7 ms·

No you are not! HN seems to think the same way, and it is one of the worst cases of rose colored glasses I have ever witnessed. What about the cost? Who is goin

No you are not! HN seems to think the same way, and it is one of the worst cases of rose colored glasses I have ever witnessed. What about the cost? Who is going to be able to afford this? Also, what about people that rely on a vehicle for work? Retrofit $75K work trucks with another $75K in self driving gizmos? Find me a practical plumber, carpenter, A/C, lock smith, self-employed guy/gal that will sign up for that! Edit to add... Have the crazy expensive and downright hostile self-driving John Deere tractors eliminated farming deaths?

mattpavelle 10y ago
I'm curious - where did you come up with your $75k cost for retrofitting existing vehicles?
- monkmartinez 10y ago
  Out of thin air. Why would it be cheaper? If you made the product, would you try to maximize profit or do it for SAFETY and the good of society?
  - narrowrail 10y ago
    You seem to be arguing against technological progress in order to protect people. Most of us 'self-driving car' skeptics are just pointing out that the timelines presented in much of the press are wildly optimistic.
  - mattpavelle 10y ago
    Got it. I admittedly know nothing about what the pricing will be here - and comparing to Tesla may be apples to oranges, but per The Verge (https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/20/13346512/tesla-self-driving-autonomous-enhanced-autopilot-cost https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/20/13346512/tesla-self-driv...) the hardware for a Tesla is under $10k. Additionally maximizing profit (and this may read as condescending but I do not intend for it to be so) does not necessarily mean maximizing price. Obviously if you are not selling at a loss you can potentially make more money with a cheaper price point on volume. I do agree, however, that first adopters will likely pay a premium. Eventually I imagine insurance companies will help subsidize these things too - if the price does not become trivial.
gfodor 10y ago
Serious question: why is cost such a common argument made here against emerging tech? This argument seems to come up every time some new expensive technology is transitioning closer to consumers' hands, and the current price, which is obviously expected to go down at scale as it does for nearly all widely useful technology, is used as evidence nobody will be able to afford it. I've seen this argument made for technology that is still in the R&D phase, for goodness sake! Obviously, the assumption of all those involved is that the price will plummet as the technology becomes more adopted, so the goal is to get to a price point where the earliest adopters will be willing to pay. For self driving cars, talking about plumbers not buying this at the current price point is a bizarre argument.
- monkmartinez 10y ago
  Serious counter question; Why is nobody talking about cost? Cars are very expensive... is self-driving tech going to increase or decrease the cost of a vehicle? Do people generally want more freedom or less freedom choice? Why does everyone assume the cost will decrease with scale? How many people can afford a Tesla right now? Let alone a fully autonomous car? If flying were more affordable and less strict more people would own their own plane. It isn't and they don't. I see self-driving cars a lot like airplanes and John Deere tractors. That is, expensive proprietary tech that you have no control over. No thank you. Why does everyone assume that most people want to share a vehicle?
  - stdgy 10y ago
    We've already seen price drops for the most expensive self-driving components. LIDARs, GPUs and storage have already fallen in cost, and the products aren't even on the market yet. There is every reason to believe these price drops will continue as more resources are put into scaling production and more companies enter the game of component design and production.
    - monkmartinez 10y ago
      > There is every reason to believe these price drops will continue as more resources are put into scaling production and more companies enter the game of component design and production. Why? We literally never see that with top shelf products. This isn't an arduino solder job. This is going to be an integrated software and hardware package that will rival an aircraft autopilot/navigation. Please check you facts on the cost of these things. I don't want walmart brand, everday low price components on my self-driving vehicle. I want top of the line if my life is in the balance.
petters 10y ago
In my opinion, the primary use case of self-diving cars aren't personal ownership. Society as a whole wastes a lot of resources when every household has a car that stands still 95% of the time. With self-driving cars, we can plausibly improve that.
- notahacker 10y ago
