity.

<comment><USER40> To be fair, that is a pretty unlikely assumption.

edit - just found out Musk pretty much said that. Still....

<comment><USER39> Yes, I was hoping he would come through when he said:

"Would you like a roof that looks better than a normal roof, lasts twice as long, costs less, and, by the way, generates electricity? It's like, why would you get anything else?"

I guess technically "generates electricity" is the part I got hung up on, it only needs to generate 1 milliwatt hour to be true. But much of the statement still isn't true - it's more expensive than a regular roof.

<comment><USER41> The logic here might be that payback in the form of $1 of generated electricity is _better_ than a regular $1 payback via, say, tax credit, because it comes with additional benefits like reduced carbon emissions (not priced into utility bills) or more reliability / having electricity during blackouts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Would it be possible to decouple the roof from the solar? In other words, I'd buy this roof for the cost of a normal roof, and an investor would pay for the cost of the solar panels, and they'd own the electricity that comes from it. The panels would provide me a power backup (in the event of a power cut), for which I'd pay at the same rate as I pay the grid.

This would be helpful for houseowners who want to be green, or want backup in the event of a power cut (a regular event in India), but don't want to or can't invest so much in a roof. They get power backup without making an upfront investment.

Investors would benefit from getting a free site to install their panels on.

</comment><comment><USER43> Does anyone know how the electrical connection works?

It seems to me that this is critical. If connections fail in a really hostile environment (high thermal range and moisture levels) then maintenance will kill any savings.

But if they've solved this problem, (and perhaps have an efficient way to replace tiles without removing the ones above _), then I 'd guess they will be wildly successful.

_I once visited my brother who was having a new slate roof installed. While inspecting it, he saw a cracked slate on the bottom row. He insisted it be replaced, which meant removing an ever-increasing triangle of tiles above it, until you reached the ridge. The contractor did not have a good day.

<comment><USER21> If all are assumed to be powered, then I think an assumed failure rate is acceptable to the warranty.

Are they going to have an interface that "reports" bad shingles on your roof? Hell no!

But if you're roof is generating whatever the acceptable range is for the area, then you're good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Does anyone understand how the warranty works? From their solar panel page[0], it says that there is a 30 year warranty for Power and Weatherization and a lifetime warranty.

So, what does the lifetime cover? The only thing that can go wrong is that either the power module fails or the tile is damaged due to weather, which is both covered by the 30 year warranty.

Nevertheless, a 30 year warranty is still pretty impressive and even more so if it covers normal wear and tear from weather.

[0]: [https://www.tesla.com/solarroof?redirect=no](https://www.tesla.com/solarroof?redirect=no)

<comment><USER26> The tiles are proof against weather: if you saw the reveal video they dropped a heavy object on a tile without damaging it. Given that, offering a warranty against weather damage is basically free to Tesla, modulo manufacturing defects.

<comment><USER45> And unless you live in a forest, or in tornado alley, having an anti-weather warranty for your roof is worthless. Most roof problems are caused by mistakes in installation, not because the tiles don't last as long as they are expected to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> "...the glass itself will come with a warranty for the lifetime of your house, or infinity, whichever comes first."

Cute.

</comment><comment><USER47> I'm curious about the durability - I live Colorado Springs, which is typically very sunny (good for solar), but can get pretty bad hailstorms. This means that the average roof lifetime here is much shorter than elsewhere. If the Tesla's roof tiles are actually significantly more durable than asphalt, it could be more cost-effective here than elsewhere.

<comment><USER48> This is something they're specifically trying to address. Elon posted some high speed footage of a "hail gun" shooting the Tesla tiles.

[https://www.instagram.com/p/BT7Gxsag27j/?taken- by=elonmusk&h...](https://www.instagram.com/p/BT7Gxsag27j/?taken- by=elonmusk&hl=en)

Sounds like a fun job to build and operate a "hail gun"

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I need to replace my roof this year / next year. Cost ~15-20k for normal roofing, up to 50k for metal. I want solar on top of that and backup power. Just put my money down for this. Cost is under the 50k I was thinking about just for the metal roof!

Time will tell when they come out and do the survey to see how correct it is but I am excited.

</comment><comment><USER50> To all upset about pricing there are products targeting different income brackets. People in blah also can't understand how we spend half of their monthly income on some organic blah drink. Just because it does not make sense for your particular situation does not mean there is no market.

</comment><comment><USER51> "Your Solar Roof can generate $123,900 of energy over 30 years."

Why doesn't the calculator tell me the estimated kWh production instead of a dollar figure that means nothing to me?

</comment><comment><USER52> _" Solar Roof uses two types of tiles—solar and non-solar. Looking at the roof from street level, the tiles look the same. Customers can select how many solar tiles they need based on their home's electricity consumption."_

Game changer for suburban housing. This will accelerate the decentralisation of power generation making it less likely power failure will occur. Now for housing regulations at state and municipal level to mandate solar tiles in construction.

</comment><comment><USER53> The bigger problem with this is that they are being made at 2009 electrical code specifications, and we're at 2017. Will they really be available anywhere outside of California?

The calculator will not go over 50%. So then what? Still pay for their tiles for the whole roof?

And what if 4 in the middle of my roof are bad? Or 10? or 4 this week and 10 next week? How many times do I have to have them out?

What about ALL the wires? Where do those all go? Each tile will have wires needing to connect to an inverter and the Powerwall? Electricians are already in high demand, how long will I have to wait for them to do this? Electricians are EXPENSIVE, do I have to pay for each hour they are repairing this system??

Powerwalls have a 10 year warranty. There is no cost for replacement included in their 30 year projections.

Is anyone believing this administration will continue the tax credit, on solar??

Solar shingles have been done. Every company has already discontinued them. CGI works in advertising, but doesn't work in reality.

</comment><comment><USER54> A bit late on this, but have to wonder what fire departments think about this roof/panel? How difficult will it be to vent a roof? Will the roof present an electrical risk to firemen (even assuming there is a cut off below)

Unfortunately, I don't think a lot of municipalities have given too much thought to widespread solar use and I wonder if this will fall afoul of possible future regs.

<comment><USER21> This is a very good point, unless they're assuming they're as easy to break as tile; which I think is a bad assumption considering the plastics/glue used in solar panels; When they break they barely shatter and most stand up to intense hail storms just fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Apart from people buying these for status there is another market - Hawaii and other remote places where prices are from 2x to 5x comparing to California.

<comment><USER21> Interesting it to be considered a status symbol; 90% of people walking by will think it's just a normal roof.

I can spend pennies for that (comparatively).

Now, if I had an array of panels on my normal roof; at least >90% of people would know what they is and be "impressed". However impressed people get about roofs, that is.

<comment><USER55> You can brag in front of friends and family - people you care about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> With Space X internet on the horizon, I need to start designing my house in the country, preferably with a small roof.

<comment><USER57> Why a small roof?

<comment><USER58> Fewer shingles => lower cost.

<comment><USER21> Fewer shingles => less solar power being generated by the solar roof you bought to generate enough power.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> The hail ball test is deceptive. The tesla tile is held with more support since its horizontal. the max distance to any corner support is maybe 2-3 inches. the other natural tiles are vertical, and therefore have 4-5 inches to the farthest supported corners. It may still work, but we cant tell from that video.

