[HN Gopher] Rivian Unveils Custom Silicon, R2 Lidar Roadmap, and...
___________________________________________________________________
Rivian Unveils Custom Silicon, R2 Lidar Roadmap, and Universal
Hands Free
Author : doctoboggan
Score : 152 points
Date : 2025-12-11 18:17 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (riviantrackr.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (riviantrackr.com)
| bjord wrote:
| is everyone designing their own silicon getting so much
| additional them-specific utility out of it that it's actually
| worth it?
| darth_avocado wrote:
| Rivian has a huge interest in being the outsourcer for legacy
| automakers. They're not able to sell $100k cars enough and even
| with the promised R2, they probably will only be a small-ish
| player in the EV market. Their CEO recognizes how crazy good
| Chinese EVs are and currently they're not even a competitor for
| Tesla.
|
| But, VW is willing to pay $5B for their software platform. I
| think they want to extend that to being able to sell custom
| chips and "AI" capabilities, whatever that means.
| igor47 wrote:
| Which honestly is crazy to me. I have a Rivian, and to say
| the software is disappointing would be an understatement.
| There are heisenbugs galore; some examples:
|
| * Doors refuse to open
|
| * Lose the ability to control media playback using any
| controls
|
| * Any button in the UI just opens and closes the windows
|
| Granted, I'm a server side/backend engineer mostly, and I
| don't know much about writing software/firmware for a very
| hostile emf environment. But if any project I worked on had
| bugs like this, fixed at the rate they're fixed on Rivian, I
| would assume a badly flawed architecture or non existent
| technical leadership
|
| Yet VW paid billions for this very software. I can't imagine
| how bad it must've been on their own stack that they gave up
| and bought this other seemingly broken stack
| WaxProlix wrote:
| This sounds nothing like my experience, you should get that
| vehicle serviced.
| Hovertruck wrote:
| Same, I've had mine for a couple of years now with no
| notable software issues at all.
| bickfordb wrote:
| I have the same question. It makes sense that they might need
| bespoke software, but how could they possibly be more efficient
| at creating chips than an AMD/Nvidia?
| slashdave wrote:
| Well, if AMD and/or Nvidia were to invest on a chip for an
| auto, maybe you might have a point.
| riotnrrd wrote:
| NVIDIA has been selling automotive-specific silicon for a
| decade.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Both AMD and Nvidia have strong automotive offerings.
| potatolicious wrote:
| I share your skepticism. This feels like an attempt to tap the
| trainloads of money piling into "AI", for a company that is in
| pretty desperate need of more cash to stay alive.
|
| In a vacuum there are potentially some advantages to doing your
| own silicon, especially if your goal is to sell the platform to
| other automakers as an OEM.
|
| But custom silicon is pricey as hell (if you're doing anything
| non-trivial, at least), and the payoffs have a long lead time.
| For a company that's bleeding cash aggressively, with a short
| runway, to engage in this seems iffy. This sort of move makes a
| lot more sense if Rivian was an established maker that's cash-
| flow positive and is looking to cement their long-term lead
| with free cash flow. Buuuuut they aren't that.
| thomasjb wrote:
| Possibly. Realistically this is replacing the expensive
| category of FPGA (Zynqs or similar with strong hardware CPU
| cores), this means they get all the peripherals they desire in
| hardware, and they can pick the core variant in order to
| optimise for their workloads (all the different vector
| extensions for example). There's an interesting market for that
| kind of thing, either full FPGA to ASIC replacement, or drop in
| replacement FPGAs of lower cost (The Rigol MHO98 replaced the
| Xilinx FPGA of the previous generation with a substitute from
| Fudan). If you're shipping a lot of hardware, that sort of
| thing becomes worthwhile.
| ShakataGaNai wrote:
| I would wager that's because there isn't a lot of existing
| silicon that fits the bill. What COTS equipment is there that
| has all the CPU/Tensor horsepower these systems need... AND is
| reasonably power efficient AND is rated for a vehicle (wild
| temp extremes like -20F to 150F+, constant vibration, slams and
| impacts... and will keep working for 15 years).
|
| Yea, Tesla has some. But they aren't sharing their secret
| sauce. You can't just throw a desktop computer in a car and
| expect it to survive for the duration. Ford et all aren't
| anywhere close to having "premium silicon".
|
| So you're only option right now is to build your own. And hope
| maybe that you can sell/license your designs to others later
| and make bucks.
| typewithrhythm wrote:
| NVIDIA orin series is the big one for tensor horsepower.
| Horizon robotics and Qualcomm also have competitive
| automotive packages.
|
| They are all expensive, but less than the risk adjusted cost
| of developing a chip.
| pstuart wrote:
| Isn't that risk balanced by a healthy reward of controlling
| their verticals and possible secret sauce?
|
| And their chips give "1600 sparse INT8 TOPS" vs the Orin's
| "more than 1,000 INT8 TOPS" -- so comparable enough? And
| going forward they can tailor it to exactly what they want?
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| I was just in a discussion on this very topic. It's the build
| vs buy equation applied to silicon. Early in the tech boom the
| entire silicon stack was proprietary and required a lot of time
| and investment to train up people who could design the
| circuitry, we got our first "ASICS" which was basically a bunch
| of circuitry on a die and you then added your own metal layer
| so it was like having a bunch of components glued to a board
| and you could "customize" it by putting wires between the
| parts. Then we had fabs that needed more wafer starts so they
| started doing other peoples designs which required they
| standardize their cells and provide integration services (you
| brought a design and they mapped it to their standard cells and
| process). And as the density kept going up they kept having
| loots of free space they needed to fill up. The 'fabless' chip
| companies continued to invest in making new parts until the
| pipeline was pretty smooth. And at that point the level of
| training you needed a the origin to get it into silicon dropped
| to nearly zero, you just needed the designs. And into that
| space people who were neither 'chip' companies, nor were they
| 'fabless' OEMs, realized they could get their integration needs
| met by asking a company to make them a chip that did exactly
| what they wanted.
|
| One the business side, the economics are fabulous, your
| competitors can't "clone" your product if they don't have your
| special sauce components. So in many ways it becomes a
| strategic advantage to maintaining your market position.
|
| But all of that because the all up cost to go from
| specification to parts meeting the specification dropped into
| the range where you could build special parts and still price
| at the market for your finished product.
|
| A really interesting illustration is to look at disk drive
| controller boards from the Shugart Associates ST-506 (5MB)
| drive, to Seagate's current offerings. It is illustrative
| because disk drives are a product that has been ruthlessly
| economized because of low margins. The ST-506 is all TTL logic
| and standard analog parts, and yet current products have
| semiconductor parts that are made exactly to Seagate's design
| specs and aren't sold to anyone else.
|
| So to answer your question; apparently the economics work out.
| The costs associated with designing, testing, and packaging
| your own silicon appears to be cost effective even on products
| with exceptionally tight margins, it is likely a clear winner
| on a product that enjoys the margins that electric vehicles
| offer.
| 7e wrote:
| No, Waymo is just going to license their tech to normal
| automakers, like Toyota, and those licensees will win. Rivian is
| run by a Musk-wannabe but even this stock pump isn't going to
| help with his sociopath, multibillion dollar compensation
| package.
