7 ms·

>"Self-driving technology is going to be a commodity; buyers are certainly not going to be evaluating the self-driving capabilities when deciding which car to b

>"Self-driving technology is going to be a commodity; buyers are certainly not going to be evaluating the self-driving capabilities when deciding which car to buy." Totally disagree here. We have no idea what the range of capabilities will be with self driving cars. I could easily see some versions which would be more independent than others. For example, perhaps one manufacturer can only make them drive well on highways with your hands on the steering wheel, while others can be completely autonomous so it can drive itself over to pick your kids up from school or make its way over snowy and icy roads or dirt roads with no markings. That kind of difference would easily surmount the tribal brand loyalty most car buyers have. It's a killer feature, not a commodity.

mulcahey 10y ago
Agree. The "skill level" of an autonomous vehicle is continuous, not binary. I could totally see people buying a car based on how trustworthy it is (crash statistics). Perhaps there will be some legally standard terms or discrete statistical thresholds makers will have to meet in order to legally claim certain levels of autonomy.
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  > I could totally see people buying a car based on how trustworthy it is (crash statistics). The problem with such an idea is that even if you sell 100 000 cars in the first year after launch (really good), you'll have to wait for about five years before you have the statistics to claim you car has any better than average safety record. But after those five years, your model is going to be near end-of-sales, so it won't matter. And that's with safety records today. As cars keep getting safer, this gets worse and worse. Remember, NHTSA averages today are over the entire car population. Today that population has a significant tail of cars from the late 80s or early 90s without basic safety measures like airbags and crumple zones. These will have a much higher fatality rate. But it ten years, when those are mostly gone from the roads, it's going to be ludicrously difficult to make statistically valid statements about car model safety while that model is still being sold.
  - gnarbarian 10y ago
    What is stopping from robotcars inc. from claiming "no autonomous driving AI from our company has been at fault or caused an accident ever." There is safety of the vehicle in an accident and safety of the autonomous driver which are getting conflated. You don't need to wait for the glacially paced NHTSA to post your accident statistics to brag about your AI avoiding accidents. >But after those five years, your model is going to be near end-of-sales, so it won't matter. I don't get this reasoning at all. Brand reputation matters a great deal. For example, Toyota put out a new Tacoma this year but people already assume it will be reliable and safe based on Toyota's track record. They don't have to start all over again and win all the customers back. While models change and structural safety will change slightly model to model The brain of the car will continue to improve and we won't be starting over because they change the body lines a little bit.
    - astrodust 10y ago
      I hope these autonomous vehicles refuse to drive if the vehicle isn't meeting certain safety standards. The last thing a company needs is headlines being made because some jackass took their car out when the brakes were worn down to nubs or the tires were completely bald. Incidents of that sort with a human driver are easily explained. If that happened with a self-piloting car it could scare people off the very idea. The cars should have some kind of basic self-preservation tests.
      - gnarbarian 10y ago
        They would probably refuse to drive autonomously if it detects the maintenance period has been exceeded without being reset or there is some sensor or mechanical issue detected. But you will always be able to drive it manually in case of emergency.
      - semi-extrinsic 10y ago
        As I said in the comments above, the single most effective measure for reducing accidents would be checking for alcohol- or drug-influenced drivers. Those cause much more accidents than mechanical failures. Yet even though "alcohol-locks" have been mature tech for five years, no car manufacturer nor politician dares to make it default, simply because there would be public outrage. Also, stuff like brake pads or tires completely worn down already comes with basic safety features: both will cause the car to make relatively loud, screeching/rumbling ominous noises.
- astrodust 10y ago
  It will probably be "collisions per million miles" or "fatalities per million miles" or something of the sort. Right now those numbers are roughly tabulated by insurance companies, but they're not really published as part of the boilerplate posted on the car where miles-per-gallon are often shown. If people knew they were buying a death trap they'd probably give it some sober second thought.
wodenokoto 10y ago
Before an self-driving car is allowed on the road it is going to have to pass some sort of driving test. What you are talking about is assisted driving and auto-pilots. Therefore, to most consumers, all real self-driving cars will be driving good enough, whether they are powered by Google, Tesla, Ford, BMW or Apple, but some are going to look nice and have a thought-out design.
skewart 10y ago
I disagree. Self-drive tech will indeed become a commodity - eventually. What technology hasn't? For a time, when it's brand new, having better self-driving tech certainly will be a differentiator. But the question is how long that window will last and how it aligns with regulatory changes. If I have a perfect fully autonomous car but I have to keep my eyes on the road and hands hovering over the steering wheel at all times, and can't "operate" it after having had a couple of drinks, then what's the point? I'm not sure if there will be time for better self-driving tech to ever be a meaningful differentiator because for a long time it will probably be illegal to use. Apple's exceptional skill has generally been in building consumer brands, managing operations, and timing when to release a new product after the underlying tech has been somewhat commoditized. I suspect they will not rush to release the best underlying tech six months or a year ahead of the competition. They'll wait until other people have figured out what works and then release their take on it.