<comment><USER60> > The hail ball test is deceptive.

In that case, Tesla is deceiving itself, since they offer unlimited warranty for the roof.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> Looks like these roofs take about 30 years to pay for themselves?

</comment><comment><USER62> At my house, it would take more then 20 years to use up $53,500 worth of electricity assuming that the panels would be able to generate all the electricity that I need (and it probably would not be able to because my roof is not in the perfect angle). I probably will have to stick to a conventional roof.

<comment><USER21> Good news! Conventional roofs are 100% compatible with conventional solar panels.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Any idea on whether or not this would improve your home's resale value? Also it won't let you go a full 100% (max 70%) of your roof coverage. Do they fill the rest with regular tiles?

The average person would have to finance this. So what's the true cost?

<comment><USER64> In many (most?) areas, solar systems are considered "overimprovements" from the perspective of appraisals.

This generally means that any increase in home value (increasing appeal to the buyer directly) won't translate to a higher loan amount from the bank (which will only loan out the on-paper valuation), restricting the ability of the buyer to actually pay the higher price they would otherwise be willing to pay.

This could change as solar systems proliferate, making them almost a "standard" feature of most houses. It also wouldn't affect sales to cash- paying investors, which in some markets are the main buyers, since they don't need to qualify for loans anyway (and therefore can ignore appraisals).

Either way, I wouldn't bet on it increasing the home's value more than ~40% of the cost, if that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> I am currently waiting to have my roof redone in the next couple of weeks It's going to cost $20k. I went through the calculator and it said that my roof would be about $30k after rebates, with no battery. That, to be honest, is something I wish I had known before I signed the contract to get my roof done. I don't, however, use much electricity. I use about $70/month max for my entire house, so I would literally have to convert everything over to electricity in order for this to be more worthwhile. But at this point, there's no incentive for me to ever get the solar roof unfortunately, having JUST dumped $20k into my shingle roof.

</comment><comment><USER66> While it's far better than other competitors, my asphalt roof was 7k, 30 year warranty rated to 120mph winds. Still a long way to go on the pricing part.

Super happy this is even a thing, 10 years ago this would have seemed like science fiction.

</comment><comment><USER67> Sit down and dig this: in my country the State owns sunshine. Yep. They even made sure it was included in the last Constitution. So, if this tech ever becomes cheap enough for the masses, government will be ready to tax it.

</comment><comment><USER68> FYI LCoE calculation on Si PV assume a reduction of at least 50% of generating capacity within 20 years. This page just claims "30 years" which is outside the expected lifetime of any cells on the market today.

</comment><comment><USER69> This is the dumbest thing ever. If you live in a city or a suburb, you don't need one of these things because you'll be connected to a grid that can give you electricity that is far more efficiently generated. If you live in a rural area with a lot of sun, then you can just put solar panels on the ground where they're not a bitch to clean.

I'm not against using solar electricity because it can be made affordable but this idea is equivalent to the backyard blast furnaces in Maoist China. It's a waste of time and only useful for status signaling to your eco-chic friends.

<comment><USER70> Most grid power is not solar. So running local solar can save you money, cool off your house (cool attic in the shade of the solar), and decrease your peak load on the power grid which makes the grid more efficient.

Even in rural areas while cheaper to mount on the ground, you lose the savings of a cooler house.

<comment><USER71> That last sentence made no sense to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> Best part

"Tile warranty: Infinity, or the lifetime of your house, whichever comes first"

<comment><USER73> IOW, the lifetime of the house. Not sure what they're getting at.

<comment><USER72> I think they are having a bit of math fun

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> how these shingles connect to each other? And how are they affixed to the roof? You can't just nail them right?

<comment><USER75> That's what baffles me about this whole thing. Unless your roof is rectangular with homogeneous shadows, if you connect the shingles, say, in rows, you'll have unbalanced voltages. Is the plan to have a microinverter per row of shingles?

<comment><USER70> There's two types of tiles. I suspect they just use the same number or row and then fill in any gaps with the non-solar tiles.

<comment><USER75> That makes sense. It also lets you avoid areas with shadows, by using the non- solar ones there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> This is one of my pet peeves with HN.

People here often gang up on a product if it doesn't meet their specific requirements or budget.

Could it simply be that you aren't the target market for this product?

Also, people comparing the cost of this roof with the cost of a conventional roof are being a little ingenuous. This roof has ROOF + SOLAR.

You'll have to include cost of an equivalent solar system + roof if you want to do a cost to cost comparison.

It's obviously not cheap, but if there are people - and there are plenty of people - who can afford it, why knock it down?

<comment><USER77> "Also, people comparing the cost of this roof with the cost of a conventional roof are being a little ingenuous."

Because that's precisely what elon did!

""So the basic proposition will be: Would you like a roof that looks better than a normal roof, lasts twice as long, costs less and—by the way—generates electricity?" Musk said. "Why would you get anything else?" "

Note the "Costs less" part.

In case you wanted to argue about that: "Musk told the crowd that he had just returned from a meeting with his new solar engineering team. Tesla's new solar roof product, he proclaimed, will actually cost less to manufacture and install than a traditional roof—even before savings from the power bill. "

Note very specifically: "Cost less to manufacture and install than a traditional roof - even before savings from the power bill".

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> People keep overlooking the objective value of not relying on "grid" power sources. Power goes off, your system keeps going. Gasoline supply stops (I've seen that a few times), you can just power your car at home. Your system fails, grid is likely still up to cover.

Supply-and-demand takes a sharp turn when supply is actually limited and can/does _run out_. At that point, having pre-paid for your own uninterrupted off-grid supply is worth a whole lot more.

<comment><USER79> I think people overvalue the value of being off the grid.

The average person isn't doing anything that critical at home, so they can just deal with it. Diesel generators work for people with critical use cases.

Katrina is the only time in my lifetime where a major city / region was without power and without gas deliveries for a long time.

<comment><USER80> Where I live (Northeast), pretty much the only time where an extended power outage is a serious problem is in the winter. And that's because of losing heat. A Powerwall-like "UPS" that could handle some critical systems (basically my furnace) automatically is interesting. But any solar panels are likely to be under snow and ice.

Pretty much the only thing that's really a problem for me in a power outage is losing heat because the furnace loses power and therefore potentially having pipes freeze.

<comment><USER79> How much heat would a powerwall even create? I suspect electric heat would drain those suckers pretty fast.

Why doesn't the north east have gas heating?

<comment><USER80> I have an oil furnace with forced hot water. Basically, just need to drive the blower, maybe a pump, and some electronics. Not sure what the electrical draw of my furnace is but it's not a huge amount.

You're right that, if you have electrical heat, a Powerwall would be pretty useless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> Tesla has an error somewhere. I checked their website calculator vs their source of Google project sunroof, and Tesla thinks my roof is 5 times bigger, with an electric bill nearly twice as high!

Doing some quick math, I can confirm that Google's number are reasonably close on both, while Tesla's are just plain wrong.

The result is a Tesla roof that would cost roughly $170,000. Worse, that's about half the value of my house!

I know - early days - but, wow, surprised by the estimate!

</comment><comment><USER82> Yeah, I feel the coverage of this has been very deceptive. We just got a quote for our roof in SF (small house) and it was ~$20K with an upgraded architectural tile, new spouts and gutters.