| darth_avocado wrote:
| What stock pump, its cratered on the news.
| SonOfKyuss wrote:
| That is curious. The market must not have faith in their
| ability to execute on their plans
| darth_avocado wrote:
| The market wants them to sell the $40k cars asap. All the
| other side quests are distractions. When they spun off
| their electric bike side project, the stock went up.
| dmix wrote:
| Adding LIDAR would probably turn a $40k car a $70k car as
| well.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Incendiary language aside, this does seem pretty likely to me.
| Waymo has already talked about wanting to license their driver
| for personally owned cars eventually; it just doesn't make
| sense for them to do so until they can cover more of the
| country (or countries). The more areas they cover, and
| especially when they can cover various popular freeways
| connecting different metro areas, the more it'll make sense for
| them to start partnering with automakers to sell the technology
| to consumers.
| georgeburdell wrote:
| The CEO is different from Musk in a few key ways
|
| 1. He has a STEM PhD (from MIT)
|
| 2. He is conservative in what he discloses
|
| 3. Not outspoken or political
|
| IMO one of Rivian's benefits is its image as the anti-Tesla
| cyberax wrote:
| Yet no AndoidAuto. Pass.
| suprnurd wrote:
| Where I live I am often surrounded by Waymo vehicles... is Lidar
| 100% safe for people to be around? I ask because I read an
| article about how Lidar on one of the new Volvos could destroy
| your phone camera if you pointed it at it? If Lidar can do that
| to a phone camera, can it hurt your eyes?
| OneDeuxTriSeiGo wrote:
| Depends on the type of LIDAR. LIDAR rated for vehicle use is at
| a wavelength opaque to the eyes so it hits the surface and
| fluid of your eye and reflects back rather than going through
| to your cones and rods.
|
| It isn't however opaque for optical glass (since the LIDAR has
| to shine through optical glass in the first place) so it hits
| your camera lens, goes straight through, and slams the sensor.
| kappi wrote:
| During the presentation, Rivian speaker specifically said it
| is safe for your camera sensors. Check the youtube video of
| their presentation
| OneDeuxTriSeiGo wrote:
| Ah. Theirs may be then. In which case they are probably
| using a different wavelength and a different glass.
|
| I was just speaking in terms of the commonplace LIDAR
| solutions for road use.
| dllu wrote:
| You seem to be implying that all automotive lidar are 1550 nm
| but that's not true. While there are lots of 1550 nm
| automotive lidars (Luminar on Volvo, Seyond on NIO) there are
| also plenty of 850 nm to 940 nm lidars are used in cars
| (Hesai, Robosense, etc). Those can pass through water and get
| focused to your retina, but they are also a lot lower power
| so they do not damage cameras.
| slashdave wrote:
| In terms of plain wattage, it cannot be dangerous. Unless, of
| course, you were to stand with your eye up against the sensor
| and maybe stare at it for a few minutes.
| eutectic wrote:
| Lidars use pulsed lasers with peak powers up to the kW range.
| doctoboggan wrote:
| I watched the livestream and they said their hardware is
| "Camera Safe". I am not sure if camera safe and eye safe are
| correlated, but I would hope/expect that they would not release
| something that isn't known to be eye safe. I guess it's
| possible that the long term effects could prove bad, and we
| will all end up getting "Lidar Eye" dead spots in our vision.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Digital camera sensors are much more sensitive than eyeballs,
| so it's not out of the realm of possibility that it won't
| leave a permanent line across your eyeball like it can to a
| camera sensor
| slashdave wrote:
| Lidar Eye? No, how the heck would that happen? I mean, there
| is a dangerous source of light outside (we call it the
| "sun"), and yet we manage fine.
| airstrike wrote:
| I mean, technically the Sun is "above" us and the LIDARs
| are at...eye level? So not exactly the same, at least to my
| layman eyes
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| Your body has signs to knock it off when you're staring at
| the sun, does it do the same thing for Lidar?
| colechristensen wrote:
| There are two kinds of safe. Safe when it's working as
| intended, and safe when it breaks.
|
| But yes there are lidar sensors out there where if broken in
| the right way could burn out your retinas permanently.
| filoleg wrote:
| Your eyes will be fine (assuming that we are talking about
| automotive LiDAR specifically).
|
| Automotive LiDAR is designed to meet Class-1 laser eye-safety
| standard, which means "safe under normal conditions." It isn't
| some subjective/marketing thing, it is an official laser safety
| classification that is very regulated.
|
| However, if you try to break that "normal conditions" rule by
| pressing your eyeball directly against an automotive LiDAR
| sensor for a very long period of time while it is blasting, you
| might cause yourself some damage.
|
| The reason for why your phone camera would get damaged, but not
| your eyes, is due to the nature of how camera lenses work. They
| are designed to gather as much light as possible from a
| direction and focus it onto a flat, tiny sensor. The same LiDAR
| beam that is spread out for a large retina can become hyper-
| concentrated onto a handful of pixels through the camera
| optics.
| tennysont wrote:
| Why wouldn't your eye lens focus LIDAR photons from the same
| source onto a small region of your retina in the same way
| that a phone camera lens focuses same-origin photos to a few
| pixels?
|
| Sorry if this is a silly question, I honestly don't have the
| greatest understanding of EM.
| dllu wrote:
| Depends on the wavelength of lidar. Near IR lidars (850 nm
| to 940 nm, like Ouster, Waymo, Hesai) will be focused to
| your retina whereas 1550 nm lidars (like Luminar, Seyond)
| will not be focused and have trouble penetrating water, but
| they are a lot more powerful so they instead heat up your
| cornea. To quote my other comment [1]:
|
| > If you have many lidars around, the beams from each 905
| nm lidar will be focused to a different spot on your
| retina, and you are no worse off than if there was a single
| lidar. But if there are many 1550 nm lidars around, their
| beams will have a cumulative effect at heating up your
| cornea, potentially exceeding the safety threshold.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46127479
| stoneman24 wrote:
| Do you if there has been any work how lasers affect other
| animals and insects?
|
| Am I being catastrophically pessimistic to think that in
| addition to swatting insects as it moves forward, the
| cars lidar is blinding insects in a several hundred meter
| path ?
|
| I'm very optimistic about automated cars being better
| than most humans but wonder about side effects.
| tennysont wrote:
| Follow up question that you might know: would multiple
| LIDAR sensor actually be additive like that? If you can
| stand a foot away from a car's LIDAR sensor and be
| unharmed, then can't you have: | Distance
| | # of Sensors | | 1 | 1 |
| | 3 | 9 | | 5 |
| 25 | | 10 | 100 | | 25 |
| 625 | | 50 | 2500 | | 100
| | 10000 |
|
| x^2 sensors at x feet from you and have the same total
| energy delivered? If sensors are actually safe to look at
| from 6in or 3in, then multiple the above table by 4 or
| 16.
|
| It seems like, due to the inverse square law, the main
| issue is how close you can get your eye to a LIDAR sensor
| under normal operation, not how many sensors are
| scattered across the environment. The one exception I can
| think of is a car that puts multiple LIDAR arrays next to
| each other (within a foot or two). But maybe I'm
| misunderstanding something!
