Musk Can’t Dodge Tesla Cash Woes Any Longer(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Musk Can’t Dodge Tesla Cash Woes Any Longer
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-01/-math-doesn-t-lie-musk-can-t-dodge-tesla-cash-woes-any-longer
150 comments
He's not the only one working on this.
I think its seriously deliverable.
I think its seriously deliverable.
He's used to overpromising and then delivering far later than expected - it's worked so well for SpaceX.
Maybe he inherited Jobs' reality distortion field?
Maybe he inherited Jobs' reality distortion field?
> it's worked so well for SpaceX.
The only thing that SpaceX has done so far is prove that the traditional space industry was correct that you couldn't cost-effectively reuse rockets.
The only thing that SpaceX has done so far is prove that the traditional space industry was correct that you couldn't cost-effectively reuse rockets.
> it's worked so well for SpaceX
In Elon's biography the author mentions that in all projects he was part of he would constantly give far optimistic delivery dates.
In Elon's biography the author mentions that in all projects he was part of he would constantly give far optimistic delivery dates.
A true engineer! :)
I realize you're joking, but this is actually kind of bothersome to me.
Most of us give overly optimistic delivery dates without intending to. Over time we learn that we have this habit, so we pad in some time we think is unnecessary...and still give overly optimistic delivery dates without intending to.
If you add someone INTENDING to give such poor estimates, the problem moves from the "expected and occasionally problematic but still joke-able" to the "just plain lies" category.
Most of us give overly optimistic delivery dates without intending to. Over time we learn that we have this habit, so we pad in some time we think is unnecessary...and still give overly optimistic delivery dates without intending to.
If you add someone INTENDING to give such poor estimates, the problem moves from the "expected and occasionally problematic but still joke-able" to the "just plain lies" category.
He's not intending to be over-optimistic; his goals are possible, he sees they are possible and says so, even if they're unlikely. And he repeatedly states his tendency to be over-optimistic, which RARELY is acknowledged by pretty much anyone else promoting a new advancement.
"I think we can do this by XX. Granted, I've been over-optimistic in the past"... is refreshing honesty, not "lies."
It's amazing to me that so many people interpret acknowledgement of one's own fallibility as lying.
"I think we can do this by XX. Granted, I've been over-optimistic in the past"... is refreshing honesty, not "lies."
It's amazing to me that so many people interpret acknowledgement of one's own fallibility as lying.
> so many people interpret acknowledgement of one's own fallibility as lying.
I can't speak for others, but for myself I interpreted the bit about his bio saying this meant that it was the intention, not an honest assessment of what will occur despite intentions.
I mean, I'm TERRIBLE at estimation and despite all my efforts and awareness I still underestimate most everything. But when starting a company I wouldn't say "...and we'll have optimistic estimates!"
That said, I've not read the bio, and I may well have misunderstood the capsule summary. On the gripping hand, despite (or because of) all his undeniable brilliance at execution, Musk says and does a lot of things that are Not How I Would Do It, so who knows.
I can't speak for others, but for myself I interpreted the bit about his bio saying this meant that it was the intention, not an honest assessment of what will occur despite intentions.
I mean, I'm TERRIBLE at estimation and despite all my efforts and awareness I still underestimate most everything. But when starting a company I wouldn't say "...and we'll have optimistic estimates!"
That said, I've not read the bio, and I may well have misunderstood the capsule summary. On the gripping hand, despite (or because of) all his undeniable brilliance at execution, Musk says and does a lot of things that are Not How I Would Do It, so who knows.
Often times, to get amazing or even great, you have to aim for impossible.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” -- George Bernard Shaw
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” -- George Bernard Shaw
The article is about financial math side that is the issue.
When the debt load becomes high enough, it dominates everything else. Musk is getting to the point where he every late delivery costs investors more and more.
When the debt load becomes high enough, it dominates everything else. Musk is getting to the point where he every late delivery costs investors more and more.
It's either a lie or psychotic delusion, I refuse to believe he is that uninformed and ignorant about the current state of autonomous driving.
With regard to the Boring Company and his transit 'solutions' he's obviously uninformed and ignorant, and his bs has been called out so many times by transit planners, so I wouldn't be surprised if he's just as uninformed and ignorant with his other endeavors.