Tesla would charge me $67K for the roof alone based on roof size and our energy use.

1\. "Unlimited warranty" doesn't actually mean unlimited warranty when your roof starts leaking...just that the tile won't break.

2\. Why the heck should I pre-pay Tesla for unrealized savings to my future energy use??

</comment><comment><USER83> Hrmmm... I just signed a contract a few weeks ago with SunPower solar panels. Over 40K for almost 8kWh of electricity. It's a hefty cost but it's ready now.

It's a nearly flush mount so I'm ok with it and it's still a traditional look in the front where it's concrete tile that would last longer than I will live.

Lastly though, I wonder how they deal with valleys and different roof pitches. It would look a little odd unless it is non functional.

</comment><comment><USER84> Interesting the house in the picture has a chimney and a highly slanted roof. It looks like it is in the north with lots of snow and relatively little sunlight

</comment><comment><USER85> I'm surprised they didn't team up more with Google's Project Sunroof or Zillow or create their own version of those projects, so that you could just put in your home address and get all the relevant details. Had to check Zillow to find out my own square footage.

<comment><USER86> They do use Google Sunroof -- your home may not fall under supported areas.

<comment><USER85> Looks like you're correct. Supported area for Google Sunroof stops just a couple blocks away from my house.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> Google's solar saving estimator is pretty cool -- I punch in my house address and it examines my roof line and notes how southernly each part of your roof lies.

Unfortunately, it says my cost would go up $53 a month! No point in getting solar if you live in Portland.

</comment><comment><USER63> Has anyone here looked into PACE financing ([https://ygreneworks.com/faqs/](https://ygreneworks.com/faqs/) ) for projects like this? what is the interest rate or cost?

</comment><comment><USER88> Has anybody information about the energy cost for production of one tile and the time it takes to generate this energy by the solar cell.

Just the fact that it is a solar roof doesn't mean it is environmentally friendly!

</comment><comment><USER89> I see a lot of these personal level-vs-global level discussions here but ultimately not enough posts celebrating the fact that we're looking at both, here, and looking at a potentially much better future because of it.

Go, Tesla.

</comment><comment><USER90> > Installations will start in June, beginning with California

Would be interested in NYC.

So a couple questions for those already done this:

* any tax benefit / government subsidies I should be aware of?

* starting small, recommendation? pricing?

</comment><comment><USER91> Why don't banks (or even Tesla for that matter) finance such roofs upfront? It seems they can make money out of this.

<comment><USER45> Low repo value, unless you put your house up for collateral.

</comment></comment><comment><USER92> UK availability?

<comment><USER93> Does the sun shine in the UK? Cheer up, one day it will...

<comment><USER94> Not much, but enough that I see plenty of solar installations on nearby roofs, and the financial incentives here are fairly good. I checked a "standard" provider that provides regular or integrated panels [1] and their estimate for my house is a tax free return on investment of 4.2% to 5.5% (integrated or regular panels respectively) when factoring in feed in tariff and maintenance.

[1] [http://www.solarcentury.com/uk/](http://www.solarcentury.com/uk/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER95> I hope only rich people will be separated from their money and no loans will be given for this.

</comment><comment><USER96> "In doing our own research on the roofing industry, it became clear that roofing costs vary widely, and that buying a roof is often a worse experience than buying a car through a dealership."

Seems like someone just couldn't resist putting that little jab in there.

</comment><comment><USER97> I love their graph, with the solar roof being the only "negative-cost" roof. Really drives the (sales) point home.

</comment><comment><USER98> Where is the finance option?

<comment><USER99> It's at your bank, same as always. It's called a home equity loan, or, for new houses, a construction loan.

Tesla intends to provide this too. Don't expect a good rate if you feel a need to have Tesla finance the roof. Banks at least have other banks to compete with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER100> Holy shit, these comments.

"My cars will make $24,000 per year" (in a comment justifying spending a quarter million dollars on Tesla products)

"People don't understand how we can spend half their monthly income on one organic drink" (in a completely unrelated comment)

"if I buy two Teslas my savings triple!" (another person justifying Tesla's marketing with some creative math)

Sounds like something you'd hear from protesters mocking the 1% but no just another day here on HN.

I've been here (in various incarnations) long enough to say this, so could we try to be just a little bit more self aware? 24k/yr is nearly double the minimum wage. A quarter million dollars is a truly immense amount of money. And buying two cars is a dream for most of America, ignoring the fact that those are two Teslas, which are roughly $70k cars (and no, you can't currently buy any $35k Teslas no matter what Musk's Twitter says.)

<comment><USER101> Where are you seeing these comments?

EDIT: Found one: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14312426](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14312426)

It seems like he's just running some calculations. Your upset about this seems pretty misplaced. Firstly, he didn't even say he would be buying Tesla cars - just two electric cars. And secondly, he didn't actually claim he had the resources to do any of this, just that he was calculating the ROI on doing it. Which is a figure that i'm interested in, even though I can't afford to buy a solar roof or two electric cars of any variety.

<comment><USER100> Direct quotes:

"People in blah also can't understand how we spend half of their monthly income on some organic blah drink.", qaq

"$2000 earned by the cars while not used by owner", palakchokshi (it's clarified elsewhere in the comments that that's $2000 per month)

"when I add 2 electric cars, the savings nearly triple", 11thEarlOfMar (to be fair, he seems to be almost free of the reality distortion field, but still the idea of buying two $70k cars to _save_ money is ridiculous)

<comment><USER101> > "People in blah also can't understand how we spend half of their monthly > income on some organic blah drink.", qaq

That's pretty clearly a true statement. Qaq isn't claiming he is in this market. Just deriding the oft-expressed belief by people who are not in a market that said market does not exist.

> "$2000 earned by the cars while not used by owner", palakchokshi (it's > clarified elsewhere in the comments that that's $2000 per month)

He's just running calculations? I don't understand what the problem with this is.

See my prior edit wrt the 3rd one.

<comment><USER79> Running calculations on what? Tesla's aren't even self driving in the first place. And there is no market for self driving uber cars yet. Who knows how much you can make off them. And if it was really 2k a month, Telsa would probably sell them straight to Uber instead of customers.

<comment><USER101> I'm not defending the quality of the calculations. Just pointing out that I don't think there was anything tone-deaf about doing them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER102> The infinity warranty is a draw for me.

</comment><comment><USER103> People are thinking way too much about how much this saves them at a personal level.

I think people should instead be thinking about how we can save the existence of the entire species, and all other higher order forms of life on earth, rather than focusing on their individual tax breaks, savings, or other trivial concerns. Yes, your cash flow is rendered quite trivial if life on Earth ends.

Invest in the Life Economy, and turn your back on the Death Economy. The value here is in the benefit to life, concern over state monopolized currencies clearly facilitates an economy of death.

<comment><USER104> I agree with the sentiment, but I have to correct your idea that global warming is a species-ending problem.

The worst-case scenario of global warming (which might be inevitable given the current CO2 levels) is a 216 foot rise in sea level [1]. This will cause mass migration and be extremely expensive and unpleasant for society as a whole, but poses little threat of ending humanity.