mulcahey 10y ago

Agree. The "skill level" of an autonomous vehicle is continuous, not binary. I could totally see people buying a car based on how trustworthy it is (crash statistics). Perhaps there will be some legally standard terms or discrete statistical thresholds makers will have to meet in order to legally claim certain levels of autonomy.

semi-extrinsic 10y ago
> I could totally see people buying a car based on how trustworthy it is (crash statistics). The problem with such an idea is that even if you sell 100 000 cars in the first year after launch (really good), you'll have to wait for about five years before you have the statistics to claim you car has any better than average safety record. But after those five years, your model is going to be near end-of-sales, so it won't matter. And that's with safety records today. As cars keep getting safer, this gets worse and worse. Remember, NHTSA averages today are over the entire car population. Today that population has a significant tail of cars from the late 80s or early 90s without basic safety measures like airbags and crumple zones. These will have a much higher fatality rate. But it ten years, when those are mostly gone from the roads, it's going to be ludicrously difficult to make statistically valid statements about car model safety while that model is still being sold.
- gnarbarian 10y ago
  What is stopping from robotcars inc. from claiming "no autonomous driving AI from our company has been at fault or caused an accident ever." There is safety of the vehicle in an accident and safety of the autonomous driver which are getting conflated. You don't need to wait for the glacially paced NHTSA to post your accident statistics to brag about your AI avoiding accidents. >But after those five years, your model is going to be near end-of-sales, so it won't matter. I don't get this reasoning at all. Brand reputation matters a great deal. For example, Toyota put out a new Tacoma this year but people already assume it will be reliable and safe based on Toyota's track record. They don't have to start all over again and win all the customers back. While models change and structural safety will change slightly model to model The brain of the car will continue to improve and we won't be starting over because they change the body lines a little bit.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    I hope these autonomous vehicles refuse to drive if the vehicle isn't meeting certain safety standards. The last thing a company needs is headlines being made because some jackass took their car out when the brakes were worn down to nubs or the tires were completely bald. Incidents of that sort with a human driver are easily explained. If that happened with a self-piloting car it could scare people off the very idea. The cars should have some kind of basic self-preservation tests.
    - gnarbarian 10y ago
      They would probably refuse to drive autonomously if it detects the maintenance period has been exceeded without being reset or there is some sensor or mechanical issue detected. But you will always be able to drive it manually in case of emergency.
    - semi-extrinsic 10y ago
      As I said in the comments above, the single most effective measure for reducing accidents would be checking for alcohol- or drug-influenced drivers. Those cause much more accidents than mechanical failures. Yet even though "alcohol-locks" have been mature tech for five years, no car manufacturer nor politician dares to make it default, simply because there would be public outrage. Also, stuff like brake pads or tires completely worn down already comes with basic safety features: both will cause the car to make relatively loud, screeching/rumbling ominous noises.
astrodust 10y ago
It will probably be "collisions per million miles" or "fatalities per million miles" or something of the sort. Right now those numbers are roughly tabulated by insurance companies, but they're not really published as part of the boilerplate posted on the car where miles-per-gallon are often shown. If people knew they were buying a death trap they'd probably give it some sober second thought.

wodenokoto 10y ago

Before an self-driving car is allowed on the road it is going to have to pass some sort of driving test. What you are talking about is assisted driving and auto-pilots. Therefore, to most consumers, all real self-driving cars will be driving good enough, whether they are powered by Google, Tesla, Ford, BMW or Apple, but some are going to look nice and have a thought-out design.

skewart 10y ago

I disagree. Self-drive tech will indeed become a commodity - eventually. What technology hasn't? For a time, when it's brand new, having better self-driving tech certainly will be a differentiator. But the question is how long that window will last and how it aligns with regulatory changes. If I have a perfect fully autonomous car but I have to keep my eyes on the road and hands hovering over the steering wheel at all times, and can't "operate" it after having had a couple of drinks, then what's the point? I'm not sure if there will be time for better self-driving tech to ever be a meaningful differentiator because for a long time it will probably be illegal to use. Apple's exceptional skill has generally been in building consumer brands, managing operations, and timing when to release a new product after the underlying tech has been somewhat commoditized. I suspect they will not rush to release the best underlying tech six months or a year ahead of the competition. They'll wait until other people have figured out what works and then release their take on it.