I think he's extremely optimistic and confident. He's been extremely successful so far, he's a billionaire, has done many things that nay sayers would have called impossible (ie: paypal, landing rockets, building electric cars with very competitive performance). It's not hard to see why Musk might believe he can do anything. He's taken big risks and gotten a lot of positive reinforcement over the last two decades.
I agree that his timeline for robotaxis is probably over optimistic, and that there are many unsolved problems. Self-driving isn't all they have to solve. They also have to solve complex and annoying problems such as having self-driving cars find the people they are supposed to pick up, and also having the cars somehow find charging, find parking, etc. Furthermore, Tesla's claim of 1 million robotaxis assumes that everyone who owns a Tesla with full self driving would want to rent them out as part of the Tesla Network. That's very unrealistic. Most people probably prefer having their car be always available and not subjecting it to potential damage/towing/fines (more driving, more risk).
Still, I wouldn't say Musk is ignorant about the state of self driving. They have self driving cars which they have demoed to people on their investor day. He just makes this probably incorrect assumption that it's all "just software" from here, and everything should be easy to fix. Software isn't easier than hardware. It could also be the case that changes do need to be made for the hardware in order to get high enough reliability, there is no guarantee that the hardware is completely right in its current iteration.
I agree that his timeline for robotaxis is probably over optimistic, and that there are many unsolved problems. Self-driving isn't all they have to solve. They also have to solve complex and annoying problems such as having self-driving cars find the people they are supposed to pick up, and also having the cars somehow find charging, find parking, etc. Furthermore, Tesla's claim of 1 million robotaxis assumes that everyone who owns a Tesla with full self driving would want to rent them out as part of the Tesla Network. That's very unrealistic. Most people probably prefer having their car be always available and not subjecting it to potential damage/towing/fines (more driving, more risk).
Still, I wouldn't say Musk is ignorant about the state of self driving. They have self driving cars which they have demoed to people on their investor day. He just makes this probably incorrect assumption that it's all "just software" from here, and everything should be easy to fix. Software isn't easier than hardware. It could also be the case that changes do need to be made for the hardware in order to get high enough reliability, there is no guarantee that the hardware is completely right in its current iteration.
It’s not over optimistic, it’s delusional and will not happen. Tesla doesn’t have self driving cars, what they demoed was a less restricted version of autopilot which had to disengage multiple times on the short, predefined demo route that investors rode on.
There’s an easy explanation. Musk knows that self driving is mostly hype at this point but he’s running out of cash and desperately needs a capital raise. If he can fool investors into thinking he’ll have self driving solved within a year maybe they’ll give Tesla the money it needs.
There’s an easy explanation. Musk knows that self driving is mostly hype at this point but he’s running out of cash and desperately needs a capital raise. If he can fool investors into thinking he’ll have self driving solved within a year maybe they’ll give Tesla the money it needs.
“Fooling investors” can also lead to law suits that cost Tesla and Musk lots of time and attention, and, in extreme cases, may lead to Musk spending time in jail.
I think he's counting on 'exponential improvement'. You can sort of see where they are going - they have features like summon in a car park or changing lane in traffic that sort of work and they are gradually going to tick off the various driving test skills you need at which point it will sort of work. Then he's hoping it will get reliable as the network learns. It's that last point that may be over optimistic.
> I think he's counting on 'exponential improvement'.
Here he is, on record, stating that he believes Tesla has essentially solved the problem ('game, set, and match'):
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEv99vxKjVI&t=1778
Here he is, on record, stating that he believes Tesla has essentially solved the problem ('game, set, and match'):
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEv99vxKjVI&t=1778
Oh come on, he's got a whole seven months!
19 months from now is also next year. And "as soon as" means "maybe". And as all parents know, "maybe" means "no".
For what it is worth Musk said:
“I think we will be feature complete, full self-driving, this year – meaning the car will be able to find you in a parking lot, pick you up and take you all the way to your destination without intervention, this year. I would say I am of certain of that. That is not a question mark.”
That’s 7 months, not 19.
(The rest is good :)
That’s 7 months, not 19.
(The rest is good :)
Even speaking as a fan, this is an excellent summary.