NASA's JPL did a great lecture a few months ago talking about the current scientific consensus on the consequences of global warming - it's well worth the watch: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJYs8L84L4s&t=3714s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJYs8L84L4s&t=3714s)

[1] [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising- se...](http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice- melt-new-shoreline-maps/)

<comment><USER70> You are looking at a very small fraction of the problem. Yes higher water is not an extinction level event.

But with increased CO2 there's also increasing acidification. So the plankton dies, coral dies, mollusks die (their shells erode). The food web at sea dies.... as does the food for a decent fraction of the planet. Acid rain causes more damage, food production becomes tougher... especially on the decreasing number of acres above flood level. Much of the most productive farm land in the world would be inundated with acidic salty water.

<comment><USER105> Also, don't discount the rising level of violent conflicts that will ensue for shrinking resources.

<comment><USER106> Conflicts don't cause extinction. The winner survives.

<comment><USER105> Not necessarily. We all know of the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction.

As an analogy, think about what happens if a deadly infectious bacteria or virus "wins" by infecting every human on earth. If there is no cure and no human has an adaptation or mutation to stop it, by winning it has sowed the seeds of its own destruction because there are no more hosts to infect.

It is easy to imagine several scenarios where an all out war for dwindling resources can lead to extinction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Way to expensive, as always, too much hype and then nothing...</comment>


Fledgling Languages List - <AUTHOR> http://fll.presidentbeef.com/

<comment><USER2> Nice! I can use this site in my Programming Languages class.

BTW, is the author around? Something's a bit amiss in the CSS (?). The right side of the "Feedback" tab doesn't line up with the right side of the box. Problem occurs in both Chrome & FF.

</comment><comment><USER3> I haven't been, but I always enjoy the slides/videos from Emerging Languages Camp, which started as a OSCON side conference (or alternative conf)(I think) and has become associated with Strange Loop

[http://emerginglangs.com/archive/2013.html](http://emerginglangs.com/archive/2013.html)</comment>


Nascar: The Science of Racing Safely - <AUTHOR> https://physicsworld.com/a/nascar-the-science-of-racing-safely/ <comment><USER2> Out of curiosity I did a quick Wikipedia check for total deaths in major racing sports categories as compared to the 32 mentioned in the article in NASCAR...

\- F1: 45 (last death in 2015 and the one before in 1994)

\- Le Mans: 22 (last death in 2013 and the one before in 1997)

\- World Rally: 25 (last deaths in 2006 and 2005 and another in 1993)

\- MotoGP: 103 (last deaths in 2016, 2011, 2010, 2003)

\- Indy: 95 (last deaths in 2015, 2011, 2006, 2003)

\- NASCAR Cup: 32 (last two deaths in 2001 according to Wikipedia)

<comment><USER3> The Isle of Man TT takes things up another notch, too: "Between 1907 and 2019 there have been 151 fatalities during official practices or races on the Snaefell Mountain Course, and 260 total fatalities (this number includes the riders killed during the Manx Grand Prix, and Clubman TT race series of the late 1940s/1950s)."

<comment><USER4> Well when the run off area is a brick wall you have to expect some carnage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> >The bar was named after Newman, who was vocal in calling for stronger roofs after going airborne twice in one year at Talladega. It then helped saved his life in the Daytona 2020 crash.

My gosh, after the first time, I'd be wary. After the second time, I'd be looking for a safer job. Good on him though, seriously. Pushing for something to make his sport safer for all.

<comment><USER6> Ryan Newman has the nickname Flyin' Ryan for all the times he's been airbone in his car. I don't know what the number is but I'm pretty sure it's at least four.

<comment><USER7> Flyin Ryan, thats great. I like no-neck newman

<comment><USER6> Ryan Newman was in a wreck again Saturday night at Daytona, but at least the car stayed on the ground this time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> kube-system I've always found the safety engineering of motorsports more interesting than going fast.

Going fast is easy, so easy that most sanctioning bodies have long-ago capped the ways to go faster. Safety is the harder engineering problem to solve, and it allows for much more creativity.

<comment><USER8> Aside from safety, Cornering speed is where things get really interesting. Formula 1 cars are exceptionally engineered to provide those high speeds even in tight corners. Plus those sub 2 second pit stops, 1/100 of a second difference in qualifying, overtaking with near inches from another car etc</comment></comment>


Were You Laid Off by Tesla? So Was I - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/were-you-laid-off-tesla-so-i-cayle-hunter <comment><USER2> Underlying issue here is US employment laws. No one should ever work for someone else any minute over what they are being paid for.

How can you go through work life not knowing if you have a job on Monday? This seems so insane to me and it must take a mental toll on people.

<comment><USER3> If they're salaried and presumably stock comped employees they are being paid for their work. The flexibility to let go of employees is a double edged sword, but it's an important part of the U.S. economy. Without that ability, a risky endeavor would never be able to be undertaken. Companies would be way more leary of hiring more employees for fear of having to jump through bureaucratic hoops to let an employee go. In the meantime a company could suffer and ultimately die if not given the flexibility to evolve and adapt to changing market conditions.

A U.S. employee has to understand this. Nobody going to work at Tesla is unaware that the company is taking on multiple risks on multiple fronts and not all of them may pan out.

But I would argue that the American worker ultimately and on average benefits from the vibrant economy that such pro-business policies cultivate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Not that I am supporting Tesla, but anyone telling me they themselves build a team of 225 people in 6 months is full of crap.

</comment><comment><USER5> Something strange about your comments? You worked there for a year, not 30 years. How much of a a conversation with 225 people in a year's time could you have possibly had? How much could you have possibly accomplished? If you did as well as you claimed, I seriously doubt you would have been let go.</comment>


Study Finds Freemium Model Generates Big App Store Income - <AUTHOR> http://blog.ness.com/spl/bid/68862/Study-Finds-Freemium-Model-Generates-Big-App-Store-Revenue

<comment><USER2> This is how it's been since software first existed. Shareware.

When the Internet came along it was free software with a Buy Now button that took you to the website where you would purchase the full version or a license key.

I thought this was the "norm" for selling software, and it always has been.

Free to try, then you must buy.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. Took the words off my keyboard.

Barring a shareware style demo, I rarely make a leap of faith into a new software product. However, stellar reviews and/or at least a video example can make up for that. Maybe one exception would be updates to products I currently use.

[edited for clarity]

<comment><USER2> I too have found myself watching videos of apps (particluarly games) before buying now if they don't have a free version.

I was actually considering doing an experiment where I removed some of my free versions of apps from the Market and put in better videos to see if I could get the same results.... I doubt it, but...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> TL; DR: "study found that in-app purchases [...] accounted for an astonishing 72 percent of Apple iphone app store revenue in July, up from 28 percent just a year ago. "

</comment><comment><USER5> These results are based on iOS/Android data.

I'm curious to know if Mac App Store developers are having similar experiences.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is mainly because games are the biggest category, and the top grossing games are "ville/village/pet" games that are free with upgrades.</comment>


Is It Cheating to Have a Side Project? - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/07/is_it_cheating_to_have_a_side.html?goback=.gde_2936203_member_133163399 <comment><USER3> Man. This article, and the business-book morality that underpins it, is utter tripe.

