4 ms·

They literally sell a package to purchasers of cars called full self driving and autopilot. They claim their competitive advantage is all the cameras of miles d

They literally sell a package to purchasers of cars called full self driving and autopilot. They claim their competitive advantage is all the cameras of miles driven. They put special boards in cars for it. They absolutely consider themselves a player.

minsc_and_boo 4y ago
I don't think anyone is doubting that Tesla considers themselves to be a player, especially since it sells more add-ons to their cars. Repeatedly publicly knocking the benefits of LIDAR in self driving demonstrates otherwise.
- mehwoot 4y ago
  > I don't think anyone is doubting that Tesla considers themselves to be a player > I don't consider Tesla a player in self-driving, but I don't think Tesla does either
  - pdabbadabba 4y ago
    They clearly are a player in the self-driving cars market. They may not be a player in self-driving research. These things can both be true at the same time. I think that's the distinction driving the confusion here.
lynndotpy 4y ago
Let me clarify my position: Tesla does not advance self-driving research, and they don't need to. Tesla won't be the first to release fully self-driving cars. (I think 'SAE levels' are bunk, but let's say this is level 4.5 for the sake of discussion.) EDIT: Sorry, and to clarify, I meant "not a player in self-driving research. I also do not think anyone has any vehicles we should call "self driving". (I'll keep the rest of my pre-edit clarification below.) To clarify further: Tesla's offerings come from applying and engineering existing published research. That takes work, and they're making some money from that. To the extent that "fully self driving" is an achievable goal, it makes no sense to expect Tesla to make the advances that get us there, when (1) they aren't doing that, and (2) they don't need to do that to make money. To make this even more clear, let's make it concrete with one plausible future: In 2032, Waymo (or Didi, whoever) achieves true 'level 4' fully-self driving with proprietary technology. Their tech is seen in trucks, busses, taxis, as well as being equipped to a few thousand private vehicles. The safety stats are superhuman, and insuring such a vehicle is cheap. In this future, Tesla Motors would like to enter into an exclusive partnership to integrate this technology into the cars they manufacture.
- kiratp 4y ago
  Literally making their own AI training chips with novel architecture doesn’t count as participating in research? Google has tried and failed at commercializing similar technology in other verticals (like building environmental automation from their DC tech). The reason is actual incumbents (rightly) see the value of their position while Google comes at it as “our AI is the value, you just make dumb things”. I expect the automakers to ship mediocre stacks that are put together by existing players like Bosch. As an ex-Googler I would be floored if Waymo actually lands a sell-into deal with an automaker. A fully vertical taxi service is their path today because they tried and failed to sign any partnerships.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - refulgentis 4y ago
    they have several now august 2020, tesla friendly blog: "Waymo Has Partnerships With Fiat Chrysler, Jaguar, Nissan, Renault, Volvo, & Magna" https://cleantechnica.com/2020/08/10/waymo-has-partnerships-with-fiat-chrysler-volvo-jaguar-magna-maybe-honda/ https://cleantechnica.com/2020/08/10/waymo-has-partnerships-...
    - kiratp 4y ago
      Announcing partnerships is the easiest thing to do. The proof is in the pudding. Right now Waymo is paying carmakers for the vehicles, not the other way around.
      - lynndotpy 4y ago
        I don't understand why this is relevant to the ongoing discussion. What are the implications of this statement, what is your point?
        kiratp 4y ago
        Quoting you: > To make this even more clear, let's make it concrete with one plausible future: In 2032, Waymo (or Didi, whoever) achieves true 'level 4' fully-self driving with proprietary technology. Their tech is seen in trucks, busses, taxis, as well as being equipped to a few thousand private vehicles. I see no possibility where existing large automakers will let Google (Waymo) own the FSD stack (and thus own the data and huge piece of value chain) and be relegated to a mere maker of a dumb car. And if GM is not going to buy Waymo tech, Tesla will definitely not.
hcrisp 4y ago
Maybe it depends on how you define "full" self-driving. Is it full if it works only for the scenarios it was designed? Are you working full time if you only work 30 hours a week?
munificent 4y ago
They want customers to consider them a player. They doesn't necessarily mean that they themselves believe their own marketing.