Also, have they given any evidence that they’ve thought through and prepared for the regulatory hurdles that a robotaxi service would entail, even if the tech problems were solved?
Why bother with that when you can go shopping for a jurisdiction that will let you do whatever you want with minimal interference?
Seemed to work for Uber in Pheonix... until somebody died.
Seemed to work for Uber in Pheonix... until somebody died.
My theory is that it's going to work in the style of Zipcar, rather than Uber. The cars won't move without anyone in them, but you'll be able to reserve one, get in the drivers seat, and then it will drive you to your destination, presumably with human assistance should the autopilot disengage.
It's not real, it's not going to happen, and setting up even a human rideshare service is going to take longer than 12 months
I have already delegated access to my Model S to other Tesla account holders through customer service (manual process). Seems to automate it is straightforward?
Tesla could replace Turo for Teslas fairly rapidly IMHO (and possibly Zipcar!). Supporting Lyft/Uber functionality would of course be more effort, but also doable. This isn't trying to go to the Mars (insert chuckle here). Even if you discount full autonomy, Tesla could collect a skim from every one of these transactions, while also collecting autopilot data from each trip.
Here's an open source rideshare platform: https://libretaxi.org/ TLDR Lots of dollars to capture besides for handing manufactured units over to customers. It's so silly people value Uber and Lyft as platforms so highly (as just mobile apps) while they have so little capability compared to Tesla, who not only has similar software engineering capabilities, but actually builds the cars and restricts their ability to join other platforms as deeply integrated components.
Tesla could replace Turo for Teslas fairly rapidly IMHO (and possibly Zipcar!). Supporting Lyft/Uber functionality would of course be more effort, but also doable. This isn't trying to go to the Mars (insert chuckle here). Even if you discount full autonomy, Tesla could collect a skim from every one of these transactions, while also collecting autopilot data from each trip.
Here's an open source rideshare platform: https://libretaxi.org/ TLDR Lots of dollars to capture besides for handing manufactured units over to customers. It's so silly people value Uber and Lyft as platforms so highly (as just mobile apps) while they have so little capability compared to Tesla, who not only has similar software engineering capabilities, but actually builds the cars and restricts their ability to join other platforms as deeply integrated components.
So Tesla is going to enter an industry that actively loses money based on an autonomy play that doesn't exist and isn't even legal on most U.S. roads?
Do you lose money if someone else owns the cars and you're just facilitating transactions with software you own and infrastructure you must operate regardless to provide service to your vehicle owners?
It's not free, and given how Uber/Lyft/etc have made exactly zero profits despite tens of billions of dollars in capital, not a line of business you want a struggling manufacturing company hemorrhaging cash to pursue.
It's delusional stupidity, and no one should actually take Musk seriously.
It's delusional stupidity, and no one should actually take Musk seriously.
[deleted]
Exactly what you would do to solve your cash flow and profit issues, isn't it?
Bingo!
Step 1) Only able drivers are allowed to rent, with hands on wheel and like you mentioned ZipCar style pickup
Step 2) Car will Come to you driverless, but you still need to drive. This car will drive very slow during summon. Since no one is inside the car, the risk to human lives are reduced (but still exists for other people)
Step 3) Driverless, but limited to certain blocks, weather conditions
Step 4) A more expanded version.
But all of these appear years away.
Step 2) Car will Come to you driverless, but you still need to drive. This car will drive very slow during summon. Since no one is inside the car, the risk to human lives are reduced (but still exists for other people)
Step 3) Driverless, but limited to certain blocks, weather conditions
Step 4) A more expanded version.
But all of these appear years away.
A robotaxi isn't too far off if you limit where it can operate.
It's not infeasible to train an automated driving system specifically suited to the streets of LA or wherever. Some place where it doesn't snow, doesn't rain often, and drivers/cyclists/pedestrians are fairly predictable (at least compared to someplace like Asia).
Alternatively, a robobus, that is to say an automated system that drives from one place to the other on a highway or interstate, seems to be mostly solved.
In both cases, if the vehicles were mostly autonomous but could also be controlled remotely by a human in ambiguous cases, they would still be vastly cheaper to operate than existing taxi/bus services.
