3 ms·

> No need to partner, comma doesn't offer that is there a reason why you don't want offer that?

kjksf 4y ago
I'm not Hotz but he I've watched a bunch of his interviews and the basic problem is that there are no buyers for "no bullshit technology". Pretty much every car maker (GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda, VW) has already invested in at least one self-driving company. All those self-driving companies have the same technical plan and business strategy: lidar, high-precision maps, it has to be level 4 or nothing at all. They're also decent at selling that plan via powerpoint, tech demos and test deployments. I think at least 2 years ago Zoox gave a demo to a tech journalist (who produced a slick YouTube video out of it) and you would think that the technology is almost ready to go. More than a year ago MobileEye CEO gave a talk at a mobile conference and showed a video of a car impressively navigating busy streets of Jerusalem. You would think that the technology is almost ready to go. Comma, like Tesla, has "no lidars, no maps, ship intermediary products and use real data from real drivers to improve the technology, cheaply". To me it's an obviously winning strategy. To 99% or car CEOs it apparently isn't. Therefore they are not in the market for comma and won't be until it becomes obvious that their approach is failing and comma's approach is winning. So his position is more a sober assessment of lack of clue in major car maker execs and he decided that instead of playing the game of power point and pretend for the unlikely event of a car maker buying from them, he'll focus 100% on better engineering and winning in the long term by having obviously better product.
- RivieraKid 4y ago
  > the basic problem is that there are no buyers for "no bullshit technology" The other companies have a plausible path to mind-off self-driving. That's where the value is at. Comma is developing a product that increases driver's comfort. Waymo is developing a technology that will remove the need for a driver.

I'm not Hotz but he I've watched a bunch of his interviews and the basic problem is that there are no buyers for "no bullshit technology". Pretty much every car maker (GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda, VW) has already invested in at least one self-driving company. All those self-driving companies have the same technical plan and business strategy: lidar, high-precision maps, it has to be level 4 or nothing at all. They're also decent at selling that plan via powerpoint, tech demos and test deployments. I think at least 2 years ago Zoox gave a demo to a tech journalist (who produced a slick YouTube video out of it) and you would think that the technology is almost ready to go. More than a year ago MobileEye CEO gave a talk at a mobile conference and showed a video of a car impressively navigating busy streets of Jerusalem. You would think that the technology is almost ready to go. Comma, like Tesla, has "no lidars, no maps, ship intermediary products and use real data from real drivers to improve the technology, cheaply". To me it's an obviously winning strategy. To 99% or car CEOs it apparently isn't. Therefore they are not in the market for comma and won't be until it becomes obvious that their approach is failing and comma's approach is winning. So his position is more a sober assessment of lack of clue in major car maker execs and he decided that instead of playing the game of power point and pretend for the unlikely event of a car maker buying from them, he'll focus 100% on better engineering and winning in the long term by having obviously better product.

RivieraKid 4y ago
> the basic problem is that there are no buyers for "no bullshit technology" The other companies have a plausible path to mind-off self-driving. That's where the value is at. Comma is developing a product that increases driver's comfort. Waymo is developing a technology that will remove the need for a driver.