minsc_and_boo 4y ago

I don't think anyone is doubting that Tesla considers themselves to be a player, especially since it sells more add-ons to their cars. Repeatedly publicly knocking the benefits of LIDAR in self driving demonstrates otherwise.

mehwoot 4y ago
> I don't think anyone is doubting that Tesla considers themselves to be a player > I don't consider Tesla a player in self-driving, but I don't think Tesla does either
- pdabbadabba 4y ago
  They clearly are a player in the self-driving cars market. They may not be a player in self-driving research. These things can both be true at the same time. I think that's the distinction driving the confusion here.

lynndotpy 4y ago

Let me clarify my position: Tesla does not advance self-driving research, and they don't need to. Tesla won't be the first to release fully self-driving cars. (I think 'SAE levels' are bunk, but let's say this is level 4.5 for the sake of discussion.) EDIT: Sorry, and to clarify, I meant "not a player in self-driving research. I also do not think anyone has any vehicles we should call "self driving". (I'll keep the rest of my pre-edit clarification below.) To clarify further: Tesla's offerings come from applying and engineering existing published research. That takes work, and they're making some money from that. To the extent that "fully self driving" is an achievable goal, it makes no sense to expect Tesla to make the advances that get us there, when (1) they aren't doing that, and (2) they don't need to do that to make money. To make this even more clear, let's make it concrete with one plausible future: In 2032, Waymo (or Didi, whoever) achieves true 'level 4' fully-self driving with proprietary technology. Their tech is seen in trucks, busses, taxis, as well as being equipped to a few thousand private vehicles. The safety stats are superhuman, and insuring such a vehicle is cheap. In this future, Tesla Motors would like to enter into an exclusive partnership to integrate this technology into the cars they manufacture.

kiratp 4y ago
Literally making their own AI training chips with novel architecture doesn’t count as participating in research? Google has tried and failed at commercializing similar technology in other verticals (like building environmental automation from their DC tech). The reason is actual incumbents (rightly) see the value of their position while Google comes at it as “our AI is the value, you just make dumb things”. I expect the automakers to ship mediocre stacks that are put together by existing players like Bosch. As an ex-Googler I would be floored if Waymo actually lands a sell-into deal with an automaker. A fully vertical taxi service is their path today because they tried and failed to sign any partnerships.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- refulgentis 4y ago
  they have several now august 2020, tesla friendly blog: "Waymo Has Partnerships With Fiat Chrysler, Jaguar, Nissan, Renault, Volvo, & Magna" https://cleantechnica.com/2020/08/10/waymo-has-partnerships-with-fiat-chrysler-volvo-jaguar-magna-maybe-honda/ https://cleantechnica.com/2020/08/10/waymo-has-partnerships-...
  - kiratp 4y ago
    Announcing partnerships is the easiest thing to do. The proof is in the pudding. Right now Waymo is paying carmakers for the vehicles, not the other way around.
    - lynndotpy 4y ago
      I don't understand why this is relevant to the ongoing discussion. What are the implications of this statement, what is your point?
      - kiratp 4y ago
        Quoting you: > To make this even more clear, let's make it concrete with one plausible future: In 2032, Waymo (or Didi, whoever) achieves true 'level 4' fully-self driving with proprietary technology. Their tech is seen in trucks, busses, taxis, as well as being equipped to a few thousand private vehicles. I see no possibility where existing large automakers will let Google (Waymo) own the FSD stack (and thus own the data and huge piece of value chain) and be relegated to a mere maker of a dumb car. And if GM is not going to buy Waymo tech, Tesla will definitely not.

hcrisp 4y ago

Maybe it depends on how you define "full" self-driving. Is it full if it works only for the scenarios it was designed? Are you working full time if you only work 30 hours a week?

munificent 4y ago

They want customers to consider them a player. They doesn't necessarily mean that they themselves believe their own marketing.