3 ms·

> I think of it like a format war. The winner isn’t usually the one that is the most technologically advanced. The stakes are a tad different. I can accept the

> I think of it like a format war. The winner isn’t usually the one that is the most technologically advanced. The stakes are a tad different. I can accept the slightly lower visual quality of VHS compared to Beta. For self driving, if the lower technological level results in a slightly higher chance of "you're dead", I'm not going to be cavalier about what I choose.

dangus 3y ago
But that's not really the right analogy. A VHS tape didn't have an analogy to "you're dead." It worked fine, was just as reliable, but it happened to give you a longer recording time for the money. Any negative trade-off it had was basically negligible to the average person, which is why it won. What I mean here is that if Tesla and other automakers are developing cheap-to-mass-produce autonomous driving that ends up being 5 years behind Waymo, their lack of first-mover status is moot. The moment that the cheaper technology it catches up in capability well enough to be reasonably safe and equivalent, Waymo is stuck with a more complex and costly solution. Waymo will be making the hand-crafted mechanical watch while the automakers will be making cheap Quartz watches. Both tell time equally well.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  > But that's not really the right analogy. I know it's not the right analogy, that's why I used it as an example of what you proposed, i.e. "I think of it like a format war. The winner isn’t usually the one that is the most technologically advanced." The point being, in normal "format wars", people are willing to take certain tradeoffs because the stakes are low - I'm willing to be cheap because the difference in video or audio quality or whatever is negligible to me. That dynamic doesn't exist with self-driving cars. If one system is able to drive just .5% better, I'd pay a ton more for that because my life is on the line. And it's not at all like Waymo is building a "hand-crafted mechanical watch" - they're building a system with better sensors to provide a better experience. I sincerely doubt leaving out these sensors will ever lead to a safer experience.

dangus 3y ago

But that's not really the right analogy. A VHS tape didn't have an analogy to "you're dead." It worked fine, was just as reliable, but it happened to give you a longer recording time for the money. Any negative trade-off it had was basically negligible to the average person, which is why it won. What I mean here is that if Tesla and other automakers are developing cheap-to-mass-produce autonomous driving that ends up being 5 years behind Waymo, their lack of first-mover status is moot. The moment that the cheaper technology it catches up in capability well enough to be reasonably safe and equivalent, Waymo is stuck with a more complex and costly solution. Waymo will be making the hand-crafted mechanical watch while the automakers will be making cheap Quartz watches. Both tell time equally well.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
> But that's not really the right analogy. I know it's not the right analogy, that's why I used it as an example of what you proposed, i.e. "I think of it like a format war. The winner isn’t usually the one that is the most technologically advanced." The point being, in normal "format wars", people are willing to take certain tradeoffs because the stakes are low - I'm willing to be cheap because the difference in video or audio quality or whatever is negligible to me. That dynamic doesn't exist with self-driving cars. If one system is able to drive just .5% better, I'd pay a ton more for that because my life is on the line. And it's not at all like Waymo is building a "hand-crafted mechanical watch" - they're building a system with better sensors to provide a better experience. I sincerely doubt leaving out these sensors will ever lead to a safer experience.