3 ms·

You fell for Mercedes’ marketing so that’s hilariously ironic

by iknowstuff 1y ago

acdha 1y ago
I’m sure that sounded more clever in your head but an actual legal agreement is more than marketing.
- slg 1y ago
  No, they really are no different. A legal guarantee doesn't actually mean the car is safe, it means they will pay for it when the safety features fail. Those fees paid out can just be considered a marketing expense to make the car appear safer.
  - kadushka 1y ago
    it means they will pay for it when the safety features fail Tesla will not - it will blame the human driver for not paying attention. That's the difference.
    - slg 1y ago
      This is misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm not arguing for the safety of Tesla's system. I'm saying that judging the safety based off of corporate marketing decisions is a mistake and putting a guarantee on a product is a marketing decision.
      - phs318u 1y ago
        Even if this originated as a marketing thought bubble, there's no way that such a decision could've been made without direct approval from the executive (including the CEO), and only after taking advice from their general counsel and consulting with the board. The potential reputational damage is too immense for such a decision to be made by "marketing" alone. What you're describing has happened before and the courts awarded massive punitive damages against the motor company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimshaw_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimshaw_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
  - acdha 1y ago
    Yes, they are different. The degree depends on the company and if they have a history of trying to weasel out, but a legal agreement makes it harder to dodge liability in court. Tesla would love to offer the reassurance to buyers but there’s a reason they haven’t done so: they’d lose money on it.
    - slg 1y ago
      You are failing to understand what I'm saying. They don't have to weasel out of legal liability in court. They just bake the legal settlements they know they will have to pay into their marketing budget. Has no one watched Fight Club and heard the anecdote about how a company will only recall a car if the cost of the recall is lower than the cost of settling all the lawsuits? All this guarantee tells us is that Mercedes did a similar calculation. Taking legal liability is not proof the car is safe. It is proof that they think the value of customers thinking the car is safe is more valuable than the cost of paying out settlements. Tesla not making the guarantee does not prove their cars are unsafe. It is evidence that if they did the same calculation, that got a different result. Maybe that is because the car is more dangerous, but it could also just be a different marketing philosophy and Tesla notably does not approach marketing like most other car companies. The conclusion that you reached in which the Mercedes is safer than the Tesla is valuable to Mercedes and that opinion was indirectly purchased by Mercedes paying out legal settlements.
      - phs318u 1y ago
        That scene is a reference to Grimshaw vs Ford Motor Co. The precedents set in that case mean that the liabilities arising out of legal action based on 'strict liability' are likely to be extremely punitive (these days, well upwards of the $147M awarded against Ford in 1980, and into the billions). Any company that did not factor such a payment in their calculation in addition to the indirect costs of reputational damage, deserves everything they get. I doubt this is the case with Mercedes. One question I do have that perhaps someone here will know - is the Mercedes guarantee limited to certain locales? e.g. Germany only as the roads there are in good condition and well marked? (I'm assuming here).
      - 1y ago
  - croon 1y ago
    Yes, and them putting their money where their mouth is means they are reasonably certain the accidents wont eclipse the profits, which is a much better signal than whatever Tesla marketing is putting out, seeing as they're not able/willing to do the same. Money talks, as it were.
- iknowstuff 1y ago
  Mercedes system is dumber in every way, they merely set the criteria narrow enough to get dibs on L3 for gullible people to repeat on the internet. It’s OBVIOUSLY more dangerous than FSD under the same circumstances. https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/1cpwir3/tesla_vs_mercedes_selfdriving_test_ends_in_40/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/1cpwir3/te... So which company of the two is the one endangering people
phs318u 1y ago
I'm not familiar with the facts of the matter but if it is indeed the case that Mercedes is indemnifying drivers for accidents caused by FSD, then that's far more than marketing, and your comment (without presenting any facts to the contrary) is unwarranted.
- Auracle 1y ago
  The bigger difference is that Mercedes’ system only works on highways, under 40 mph, and you need a car in front of you that it essentially follows. It’s for traffic jams, and only usable in them. There’s not a big legal liability when the biggest risk is probably a fender bender.
  - gonzobonzo 1y ago
    > The bigger difference is that Mercedes’ system only works on highways, under 40 mph, and you need a car in front of you that it essentially follows. And geofenced to specific highways, only during the day and during good weather. It's still cool (to me at least). But it's bizarre seeing people dismiss FSD as being the same as adaptive cruise control while touting Mercede's Drive Pilot. Drive Pilot is a lot closer to adaptive cruise control than FSD. It's unfortunate that there's so much misinformation that gets thrown around whenever this topic comes up.
    - acdha 1y ago
      People are interested because Drive Pilot is L3 while FSD is L2. People are naturally more interested in the more advanced systems, but that would include FSD if Tesla can improve it to perform closer to the way it’s been marketed. Exaggerating the capabilities for over a decade juiced their share price but it also gave them a reputation for failing to deliver which is going to need hard data to shake: putting their money on the line would be one way to do that.

