7 ms·

If Google can't do it with its massive resources and sensors don't ever expect a Tesla to perform better than this. It's time for Elon to pay the piper and ref

If Google can't do it with its massive resources and sensors don't ever expect a Tesla to perform better than this. It's time for Elon to pay the piper and refund all users who were hoodwinked into purchasing FSD. Especially people who's cars are nearing end of life.

supperburg 5y ago
Actually FSD works better than waymo. It hasn’t fulfilled promises of robot taxis but it’s the best and most advanced self driving system in the world, not to mention the most widely deployed, and so accusations of blatant dishonesty don’t really hold water. https://youtu.be/SuZYACWhYSI https://youtu.be/SuZYACWhYSI
ffggvv 5y ago
if they don’t have fsd then they are just an electric car company. if they are just a car company their stock should be at 50 dollars right now. hence why he’d never admit it and instead will double down with his robot that will never materialize
- panick21 5y ago
  Nonsense. Go look at some of the models by different analyst. Even if you include no software revenue at all, you can justify a much higher stock price then you suggest. Some never include anything for FSD in the first place. And even if they don't reach FSD, they could still generate a lot of software revenue from Autopilot features. And beyond that Tesla still does more then final assembly of EV and selling them to dealerships.
- burnished 5y ago
  Their current assist packages are already incredible even though they come short of full self driving. EDIT: In case my point isn't clear, if your position is predicated on the idea that anything less than full self driving is worthless garbage, you should know that is a pretty hot take. If you are instead having an emotional reaction and feel deceived I don't know what to tell you, you might have a very valid point but that doesn't appear to figure into evaluating whether a stock is under or over priced.
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
As I understand it, they just started selling the "fsd capable" stuff a few years ago. Are any of those cars nearing end of life? That would be an even greater cause for concern IMO.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  Its not "end of life" vehicles that should be concerned, but instead "end of lease" vehicles. People who bought a 3-year or 5-year lease from 2016 with the $5k full-self driving package probably should feel pissed for wasting money.
  - mostdataisnice 5y ago
    Also, I don't think we actually know what the end-of-life of Tesla vehicles is. They've not been mass produced for long enough.
    - scrose 5y ago
      I'm guessing end-of-life for a Tesla is whenever they decide they will not replace your battery.
  - jsight 5y ago
    To be fair, a lot of people right now would willingly pay $5k for the features that are available now, especially if they spend a lot of time on long highway trips.
    - chipotle_coyote 5y ago
      The price keeps going up, though: if you bought it right now, it wouldn't be $5K, it'd be $10K. It's possible Tesla's driver assistance systems are better than anything else on the market in their current incarnation, but that's getting to be a pretty big ask.
- burnished 5y ago
  I'd be surprised, I've heard (and can not immediately substantiate) that they are generally very reliable vehicles. I guess part of it is that they just don't have as many mechanical points of failure.
sandworm101 5y ago
>> who were hoodwinked into purchasing FSD. Fools and their money. Like most every expensive car, Teslas are luxury vehicles and fashion statements. People buy them because they are cool. That product was delivered. As for future features, nobody should believe Telsa's advertising any more than we do Microsoft's advertising about how the next version of Windows will solve all our computing problems. The hamburger never looks as good as it does in the commercial. Demanding such things post-purchase, after the test drive demonstrates the deficiencies of the real product, is simply buyers remorse.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- argc 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure the USA has consumer protection laws against deceptive advertising, so a company can't just say whatever they want when selling a product in order to convince someone to buy it. Maybe Tesla protected themselves with clauses in the purchase contracts that absolves them from having to pay the purchaser back in the event of their own failure to deliver, but I think a FSD purchaser might have a case just based on Elon's verbal promises that have failed to come true over and over again.
- nullc 5y ago
  I believe the person you're responding to was referring to specifically to the add-on pre-order for full self driving, not the entire car.
  - sandworm101 5y ago
    As was I. Consumers had an opportunity to test drive the wanted feature and find it lacking, or read reviews of the same. Tesla hid nothing. If customers want to spend money on hope for the future then that is their right. They paid for hope and that is what they got.
    - somebehemoth 5y ago
Wheaties466 5y ago
while it is disappointing that the true FSD may never materialize on cars that paid for it nearing EOL. The FSD beta 9 looks pretty impressive and from some videos i've seen have made some very difficult driving decisions.
minhazm 5y ago
Google took a completely different approach and relies heavily on pre-mapped environments. Tesla has several orders of magnitude more vehicles, more data, and a more diverse set of data given their cars are in many different countries. It's not implausible to think that Tesla could arrive at FSD faster than Google.