I heartily advocate that when it comes to managing their own time, employees do whatever they can get away with without getting fired. When it comes to negotiating compensation, companies exercise an enormous strategic advantage over employees, which they've proven completely willing to exercise in dishonest ways (cf. Apple/Google "non-poach" agreements). So when it comes to time-management, in the general case, I say fuck 'em. Get your work done, but when the door's closed, get out the clown suit and practice your torch- juggling routine if that's what you feel like doing.

Of course if you actually like your boss, or you don't think your company is run by dicks, and you'd feel bad about getting clown makeup on the company furniture, then don't do it. But only YOU can decide what's right in a given situation. No one needs employment morality lessons from business book authors.

<comment><USER4> I completely agree with you here. If the company leverages everything they have to keep you compensated as low as possible to keep you, then you should in turn leverage all of your work against them and do as little as possible for them to keep you. That's the only honest way to progress society. Reward good business practices with good labor. You aren't doing anyone any long term good by pretending you owe your boss anything. Provide them with the labor they pay for and nothing more. Teach employers that payment can come in a huge variety of ways. From your standard monetary compensation, ranging all the way to simply respect and healthy work environments.

<comment><USER5> >You aren't doing anyone any long term good by pretending you owe your boss anything.

The best bosses know this and will tell you as much, they will help you find out what you want to do. They realize that your first job is not going to be your last and help you focus on developing your skills. Then they hi five you when you get a better job.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > If you do it on company time you can be fired, and quite frankly we believe > you should.

Bullshit.

A company can fire you for any reason. Yes, this is a perfectly valid reason to fire someone. You could also fire someone for showing up to work at 8:05 instead of 8:00. And you can fire someone because "You're the boss".

Despite that, what a bullshit article. "If you aren't 100% working for your company from 8am to 5pm then we think you should be fired" is all they are trying to say. No surfing the net, no testing out new ideas, no chatting with coworkers, no personal calls and EXACTLY 30 minutes during lunch: you are hired to sit, do work, punch out and fuck off.

People like this rile me up a bit... I've worked for places like that, and people like this, never again.

<comment><USER7> "Do as we say or.." kind of places are really the worst.

I once worked under a guy, he had very serious problems if some checked out a new tool/language/library/framework etc at work or even tried to learn something new to him like say Haskell.

Over a period of time I just figured out he was just plainly jealous that some one young would over take him.

Those are the last kind of places you should work at, also they are worst team players you can ever get.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've always had side projects and have always disclosed my side projects to my boss. I want to be absolutely sure there are no surprises. In one case, I let things wait almost too long and had to tell my CEO that he shouldn't be surprised to see an article about my side project in the Seattle P-I the next day[1]. That was a mistake I've never repeated. Fortunately, there were no repercussions in that case. I got lucky.

Here are my thoughts:

* My side projects have—without fail—made me _better_ at my day job. For instance, when I had my last 'real' job as an iOS developer for a startup, my side project was Cocoa Controls[2] (<http://www.cocoacontrols.com>), which shaved dozens-to-hundreds of hours off our development schedule.

* My side projects don't compete with my employer's line of business (or potential future directions). The last thing I want is to get embroiled in a lawsuit down the road over IP theft.

* My side projects never use company resources. That means no working on it at work, and no using that company laptop.

* I do my best not to discuss my side projects with my coworkers. I'm happy to chat about them if they bring them up, but I don't go out of my way to discuss them.

* Way back when, when I worked at Microsoft, I had to sign a moonlighting agreement that specifically spelled out what belonged to whom and what each party's responsibilities were. If your company doesn't have one, I recommend trying to introduce one.

[1] [http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Seattle-startup- Di...](http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Seattle-startup-Dibspace- hopes-to-cash-in-on-1303182.php)

[2] Which is now my real job. Win.

<comment><USER9> Wait, if you don't work on it at work, why does your employer care?

<comment><USER10> Many employment agreements claim rights to anything the employee invents which is related to the business, whether or not on company time. And in some states, it's common for the claim to be on _all_ inventions, whether related to the business or not.

(California has a carve-out in state law: an employer can't claim stuff that was not done on company time, nor with company resources, and which does not relate to the company's business. But many states, perhaps most, have no such carve-out. And even the California rules are subject to interpretation; what _isn't_ related to the company's business if the company is Google? So, it's wise to consult a lawyer regardless...)

<comment><USER11> Which is a very good reason for the smart kids to stick to California for their professional lives.

Trying to fight your way out from under a noncompete, or lawyer up on account of a side consulting gig or independently conceived and developed idea, really stinks. And the further you get in your career the more likely you'll encounter such a situation.

Such cases ultimately seriously _dampen_ both enthusiasm for the employer, and the odds of finding talent interested in working under such a regime.

Of course, the ultimate negative would be for California's exceptions to be attacked by corporate interests.

<comment><USER12> >Which is a very good reason for the smart kids to stick to California for their professional lives.

Georgia recently amended our constitution to make non-competes much more likely.

I and much of the tech scene hugely lobbied against this effort, oh well. We didn't need to work for in state companies anyhow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I believe pretty strongly in having a side project, and working on it at work, but only when I think the side project is something that directly (20% Google model) or indirectly (skills) benefits the company.

Seriously - we aren't digital coolies. We are highly paid surgeons. You wouldn't for a second fire the brain surgeon for reading about a new type of surgery that he can't put to immediate use between operations. Hell no.

Its the same with node.js or ember.js or whatever you think the new hotness is that you want to experiment with. You are trying to see around corners and skate to where the puck will be. Sometimes its not obvious how node.js (or whatever) is going to help. You need to balance this against your current role, but 20% sounds about right to me.

This is good for the employer. If the employer doesn't get that then you should get a new employer.

<comment><USER14> I totally agree that we need continuing education, such as your analogy of the surgeon, but the article specifically mentions scenarios where the side-jobs are completely unrelated to the primary job. I've witnessed this myself, had a guy working on side-projects while on our dime. He was lucky not to get fired on the spot, because pretty much every employment agreement strictly prohibits working a 2nd paid job while you're using company resources whether that's time during the working day, or the company copier/internet, etc. If you're such a bigshot that you can negotiate the ability to work a 2nd job while on- the-clock for your day job, then more power to you, but I'm sure that's extremely rare.

If you want to experiment with some new tech -- and you've been allocated the time for it by your superior(s) -- then by all means play around. But in my experience, there's typically at most only a few in each department whose formal role includes these types of projects, and they're always skunkworks- like projects that rapid prototyping or POC-like, and never a full implementation (unless you choose to go forward with it of course). This is the essence of R&D, which is there solely to make sure the business survives -- not you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I think this whole article is a despicable example of the complete fucking subjugation of many in corporate life (the author seems to be a prominent member of this subset.)

Renting my time doesn't mean you own me. Either I produce sufficiently good work for you + you continue to employee me, or I don't and you do not. Beyond that, go fuck yourself.

<comment><USER15> More calmly:-

I don't advocate working on non-work stuff at work, it's not a fair or honest thing to do, and personally, it's not something I do. But the article goes further, it approvingly quotes:-

"When people get excited about things outside of work they end showing up to work and going through motions just to get through a day. Everyone loses. The employee loses and the employer loses. People are not going to give all of themselves as they focus on their new outside interest."

Which is getting into 'I employee you, so I get to tell you what you do everywhere'.