| Retric wrote:
| Your eyes a much larger sensor area than the opening, they
| do the opposite of concentrating light in a small area.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| A point source in the visual field will create a point
| image on the retina. The "sensor area" you're referring
| is what's necessary to capture the entire visual field
| simultaneously.
| Retric wrote:
| I disagree that it's a point source at distances of peak
| concern.
|
| Also, it's something of a nitpick but physically point
| sources still end up as a circle.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| That's fair, strictly speaking, but I'm not sure there's
| a meaningful difference to be made.
|
| Wasn't sure what level of knowledge you were coming from
| re: PSFs, so I was keeping it basic.
| numpad0 wrote:
| GP is slightly wrong. IIRC those problematic LIDARs are
| operating at higher power than traditionally allowed, with
| the justification that the wavelength being used is
| significantly less efficient at damaging human eyes,
| therefore it's safe enough at those powers, which is likely
| true enough. But it turned out that camera lenses are
| generally more transparent than our eyes and therefore the
| justification don't apply to them.
| buildbot wrote:
| Amusingly the lenses are worse than silicon at
| transmitting that wavelength.
|
| 1550nm might be worse for sensors because a good portion
| of the light is only being dumped into the metal layers -
| pure silicon is mostly transparent to 1550nm. Not sure
| how doped silicon would work. I can tell you that 1070nm
| barely works on an IQ3 Achromatic back...
|
| https://www.pmoptics.com/silicon.html
| ramses0 wrote:
| I looked this up for a laser-based projector, Class 2 is
| "blink reflex should protect you" and "don't be a doofus and
| stare into it for a long time". Look up the classifications
| on the google and you'll see other things like "don't look
| into the rays with a set of binoculars" and stuff.
|
| Class 1 is pretty darned safe, but if you're continually
| bathed by 50 passing cars an hour while walking on a
| sidewalk... pitch it to a PhD student you know as something
| they should find or run a study on.
| ddalex wrote:
| Don't look into the laser with the remaining eye
| tonymet wrote:
| This is inconsistent with the basic concept. It's projecting
| and reading lasers . By default some emissions will hit
| people in the eye. Even invisible light can damage tissue ,
| especially in the eye
| mcdonje wrote:
| What about if you're walking or biking next to congested
| motorway and most of the vehicles have LiDAR running at the
| same time? That's a lot of photons.
| idontwantthis wrote:
| Can anyone explain why RIVN is down 8% after this announcement?
| Were investors expecting hands free handjobs or something?
| nrjames wrote:
| "Buy the rumors and sell the news." Just typical market stuff.
| doctoboggan wrote:
| Maybe they think custom silicon is biting off more than they
| can chew, coming at a time when they need to focus on R2
| production and scale-up.
| spankalee wrote:
| I hold some RIVN and I'm wondering why they're spending
| resources on custom silicon instead of using something off-the-
| shelf. What is their advantage here? Can they hire the right
| people? Can they ship enough units to pay for it?
|
| Those are my bearish questions. On the bullish side, the VW
| deal shows that they're willing and able to license part of
| their platform, so possibly have a big chance to recoup costs
| and maybe turn a profit just on that side, which justifies a
| big software + autonomy investment.
| ssl-3 wrote:
| If their idea is both novel and useful, and if it actually
| works, and they can actually produce it, then: They can sell
| it to other automakers.
|
| (GM has made a lot of cars with their own transmissions. And
| at various times, they've supplied -lots- of them to other
| automakers all over the world. They've made a lot of money
| doing this.
|
| Someone's gotta build the machine vision/control systems for
| all of these self-driving cars; that someone may well be
| Rivian.
|
| It's not as sexy as something like a new convertible might
| be, or a $40k self-driving electric car, and a consumer might
| not even know that the new car in their driveway has
| expensive Rivian parts buried inside, but that future can be
| very profitable for them.)
| behnamoh wrote:
| Fair point. I think they wanted to sound super futuristic
| (they often borrow a page from Apple's book) but they forgot
| they're not Apple.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| >On the bullish side, the VW deal
|
| Oh, I think everyone missed this. Rivian is betting Elon made
| a big mistake by designing FSD to be strictly for Tesla.
| Rivian are doing FSD to license it out to other
| manufacturers. They're planning to open a new market.
| idontwantthis wrote:
| I was just thinking about this recently. It doesn't seem to
| make sense for each brand to have its own self driving
| implementation.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Excessive hype leading up to selling the news, happens all the
| time.
| hnburnsy wrote:
| They just told potential buyers to not buy an outdated Gen2 or
| an early R2, assuming it is not delayed.
| vhodges wrote:
| It could be that Gen 3 shipping late 2026 is a concession that
| R2 might be delayed until then.
|
| Personally I think they will ship R2 Gen 2 vehicles to the
| early adopters that are less concerned with ADAS.
|
| My R2 reservation is very late (I had to redo it for reasons)
| so I probably won't be able to order one until it's available
| anyways.
| nicksergeant wrote:
| Meanwhile, the only thing people really want from Rivian is
| CarPlay / Android Auto support, lol.
| airstrike wrote:
| Not investors, though
| cyode wrote:
| CarPlay and affordability. I was totally smitten last year with
| the R1S during a test drive. I'm not a car person but felt that
| spark people must feel when they obsess over their vehicles.
|
| But it wasn't pushing-six-figures smitten, which is where
| you're at when you get a new one with customizations.
| nicksergeant wrote:
| Yep. I certainly wanted an R1S, but ended up in an EV9 due to
| CarPlay plus huge lease incentives. No regrets, and will
| probably get another after this lease is up.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| >afforadbility
|
| This 1000%.
|
| Electric cars are supposed to be simple. Give me something in
| a shape of a Civic, with the engine replaced with a motor and
| a battery good for 150 miles, and sell it for $10-12k new.
| Don't even need an entertainment cluster, give me a place to
| put a tablet or a phone and just have a bluetooth speaker.
|
| Instead, we are getting these boutique, expensive vehicles
| packed full of tech, but in the end, they still fundamentally
| suck as cars compared to gas alternatives, especially hybrid.
| I got a Prius Prime for my wife last year, the car is way
| better than any EV on the market in terms of usability.
| Driving to work and back can all be done in EV mode easily,
| and then when you wanna go somewhere, you can keep the car
| above 80 mph easily and get there faster without worrying
| about where to charge.
| reanimus wrote:
| > Electric cars are supposed to be simple. Give me
| something in a shape of a Civic, with the engine replaced
| with a motor and a battery good for 150 miles, and sell it
| for $10-12k new. Don't even need an entertainment cluster,
| give me a place to put a tablet or a phone and just have a
| bluetooth speaker.
|
| I think this is more or less the pitch behind Slate
| (https://www.slate.auto/en), though it's more of a
| truck/SUV form factor.
| avel wrote:
| Also the Dacia Spring is exactly that.
| azinman2 wrote:
| I want the smaller size and cost of the R2
| legitster wrote:
| I get where carmakers are coming from though.
|
| Cars used to compete on distinctions between driving
| experience/fuel economy/reliability/etc. In comparison,
| differences between electric cars is mostly superfluous.
| They're very interchangeable.