- alphabetting 5y ago
  I'd contend Waymo has more data but data isn't really the hurdle. It's AI/ML and simulation needed to get the final 1% right. Good thread on ground Tesla would need to make up to catch AV leaders here. https://twitter.com/Christiano92/status/1428671634131628033 https://twitter.com/Christiano92/status/1428671634131628033
  - minhazm 5y ago
    I can't see how you can content Waymo has more data, they had around 600 cars on the road last year. Sure they have some more sensors but Waymo only operates in select cities and select routes, the diversity of the data is very limited. They won't have seen scenario's like a snow storm for example since they've only been testing in CA and AZ. Meanwhile Tesla has a robust framework for collecting clips of specific scenario's as needed by shipping a small model to roughly match the scenario. Simulation is important for sure, and Tesla even talked about that as much. But you can only simulate the scenario's that you've thought of, it can't replace real world data, which again Tesla has several orders of magnitude more of than Waymo. As for the comments about Dojo I think they're unfounded. Tesla has already proven that they can create their own custom chip and have shipped it to hundreds of thousands of cars. I don't see any reason to think they can't get the system running in the next year or so. But even if they can't do that in time they still have NVIDIA to fall back on. Elon even said in the talk that maybe it might not work out, and if that's the case they can always buy a solution.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  Tesla relies on geographic whitelists to suppress problematic signals from their radar. Not what I'd want from an FSD machine.
leesec 5y ago
"If Google can't do it with its massive resources and sensors don't ever expect a Tesla to perform better than this." 10 years ago this might have read: "If General Motors can't do it with its massive resources and sensors don't ever expect a Tesla to perform better than this."
- ancientworldnow 5y ago
  Of course this ignores that super cruise is considered safer and better on the same tasks that it's allowed to do as Tesla FSD by third party analysts. The difference is GM is less willing to allow it to be enabled for dangerous beta driving unlike Tesla which clearly doesn't care about consistency or safety.
  - leesec 5y ago
    I meant 10 years ago people might have assumed if GM can't make the electric car work than Tesla can't either, and yet here we are.
    - samfisher83 5y ago
      The ev1 was a pretty good car for it's time. It had a lot of fans. Battery tech got better. An electric car is theoretically much simpler than an ice car.
  - InTheArena 5y ago
    And when you look into thoose reports - the only reason they rank Super Cruise higher is because it can only be used on a very limited number of roads, and uses a camera to detect awareness. FSD uses a camera, and works on all roads - and is dramatically better then supercruise. source - test drove both, bought the tesla because of how impressed I was with supercruise.
    - leesec 5y ago
      Don't know why you're downvoted this is 100% accurate.
blueblisters 5y ago
Google is struggling to get hardware integrated with their self driving solution. Retrofitting cars with self-driving sensors is not easy, and Google does not have the scale yet to convince OEM partners to retool assembly lines for the Waymo fleet.
- ra7 5y ago
  Source for them struggling? All the hardware upfitting is done by Magna, one of the biggest names in auto manufacturing, who are also a Waymo investor. There’s a reason they chose the Jaguar I-Pace which is also manufactured by Magna.
ElFitz 5y ago
While I do get your point and have my own doubts, I fail to see how this is a fair argument: > If Google can't do it with its massive resources The companies behind the SLS had and have an enormous amount of resources. Yet, they have failed to even launch it. Arianespace has a huge amount of resources and experience too. Yet, when asked, they said landing a rocket couldn’t be done. Then, back-pedalling, that it was pointless and would never make any economic sense. Yet, SpaceX has developed three generations of rockets (Falcon 1, 9 and heavy), builds them, launches them, iterates on them, lands them, reuses them, and is now working on a fourth rocket (SuperHeavy). They have also created 4 different rocket engines and are working on two others. Honestly, where are Boeing and Arianespace? Another example? Microsoft, their incredible wealth of resources and superior position falling flat on their face with smartphones. Funnily enough, Google getting the greatest share of the global smartphone OS market, despite having had no real experience with operating systems, consumer hardware, or licensing operating systems before. Kodak, which had some of the first patent on digital camera sensors, going pretty much extinct despite their massive resources and market position. Xerox, failing to ever enter the personal computer market despite designing what everyone else would copy for the next 10 or 20 years. Sure, the amounts of resources and experience seem to help, a lot, but it also certainly doesn’t seem to help reliably predict any outcome.
- diegocg 5y ago
  The problem with your comparison is that the company that is "the spacex of FSD" is Waymo. And even them can not get FSD right.
  - dnautics 5y ago
    Isn't comma.ai the SpaceX of fsd?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - magicalist 5y ago
      > Isn't comma.ai the SpaceX of fsd? Astra, maybe? Difficult analogy because the barrier to entry's a lot lower for car mods vs orbital rocketry kits :)
tibbydudeza 5y ago
FSD v2 hw with DOJO - we definitely got it right this time.