  We could significantly improve it now with more Zipcar type apps (at least in cities where people live close together) but the most people want guaranteed access to a vehicle at 8am and 5:30pm weekday situation isn't easily solved just by making them mobile when not in operation. Nor - at least in the short term - is people's tendency to use cars, and especially cars with no previous owners, as a status symbol (many people could save more of their income not buying new models and premium marques than allowing it to be used by someone else at weekends and some evenings, but they choose the car that takes up more of their disposable income all the same)
  - onwchristian 10y ago
    Agreed. I also think another big reason for personal car ownership is having kids. With the increasing ages/weights recommended and/or required by law for car seats, that can be a hassle if trying to use a ride sharing service. It increases difficulty with increased number of kids at varying ages. For those without kids, while it's not crazy difficult to install a car seat, it can still take upwards of 5-15 minutes (depending on the style of seat). This amount of time lost can be a big hindrance. Yes, I know that Uber has started to tackle this problem, but as far as I know it only provides 1 car seat, and a car equipped this way may not always be nearby. Maybe this will be a completely solved problem soon, which would be great!
    - sxates 10y ago
      Lots of people are single. Lots of people's kids are grown. Lots of people could own one car for the kids stuff and car-share the second vehicle as needed. Even with private ownership for cases like children, the total number of cars on the road could decrease considerably.
yellow_viper 10y ago
People won't buy self-driving cars (well some will, but not the majority). These cars will be running 24/7 in a ride-sharing service.
- doczoidberg 10y ago
  Sure people will buy self-driving cars. People want to own things for themself. If a car has a higher value with this feature even more people want to have a car. Consumers don't think economically.
  - jsymolon 10y ago
    People want the convenience of having access to transportation 24/7 no matter where they are and when. Ever call a taxi (not in city) ? 30+ minutes. Also, tragedy of the commons ... who was the last one to use the car has to pay for clean up. How to accomplish that ? ... "No the other guy did it ..."
    - ghaff 10y ago
      I'm skeptical about the "no one will own" meme. That said, there's no reason cleaning would be any more of an issue than it is with Zipcar today. If you go to pickup a car and it needs cleaning, you refuse it and report the problem.
      - monkmartinez 10y ago
        Then what? What if you have something pressing to get to? All these rideshare arguments fall flat on their face when it is anything other than "going out" without much of a timeline.
        Noos 10y ago
        yeah, the idea that this could cause you to be late for work seems to escape people.
jayess 10y ago
That's why society needs rich people. They buy emerging tech first, then the tech drops in price as initial capital costs are recouped, manufacturing costs come down, and the tech improves. Remember when LCD screens came out and very few people could afford them? We were complaining then too about how could people possibly afford this and who will buy it??!
ForHackernews 10y ago
> Retrofit $75K work trucks with another $75K in self driving gizmos? Absolutely they will. That's [at least] $60K worth of driver's salary/benefits costs you've just eliminated. $75K is cheap to eliminate the cost of a human employee.
- monkmartinez 10y ago
  I don't know where to start with this. The whole point of the truck is to get the workers! to the site. Said vehicle is also there to support the workers during the day with storage for tools and materials. SO no, the damn truck isn't going to replace a plumber or a/c tech. wow.
  - ForHackernews 10y ago
    You said: "Also, what about people that rely on a vehicle for work?" Most people who rely on a vehicle for work are local or long-haul trucking drivers, not local trade workers. The important work a plumber or a/c tech performs is separate from the driving. You're right, those people probably won't move to automated vehicles immediately. But theoretically, in the future where they could have an automated van meet them at the job site with their tools? And return the tools to a secure storage facility afterwards? I don't see why they wouldn't go for that.
sxates 10y ago
Your arguments make no sense. 1. A Tesla with full self-driving hardware can be had today for ~$75k. And the model 3 will cut that in half. And the model after that will be even less. Millions of people can afford this. 2. Who said anything about retrofitting old cars? As far as I know, nobody is planning to do this. 3. This isn't a requirement, and it won't happen all at once. The plumber with an old F150 will continue to drive as he always has until the cost/benefit makes sense for him to upgrade. 4. Self driving tractors move at 3mph, and I don't think farm-field traffic fatalities are the big driver behind automated farming. Different use case.