Fuck that.

<comment><USER16> Not only that -- the article basically implies that even if you aren't specifically working on your side projects on company time, that they can impact your work, because it can be distracting. So that means no dating, getting married, or having kids. No hobbies. No educational pursuits. You work, go home, maybe passively watch TV (but don't talk about last night's Seinfield at the office), sleep, and start over again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Wow! This is classic exec level BS. This article clearly displays the perennial fear execs have, which is lower level employees getting rich. Well monetized side projects are scary to execs. It robs them of their financial authority which is directly related to their executive authority. No exec wants a rich low level employee who doesn't give a damn about getting fired. What that means for the exec guy is, his authority and position of advantage suffering erosion and the exec being pushed into a position where his biggest bargaining chip is lost. And not to mention the guy far lower in hierarchy may be making a good deal of money, which disturbs the advantage due to positing in hierarchy.

Fact of the matter is, execs and big guys have side projects all the time. Just because they don't involve writing code it doesn't mean they don't have projects. I know a lot big guys who attend pointless conferences which they absolutely don't have to, sometimes on their own money just because their pet project is to grow their network. Or they are busy working on their next real estate project in their spare time. Or they are writing a business proposal for their own venture. This happens just all over the place, all the time.

I agree that the office time should be clearly used for office work. Any other time apart from that is yours and use it the way you like it.

</comment><comment><USER17> This is mostly a problem of being paid per hour (or being expected to be present a set number of hours) rather than per project or task - leading to very inflexible terms of employment or contract.

It's also a problem of management culture clashing with employee's expectations and desires. For example, I used to work for a place that would routinely monitor email and chat logs to make sure people were talking about work and not being overly social - even if the job was being done well with no problems.

Personally I think it's important to find a balance; if a small slice of at- work, non-break time is 'spare' and being used to better oneself rather than just sit around blankly doing nothing - what is the problem? And if side projects are being done _outside_ of work, well that's none of the company's business.

<comment><USER11> How about being paid according to supply and demand for your talents?

Tying that rate to hours worked, or pieces produced, is a negotiating tactic to focus your mind on irrelevance.

What matters is 1) what value do I produce for the organization (this sets an upper limit on what you can rationally demand in compensation, not that this seems to limit the C-level set), and 2) what can you command elsewhere?

Being able to negotiate from a position of strength, particularly via collective bargaining (why do you think the tech world is so deathly afraid of unions or true professional organizations) boost that through Ricardo's Law of Rent (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent>).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I was once in an interview for a development job where I asked what the companies stance on projects outside of work was. The head honcho said, "I don't want to know about them, and in fact I don't want you to do them. You should be getting all your fulfillment from work, and if you need more pay we can work something out."

In my mind the interview died right there. He didn't get it, its not about pay, but about scratching an itch, trying new stuff out. I assume that he would be okay with me watching TV at night, or running with my dog, why would my decision to blow off steam with code matter to him?

</comment><comment><USER18> "We think you should have a side project, unless you shouldn't, and then you should not, unless you should, which maybe you shouldn't." -this article

<comment><USER15> I actually lol'd at this. That sums it up very nicely! You forgot to add that you are evil if you're even thinking about it (they have IP rights on your thoughts too)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Employee and employer trust as of late has approached zero. There is noone outside of government that is going to work their entire lives at one corporation, that is ridiculous.

There is no telling if any of the big tech companies will be here in the same form in 15 years, let alone 50.

What if by 2028 POTUS goes standard-oil on google, ms goes bankrupt, apple merges with yahoo?

Stranger things have happened.

</comment><comment><USER20> I believe that this entire mentality runs counter-intuitive to the web dev/tech nature of HN in general. Many web developer professionals work at firms or agencies or other web development shops that rely on client work. I'm speaking generally here, but from my own perspective client work is never enough to fully satisfy a curious and excited mind. Enterprise projects with client services, project managers, client stakeholders, C-levels, QA departments, etc, will never be satisfying in the way that rapid prototyping, direct-to-development ideation, and general 'fooling around' can be.

This article is not only harmful to the modern workplace, but is irritating to web developers who thrive on creativity but work in environments where it's simply not feasible. I still have bills to pay, but am not defined by the desk I sit behind.

</comment><comment><USER21> Having options is not immoral - it is a moral imperative. Private sector executives are willing to lay off employees for the sake of profitability. Public sector employees (even Feds #Sequester) aren't safe from layoffs or furloughs. It's not cheating to do what's in your best interest - <USER2> Employer will certainly do what's best for them.

</comment><comment><USER22> Check your employment contract. Some stipulate that any IP you develop while an employee is owned by the company.

<comment><USER13> in particular Google employees, that means you.

<comment><USER11> Pre-empted by California state law given certain conditions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> A useful explanation from Joel Spolsky on the whole companies-owning-your- hobby-IP thing (it's v. common, they probably do, yes I'm talking to you) - <http://answers.onstartups.com/a/20136>

<comment> alok-g HN discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2208056>

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I have a question: Is it cheating if I haven't had a task at work for weeks now and I'm using my time in the office to take Coursera and iTunes U classes on Mathematics, CS, and iOS development instead? And when I get tired I go to the gym for maybe two hours and come back and study again.

Not kidding, this is a real question. I have a feeling this is technically unethical but I'm not so sure my time will be wisely spent if I just ethically sat here and did nothing.

<comment><USER24> Douchebag Executive answer: yes, it's cheating because you should be asking your boss for more work. That's what a good corporate citizen does. He says, "I'm done, give me more."

(In reality, this doesn't graduate you to better work. Unless your boss is personally interested in your advancement, it just gets you assigned more of the same grunt work.)

My personal answer: no, not cheating at all. Is your boss looking out for your career? Are you his or her protege? If you don't have a mentor, then _you_ are your mentor and you have the ethical right to manage your career as you see fit. Keep learning and carry on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> >The more you deliver above and beyond what your "contract" calls for, the more slack you get.

The biggest BS in this article. Your delivering does not correlate to slack you get.

</comment><comment> alok-g As mentioned in the article, you could be in violation of the contract you signed with your employer with side projects. See an earlier discussion on this aspect: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2208056>

In my case, I have gone full-time for my (yet to be defined) project to avoid this issue and be focused 100% on it.

</comment><comment><USER26> Well, when I am working on a side product it is better for my work productivity than when I am not.

When I am working on a side project I am in the kind of mood in which I can program for 16 hours straight. Doing two projects keeps things fresh. When I am not motivated enough to work on a side project I am more likely to zone out at work and spend an inordinate amount of time lurking on HN.

<comment><USER27> I agree.

When I have a side project I will fly through my work so that I can get back to what I really care about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> It is not cheating. If you are still employed - you fulfill job requirements you agreed on in exchange for money. If you are not fulfilling these requirements any company fill just fire you. Side projects are irrelevant.

(Unless it is specifically said in contract and you are being paid for a chance of inventing for company something forth extra pay)

</comment><comment><USER29> When interviewing someone, I ask about their side projects. If they don't have any, they aren't getting hired. In order to be a productive member of my team, you have to be passionate about technology - and that means having side projects.

</comment><comment><USER30> All of my side projects inevitably circle back and help me with my primary tasks (either through practice/learning something I didn't know already/keeping me focused). I don't see why an employer would ever discourage this.

