7 ms·

How interesting. So up-coming Tesla drivers temporarily won't get fancy features. For a time, new Tesla buyers again become early adopters. But unlike traditio

How interesting. So up-coming Tesla drivers temporarily won't get fancy features. For a time, new Tesla buyers again become early adopters. But unlike traditional early adopters, who take a trade-off (on price, or features, or polish) for being first, these adopters are promised the features when they are ready. The nay-saying around Tesla is immense, even in these early HN comments. Obviously there's some risk here, but man. Tesla is sowing the seeds of the future.

CamperBob2 10y ago
I think it's great that they're taking the big risks needed to move the industry forward, and not letting the lawyers run the company. But some of the risks they're taking are just completely stupid and unnecessary, such as calling their assisted cruise control "Autopilot." That's like waving the proverbial cape at the proverbial bull.
- simonsarris 10y ago
  I see where you're coming from, but think that's a calculated risk. From a PR perspective it generates buzz, sounds ambitious, and reflects their ambition. If you ask anybody today, "what company is interested in self-driving cars?" Their answer is going to be Tesla. They're not gonna say Apple, or Ford or Volvo or Mercedes or Mobileye or Intel. They're gonna point straight to Tesla. A big part of that is their "inaccurate" word choice. From a PR perspective, the name was a solid gold decision.
  - thesimon 10y ago
    >From a PR perspective, the name was a solid gold decision. I doubt it. It creates false hopes and probably hurted/hurts them when crashs happen. The Tesla autopilot death in June was a really big thing, yet other crashes where assistant systems of other manufacturers are never in the press. Maybe because of the name, maybe because the drivers use them better? Also look at what happened recently in Germany: 1. Basically the head of the DMVs sending a letter to all Tesla owners to RTFM that it is not in fact an autopilot. 2. Department of Transportation pushing Tesla to stop using the term "autopilot" in marketing as it is misleading.
    - WalterBright 10y ago
      The autopilot in an airplane cannot be used without a pilot paying attention, either, but it is still called an autopilot. (For example, autopilots do not avoid traffic on a collision course.)
      - thesimon 10y ago
        On the other hand: The pilots are highly trained to fly and how to use the autopilot including the limitations.
        bisby 10y ago
        And while the name is perhaps misleading to the xommon layperson, your comment of "it is not in fact an autopilot" is flat out wrong. Instead perhaps "it is in fact an autopilot, but you don't know what an autopilot is or how it should be used"
        ams6110 10y ago
        You're arguing semantics. The average person will see "autopilot" and experience a few "happy" drives where the car stays in its lane and has no problems. Then they will stop paying attention and die when they are asleep when it "hands over control" at 60 mph due to a failed sensor or something.
        MagnumOpus 10y ago
        Except when they aren't - see Air France 447 for what happens when a driver has to step in after the autopilot can't cope with the situation. Then enhance the frequency of it happening by three orders of magnitude given that Tesla drivers are generally not professional drivers, let alone trained in the quirks of an autopilot in the beta release stage...
      - houssc 10y ago
        To be fair planes aren't sold to relatively untrained individuals. Furthermore many accidents have happened when trained pilots stopped paying attention on the job and autopilot failed. I'm totally expecting a "Florida Man in Fatal Tesla Crash Was Masturbating to Internet Pornography" headline.
  - CoryG89 10y ago
    Maybe I'm weird, but Google would have been my first answer. Then either Tesla or Apple.
    - jfoster 10y ago
      That previously would have been my answer, but I've realised that Google is interested in working on them, whilst Tesla & Uber are interested in bringing them to market.
- PacketPaul 10y ago