mattpavelle 10y ago

I'm curious - where did you come up with your $75k cost for retrofitting existing vehicles?

monkmartinez 10y ago
Out of thin air. Why would it be cheaper? If you made the product, would you try to maximize profit or do it for SAFETY and the good of society?
- narrowrail 10y ago
  You seem to be arguing against technological progress in order to protect people. Most of us 'self-driving car' skeptics are just pointing out that the timelines presented in much of the press are wildly optimistic.
- mattpavelle 10y ago
  Got it. I admittedly know nothing about what the pricing will be here - and comparing to Tesla may be apples to oranges, but per The Verge (https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/20/13346512/tesla-self-driving-autonomous-enhanced-autopilot-cost https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/20/13346512/tesla-self-driv...) the hardware for a Tesla is under $10k. Additionally maximizing profit (and this may read as condescending but I do not intend for it to be so) does not necessarily mean maximizing price. Obviously if you are not selling at a loss you can potentially make more money with a cheaper price point on volume. I do agree, however, that first adopters will likely pay a premium. Eventually I imagine insurance companies will help subsidize these things too - if the price does not become trivial.

gfodor 10y ago

Serious question: why is cost such a common argument made here against emerging tech? This argument seems to come up every time some new expensive technology is transitioning closer to consumers' hands, and the current price, which is obviously expected to go down at scale as it does for nearly all widely useful technology, is used as evidence nobody will be able to afford it. I've seen this argument made for technology that is still in the R&D phase, for goodness sake! Obviously, the assumption of all those involved is that the price will plummet as the technology becomes more adopted, so the goal is to get to a price point where the earliest adopters will be willing to pay. For self driving cars, talking about plumbers not buying this at the current price point is a bizarre argument.

monkmartinez 10y ago
Serious counter question; Why is nobody talking about cost? Cars are very expensive... is self-driving tech going to increase or decrease the cost of a vehicle? Do people generally want more freedom or less freedom choice? Why does everyone assume the cost will decrease with scale? How many people can afford a Tesla right now? Let alone a fully autonomous car? If flying were more affordable and less strict more people would own their own plane. It isn't and they don't. I see self-driving cars a lot like airplanes and John Deere tractors. That is, expensive proprietary tech that you have no control over. No thank you. Why does everyone assume that most people want to share a vehicle?
- stdgy 10y ago
  We've already seen price drops for the most expensive self-driving components. LIDARs, GPUs and storage have already fallen in cost, and the products aren't even on the market yet. There is every reason to believe these price drops will continue as more resources are put into scaling production and more companies enter the game of component design and production.
  - monkmartinez 10y ago
    > There is every reason to believe these price drops will continue as more resources are put into scaling production and more companies enter the game of component design and production. Why? We literally never see that with top shelf products. This isn't an arduino solder job. This is going to be an integrated software and hardware package that will rival an aircraft autopilot/navigation. Please check you facts on the cost of these things. I don't want walmart brand, everday low price components on my self-driving vehicle. I want top of the line if my life is in the balance.

petters 10y ago

In my opinion, the primary use case of self-diving cars aren't personal ownership. Society as a whole wastes a lot of resources when every household has a car that stands still 95% of the time. With self-driving cars, we can plausibly improve that.