|
| For the next generation of car buyers, infotainment and
| features are going to be the main features. And if you are
| handing all of that away to the tech companies, your entire
| company is going to just become another captive hardware
| partner of the tech giants.
| nicksergeant wrote:
| I don't know. I would argue that driving experience and
| reliability are still very much going to be things in the
| electric car market. I'm an EV9 owner and we have issues w/
| the suspension making it feel sloppy over some bumps. There's
| going to be a ton of nuance in terms of how all of these
| different electric vehicles drive, ride, and are experienced.
| And those are all going to come down to the vehicle
| manufacturers themselves, not just the technology partner for
| screens.
| beanjuice wrote:
| ... So the answer is to make a series of worse products?
| legitster wrote:
| I dunno - some of the manufacturers have legitimately good
| UIs now.
| jayd16 wrote:
| If they actually planned to compete on it they could just
| offer Carplay support as an option, no?
| wilg wrote:
| What, no. I'd buy a Rivian R2 right now to replace my Model Y
| if it 1) existed and 2) matched FSD features.
| dawnerd wrote:
| I'm in the same boat. My Model Y has to last until the R2
| with lidar comes out. Hopefully it'll have some value left in
| it.
| hansonkd wrote:
| It's maddening that $100k purchases get totally nerfed by bad
| software. Absolutely crazy to me that I can go out find a super
| nice car I want and have to walk away because of bad software
| or no carplay support.
| Hovertruck wrote:
| I hear this a lot and it's surprising to me. We have three cars
| in our family (two with carplay and the Rivian) and carplay
| always feels like such a downgraded experience compared to that
| of the Rivian.
| doctoboggan wrote:
| I have a plex server and use Prologue for audio books. What
| would my experience on Rivian be like? I am guessing I would
| have to connect to the infotainment system as a bluetooth
| speaker? Would I be able to easily skip forward/backward and
| see the current chapter?
|
| I've been using car play for the better part of the past
| decade and don't know what it looks like in vehicles without
| it.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Autonomy subscriptions are how things are going to go, I called
| this a long time ago. It makes too much sense in terms of
| continuous development and operations/support to not have a
| subscription -- and subscriptions will likely double as insurance
| at some point in the future (once the car is driving itself 100%
| of the time, and liability is always with the self driving stack
| anyway).
|
| Of course, people won't like this, I'm not exactly enthused
| either, but the alternative would be a corporation constantly
| providing -- for free -- updates and even support if your car
| gets into an accident or stuck. That doesn't really make sense
| from a business perspective.
| margalabargala wrote:
| > the alternative would be a corporation constantly providing
| -- for free -- updates and even support if your car gets into
| an accident or stuck.
|
| That's one alternative.
|
| Another alternative would be that you get what you get at
| purchase time, and you have to buy a new car to get the newest
| update.
|
| "Continuous development" isn't always a selling point when it's
| something with your life in its hands. A great example is
| Tesla. There are plenty of people who are thrilled with the
| continuous updates and changes to everything, and there are
| plenty of people that mock Tesla for it. Both groups are large
| markets that will have companies cater to them.
| nradov wrote:
| The consumers who mock Tesla (and other auto manufacturers)
| that deliver continuous updates are rapidly dying off or
| moving into assisted living facilities. They're not going to
| be buying many new cars in coming years. Pursuing that market
| segment seems like literally a "dead" end.
| hateselfdriving wrote:
| Funny, I have another 30-40 years before I'm "dying off or
| moving to assisted living". Yet, because I work in software
| engineering and cybersecurity, you'll have to rip my human-
| driven cars out of my dead hands before I ever use or own a
| self-driving vehicle.
|
| Don't get me wrong, as another commenter brought up, I hate
| traffic too, and the annual fatalities from vehicles are
| obviously a tragedy. Neither of them motivate me to sign
| away my rights and autonomy to auto manufacturers.
|
| What happens when these companies decide they suddenly
| don't like you, cancel your subscription, and suddenly
| you're not allowed to drive, or I suppose rather use, the
| vehicle you "own"? It will become the same "subscription to
| life" dystopian nightmare everything else is becoming.
|
| Or how about how these subscriptions will never be what the
| consumer actually wants? You'll be forced to pay for
| useless extra features, ever increasing prices, and planned
| obsolescence until they've squeezed maximum value out of
| every single person. I mean imagine trying to work with
| Comcast to get your "car subscription" sorted.
|
| You know else reduces traffic and fatalities? Allowing
| workers to actually work from home. Driving during COVID
| was a dream come true. Let's let the commercial real estate
| market fail as it was primed to.
| margalabargala wrote:
| That's definitely the attitude I hear from the Tesla-can-
| do-no-wrong crowd, but in reality most of the people I meet
| in the Tesla-mocking crowd are under 40- younger on average
| than the other group.
|
| The non-Tesla manufacturers have noticed this and
| positioned products accordingly. Tesla does Musk-driven-
| development so only caters to the one group.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| > Another alternative would be that you get what you get at
| purchase time, and you have to buy a new car to get the
| newest update.
|
| The Mercedes-Benz model.
| SecretDreams wrote:
| > Another alternative would be that you get what you get at
| purchase time, and you have to buy a new car to get the
| newest update.
|
| We can always choose. The subscriptions aren't mandatory? And
| there's an alternative to the subscription where they offer
| it to you for a one time cost.
| malfist wrote:
| If the choice is offered. But with the way the markets are
| today, I wouldn't be surprised if we both paid at time of
| purchase, and then had to pay a subscription fee still.
|
| After all, heated seats are still installed and baked in to
| the MSRP, even if you're not subscribing to make them work.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > Another alternative would be that you get what you get at
| purchase time, and you have to buy a new car to get the
| newest update.
|
| Doubt that is a politically tenable model.
|
| "You're telling me my son Bobby died in a crash that could
| have been prevented with finished software but they only roll
| it out to people who have the money for a new car despite no
| technical limitation?" -- yeah, good luck
| margalabargala wrote:
| I mean that's basically how every car with half-assed
| barely-functional auto lane keeping sold in the last 7
| years has worked.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| i think self-driving changes the calculus
| jdminhbg wrote:
| > Both groups are large markets that will have companies
| cater to them.
|
| More likely, one group is a large market that companies will
| cater to and the other group is a small market that will be
| very loud about their displeasure on the internet.
| true_religion wrote:
| It's not as if every subscription works out for the
| company. Remember the heated seats subscriptions?
| stavros wrote:
| Why would I own a car when I can Waymo one?
| mulderc wrote:
| I'm with you but there are plenty of places where public
| transit is superior to driving and people still drive.
| nradov wrote:
| My cars are more than just transportation. They're mobile
| storage lockers where I can keep my stuff reasonably secure.
| They're a place to sit warm and dry while I wait for
| something else. They're (semi) private changing rooms where I
| can put on my cycling kit. Regardless of who does the driving
| I'll never give up owning (or at least leasing) my own
| private cars.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| I don't know you or your situation, but many people
| (including the idealized version of Rivian's target market)
| like going places that Waymo currently doesn't. There's also
| tradeoffs with cost, wait time, # of passengers, cargo, etc.
| Some people may also want to automate "boring" driving while
| still having the option to do "fun" driving
| paxys wrote:
| Why do people own cars when they can just Uber?