  Pilot here. Airplanes have autopilot. While on autopilot you are still expected to be monitoring the flight and take control at a moments notice. Autopilot does not allow the pilot to take a nap or go in the back and party with the flight attendants. Autopilot is the correct term. I'm tired of always having to cater to the lowest common denominator.
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    The problem is that most consumers, like parent poster, do not really understand what pilots do, or that an autopilot simply holds the course steady (in the simplest form, at least). Combine ignorance with misguided self-righteousness, and we get...this mess.
    - phire 10y ago
      Not to mention, plane autopilots don't have to worry about traffic.
      - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
        The pilots still do, though.
  - notyourwork 10y ago
    Because your industry has coined a term to mean something different from the literal meaning doesn't assert its the proper use the term. Auto implies automatically, it doesn't give any average consumer the indication that there needs to be manual involvement. I get it that pilots monitor stuff when planes are on auto pilot. That doesn't mean its correct for other industries.
  - detaro 10y ago
    Curious, what is "take control at a moments notice" in seconds? From what I've read about aviation, situations where really fast, let's say <2 seconds, reaction to an unusual situation is necessary don't seem very common compared to car traffic? (Excluding starts and landings, even if a plane can do those on autopilot the pilots certainly are going to be fully attentive) It seems like an airliner flying at altitude has quite large safety margins compared to a car on a highway.
Trufa 10y ago
I wonder how much it has to do with the autopilot death: https://www.tesla.com/blog/tragic-loss https://www.tesla.com/blog/tragic-loss EDIT: no idea why the downvotes, I'm all for self driving cars, but pretty obviously they could be scared of PR issues and lawsuits.
- will_hughes 10y ago
  Almost certainly very little. They've been clearly working on AP 2.0 for a long time - this sort of hardware upgrade isn't something you roll out in a few weeks. This capability was even pretty strongly hinted at for the Model 3.
  - tree_of_item 10y ago
    Improving the self-driving capabilities has "almost certainly very little" to do with the high profile death caused by the use of the self-driving capabilities? Come on.
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      Tesla doesn't have time machines.
Shivetya 10y ago
this really comes off as "look over there" move to distract from the recent negative press as various government bodies take Tesla to task for not only the lack of performance with the current system but also its ridiculous name. Sorry, but I seriously doubt they will have sufficient hardware installed to take it to level 4 or 5. It might be a stretch to get to 3 with anything they can deploy today simply because no one has demonstrated a real world working solution for these tiers. Oh you might be able to track demo one or controlled loop it.
- belltaco 10y ago
  >this really comes off as "look over there" move to distract from the recent negative press as various government bodies take Tesla to task for not only the lack of performance with the current system but also its ridiculous name. So you mean there is no advanced hardware in the new cars?
rplnt 10y ago
> But unlike traditional early adopters, who take a trade-off (on price, or features, or polish) for being first Actually, in regards to Tesla, they always stated (and were very open about it) that early-adopters pay premium to support research/growth/etc. First with Roadster, now with S (not sure about X). It can be expected that the same extra features (same hardware) on model will cost less. So the trade-off here is just that, being "first".
forgetsusername 10y ago
>The nay-saying around Tesla is immense You have to be kidding. The Tesla cheer-leading is immense. This is a competitive space within which Tesla might be a leader, but you make it sound as if everyone else around them is stagnant. The majors are building this stuff, the large tech companies are building this stuff, and even big component providers are building this stuff. This is obvious if you look outside of the SV echo chamber.

