2 ms·

> Tesla is the only participant that has a true path to self driving technology. You can’t make a statement without qualifying this. You attack legacy automake

> Tesla is the only participant that has a true path to self driving technology. You can’t make a statement without qualifying this. You attack legacy automakers but then go on to discuss Waymo. I would bet money you’re long TSLA. You talk about OTA updates as if that’s some huge technological moat? Hell, cars have been receiving very frequent software updates for over a decade.

bko 6y ago
> You attack legacy automakers but then go on to discuss Waymo Paragraphs 1-3 discuss legacy automakers. Only paragraph 4 references Waymo. > You talk about OTA updates as if that’s some huge technological moat? Of course they're not a technological moat. These auto makers are hundreds of thousands of employees. They're likely an organizational nightmare and stuck to the way things have been done. The fact that they don't have over the air updates or have to iterate on an annual cadence is evidence of something deeply flawed in their organizational structure. And I'm not confident that they can overcome it.
Infinitesimus 6y ago
> You talk about OTA updates as if that’s some huge technological moat? Hell, cars have been receiving very frequent software updates for over a decade. I think OTAs are a moat but highlight an important incentive difference. Traditional automakers want to sell you next year's model of the car. Tesla seems like they want your car to get better over time. Perhaps it is organizational cruft or the dealer network but consider even the simple case of adaptive cruise control systems in cars today that have radar + cameras. Most of those systems bounce between lanes and can't even stay centered well. This is something that could be a software fix but you'll have to wait for the next N models when they redesign the car to see it. Infotainment systems are another example - they are almost universally crappy and it is rare to get updates OTA. Shipping a car with capable hardware and slowly improving software capability imo is a smarter long-term approach. Time will tell though.

bko 6y ago

> You attack legacy automakers but then go on to discuss Waymo Paragraphs 1-3 discuss legacy automakers. Only paragraph 4 references Waymo. > You talk about OTA updates as if that’s some huge technological moat? Of course they're not a technological moat. These auto makers are hundreds of thousands of employees. They're likely an organizational nightmare and stuck to the way things have been done. The fact that they don't have over the air updates or have to iterate on an annual cadence is evidence of something deeply flawed in their organizational structure. And I'm not confident that they can overcome it.

Infinitesimus 6y ago

> You talk about OTA updates as if that’s some huge technological moat? Hell, cars have been receiving very frequent software updates for over a decade. I think OTAs are a moat but highlight an important incentive difference. Traditional automakers want to sell you next year's model of the car. Tesla seems like they want your car to get better over time. Perhaps it is organizational cruft or the dealer network but consider even the simple case of adaptive cruise control systems in cars today that have radar + cameras. Most of those systems bounce between lanes and can't even stay centered well. This is something that could be a software fix but you'll have to wait for the next N models when they redesign the car to see it. Infotainment systems are another example - they are almost universally crappy and it is rare to get updates OTA. Shipping a car with capable hardware and slowly improving software capability imo is a smarter long-term approach. Time will tell though.