| testing22321 wrote:
| Because it's not convenient enough, and too expensive.
|
| Fix those two and personal car ownership will plummet in
| many places.
|
| Many people don't _want_ to own a car, pay for insurance,
| gas, tires, oil changes, parking, washing etc.
|
| Car ownership sucks horribly for most people, it's just
| currently the best option. That will change.
| paxys wrote:
| And why do you think Waymo will fix all of this?
| testing22321 wrote:
| I don't particularly think that.
|
| Someone will, I don't know who. Soon.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Having your stuff in it already, it's always available
| immediately (for you), not needing to worry as much about
| getting it dirty at the beach or with a dog, going to remote
| places where calling a Waymo may be infeasible or would take
| a really long time. Probably also cheaper if you drive really
| frequently.
| behnamoh wrote:
| Imagine having a vehicle with +680 hp (or 1000 hp in case of
| Rivian quad) and then drive it autonomously... _sigh_ where 's
| the fun in that?
| filoleg wrote:
| There is nothing fun about sitting in traffic on your commute
| to/from work, and neither there is much fun in doing long-
| distance driving in a straight line on highway for hours on
| end (regardless of the horsepower). That's what autonomous
| driving is for imo.
|
| There is a lot of fun in driving a high-hp car on track or
| offroad or in some not-much-populated area or in plenty of
| other scenarios. That's where using autonomous driving mode
| would feel preposterous to me.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| How much fun is it actually to drive around doing daily
| errands or commuting?
|
| Personally, I look at the 40,000 people killed each year in
| traffic crashes in the US, and I think, the sooner we all
| stop driving (on public roads) the better.
| cyberax wrote:
| You make a good argument in favor of not allowing 680hp light
| vehicles on public roads.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Agreed, it seems inevitable that autonomy and insurance are
| going to be bundled.
|
| 1. Courts are finding Tesla partially liable for collisions, so
| they've already got some of the downsides of insurance (aka the
| payout) without the upside (the premium).
|
| 2. Waymo data shows a significant injury reduction rate. If
| it's true and not manipulated data, it's natural for the car
| companies to want to capture some of this upside.
|
| 3. It just seems like a much easier sell. I wouldn't pay
| $100/month for self-driving, but $150 a month for self-driving
| + insurance? That's more than I currently pay for insurance,
| but not a lot more. And I've got relatively cheap insurance:
| charging $250/month for insurance + self-driving will be
| cheaper than what some people pay for just insurance alone.
|
| I don't think we need to hit 100% self-driving for the bundled
| insurance to be viable. 90% self-driving should still have a
| substantially lower accident rate if the Waymo data is accurate
| and extends.
| apercu wrote:
| Curious where you live? The only place I ever paid insurance
| premiums that high (and not quite that high) was in Ontario.
| I pay $70.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| The average car insurance premium in the US is over
| $2000/year, and over $2500/year for full coverage. I
| imagine that has an outlier effect and the median is lower,
| but I'd be surprised if the median was under $100/month.
| I'm paying just under $1000/year (and yes, in Ontario).
| cyberax wrote:
| The liability-only insurance is around $70 a month.
| devmor wrote:
| You must own your vehicle in its entirety to be able to
| downgrade to liability-only. If you are still making
| payments on your car (which most people are), your lender
| requires that you maintain full coverage.
| ics wrote:
| In NYC with clean 15+ year driving record my premium is
| $270 a month after discounts with USAA. Geico, Allstate,
| Progressive all quote me $400/mo minimum. Have driven
| everything from old beaters to brand new economy cars with
| little difference. Friends who also drive are paying around
| $350/mo on average.
| mcny wrote:
| > In NYC with clean 15+ year driving record my premium is
| $270 a month after discounts with USAA. Geico, Allstate,
| Progressive all quote me $400/mo minimum. Have driven
| everything from old beaters to brand new economy cars
| with little difference. Friends who also drive are paying
| around $350/mo on average.
|
| You're taking about full coverage, right?
| ics wrote:
| Yes but when I tried to switch to liability only it was
| $20 cheaper. What I pay seems to be the floor, it's
| definitely the lowest of anyone I know so far who isn't
| claiming to live outside of NYC. Meanwhile my motorcycle
| insurance, liability only, for an older sport bike was
| only $400/year with Progressive.
| devmor wrote:
| Similar here. In Atlanta, have never had an at-fault
| accident in my life. I pay just under $400/mo for full
| coverage on my 2019 coupe and my wife's 2015 crossover.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I always chuckle when discussions start comparing insurance
| premiums without defining the insurance itself.
|
| Might as well compare the prices of apples and oranges and
| vacuums and space stations.
|
| These comments could be quoting liability only insurance or
| comprehensive/collision for a kia or
| comprehensive/collision with bodily injury for a rivian
| R1S. The insured amount would differ by hundreds of
| thousands of dollars.
|
| For reference, I have only ever paid for maximum liability
| only insurance including uninsured/underinsured coverage
| ($500k/$250k), but not bodily injury, and my premium for
| 10k miles per year is less than $50 per month. Used to be
| less than $40 per month before 2022.
| maxerickson wrote:
| Why would you forego bodily injury liability coverage?
| Most states require it, and it makes sense if you have
| even modest assets.
|
| The medical portion of my insurance that covers me
| (unlimited PIP) is like $17 a month, I can't see driving
| much and not spending that, even with relatively limited
| expectations for how much easier it might make things.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Sorry, I meant I forego Personal Injury Protection, not
| Bodily Injury. I purchase the maximum amount of bodily
| injury (I forget if it's $250k or $500k, but it's up
| there).
| phkahler wrote:
| >> Waymo data shows a significant injury reduction rate. If
| it's true and not manipulated data, it's natural for the car
| companies to want to capture some of this upside.
|
| If you can insure the car for less, the car company can
| charge more for the car. I don't want to pay a subscription
| (rent) for a car I buy.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| I think you're in the minority. I can't find the reference,
| but I believe more customers are willing to pay $100/month
| for Tesla FSD than are willing to pay $10K once.
| typewithrhythm wrote:
| Tesla fsd is far from complete enough to be a data point;
| people who pay the 10k are gambling that when fsd is
| improved the cost will be much higher.
| echelon wrote:
| I would pay _so much_ for my own SUV to self-drive as well as
| Waymo.
|
| Keyword: my own SUV. Not a rental. With the possibility for
| me to take over and drive it myself if service fails or if I
| want to do so.
|
| The significant unlock is that I get to haul gear, packages,
| family. I don't need to keep it clean. The muddy dogs, the
| hiking trip, the week-long road trip.
|
| If my car could drive me, I'd do way more road trips and skip
| flying. It's almost as romantic as a California Zephyr or
| Coast Starlight trip. And I can camp out of it.
|
| No cramped airlines. No catching colds by being packed in a
| sardine can with a stressed out immune system.
|
| No sharing space with people on public transit. I can work
| and watch movies and listen to music and hang out with my
| wife, my friends. People won't stare at me, and I can eat in
| peace or just be myself in my own space.
|
| I might even work in a nomadic lifestyle if I don't have to
| drive all the time. Our country is so big and there's so much
| to see.