supperburg 5y ago

Actually FSD works better than waymo. It hasn’t fulfilled promises of robot taxis but it’s the best and most advanced self driving system in the world, not to mention the most widely deployed, and so accusations of blatant dishonesty don’t really hold water. https://youtu.be/SuZYACWhYSI https://youtu.be/SuZYACWhYSI

ffggvv 5y ago

if they don’t have fsd then they are just an electric car company. if they are just a car company their stock should be at 50 dollars right now. hence why he’d never admit it and instead will double down with his robot that will never materialize

panick21 5y ago
Nonsense. Go look at some of the models by different analyst. Even if you include no software revenue at all, you can justify a much higher stock price then you suggest. Some never include anything for FSD in the first place. And even if they don't reach FSD, they could still generate a lot of software revenue from Autopilot features. And beyond that Tesla still does more then final assembly of EV and selling them to dealerships.
burnished 5y ago
Their current assist packages are already incredible even though they come short of full self driving. EDIT: In case my point isn't clear, if your position is predicated on the idea that anything less than full self driving is worthless garbage, you should know that is a pretty hot take. If you are instead having an emotional reaction and feel deceived I don't know what to tell you, you might have a very valid point but that doesn't appear to figure into evaluating whether a stock is under or over priced.

6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago

As I understand it, they just started selling the "fsd capable" stuff a few years ago. Are any of those cars nearing end of life? That would be an even greater cause for concern IMO.

dragontamer 5y ago
Its not "end of life" vehicles that should be concerned, but instead "end of lease" vehicles. People who bought a 3-year or 5-year lease from 2016 with the $5k full-self driving package probably should feel pissed for wasting money.
- mostdataisnice 5y ago
  Also, I don't think we actually know what the end-of-life of Tesla vehicles is. They've not been mass produced for long enough.
  - scrose 5y ago
    I'm guessing end-of-life for a Tesla is whenever they decide they will not replace your battery.
- jsight 5y ago
  To be fair, a lot of people right now would willingly pay $5k for the features that are available now, especially if they spend a lot of time on long highway trips.
  - chipotle_coyote 5y ago
    The price keeps going up, though: if you bought it right now, it wouldn't be $5K, it'd be $10K. It's possible Tesla's driver assistance systems are better than anything else on the market in their current incarnation, but that's getting to be a pretty big ask.
burnished 5y ago
I'd be surprised, I've heard (and can not immediately substantiate) that they are generally very reliable vehicles. I guess part of it is that they just don't have as many mechanical points of failure.

sandworm101 5y ago

>> who were hoodwinked into purchasing FSD. Fools and their money. Like most every expensive car, Teslas are luxury vehicles and fashion statements. People buy them because they are cool. That product was delivered. As for future features, nobody should believe Telsa's advertising any more than we do Microsoft's advertising about how the next version of Windows will solve all our computing problems. The hamburger never looks as good as it does in the commercial. Demanding such things post-purchase, after the test drive demonstrates the deficiencies of the real product, is simply buyers remorse.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
argc 5y ago
I'm pretty sure the USA has consumer protection laws against deceptive advertising, so a company can't just say whatever they want when selling a product in order to convince someone to buy it. Maybe Tesla protected themselves with clauses in the purchase contracts that absolves them from having to pay the purchaser back in the event of their own failure to deliver, but I think a FSD purchaser might have a case just based on Elon's verbal promises that have failed to come true over and over again.
nullc 5y ago
I believe the person you're responding to was referring to specifically to the add-on pre-order for full self driving, not the entire car.
- sandworm101 5y ago
  As was I. Consumers had an opportunity to test drive the wanted feature and find it lacking, or read reviews of the same. Tesla hid nothing. If customers want to spend money on hope for the future then that is their right. They paid for hope and that is what they got.
  - somebehemoth 5y ago

Wheaties466 5y ago

while it is disappointing that the true FSD may never materialize on cars that paid for it nearing EOL. The FSD beta 9 looks pretty impressive and from some videos i've seen have made some very difficult driving decisions.

minhazm 5y ago

Google took a completely different approach and relies heavily on pre-mapped environments. Tesla has several orders of magnitude more vehicles, more data, and a more diverse set of data given their cars are in many different countries. It's not implausible to think that Tesla could arrive at FSD faster than Google.