notahacker 10y ago
We could significantly improve it now with more Zipcar type apps (at least in cities where people live close together) but the most people want guaranteed access to a vehicle at 8am and 5:30pm weekday situation isn't easily solved just by making them mobile when not in operation. Nor - at least in the short term - is people's tendency to use cars, and especially cars with no previous owners, as a status symbol (many people could save more of their income not buying new models and premium marques than allowing it to be used by someone else at weekends and some evenings, but they choose the car that takes up more of their disposable income all the same)
- onwchristian 10y ago
  Agreed. I also think another big reason for personal car ownership is having kids. With the increasing ages/weights recommended and/or required by law for car seats, that can be a hassle if trying to use a ride sharing service. It increases difficulty with increased number of kids at varying ages. For those without kids, while it's not crazy difficult to install a car seat, it can still take upwards of 5-15 minutes (depending on the style of seat). This amount of time lost can be a big hindrance. Yes, I know that Uber has started to tackle this problem, but as far as I know it only provides 1 car seat, and a car equipped this way may not always be nearby. Maybe this will be a completely solved problem soon, which would be great!
  - sxates 10y ago
    Lots of people are single. Lots of people's kids are grown. Lots of people could own one car for the kids stuff and car-share the second vehicle as needed. Even with private ownership for cases like children, the total number of cars on the road could decrease considerably.

yellow_viper 10y ago

People won't buy self-driving cars (well some will, but not the majority). These cars will be running 24/7 in a ride-sharing service.

doczoidberg 10y ago
Sure people will buy self-driving cars. People want to own things for themself. If a car has a higher value with this feature even more people want to have a car. Consumers don't think economically.
- jsymolon 10y ago
  People want the convenience of having access to transportation 24/7 no matter where they are and when. Ever call a taxi (not in city) ? 30+ minutes. Also, tragedy of the commons ... who was the last one to use the car has to pay for clean up. How to accomplish that ? ... "No the other guy did it ..."
  - ghaff 10y ago
    I'm skeptical about the "no one will own" meme. That said, there's no reason cleaning would be any more of an issue than it is with Zipcar today. If you go to pickup a car and it needs cleaning, you refuse it and report the problem.
    - monkmartinez 10y ago
      Then what? What if you have something pressing to get to? All these rideshare arguments fall flat on their face when it is anything other than "going out" without much of a timeline.
      - Noos 10y ago
        yeah, the idea that this could cause you to be late for work seems to escape people.

jayess 10y ago

That's why society needs rich people. They buy emerging tech first, then the tech drops in price as initial capital costs are recouped, manufacturing costs come down, and the tech improves. Remember when LCD screens came out and very few people could afford them? We were complaining then too about how could people possibly afford this and who will buy it??!

ForHackernews 10y ago

> Retrofit $75K work trucks with another $75K in self driving gizmos? Absolutely they will. That's [at least] $60K worth of driver's salary/benefits costs you've just eliminated. $75K is cheap to eliminate the cost of a human employee.

monkmartinez 10y ago
I don't know where to start with this. The whole point of the truck is to get the workers! to the site. Said vehicle is also there to support the workers during the day with storage for tools and materials. SO no, the damn truck isn't going to replace a plumber or a/c tech. wow.
- ForHackernews 10y ago
  You said: "Also, what about people that rely on a vehicle for work?" Most people who rely on a vehicle for work are local or long-haul trucking drivers, not local trade workers. The important work a plumber or a/c tech performs is separate from the driving. You're right, those people probably won't move to automated vehicles immediately. But theoretically, in the future where they could have an automated van meet them at the job site with their tools? And return the tools to a secure storage facility afterwards? I don't see why they wouldn't go for that.

sxates 10y ago

Your arguments make no sense. 1. A Tesla with full self-driving hardware can be had today for ~$75k. And the model 3 will cut that in half. And the model after that will be even less. Millions of people can afford this. 2. Who said anything about retrofitting old cars? As far as I know, nobody is planning to do this. 3. This isn't a requirement, and it won't happen all at once. The plumber with an old F150 will continue to drive as he always has until the cost/benefit makes sense for him to upgrade. 4. Self driving tractors move at 3mph, and I don't think farm-field traffic fatalities are the big driver behind automated farming. Different use case.