|
| One day you might even be able to attach a trailer. Bikes,
| jet skis, ATVs. People might simply live on the road,
| traveling all the time.
|
| Big cars seem preferable. Lots of space for internal creature
| comforts. Laying back, lounging. Watching, reading, eating.
| Changing clothes, camping, even cooking.
|
| Some people might even buy autonomous RVs. I'm sure that'll
| be a big thing in its own right.
|
| It's bidirectional too! People can come to you as you go to
| them. Meet in the middle. Same thing with packages, food,
| etc.
|
| This would be the biggest thing in travel, transport,
| logistics, perhaps ever. It's a huge unlock. It feels
| downright revolutionary. Like a total change in how we might
| live our lives.
|
| This might turn big suburbs from food/culture deserts into
| the default places people want to live as they have more
| space for cheaper - because the commute falls apart.
|
| This honestly sounds _better than a house_ , but if you can
| also own an affordable large home in the suburbs as your home
| base - that's incredible. You don't need a tiny expensive
| place in the city. You could fall asleep in your car and wake
| up for breakfast in the city. Spend some time at home, then
| make a trek to the mountains. All without wasting any time.
| No more driving, no more traffic. Commuting becomes leisure.
| It becomes _you_ time.
|
| This is also kind of a super power that big countries (in
| terms of area) with lots of roads and highways will enjoy the
| most. It doesn't do much in a dense city, but once you add
| mountains and forests and streams and deserts and oceans -
| that's magic.
|
| Maybe our vast interstate highway infrastructure will
| suddenly grow ten times in value.
|
| Roads might become more important than ever. We might even
| start building more.
|
| If the insurance and autonomy come bundled as a subscription
| after you purchase or lease your vehicle, that's super easy
| for people to activate and spend money on.
|
| This is such a romantic dream, and I'm so hyped for this.
|
| I would pay an ungodly sum to unlock this. It can't come soon
| enough. Would subscribe in a heartbeat.
| bradfa wrote:
| Have a look at comma ai
| echelon wrote:
| George Hotz has done some interesting work, but Comma is
| far too indie/hacker. It's not at a scale where it can be
| 100% autonomous.
|
| I think a fully autonomous car has to be designed around
| LiDAR and autonomy from the ground up. That's a hugely
| capital intensive task that integrates a lot of domains
| and data. And so much money and talent.
|
| This is more in the ballpark of Google Waymo, Amazon
| Zoox, Tesla/xAI, Rivian, Apple, etc.
|
| And as the other folks have mentioned, this becomes a
| really good prospect if one company can manage the
| autonomy, insurance, maintenance, updates, etc. A fully
| vertically integrated subscription offering on top of
| specially purposed hardware you either lease or purchase.
| pastel8739 wrote:
| > This might turn big suburbs from food/culture deserts
| into the default places people want to live as they have
| more space for cheaper
|
| This will certainly not happen. The reason these places are
| culture and food deserts is precisely because people drive
| everywhere and the driving infrastructure requires so much
| space that it is impossible to have density at the levels
| needed to support culture.
| pastel8739 wrote:
| I very much hope that this doesn't happen. So much wasted
| energy for so little benefit. What's one to do in this
| world if they don't have the money to own a car that
| constantly drives them around? What's one to do if they
| like becoming familiar with a place, rather than watching
| place after place whiz by? What's one to do if they want to
| build relationships with the other humans in the world?
| devmor wrote:
| Your dream sounds like a nightmare for everyone else in
| America. I hope it never comes to fruition.
| fragmede wrote:
| Get a Model Y or even a Cybertruck. It's not there quite
| yet but holy shit it's almost there.
| llbeansandrice wrote:
| This would be an absolute energy and efficiency nightmare.
| I hope to god this never ever happens.
|
| > No sharing space with people on public transit.
|
| If people really want their own private suites they should
| be paying thru the nose and ears for it. Cars are a worse
| version of this and the car-centric lifestyle is heavily
| subsidized by everything from taxes to people's lives (air
| pollution from ICEs yes, but tire pollution is actually
| worse in many ways and is made worse with heavier EVs).
|
| This will not fix food deserts, it will make them worse. If
| your car isn't packed to capacity on every single trip, it
| is less efficient and worse than public transit.
|
| Roads are awful. We should be trying to minimize them, not
| expand them.
|
| Whatever ungodly sum you are prepared to pay, I'm certain
| the actual cost is yet higher.
| harikb wrote:
| History suggests it won't be that clean.
|
| 1. High-severity accidents might drop, but the industry
| bleeds money on high-frequency, low-speed incidents (parking
| lots, neighborhood scrapes). Autonomy has diminishing returns
| here; it doesn't magically prevent the chaos of mixed-use
| environments.
|
| 2. Insurance is a capital management game. We'll likely see a
| tech company try this, fail to cover a catastrophic liability
| due to lack of reserves, and trigger a massive backlash.
|
| It reminds me of early internet optimism: we thought
| connectivity would make truth impossible to hide. Instead, we
| got the opposite. Tech rarely solves complex markets
| linearly.
| jayd16 wrote:
| > a corporation constantly providing -- for free -- updates and
| even support
|
| Corporations could decide to only advertise shipped features,
| not beta tests.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Autonomy subscriptions are how things are going to go_
|
| In America, maybe. Chinese manufacturers are already treating
| self driving as table stakes. If I have a choice between a
| subscription car and one that just works, I'm buying the
| latter.
|
| > _continuous development and operations /support_
|
| ICE vehicles require continuous servicing and manufacturer
| support.
| whatever1 wrote:
| Uber charges like $100 per hour the customers. I feel once we
| reach autonomy this will be the baseline.
| kakacik wrote:
| Unrealistic for 99% of the world, billions live where they
| earn such sum for more than a week. Not all of those have
| cars, but many do. This is just some little SV + maybe NY
| bubble thinking. Also EU would show a big fat finger to such
| predatory pricing.
| general1465 wrote:
| Let's be real. A staggering amount of drivers are incapable to
| switch on Automatic Cruise Control or trigger automatic
| parking. They know how to start the car, how to switch lights
| and wipers on/off and that's about it.
|
| Paying subscription for something what they are never going to
| use is going to be a hard sell.
| setgree wrote:
| The other possible future is you rent the car for exactly when
| you need it and don't pay a monthly bill-- or your monthly bill
| pays for a certain number of rides/minutes/miles per month. In
| which case the subscription costs are managed by the provider,
| who might be the manufacturer and might not.
|
| At least in cities, a fully-functioning, on-demand autonomous
| fleet would probably be superior to car ownership in just about
| every way except as a status symbol.
| wat10000 wrote:
| Subscriptions are how things are going to go in general. This
| is just one example of the larger trend. Companies find it very
| annoying that they have to keep coming up with ways to provide
| new value in order to keep getting money from people.
|
| Some car companies are already trying out subscriptions for
| stuff that requires zero ongoing support, like seat heaters.
| Outside of cars, so much software is switching to
| subscriptions, whether or not it makes sense. The software for
| my security cameras has become completely infested by ads, but
| you can pay for a subscription to make them go away. I own the
| cameras outright, but not really, since the software needed to
| use them is basically rented, either with cash or with my
| eyeballs. Most paid apps I come across these days want a
| monthly fee to keep using it, they're not content to just sell
| me a copy.