It's not infeasible to train an automated driving system specifically suited to the streets of LA or wherever. Some place where it doesn't snow, doesn't rain often, and drivers/cyclists/pedestrians are fairly predictable (at least compared to someplace like Asia).
Alternatively, a robobus, that is to say an automated system that drives from one place to the other on a highway or interstate, seems to be mostly solved.
In both cases, if the vehicles were mostly autonomous but could also be controlled remotely by a human in ambiguous cases, they would still be vastly cheaper to operate than existing taxi/bus services.
Is Tesla really ready for a long protracted war against Uber, Waymo (aka Google), and other autonomous taxi companies?
Tesla just spent (probably) ~$100 Million or so developing a 14nm chip, already obsolete (NVidia has a 12nm chip already, Intel/MobilEye has 7nm incoming 2020, and who knows what Google/Waymo got up their sleeves. Those TPUs are fully proprietary and fully to Google/Waymo's advantage). 7nm is deployed and shipping, Tesla's already behind.
And now you're telling me that to "raise money", they're entering another highly competitive field full of companies who are literally willing to lose money over the next 5-years on this idea?
That's straight up madness. I'm sure autonomous taxis will eventually become a reality, but no company is going to make money in that field for 5 to 10 years. The other companies like Google / Waymo are going to do what Silicon Valley does best: loss lead for years and years to build a customer base, before raising prices and eventually making a sustainable business.
Tesla has already spent all of its cash and loans on Gigafactory 1, Gigafactory 2, and Gigafactory 3. Scratch that, Gigafactory 3 isn't even complete yet (and is estimated to be a few billion dollars alone in costs...).
At best, Tesla will have to enter the autonomous taxi industry offering goods at cost (or higher: trying to make a profit). That's innately going to put them severely behind Google / Waymo, who will loss lead their way to cheaper prices and more customers.
Tesla just spent (probably) ~$100 Million or so developing a 14nm chip, already obsolete (NVidia has a 12nm chip already, Intel/MobilEye has 7nm incoming 2020, and who knows what Google/Waymo got up their sleeves. Those TPUs are fully proprietary and fully to Google/Waymo's advantage). 7nm is deployed and shipping, Tesla's already behind.
And now you're telling me that to "raise money", they're entering another highly competitive field full of companies who are literally willing to lose money over the next 5-years on this idea?
That's straight up madness. I'm sure autonomous taxis will eventually become a reality, but no company is going to make money in that field for 5 to 10 years. The other companies like Google / Waymo are going to do what Silicon Valley does best: loss lead for years and years to build a customer base, before raising prices and eventually making a sustainable business.
Tesla has already spent all of its cash and loans on Gigafactory 1, Gigafactory 2, and Gigafactory 3. Scratch that, Gigafactory 3 isn't even complete yet (and is estimated to be a few billion dollars alone in costs...).
At best, Tesla will have to enter the autonomous taxi industry offering goods at cost (or higher: trying to make a profit). That's innately going to put them severely behind Google / Waymo, who will loss lead their way to cheaper prices and more customers.
Asserting that Tesla is behind because they are fab at 14 instead of something smaller is so laughable you cannot be serious.
Thermal profile and power, instruction set and a dozen other things are more important.
Watch the autonomy day video on how the chip was built and why, will help a lot
Thermal profile and power, instruction set and a dozen other things are more important.
Watch the autonomy day video on how the chip was built and why, will help a lot
> Watch the autonomy day video on how the chip was built and why, will help a lot
I watched it, and I'm calling them out on it. They focused their entire presentation on NVidia and completely ignored Google/Waymo and Intel/MobilEye Q5 comparisons.
Autonomy day was an obvious hype-fest that ignored the competition. Tesla was only looking at NVidia Xavier or Pegasus, but ignores the real giants in the field.
The arguments in that presentation were exceptionally poor. There's no way a 500W chip could be a problem in a car with 300,000W motors attached and 1000W air conditioners / heaters. It was obvious to me when they were skewing their examples to be absurd corner cases to make a point: 12mph stop-and-go traffic for many hours?
Yeah, as if the 300,000W motor would like 12mph stop-and-go traffic anyway. Its not like regenerative brakes are much better than 50% recycling of the energy btw, the stop-and-go condition is going to wreak your mileage regardless.
