3 ms·

True, but that's not the marketing they want. And the market segment that buys these things are very sensitive to this mythical image. "True" trucks is a sellin

by Elv13 8y ago

True, but that's not the marketing they want. And the market segment that buys these things are very sensitive to this mythical image. "True" trucks is a selling point, not a liability for that crowd. When they sell a pickup to someone who doesn't need one (>85% of the sales), they sell the myth and the social status. So, as my last paragraph pointed out, they will but "not self driving" as a "status symbol" and they will sell like hotcakes. Plus, the advantages of self driving for cars you own, considering the current price premium, wont be worth it for many, many years. For cars you /rent/ fine, they will "work" 24/7, but spending 15k-25k on LiDAR and sensors and data and engineers and (carmaker) insurances isn't worth it yet for a car that spends 98% of it's useful life parked.

michaelmrose 8y ago
25k worth of lidar makes it worthless for most market segments I think. Lacking self driving features will ensure that the insurance costs 3 times as much ultimately. It will eventually be cheaper to have self driving capability than pay premiums.
- jstanley 8y ago
  Do you expect accident rates among manually-driven cars to substantially increase? If not, why do you expect insurance premiums to substantially increase?
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    I expect accident rates to fall due to safety features but ultimately expect almost everyone to stop driving their car and pay relative to now much less for insurance. As the safety of the majority rests largely on getting the remaining idiots off the road i expect them to pay punitive insurance rates not dissimilar to sin taxes discouraging behaviors that are disadvantageous to society. Im short a small group of people requires a greater cost to profitably insure plus sin taxes for insisting on endangering your fellow citizens vs falling rates for everyone else.
- Elv13 8y ago
  > pay premiums. When you buy the self driving car, the manufacturer has to put a lifetime insurance on the car. It's baked in the retail price unless they decide to rent you the right to use your own car (that wont be good press). So actually, you pay more for the insurance in the hidden fees. In that imaginary 25k there is: * The hardware $$ * The engineering (past, present, lifetime codebase maintenance) $$ * Recalls because the LiDAR turn out of miss important things $$$ * Maintaining the mapping data forever $$$ * The forever/lifetime insurance if the car kill someone $$$$$$ * That thing called profit margins $ (or no $ at all) * Buyback cost (because they really can't support it forever) $$ That is, of course, if they do the "right thing" and contractually agree never to choose to turn your car into a very large brick (agreed buyback if they decide to retire the tech). This assume a real self driving car, no steering or fallback. Selling high tech full self driving cars seems like madness. Lane tracking and "cheap" camera tricks with "the driver has to be alert all the time, if he dies then go blame his corpse" are the only way to turn a profit on driving assistance techs.

by Elv13 8y ago

michaelmrose 8y ago

25k worth of lidar makes it worthless for most market segments I think. Lacking self driving features will ensure that the insurance costs 3 times as much ultimately. It will eventually be cheaper to have self driving capability than pay premiums.

jstanley 8y ago
Do you expect accident rates among manually-driven cars to substantially increase? If not, why do you expect insurance premiums to substantially increase?
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  I expect accident rates to fall due to safety features but ultimately expect almost everyone to stop driving their car and pay relative to now much less for insurance. As the safety of the majority rests largely on getting the remaining idiots off the road i expect them to pay punitive insurance rates not dissimilar to sin taxes discouraging behaviors that are disadvantageous to society. Im short a small group of people requires a greater cost to profitably insure plus sin taxes for insisting on endangering your fellow citizens vs falling rates for everyone else.
Elv13 8y ago
> pay premiums. When you buy the self driving car, the manufacturer has to put a lifetime insurance on the car. It's baked in the retail price unless they decide to rent you the right to use your own car (that wont be good press). So actually, you pay more for the insurance in the hidden fees. In that imaginary 25k there is: * The hardware $$ * The engineering (past, present, lifetime codebase maintenance) $$ * Recalls because the LiDAR turn out of miss important things $$$ * Maintaining the mapping data forever $$$ * The forever/lifetime insurance if the car kill someone $$$$$$ * That thing called profit margins $ (or no $ at all) * Buyback cost (because they really can't support it forever) $$ That is, of course, if they do the "right thing" and contractually agree never to choose to turn your car into a very large brick (agreed buyback if they decide to retire the tech). This assume a real self driving car, no steering or fallback. Selling high tech full self driving cars seems like madness. Lane tracking and "cheap" camera tricks with "the driver has to be alert all the time, if he dies then go blame his corpse" are the only way to turn a profit on driving assistance techs.