| frankfrank13 wrote:
| Is there some tight coupling on autonomy + electric cars? Seems
| the only 2 viable hands-free car companies are Tesla and Rivian.
| I don't see myself ever getting an electric car, but it doesn't
| seem like the big car companies are anywhere near this.
| hartator wrote:
| I think the shift to EV is inevitable.
| colordrops wrote:
| I agree, but it won't happen until EVs get more range.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Better charging infrastructure and faster charging
| batteries will mitigate some of that.
| 5upplied_demand wrote:
| That has been happening consistently for almost 15 years. h
| ttps://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1323-janu
| ...
| ok_dad wrote:
| The range is fine today, the problem is charging
| infrastructure now. There aren't enough high speed
| chargers, and we can't build more because of the same
| reasons we can't build more AI datacenters: power. Tesla
| can build tons of them because they're backed by large grid
| batteries that suck up the power peaks from fast charging
| so that they can install their charging stations anywhere
| that has somewhat reliable power. If you don't have the
| batteries to act as a peak shaver, then it's really hard to
| install high speed charging where people need it most in
| residential and commercial areas that are already
| oversubscribed.
| colordrops wrote:
| It's not fine for all use cases. There are many people
| who are holding out because it's either not fine for
| their main use case, or even just a use case that occurs
| infrequently, but still important to them.
| iknowstuff wrote:
| It already happened. 1/3rd of the global car market is EV.
| Range is not an issue.
| colordrops wrote:
| Worthless comment. Of course it's not an issue for city
| driving. It's an issue for long trips and rural driving.
| No one said EVs don't serve many use cases. I have one
| myself.
| sofixa wrote:
| No, the only Level 3 self-driving system is Drive Pilot by
| Mercedes. They have it on the S-Class and EQS sedans, so one
| ICE/hybrid and one EV.
|
| It even comes with legal liability for the car manufacturer,
| that's how confident they are in the tech. None of this kind of
| hopium:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...
| iknowstuff wrote:
| So confident that it only works with a lead car to follow, on
| select stretches of freeways, below a certain speed, on sunny
| days
| jerlam wrote:
| No, there is no coupling between EVs and automation.
|
| Ford BlueCruise and Mercedes Drive Pilot are equipped on some
| ICE vehicles, and are hands-free driving on (some) highways.
|
| Mercedes Drive Pilot is classified as L3 which is better than
| Tesla or Rivian.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| I know this ain't a bitch-about-bluecruise thread but it's
| crazy to me they shipped it as is, it disengages silently as
| a matter of course - only indication is an animation on the
| speedometer. You basically have to keep your hands in the
| wheel just in case, not to mention shouting at you to pay
| attention when you glance over at the radio. Handsfree but
| keep your eyeballs facing front !
| jedberg wrote:
| The coupling is more with cost than drive train, but consumers
| most likely to pay extra for autonomy are the same ones willing
| to pay extra for electric.
|
| Which is why you see it on the Mercedes ICE vehicle. Because
| it's a high cost vehicle to start with.
| criddell wrote:
| Is the paint job supposed to resemble R2-D2?
| doctoboggan wrote:
| I loved to see that they plan on running the Rivian Assistant LLM
| onboard using their new Gen 3 hardware. Great that they see that
| as a valuable feature and I hope to see the industry move that
| way.
| asadm wrote:
| I hear many Rivian customers really love Comma.ai, so much that
| they are #1 on Comma dash.
| ShakataGaNai wrote:
| Probably a lot of overlap in the venn diagram of people who
| would like the two things. Mostly the "Early Adopter" circle.
|
| Also a lot of cars have a lot of limitations with comma.ai.
| Yes, you can install it on all sorts but there are limitations
| like: above 32mph, cannot resume from stop, cannot take tight
| corners, cannot do stop light detection, requires additional
| car upgrades/features, only known to support model year 2021.
| Etc.
|
| Rivian supports everything, it has a customer base who LOVE
| technology, are willing to try new things, and ... have
| disposable income for a $1k extra gadget.
| maherbeg wrote:
| a lot of the gen1 users will likely swap over to it though.
| They basically have dropped improvements for gen1 autonomy
| which is rug-pullish :(
| daemonologist wrote:
| The R2(-D2) livery is a fun touch
| orliesaurus wrote:
| Watching this unfold... I keep thinking about the supply chain...
| how many rare minerals go into this custom silicon?
|
| ALSO what happens when the first generation hits end-of-life...
| will there be a clear path to recycling? I want to believe these
| platforms will last more than a subscription cycle...
|
| BUT I guess we won't know until we see a teardown...
| spankalee wrote:
| Why would more minerals go into custom silicon than off-the-
| shelf silicon? How would recycling be any different?
| orliesaurus wrote:
| not "more"
| porphyra wrote:
| typical automotive 905 nm lidars are just CMOS chips similar to
| cameras and regular computer chips
| porphyra wrote:
| Rivians have been spotted with giant Velodyne VLS-128 "Alpha
| Puck"s since several years ago [1]. But from last I checked,
| Rivian's ADAS is still struggling with ping-ponging in lanes on
| curved stretches, and it only works on a small set of pre-mapped
| highways. Highly doubtful that "universal hands free" is coming.
|
| [1]
| https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/mqijd2/riv...
| typewithrhythm wrote:
| The big lidars are for ground truth collection. They get used
| in projects ranging from autonomous development all the way
| down to budget adaptive cruise control or parking sensor
| benchmarking.
| thebeardisred wrote:
| What I'm wondering is that the stack up of licensed processor IP
| looks like.
| mtoner23 wrote:
| how about they try to make their cars profitably first....
| behnamoh wrote:
| They'd rather make their board and CEO profitable first...
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| looks like they're profitable already if counting cars and
| software on them.
|
| https://rivian.com/newsroom/article/rivian-releases-third-qu...
| mrcwinn wrote:
| This is really poor execution. You're taking a complex, low
| margin vehicle and introducing even more cost and supply chain
| complexity. On top of that, you're essentially making a proxy bet
| that more expensive hardware (LIDAR) will beat Tesla's software
| bet.
|
| It's absolutely fair to criticize Elon for his ridiculous FSD
| timeline claims, but here we are now evaluating the market: if
| you have experienced the latest FSD, Waymo's and now Rivian's bet
| is just so obviously the exact wrong bet.
| senordevnyc wrote:
| Waymo is delivering millions of paid rides per month all over
| the country with no one in the driver's seat. Tesla _still_ can
| 't manage that in one small city without a backup driver in the
| front.
|
| But yes, just like the dozens of other times I've read this
| comment for years now, I'm sure "the latest version of FSD" is
| so groundbreaking, and it's all about to change!
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _if you have experienced the latest FSD, Waymo 's and now
| Rivian's bet is just so obviously the exact wrong bet_
|
| I have. It's wild for anyone to say this.
|
| Waymo works. FSD _mostly_ works, and I seriously considered
| getting a Tesla after borrowing one last week. But it needs to
| be supervised--this is apparent both in its attention
| requirement and the one time last week it tried to bolt into a
| red-lit intersection.
|
| The state of the art is Waymo. The jury is still out on whether
| cameras only can replicate its success. If it can't, that
| safety margin could mean game over for FSD on the insurance or
| regulatory levels. In that case, Rivian could be No. 2 to Waymo
| (which _will_ be No. 1 if cameras only doesn't pan out, given
| they have infinite money from Google). That's a good bet.
|
| And if cameras only works, you'll still have the ultra premium
| segment Tesla seems to have abandoned and which may be wary of
| licensing from Waymo.