A 500W chip can be powered by a 75kW-hr battery for 150 hours. That's nearly a whole week of life. The thought that a Model 3 or Model S car would be scrounging for efficiency in the ~100W magnitude is completely laughable.
I watched it, and I'm calling them out on it. They focused their entire presentation on NVidia and completely ignored Google/Waymo and Intel/MobilEye Q5 comparisons.
Autonomy day was an obvious hype-fest that ignored the competition. Tesla was only looking at NVidia Xavier or Pegasus, but ignores the real giants in the field.
The arguments in that presentation were exceptionally poor. There's no way a 500W chip could be a problem in a car with 300,000W motors attached and 1000W air conditioners / heaters. It was obvious to me when they were skewing their examples to be absurd corner cases to make a point: 12mph stop-and-go traffic for many hours?
Yeah, as if the 300,000W motor would like 12mph stop-and-go traffic anyway. Its not like regenerative brakes are much better than 50% recycling of the energy btw, the stop-and-go condition is going to wreak your mileage regardless.
A 500W chip can be powered by a 75kW-hr battery for 150 hours. That's nearly a whole week of life. The thought that a Model 3 or Model S car would be scrounging for efficiency in the ~100W magnitude is completely laughable.
Vertical integration. Tesla can have the chip solely focused on their specific needs.
They ignore google/waymo because they won't sell them the chip anyway.
They ignore google/waymo because they won't sell them the chip anyway.
Elon Musk is pretending like Tesla can make money from this self-driving taxi idea.
You can't make money from self-driving Taxis if Google/Waymo simply offers a similar service for cheaper right next to you. And yes, Google/Waymo has the vertical integration thing all figured out too.
Now if you think that maybe Tesla's chip is useful for its M3 customers... sure. I strongly disagree with that fact, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion on that subject. My main issue is that Elon Musk is trying to sell this idea... that Tesla can actually raise money by going into self-driving taxis.
That's completely hogwash. Completely. There's not a chance of that at all. The other companies are too far ahead, and Tesla doesn't have enough cash to enter that fledgling industry.
Tesla isn't a tech company anymore, its a car company. It built a $2.5 Billion factory that can only produce cars, and its stuck with that (and its associated loans). Elon Musk can't just pivot into a new industry with all of these loans weighing down on his company.
Now, maybe if Elon Musk wanted to start a new company, one that wasn't burdened by all of the Gigafactory Debt, to tackle the self-driving problem... well... maybe that would work. But Tesla has already bet its life on wide-scale deployment of the Model 3. It doesn't have any other chances. It simply doesn't have the money to do anything else, or to pivot anymore.
You can't make money from self-driving Taxis if Google/Waymo simply offers a similar service for cheaper right next to you. And yes, Google/Waymo has the vertical integration thing all figured out too.
Now if you think that maybe Tesla's chip is useful for its M3 customers... sure. I strongly disagree with that fact, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion on that subject. My main issue is that Elon Musk is trying to sell this idea... that Tesla can actually raise money by going into self-driving taxis.
That's completely hogwash. Completely. There's not a chance of that at all. The other companies are too far ahead, and Tesla doesn't have enough cash to enter that fledgling industry.
Tesla isn't a tech company anymore, its a car company. It built a $2.5 Billion factory that can only produce cars, and its stuck with that (and its associated loans). Elon Musk can't just pivot into a new industry with all of these loans weighing down on his company.
Now, maybe if Elon Musk wanted to start a new company, one that wasn't burdened by all of the Gigafactory Debt, to tackle the self-driving problem... well... maybe that would work. But Tesla has already bet its life on wide-scale deployment of the Model 3. It doesn't have any other chances. It simply doesn't have the money to do anything else, or to pivot anymore.
>if Google/Waymo simply offers a similar service for cheaper right next to you
Right, if, tesla currently has the advantage being ahead, they have self driving (at some level) currently deployed for masses.
Right, if, tesla currently has the advantage being ahead, they have self driving (at some level) currently deployed for masses.
And Waymo has self-driving, with 10,000 miles per 2 or 3 disengagements... deployed right now in Phoenix Arizona.
