11 ms·

"2. Self Driving Cars. In the US the players that will determine whether self driving cars are successful or abandoned are #1 Waymo (Google) and #2 Zoox (Amazon

"2. Self Driving Cars. In the US the players that will determine whether self driving cars are successful or abandoned are #1 Waymo (Google) and #2 Zoox (Amazon). No one else matters. The key metric will be human intervention rate as that will determine profitability." - I love that he's not mentioning the speculation company of the century. We don't have to mention it either.

christianqchung 8mo ago
Tesla? I don't love the company or the owner, but it seems silly to completely dismiss them so early on, relatively speaking. Self driving has been a decades long effort; even though I am heavily in favor of Waymo, some speculation towards Tesla's path seems fair. At the same time, I agree with the article here: > Tesla (owned by Tesla) has put on a facade of being operational, but it is not operational in the sense of the other two services, and faces regulatory headwinds that both Waymo and Zoox have long been able to satisfy. They are not on a path to becoming a real service.
- lbourdages 8mo ago
  Given Tesla's abysmal track record on keeping their promises I feel like it is justified to dismiss them, at the risk of being surprised if they do make it.
  - porphyra 8mo ago
    Both of these can be true at the same time: * Elon has been making wildly exaggerated and over-optimistic claims for a decade and continues to do so * Tesla has recently made huge strides in capability and has a clear path to full autonomy And to be fair, many other car companies also promised self driving cars, e.g. Audi in 2014 promising driverless cars by 2016 [1]. It's just that Tesla is still executing on the promise whereas many other carmakers have fizzled out on their ambitions. As the Rodney Brooks article itself mentions, > As a reminder of how strong the hype was and the certainty of promises that it was just around the corner here is a snapshot of a whole bunch of predictions by major executives from 2017. [1] https://www.digitalspy.com/tech/a610930/audi-promises-to-deliver-driverless-cars-by-2016/ https://www.digitalspy.com/tech/a610930/audi-promises-to-del...
- porphyra 8mo ago
  Given that fully driverless Model Ys and Cybercabs have been spotted going around Austin, I find that the "they are not on a path to becoming a real service" is a little too strongly worded.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
- denkmoon 8mo ago
  Tesla's commitment to no lidar means they aren't even in the race.
TrainedMonkey 8mo ago
Seems overly reductive, both supply and demand will determine what happens. So far demand for Waymos seem fine, they can stimulate it way further by lowering the prices. The problem is on the supply side, specifically unit price economics. Intervention per mile is just one part that goes into profitability and I doubt it's biggest one. I would estimate the costs to be in this order - vehicle cost, maintenance (and vehicle longevity), human intervention, charging, fleet management (cleaning, etc), and regulatory environment. In particular, Jaguar Waymos are over 150k a pop. It seems far fetched that any of them will make ever break even. New generation is reportedly $75k per vehicle which is significantly better. I could not find any data for Zoox vehicle cost, but given how few of them there are it's a non-player. Finally the elephant in the room. Outside of camera vs lidar holy war, Tesla seems well positioned to dominate supply side of the equation if the demand shows up. Robotaxis are reportedly under $35k, they own the factories and know how to build more, they also own the maintenance side.
- hadlock 8mo ago
  You can build a GMC panel van that seats 12 for about $20k, I don't think vehicle cost is a significant hurdle.
  - rogerrogerr 8mo ago
    You can’t build a self driving GMC panel van with non-Tesla tech for $20k. (Or, probably, with Tesla tech. But you definitely can’t do it without.)
robotresearcher 8mo ago
> I love that he's not mentioning the speculation company of the century. We don't have to mention it either. The word 'Tesla' appears 17 times in the article.

christianqchung 8mo ago

Tesla? I don't love the company or the owner, but it seems silly to completely dismiss them so early on, relatively speaking. Self driving has been a decades long effort; even though I am heavily in favor of Waymo, some speculation towards Tesla's path seems fair. At the same time, I agree with the article here: > Tesla (owned by Tesla) has put on a facade of being operational, but it is not operational in the sense of the other two services, and faces regulatory headwinds that both Waymo and Zoox have long been able to satisfy. They are not on a path to becoming a real service.

lbourdages 8mo ago
Given Tesla's abysmal track record on keeping their promises I feel like it is justified to dismiss them, at the risk of being surprised if they do make it.
- porphyra 8mo ago
  Both of these can be true at the same time: * Elon has been making wildly exaggerated and over-optimistic claims for a decade and continues to do so * Tesla has recently made huge strides in capability and has a clear path to full autonomy And to be fair, many other car companies also promised self driving cars, e.g. Audi in 2014 promising driverless cars by 2016 [1]. It's just that Tesla is still executing on the promise whereas many other carmakers have fizzled out on their ambitions. As the Rodney Brooks article itself mentions, > As a reminder of how strong the hype was and the certainty of promises that it was just around the corner here is a snapshot of a whole bunch of predictions by major executives from 2017. [1] https://www.digitalspy.com/tech/a610930/audi-promises-to-deliver-driverless-cars-by-2016/ https://www.digitalspy.com/tech/a610930/audi-promises-to-del...
porphyra 8mo ago
Given that fully driverless Model Ys and Cybercabs have been spotted going around Austin, I find that the "they are not on a path to becoming a real service" is a little too strongly worded.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
denkmoon 8mo ago
Tesla's commitment to no lidar means they aren't even in the race.

TrainedMonkey 8mo ago

Seems overly reductive, both supply and demand will determine what happens. So far demand for Waymos seem fine, they can stimulate it way further by lowering the prices. The problem is on the supply side, specifically unit price economics. Intervention per mile is just one part that goes into profitability and I doubt it's biggest one. I would estimate the costs to be in this order - vehicle cost, maintenance (and vehicle longevity), human intervention, charging, fleet management (cleaning, etc), and regulatory environment. In particular, Jaguar Waymos are over 150k a pop. It seems far fetched that any of them will make ever break even. New generation is reportedly $75k per vehicle which is significantly better. I could not find any data for Zoox vehicle cost, but given how few of them there are it's a non-player. Finally the elephant in the room. Outside of camera vs lidar holy war, Tesla seems well positioned to dominate supply side of the equation if the demand shows up. Robotaxis are reportedly under $35k, they own the factories and know how to build more, they also own the maintenance side.

hadlock 8mo ago
You can build a GMC panel van that seats 12 for about $20k, I don't think vehicle cost is a significant hurdle.
- rogerrogerr 8mo ago
  You can’t build a self driving GMC panel van with non-Tesla tech for $20k. (Or, probably, with Tesla tech. But you definitely can’t do it without.)

robotresearcher 8mo ago

> I love that he's not mentioning the speculation company of the century. We don't have to mention it either. The word 'Tesla' appears 17 times in the article.