CamperBob2 10y ago

I think it's great that they're taking the big risks needed to move the industry forward, and not letting the lawyers run the company. But some of the risks they're taking are just completely stupid and unnecessary, such as calling their assisted cruise control "Autopilot." That's like waving the proverbial cape at the proverbial bull.

simonsarris 10y ago
I see where you're coming from, but think that's a calculated risk. From a PR perspective it generates buzz, sounds ambitious, and reflects their ambition. If you ask anybody today, "what company is interested in self-driving cars?" Their answer is going to be Tesla. They're not gonna say Apple, or Ford or Volvo or Mercedes or Mobileye or Intel. They're gonna point straight to Tesla. A big part of that is their "inaccurate" word choice. From a PR perspective, the name was a solid gold decision.
- thesimon 10y ago
  >From a PR perspective, the name was a solid gold decision. I doubt it. It creates false hopes and probably hurted/hurts them when crashs happen. The Tesla autopilot death in June was a really big thing, yet other crashes where assistant systems of other manufacturers are never in the press. Maybe because of the name, maybe because the drivers use them better? Also look at what happened recently in Germany: 1. Basically the head of the DMVs sending a letter to all Tesla owners to RTFM that it is not in fact an autopilot. 2. Department of Transportation pushing Tesla to stop using the term "autopilot" in marketing as it is misleading.
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    The autopilot in an airplane cannot be used without a pilot paying attention, either, but it is still called an autopilot. (For example, autopilots do not avoid traffic on a collision course.)
    - thesimon 10y ago
      On the other hand: The pilots are highly trained to fly and how to use the autopilot including the limitations.
      - bisby 10y ago
        And while the name is perhaps misleading to the xommon layperson, your comment of "it is not in fact an autopilot" is flat out wrong. Instead perhaps "it is in fact an autopilot, but you don't know what an autopilot is or how it should be used"
        ams6110 10y ago
        You're arguing semantics. The average person will see "autopilot" and experience a few "happy" drives where the car stays in its lane and has no problems. Then they will stop paying attention and die when they are asleep when it "hands over control" at 60 mph due to a failed sensor or something.
      - MagnumOpus 10y ago
        Except when they aren't - see Air France 447 for what happens when a driver has to step in after the autopilot can't cope with the situation. Then enhance the frequency of it happening by three orders of magnitude given that Tesla drivers are generally not professional drivers, let alone trained in the quirks of an autopilot in the beta release stage...
    - houssc 10y ago
      To be fair planes aren't sold to relatively untrained individuals. Furthermore many accidents have happened when trained pilots stopped paying attention on the job and autopilot failed. I'm totally expecting a "Florida Man in Fatal Tesla Crash Was Masturbating to Internet Pornography" headline.
- CoryG89 10y ago
  Maybe I'm weird, but Google would have been my first answer. Then either Tesla or Apple.
  - jfoster 10y ago
    That previously would have been my answer, but I've realised that Google is interested in working on them, whilst Tesla & Uber are interested in bringing them to market.
PacketPaul 10y ago
Pilot here. Airplanes have autopilot. While on autopilot you are still expected to be monitoring the flight and take control at a moments notice. Autopilot does not allow the pilot to take a nap or go in the back and party with the flight attendants. Autopilot is the correct term. I'm tired of always having to cater to the lowest common denominator.
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  The problem is that most consumers, like parent poster, do not really understand what pilots do, or that an autopilot simply holds the course steady (in the simplest form, at least). Combine ignorance with misguided self-righteousness, and we get...this mess.
  - phire 10y ago
    Not to mention, plane autopilots don't have to worry about traffic.
    - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
      The pilots still do, though.
- notyourwork 10y ago
  Because your industry has coined a term to mean something different from the literal meaning doesn't assert its the proper use the term. Auto implies automatically, it doesn't give any average consumer the indication that there needs to be manual involvement. I get it that pilots monitor stuff when planes are on auto pilot. That doesn't mean its correct for other industries.
- detaro 10y ago
  Curious, what is "take control at a moments notice" in seconds? From what I've read about aviation, situations where really fast, let's say <2 seconds, reaction to an unusual situation is necessary don't seem very common compared to car traffic? (Excluding starts and landings, even if a plane can do those on autopilot the pilots certainly are going to be fully attentive) It seems like an airliner flying at altitude has quite large safety margins compared to a car on a highway.

Trufa 10y ago

I wonder how much it has to do with the autopilot death: https://www.tesla.com/blog/tragic-loss https://www.tesla.com/blog/tragic-loss EDIT: no idea why the downvotes, I'm all for self driving cars, but pretty obviously they could be scared of PR issues and lawsuits.

will_hughes 10y ago
Almost certainly very little. They've been clearly working on AP 2.0 for a long time - this sort of hardware upgrade isn't something you roll out in a few weeks. This capability was even pretty strongly hinted at for the Model 3.
- tree_of_item 10y ago
  Improving the self-driving capabilities has "almost certainly very little" to do with the high profile death caused by the use of the self-driving capabilities? Come on.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    Tesla doesn't have time machines.

Shivetya 10y ago

this really comes off as "look over there" move to distract from the recent negative press as various government bodies take Tesla to task for not only the lack of performance with the current system but also its ridiculous name. Sorry, but I seriously doubt they will have sufficient hardware installed to take it to level 4 or 5. It might be a stretch to get to 3 with anything they can deploy today simply because no one has demonstrated a real world working solution for these tiers. Oh you might be able to track demo one or controlled loop it.

belltaco 10y ago
>this really comes off as "look over there" move to distract from the recent negative press as various government bodies take Tesla to task for not only the lack of performance with the current system but also its ridiculous name. So you mean there is no advanced hardware in the new cars?

rplnt 10y ago

> But unlike traditional early adopters, who take a trade-off (on price, or features, or polish) for being first Actually, in regards to Tesla, they always stated (and were very open about it) that early-adopters pay premium to support research/growth/etc. First with Roadster, now with S (not sure about X). It can be expected that the same extra features (same hardware) on model will cost less. So the trade-off here is just that, being "first".

forgetsusername 10y ago

>The nay-saying around Tesla is immense You have to be kidding. The Tesla cheer-leading is immense. This is a competitive space within which Tesla might be a leader, but you make it sound as if everyone else around them is stagnant. The majors are building this stuff, the large tech companies are building this stuff, and even big component providers are building this stuff. This is obvious if you look outside of the SV echo chamber.