Safety drivers are still necessary for both. But the number of times the safety-driver interacts in Waymo/Google's car is way way less.
EDIT: Actually, I'm not sure about Tesla's numbers. I heard 1 per 3 miles but I couldn't prove it through a google search. In any case, Tesla doesn't seem to be bragging about its disengagement rate, so I bet it isn't very good.
Safety drivers are still necessary for both. But the number of times the safety-driver interacts in Waymo/Google's car is way way less.
EDIT: Actually, I'm not sure about Tesla's numbers. I heard 1 per 3 miles but I couldn't prove it through a google search. In any case, Tesla doesn't seem to be bragging about its disengagement rate, so I bet it isn't very good.
And tesla have like maybe 100000+ car with self driving in the wild right now. This also provide tesla with tons of real live data.
>Elon Musk is trying to sell this idea... that Tesla can actually raise money by going into self-driving taxis.
While giving as much as $30K/year of the revenue to each of the car owners.
While giving as much as $30K/year of the revenue to each of the car owners.
Vertical integration is dead in the automotive sector for decades. There are Ford Motor Companies of old anymore with their proper plantation to get the rubber for their proper tyres. And there are reasons for that, hard learned ones. Not sure why that would be any different for chips.
First, the likes of nVidia have a much larger customer base and thus a better risk profile. Also, chips are their core competency. And second, running your own chip production is capital intensive, not so great when you are already in a tight financial situation.
First, the likes of nVidia have a much larger customer base and thus a better risk profile. Also, chips are their core competency. And second, running your own chip production is capital intensive, not so great when you are already in a tight financial situation.
Frankly, it'd be insane to invest in 10 or 7 or 5nm at this point for a custom design of maybe a few million units. The investment required scales insanely with reduction in feature size (Billions of dollars, potentially), and you'll never get your investment back. That effectively locks you in to an old design for several years. And the difference in unit costs or efficiency between 14 and 10nm is not big enough to matter compared to the upfront costs.
Fabbing at 14nm is the only sensible thing for Tesla to do right now, and since they're able to do it to replace their existing Nvidia chip for lower cost, it seems quite sensible.
Fabbing at 14nm is the only sensible thing for Tesla to do right now, and since they're able to do it to replace their existing Nvidia chip for lower cost, it seems quite sensible.
Intel / MobilEye is making a 7nm chip for all of its customers. And part of that is because MobilEye has Ford, GM, BMW, Audi...
MobilEye is deployed in 313 car models across 27 manufacturers. They're going to have a 7nm chip next year, and are easily going to leapfrog Tesla's 14nm capabilities.
MobilEye is deployed in 313 car models across 27 manufacturers. They're going to have a 7nm chip next year, and are easily going to leapfrog Tesla's 14nm capabilities.
If it's deploying so broadly over so many different models and manufacturers (with different sensor configurations, different IP, etc), then it necessarily has to be less application-specific and more general purpose. Tesla introduced its NN chip already in 2019 in actual built Model 3s already.
MobileEye plans to maybe have a 7nm chip sometime in 2020 (probably the end of the year) which might make it into year 2021 cars. So again, we're talking about ~2 years difference in deployment time for a less-tailored chip with a far more expensive development process. Maybe MobilEye can justify that (I'm not saying MobilEye is wrong to pursue 7nm), but it seems pretty clear Tesla pursued a logical plan to go with a 14nm process that is much cheaper to design for and is already available now at high quantities from multiple providers and reliable yields with zero technical risk on the chip fab side.
MobileEye plans to maybe have a 7nm chip sometime in 2020 (probably the end of the year) which might make it into year 2021 cars. So again, we're talking about ~2 years difference in deployment time for a less-tailored chip with a far more expensive development process. Maybe MobilEye can justify that (I'm not saying MobilEye is wrong to pursue 7nm), but it seems pretty clear Tesla pursued a logical plan to go with a 14nm process that is much cheaper to design for and is already available now at high quantities from multiple providers and reliable yields with zero technical risk on the chip fab side.
ASICs are all well and good when you can afford them AND when you have the volume to sustain them.
The main issue is that Tesla can't afford them. They have $2.2 Billion in cash remaining and are currently losing money at a rate of $700 Million/quarter.