</comment><comment><USER31> Is It Cheating to Explore Outsourcing Without Telling Your Employees?

Just askin'

</comment><comment><USER32> That's it. I've created it. This is for all of you, SideProjectors!

<http://sideprojectors.com>

<comment><USER33> FYI, for whatever reason, trying to sign up in FF for Android I constantly got an invalid email address error. Worked fine through desktop Chrome though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Not if you do it on your own time.

<comment> alok-g Since the question is whether it is "cheating" or not, the answer becomes very subjective, and yours cannot be called wrong. The best answer however would be to "Check your employment contract" as Steve also wrote. If you signed such a contract (or are not even aware that you signed one), you "could" be kidding yourself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Cheating == business

</comment><comment><USER24> This is Category 5 douchebaggery dressed-up as an attempt to be "hip" to the fact that ambitious people often have side projects. It's revolting and way out of touch.

Not only is the moral high horse off-putting, but the advice is impractical. Article says you should be spending 1000 hours per year looking for another career. It also says that if any of those 1000 hours occur on "company time", then (using their words) "you are stealing". This is overprivileged nonsense at its worst. How many people can fit in 1000+ hours per year on a side project _and_ the real demands of a typical day job without _some_ degree of (taken if not given) overlap? Answer: not many, but it's a good assumption that these writers have multiple maids and nannies...

Of course, it's worth it to be smart about overlap. Avoid using company resources, and the writing of code that will go into production should not occur during traditional company hours. If you're going to steal time from work, use it for reading, learning, and exploration-- not product code itself. You can lose if you do that.

</comment><comment><USER36> The monthly-salary system is not necessarily suitable for all programming jobs. I think it is rather an exception that the monthly-salary system correctly matches the dynamics of the situation, such as for hotel receptionists or security guards. The default agreement in programming work should be about results and not about hours present on the job.</comment>


American tech companies censor themselves in foreign markets - <AUTHOR> https://www.buzzfeed.com/pranavdixit/why-silicon-valley-is-censoring-itself-as-it-expands-in <comment><USER2> Fun fact: iTunes Store censors actor Brad P++t's last name in Sweden using two asterisks, presumably automatically, presumably because it means d+ck in swedish.

(edit: use + instead of asterisk to fool the markdown rendering)

<comment><AUTHOR> I had a similar experience in India where I was watching a cooking showing and they were talking about some chicken dish. Suddenly I heard "Put the chicken [beep] in the pan", then I realized they were cooking Chicken breast and the word breast was beeped out.:P

<comment><USER3> This is the origin of the terms "white meat" and "dark meat" \-- the words breast and thigh were too inappropriate!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This happens here in America. Wedding Crashers was on E! (cable tv channel) not long ago and the part where Betty White's character is talking about Eleanor Roosevelt (I believe) and calls here a "big lesbian mule"... "big dyke" was cut out. All American companies are afraid of offending someone.</comment>


700m tunnel with train used to smuggle goods, people into EU - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2012/07/slovakias-borders?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/tunnelvision

<comment><USER2> If people are motivated to do things like that, something is broken in the EU legal+tax system.</comment>


In Search of the Best Continuous Deployment Service - <AUTHOR> https://forestry.io/blog/5-options-for-automating-your-software-deployments/ <comment><USER2> What about vsts?</comment>


EBay reveals activist investor Carl Icahn submitted proposal to spinoff PayPal - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/insider/2014/01/22/ebay-inc-reveals-activist-investor-carl-icahn-submitted-proposal-spinoff-paypal-company/#!sW7CQ

<comment><USER2> "Part of his motivation to see PayPal spun-off is because he thinks that by separating it from eBay, PayPal will be able to innovate faster and get things done faster."

Yeah, that's not happening at this stage. This just seems like a desperate cry for attention by a company that is losing market share.

<comment><USER3> Lol, read up on who icahn is. He does this frequently, is a "corporate raider" not so much an activist.</comment></comment>


ShrimpTest: A/B Testing for WordPress - <AUTHOR> http://shrimptest.com/ Documentation: http://shrimptest.com/docs/ <comment><USER2> This is exactly what I was thinking about earlier. But you need to require less of people, at the moment I need to actually download, install and fiddle with it to know what it does and how well. Give me screenshots, show me features. Can I test an entirely new theme with it or just widget placement? Can I set up a series of timed tests so I can test out 10 new themes over 20 weeks? How easy is it to create, etc etc. These questions can be answered right on the homepage, why force users to do anything else before answering them?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Plugin Documentation: <http://shrimptest.com/docs/>

Demo (per user24's comment): <http://shrimptest.com/tag/video/>

<comment><USER2> Nice. I watched the demo up to 10 mins in, it told me what I wanted to know. The first 3 mins weren't very engaging for me and I switched tabs while leaving the audio running, but when you started talking about "here's a demo" I flicked back and watched the whole demo section. Just some feedback on the video.

But yes, that's very good - shows me nicely what it does without me having to go through any effort.

You definitely need to improve the z-score thing though. How do I know 2.4375637465% translates to 96% confidence?

With conversion rates so low, I'm surprised you think the difference is significant actually. 0.003% as opposed to 0.009? This month my highest CTR was 0.74% higher than my lowest - with nothing different* (over 100,000 impressions).

So I wouldn't trust a 0.006% increase as significant at all!

* well - I say nothing different. In fact the content is probably always changing, but I would want to test different positions.

edit: PS: you keep saying "zero point six".... isn't it "zero point zero zero six"?

<comment><AUTHOR> Didn't mean to imply that it's my project (I wish); just thought others might find it useful too.

Good feedback though, hopefully the author sees this.</comment></comment></comment>


What did Jesus really look like? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35120965 <comment><USER2> What did a fictional character look like? Seriously?

<comment><USER3> Perhaps you should do some research on the subject before making such an ignorant statement.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Can I launch more than one unique browser executeables? - <AUTHOR> Can I by some method launch multiple (e.g. Firefox) executeables with independent sessions at the same time? I think it's possible and that Qubes OS, a Linux distro has done it.
I currently have around 300+ tabs open across different browser applications (Firefox, Palemoon, Vivaldi, Opera). Mostly all tabs is somehow a valuable and necessary resource for a project. I switch back and forth through working on each project very often, since a lot are related of sorts and so are the webresources; this makes the browser add-ons for tab-sessions a bit annoying.
I run Linux btw. Hope someone can be of help! :-) <comment><USER2> nohup firefox --no-remote --ProfileManager >/dev/null 2>&1 &

You need to have a separate profile for each session.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you!</comment></comment>


Show HN: I recently launched instaaa.com and have made $12K in sales - <AUTHOR> http://indiehackers.com/forum/post/-KwtaxLQbDl72woafuu0 <comment><USER2> I am happy and sad because so many copycats already submitting similar ideas into PH.

<comment><USER3> Why is this a bad thing?

If someone is offering the same service competition will drive down the cost. Nothing is sacred. Everything can be copied (and will be!)

<comment><USER2> yes, that's true again!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Now the question is, did this person submit this post through instaaa? ;)

</comment><comment><USER4> Nice, congrats!!!</comment>


Gmail now refusing to fetch using self-signed certs - <AUTHOR> http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=21291&ctx=gmail#strictSSL <comment><USER2> People don't seem to understand how insecure self-signed certs are (and aren't if provisions are taken).