alphabetting 5y ago
I'd contend Waymo has more data but data isn't really the hurdle. It's AI/ML and simulation needed to get the final 1% right. Good thread on ground Tesla would need to make up to catch AV leaders here. https://twitter.com/Christiano92/status/1428671634131628033 https://twitter.com/Christiano92/status/1428671634131628033
- minhazm 5y ago
  I can't see how you can content Waymo has more data, they had around 600 cars on the road last year. Sure they have some more sensors but Waymo only operates in select cities and select routes, the diversity of the data is very limited. They won't have seen scenario's like a snow storm for example since they've only been testing in CA and AZ. Meanwhile Tesla has a robust framework for collecting clips of specific scenario's as needed by shipping a small model to roughly match the scenario. Simulation is important for sure, and Tesla even talked about that as much. But you can only simulate the scenario's that you've thought of, it can't replace real world data, which again Tesla has several orders of magnitude more of than Waymo. As for the comments about Dojo I think they're unfounded. Tesla has already proven that they can create their own custom chip and have shipped it to hundreds of thousands of cars. I don't see any reason to think they can't get the system running in the next year or so. But even if they can't do that in time they still have NVIDIA to fall back on. Elon even said in the talk that maybe it might not work out, and if that's the case they can always buy a solution.
kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
Tesla relies on geographic whitelists to suppress problematic signals from their radar. Not what I'd want from an FSD machine.

leesec 5y ago

"If Google can't do it with its massive resources and sensors don't ever expect a Tesla to perform better than this." 10 years ago this might have read: "If General Motors can't do it with its massive resources and sensors don't ever expect a Tesla to perform better than this."

ancientworldnow 5y ago
Of course this ignores that super cruise is considered safer and better on the same tasks that it's allowed to do as Tesla FSD by third party analysts. The difference is GM is less willing to allow it to be enabled for dangerous beta driving unlike Tesla which clearly doesn't care about consistency or safety.
- leesec 5y ago
  I meant 10 years ago people might have assumed if GM can't make the electric car work than Tesla can't either, and yet here we are.
  - samfisher83 5y ago
    The ev1 was a pretty good car for it's time. It had a lot of fans. Battery tech got better. An electric car is theoretically much simpler than an ice car.
- InTheArena 5y ago
  And when you look into thoose reports - the only reason they rank Super Cruise higher is because it can only be used on a very limited number of roads, and uses a camera to detect awareness. FSD uses a camera, and works on all roads - and is dramatically better then supercruise. source - test drove both, bought the tesla because of how impressed I was with supercruise.
  - leesec 5y ago
    Don't know why you're downvoted this is 100% accurate.

blueblisters 5y ago

Google is struggling to get hardware integrated with their self driving solution. Retrofitting cars with self-driving sensors is not easy, and Google does not have the scale yet to convince OEM partners to retool assembly lines for the Waymo fleet.

ra7 5y ago
Source for them struggling? All the hardware upfitting is done by Magna, one of the biggest names in auto manufacturing, who are also a Waymo investor. There’s a reason they chose the Jaguar I-Pace which is also manufactured by Magna.

ElFitz 5y ago

While I do get your point and have my own doubts, I fail to see how this is a fair argument: > If Google can't do it with its massive resources The companies behind the SLS had and have an enormous amount of resources. Yet, they have failed to even launch it. Arianespace has a huge amount of resources and experience too. Yet, when asked, they said landing a rocket couldn’t be done. Then, back-pedalling, that it was pointless and would never make any economic sense. Yet, SpaceX has developed three generations of rockets (Falcon 1, 9 and heavy), builds them, launches them, iterates on them, lands them, reuses them, and is now working on a fourth rocket (SuperHeavy). They have also created 4 different rocket engines and are working on two others. Honestly, where are Boeing and Arianespace? Another example? Microsoft, their incredible wealth of resources and superior position falling flat on their face with smartphones. Funnily enough, Google getting the greatest share of the global smartphone OS market, despite having had no real experience with operating systems, consumer hardware, or licensing operating systems before. Kodak, which had some of the first patent on digital camera sensors, going pretty much extinct despite their massive resources and market position. Xerox, failing to ever enter the personal computer market despite designing what everyone else would copy for the next 10 or 20 years. Sure, the amounts of resources and experience seem to help, a lot, but it also certainly doesn’t seem to help reliably predict any outcome.

diegocg 5y ago
The problem with your comparison is that the company that is "the spacex of FSD" is Waymo. And even them can not get FSD right.
- dnautics 5y ago
  Isn't comma.ai the SpaceX of fsd?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - magicalist 5y ago
    > Isn't comma.ai the SpaceX of fsd? Astra, maybe? Difficult analogy because the barrier to entry's a lot lower for car mods vs orbital rocketry kits :)

tibbydudeza 5y ago

FSD v2 hw with DOJO - we definitely got it right this time.