You fell for Mercedes’ marketing so that’s hilariously ironic

acdha 1y ago

I’m sure that sounded more clever in your head but an actual legal agreement is more than marketing.

slg 1y ago
No, they really are no different. A legal guarantee doesn't actually mean the car is safe, it means they will pay for it when the safety features fail. Those fees paid out can just be considered a marketing expense to make the car appear safer.
- kadushka 1y ago
  it means they will pay for it when the safety features fail Tesla will not - it will blame the human driver for not paying attention. That's the difference.
  - slg 1y ago
    This is misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm not arguing for the safety of Tesla's system. I'm saying that judging the safety based off of corporate marketing decisions is a mistake and putting a guarantee on a product is a marketing decision.
    - phs318u 1y ago
      Even if this originated as a marketing thought bubble, there's no way that such a decision could've been made without direct approval from the executive (including the CEO), and only after taking advice from their general counsel and consulting with the board. The potential reputational damage is too immense for such a decision to be made by "marketing" alone. What you're describing has happened before and the courts awarded massive punitive damages against the motor company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimshaw_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimshaw_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
- acdha 1y ago
  Yes, they are different. The degree depends on the company and if they have a history of trying to weasel out, but a legal agreement makes it harder to dodge liability in court. Tesla would love to offer the reassurance to buyers but there’s a reason they haven’t done so: they’d lose money on it.
  - slg 1y ago
    You are failing to understand what I'm saying. They don't have to weasel out of legal liability in court. They just bake the legal settlements they know they will have to pay into their marketing budget. Has no one watched Fight Club and heard the anecdote about how a company will only recall a car if the cost of the recall is lower than the cost of settling all the lawsuits? All this guarantee tells us is that Mercedes did a similar calculation. Taking legal liability is not proof the car is safe. It is proof that they think the value of customers thinking the car is safe is more valuable than the cost of paying out settlements. Tesla not making the guarantee does not prove their cars are unsafe. It is evidence that if they did the same calculation, that got a different result. Maybe that is because the car is more dangerous, but it could also just be a different marketing philosophy and Tesla notably does not approach marketing like most other car companies. The conclusion that you reached in which the Mercedes is safer than the Tesla is valuable to Mercedes and that opinion was indirectly purchased by Mercedes paying out legal settlements.
    - phs318u 1y ago
      That scene is a reference to Grimshaw vs Ford Motor Co. The precedents set in that case mean that the liabilities arising out of legal action based on 'strict liability' are likely to be extremely punitive (these days, well upwards of the $147M awarded against Ford in 1980, and into the billions). Any company that did not factor such a payment in their calculation in addition to the indirect costs of reputational damage, deserves everything they get. I doubt this is the case with Mercedes. One question I do have that perhaps someone here will know - is the Mercedes guarantee limited to certain locales? e.g. Germany only as the roads there are in good condition and well marked? (I'm assuming here).
    - 1y ago
- croon 1y ago
  Yes, and them putting their money where their mouth is means they are reasonably certain the accidents wont eclipse the profits, which is a much better signal than whatever Tesla marketing is putting out, seeing as they're not able/willing to do the same. Money talks, as it were.
iknowstuff 1y ago
Mercedes system is dumber in every way, they merely set the criteria narrow enough to get dibs on L3 for gullible people to repeat on the internet. It’s OBVIOUSLY more dangerous than FSD under the same circumstances. https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/1cpwir3/tesla_vs_mercedes_selfdriving_test_ends_in_40/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/1cpwir3/te... So which company of the two is the one endangering people

phs318u 1y ago

I'm not familiar with the facts of the matter but if it is indeed the case that Mercedes is indemnifying drivers for accidents caused by FSD, then that's far more than marketing, and your comment (without presenting any facts to the contrary) is unwarranted.

Auracle 1y ago
The bigger difference is that Mercedes’ system only works on highways, under 40 mph, and you need a car in front of you that it essentially follows. It’s for traffic jams, and only usable in them. There’s not a big legal liability when the biggest risk is probably a fender bender.
- gonzobonzo 1y ago
  > The bigger difference is that Mercedes’ system only works on highways, under 40 mph, and you need a car in front of you that it essentially follows. And geofenced to specific highways, only during the day and during good weather. It's still cool (to me at least). But it's bizarre seeing people dismiss FSD as being the same as adaptive cruise control while touting Mercede's Drive Pilot. Drive Pilot is a lot closer to adaptive cruise control than FSD. It's unfortunate that there's so much misinformation that gets thrown around whenever this topic comes up.
  - acdha 1y ago
    People are interested because Drive Pilot is L3 while FSD is L2. People are naturally more interested in the more advanced systems, but that would include FSD if Tesla can improve it to perform closer to the way it’s been marketed. Exaggerating the capabilities for over a decade juiced their share price but it also gave them a reputation for failing to deliver which is going to need hard data to shake: putting their money on the line would be one way to do that.