1) A self-signed cert provides zero protection against just about any attack that would work on clear text - any attacker can simply create their own self- signed cert and pretend to be you, and Google would have previously accepted this and happily accepted the incorrect mail. This is broken security in every way, and it is better to use no security since at least nobody can believe it is secure.

2) Self-signed certs are actually stronger than 'chain of trust' certs, provided you can trade the public cert in advance. Google should have a box on their POP fetch page where the public cert can be entered. This is more secure and the correct way to handle the problem, rather than blocking self-signed certs.

Self-signed certs are perfectly valid if the public cert is provided beforehand. Self-signed certs with the public cert used unchecked from the server is COMPLETELY BROKEN.

TLDR; Google needs to provide a box for the user to upload the mail servers public certificate.

<comment><USER3> What about having your own (self-signed) CA? You sign your own certificates and import that CA on your computer. Would this effectively prevent a man in the middle attack?

<comment><USER2> It will prevent it as long as the client has your CA's public certificate embedded. Browsers/OS embed all of the normal CA's certs so that you know any cert signed by a regular CA is authentic. However, regular CAs are not incredibly trustworthy and are a security problem... (Regular CAs can be attacked with fairly easily with social attacks, and some CAs can even be bribed or hacked.)

Giving Google your CA or your public mail cert are effectively the same thing in theory, as long as Google only uses your CA cert to authenticate your own servers and not anybody elses.

In practice, current CA management software in most OSes is (imho) faulty, and will allow any CA in the chain to authenticate any cert. This probably needs to be fixed at some point... So until then, there is no way Google is going to accept your CA, but they SHOULD change their systems to accept a specific public cert for a mailserver for POP3 fetching.

<comment><USER4> You would hope the smart minds at google could come up with a management system for this fairly easily, though I guess it does add complexity when you're dealing with potentially millions of these servers and millions of trusted roots.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is kind of a dickish move on Google's part: you don't just suddendly do something like this, you notify in advance and give time for people to switch over.

StartSSL is on the Mozilla CA list, so it should work with gmail. They offer free certs:

<https://www.startssl.com/?app=1>

Not tested yet.

<comment><USER6> I agree it sucks that there was no warning, but why would you be using self- signed certificates in this situation anyway? There's almost no benefit at all and in fact all it really does it give you a false sense of security that your connection is "secure" when in fact it's not.

<comment><USER7> Sure there is a benefit! Unless you specifically are being targetted with a MITM, your mail will be save and encrypted anywhere between your originating server and Google's receiving server. No ISP or government router traffic harvesting.

<comment><USER8> If the government wants to harvest your traffic, MITM'ing is not really a great impediment. It might be an impediment for your ISP because of the economic constraint it imposes, but even that is not certain.

<comment><USER7> As I said, this is no precaution about targetted attacks. It works well against the default packet inspection and probably also storage routers (can) do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Gmail now refusing to fetch what from who, where, when?

Is this about people who forward their mail to gmail?

<comment><USER5> Gmail will collect pop email from other servers if you tell it to. From Wednesday, and without warning, Gmail will refuse to collect that e-mail if the remote pop server uses a certificate issued by a non-recognised CA, e.g. self-signed certs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Please pardon my security ignorance, but I can't understand why Gmail takes this action while accepting incoming email from unsigned servers. That is, I like to toy with out-of-the-box Postfix setups in VPSes, and Gmail (still) accepts messages from my test domains. (Well, maybe the first one gets flagged as spam, but still.)

Considering that I have taken no actions whatsoever to secure/sign my server, why does Google consider this legitimate? I find it inconsistent. Also, isn't DNS unencrypted in the first place? Is there something like HSTS for mail?

Thanks in advance for any help in clarifying this.

Edit: HSTS, grammar.

</comment><comment><USER11> The consensus in this discussion seems to be that Google should just allow each mail user to enter a cert (or hash thereof) for each self-signed mail server they're polling. And then each user would need to update each cert every time it changed, or the IP address changed, or whatever. But first the user would need to notice the change, which might not be easy if that email address was low-traffic. (I'm assuming we're not talking about user-controlled servers, because in such a case why not just forward?)

Who would want to get a notice every time the mail server had the wrong credentials? If it's a short-term thing the user can't do anything about it. If it's a long-term thing the user might be able to do something, or she might not. She'll probably just conclude "Gmail is broken", when in fact it is the upstream server that can't be arsed to buy a usable cert and take part in the (admittedly imperfect) CA PKI. Instead they'd like the user to take part in some ad hoc PKI that they'd like Google to set up for them. Are users less likely to screw up cert management than service providers? In general, making the user do work that the service provider could do is a bad smell.

This would be a giant can of worms. This scheme is not something that any other webmail provider does, and there could be security flaws that haven't occurred to us. This service would only be usable by the minority of users who can understand most of the comments on this page. Google would be blamed when things went wrong, rather than the self-signing mail servers who deserve the blame. Credit to Google for avoiding such a morass.

</comment><comment><USER12> I've often wondered whether tls/ssl should work more like ssh, where there's an initial leap of faith and the public key is remembered afterwards (and you get warned if it changes).

</comment><comment><USER13> Also if the certificate is published in the DNS, and available through DANE (using DNSSEC)? That would be very disappointing.

</comment><comment><USER14> Given that startssl offers free "real" certs, I think it's probably ok to ban self-signed certs by default for a lot of things. The key thing is allowing end users to override in some cases, and giving helpful error messages (which gmail seems to be failing on).

<comment><USER15> that makes no sense, startssl isnt required to provide free ssl certs. they can stop any day. plus its a limited cert, one subdomain max.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I have mail forwarded from from me@mydomain to me@gmail so if I've understood correctly then this might potentially affect me. How would one check now, rather than waiting till wednesday to find out if there is going to be a problem?

<comment><USER17> No, this only affects users who retrieve email via POP(/IMAP?) into Gmail as separate accounts. Oddly enough this is happening on one of my accounts and not the other, yet I know both have self-signed certs.

<comment><USER16> Great, thanks for the info

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Google are being dicks once more.

Between my own self-signed zero security (as someone claims) certificate and your usual Comodo.com-anyone-can-haz-a-wildcard-cert I'd definitely go for the first.

<comment><USER2> Anybody can self-sign their own certificate to copy yours in seconds.

A Comodo.com-anyone-can-haz-a-wildcard-cert is definitely safer as it takes far more effort to acquire the wildcard-cert and it leaves behind a financial paper-trail as the wildcard-cert must be paid for by someone. Definitely a long way from secure (stolen credit cards?), but still definitely safer than self-signed.

Of course, self-signed where you transmit the public key beforehand is much safer than both. Some type of 'group trust' system using quorums would be safer also.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> If you are using a self-signed cert, your content is probably available over http anyway so you wouldn't want duplication of http + https or you'll get a penalty.

Just use a free startssl cert if it's important to be indexed via https

<comment><USER20> Er, this is email we're talking about here, not http

<comment><USER19> Ugh thanks for pointing that out - way too early for me and I glossed over the "gmail" part vs google.</comment></comment></comment>