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| Your statement on more expensive hardware likely isn't true if
| you factor in full costs. Lidar gives you things for free with
| little extra processing (or power) that optical takes extra
| work to do poorly with higher latency.
|
| Also LIDAR has just plain dropped in price, well over 10x,
| while nVidia hardware (even the automotive specific variants)
| have not.
|
| https://cleantechnica.com/2025/03/20/lidars-wicked-cost-drop...
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| > You're taking a complex, low margin vehicle
|
| Taxi services are not low margin. A taxi typically does about
| 500,000 miles over its lifetime; adding $10,000 to that cost is
| 2 cents per mile, increasing price by about 1%.
| adrr wrote:
| I own FSD, its no where near autonomy.
| esafak wrote:
| If only they had a good designer. They have the ugliest frames.
| fidotron wrote:
| They also like to indulge in massive post purchase UX changes
| so if you like it now there is a good chance you won't in a
| year.
| plebianRube wrote:
| In the future, we could use some sort of traffic management
| system, were cars which conform to a standard are able to 'link-
| up' and move as one unit like a train, it would relieve alot of
| the stop and go and improve flow on congested roads, possibly
| with denser traffic. I'd bet alot of daily commuters woild
| subscribe to something like that.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| That was planned a very long time ago. It was too early, and we
| completely squandered it. Now the spectrum allocated for V2V it
| is gone.
|
| https://www.butzel.com/alert-The-Latest-Development-in-the-S...
| uberman wrote:
| Why do people what self driving cars at all? I certainly hate the
| thought of having to pay for any of this. Even if the end product
| is subscription based, all these feature cost money up front
| making new cars super expensive.
| bluGill wrote:
| It remains to be seen, but there is reason to believe that self
| driving cars will be enough safer than regular cars that I as a
| citizen want everyone to have them if you have a car.
|
| I have kids who walk, ride bikes, and I do the same. There are
| a lot of terrible drivers out there - the average driver who
| thinks they are better than everyone else is still terrible
| (yes this includes me - I'm one of the few honest enough to
| admit I'm not good, but I'm about equal to everyone else)
| ricardobeat wrote:
| Doing long highway drives is effortless. Think cruise control,
| but you can let go of the wheel.
|
| The hardware necessary for level 2 autonomy is estimated to
| cost about US$400 in a Tesla. Much higher for companies using
| Lidar though prices are coming down as well.
| aclatuts wrote:
| My sister plans to just buy the self driving subscription for
| the month they go on road trips and thats it. Far better than
| buying it up front.
| fragmede wrote:
| I don't think so. My financial situation isn't hers though,
| and I don't even own one. I borrowed a friend's for a 550
| mile road trip this past weekend and then for a few days
| after. It's there enough to do the usual daily trips with
| minimal interaction, so while road trips is the obvious
| situation for it it's also really nice to have the rest of
| the time. It sucks that it costs so much when it could be
| free, but we still live under capitalism so that's just how
| that one goes.
| m463 wrote:
| I think it helps you drive. It takes away the tedium of driving
| and reduces your workload.
|
| Big wins are: 1) stop-and-go traffic 2) long boring highway
| trips
|
| infrequent but just as important - emergency braking
|
| That said I absolutely hate that this seems to give tesla the
| "courage" to remove physical driver controls (like turn signal
| stalks, drive select stalks, full controls for wipers, lights
| and defrost)
| justinholt wrote:
| I like approaching it from an accessibility standpoint. I don't
| need it and I enjoy the act of driving. That said, if I had
| vision impairment and wanted freedom to travel further from
| home with no assistance self driving cars make a lot more
| sense.
|
| The product isn't necessarily "for me", but that doesn't mean
| it shouldn't exist.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| I would like self-driving car for myself, but more so, I would
| like it for all the other drivers on the road who regularly try
| to kill me or destroy my car.
| mike-cardwell wrote:
| I'd love to get in my car and go to sleep for a couple of hours
| or read a book whilst it drives me somewhere. Imagine if it
| could even pull over and charge up without any kind of
| intervention too. You could get in your car, and get a full
| nights sleep whilst it drive you somewhere 500 miles away.
|
| Also, at some point, I'm probably going to be too old to drive
| safely, which will restrict my travels. Not if self driving
| gets to the point where that doesn't matter anymore.
| wat10000 wrote:
| Driving can be annoying. I like it in some cases, but it's no
| fun when there's a ton of traffic, lots of stop lights, etc.
| I'd love to be able to push a button and let it handle the
| grunt work in those cases.
|
| Sometimes I want to do something else. Maybe adjust my music,
| or send a text. If the car can keep me going while I do that,
| it would be nice.
|
| I live with two people who can't drive. Often I have to take
| them to things. Tonight I'm going to spend about 90 minutes
| going, waiting, and coming back, so one of them can do
| something. It would be great if I could just put them in the
| car and say, have fun, see you later, and stay home while the
| car takes them there and back.
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| One day, all personal transport will be AI, and lunatics like
| me who enjoy performance driving will have special vehicles we
| drive at a track. Self driving cars are great. That you can't
| afford one is just a matter of time.
| herbturbo wrote:
| That all sounds great but with CARIAD now being involved at
| Rivian I won't hold my breath on that roadmap being executed.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| Those blue stripes look amazing in a retro-future kind of way.
| About time cars started getting back some personality.
| NickM wrote:
| I don't think that the production model will look like that, I
| believe it's a wrap. Also suspect it's a bit of a joke on the
| model being called the R2 (the colors and patterns are
| reminiscent of R2-D2).
| nextstep wrote:
| These companies are only surviving because of US protectionism.
| This tech is more expensive than then Chinese equivalent from 2-3
| years ago (look at what Xiaomi or BYD released as their 2024
| models).
|
| These cars will not sell well outside of the US.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| While the software is indeed behind - e.g. Nio already had all
| of this in 2022/2023, and a much better UI, I'm sure the
| upcoming Rivian R2 and R3 would sell very well in Europe.
| viburnum wrote:
| Quite the qualification for self-driving: "as long as there are
| clearly painted lane lines."
| pstuart wrote:
| +3.5 million miles out of ~4.x million miles of existing roads
| -- not too shabby.
|
| Seems like a good start to me, and I'd rather they approach as
| cautiously as possible.
| m463 wrote:
| I notice that tesla seems to choose (highlight in blue) the
| left and/or right lane lines or the car in front of you. But it
| still seems to work without lines.
| japhyr wrote:
| Fully autonomous driving in all conditions in all locations is
| clearly a hard problem that's still not solved.
|
| I'm very happy with any company that clearly spells out the
| situations where their tech works, and the situations where it
| doesn't yet work.
| magguzu wrote:
| I'm getting real tired of seeing Silicon Valley reinvent trains.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-12-11 23:00 UTC)