Tesla's cash reserves are nose-diving and they're busy doing vanity projects like a self-driving ASIC, when their volume of cars being produced is well under 300k / year.
The volume simply isn't there yet to sustain this ASIC. 300k/year total car production, and not all of those cars would even have a self-driving capabilities installed. Tesla needs to work on expanding its Model 3 capabilities before ASICs make sense.
70,000 total vehicles produced Q1 2019. That's 280,000 vehicles this year if extrapolated over 4 quarters.
The main issue is that Tesla can't afford them. They have $2.2 Billion in cash remaining and are currently losing money at a rate of $700 Million/quarter.
Tesla's cash reserves are nose-diving and they're busy doing vanity projects like a self-driving ASIC, when their volume of cars being produced is well under 300k / year.
The volume simply isn't there yet to sustain this ASIC. 300k/year total car production, and not all of those cars would even have a self-driving capabilities installed. Tesla needs to work on expanding its Model 3 capabilities before ASICs make sense.
70,000 total vehicles produced Q1 2019. That's 280,000 vehicles this year if extrapolated over 4 quarters.
All the more reason for them to go with the proven and far cheaper 14nm process node rather than 7nm (which Intel/MobilEye have had difficulties with as far as yields). https://www.techpowerup.com/248008/intel-at-least-5-years-be...
EDIT: Corrected below. MobilEye is using TSMC even though they're owned by Intel.
EDIT: Corrected below. MobilEye is using TSMC even though they're owned by Intel.
Intel/MobilEye is using TSMC 7nm for the EyeQ5 chip. There won't be any issues.
https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1333990
TSMC 7nm has already deployed the iPhone A12, the iPad A12x, and AMD's Radeon VII. Its mature and ready for mass production.
-------
The problem with Tesla's 14nm chip is that their capabilities are about to be leap-frogged by a commercial-off-the-shelf solution in just a year. Note that the EyeQ5 is sampling TODAY. MobilEye is aiming at cars being deployed with the thing for 2020.
https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1333990
TSMC 7nm has already deployed the iPhone A12, the iPad A12x, and AMD's Radeon VII. Its mature and ready for mass production.
-------
The problem with Tesla's 14nm chip is that their capabilities are about to be leap-frogged by a commercial-off-the-shelf solution in just a year. Note that the EyeQ5 is sampling TODAY. MobilEye is aiming at cars being deployed with the thing for 2020.
Being potentially "leap frogged" in a couple years is only a problem if you're not planning on improving the chip in that time. Tesla is, in fact, planning on deploying an improved NN chip in 2 years (currently in development). They can use whatever process is available at that time.
And thank you for the correction about Intel/MobilEye using TSMC instead. Of course, anyone can use TSMC, so there's less vertical integration advantage for Intel/MobilEye than I had previously expected.
And thank you for the correction about Intel/MobilEye using TSMC instead. Of course, anyone can use TSMC, so there's less vertical integration advantage for Intel/MobilEye than I had previously expected.
> Tesla is, in fact, planning on deploying an improved NN chip in 2 years (currently in development).
So Tesla is planning to spend another $100 to $200 Million on this project? For another chip? That's 10% of its remaining cash (Tesla only has $2.2 Billion left)
I'm not convinced that Tesla has the cash for these projects.
So Tesla is planning to spend another $100 to $200 Million on this project? For another chip? That's 10% of its remaining cash (Tesla only has $2.2 Billion left)
I'm not convinced that Tesla has the cash for these projects.
More like all the more reason to source these chips from outside, I would argue
Tesla is not at all focused anymore, no idea why. To operate a robot EDIT:taxi service EDIT end: you need to figure out maintenance, placement of cars, customer service, you name it. And they already have issues running production and distribution.
But that might be a nice way to get outside funding for a new service that can buy a bunch of Teslas. That in turn would increase sales and, potentially, increase the stock. Kind of what Tesla did with Solar City, more or less. For me that is only postponing the time they hit a hard wall.
But that might be a nice way to get outside funding for a new service that can buy a bunch of Teslas. That in turn would increase sales and, potentially, increase the stock. Kind of what Tesla did with Solar City, more or less. For me that is only postponing the time they hit a hard wall.
[deleted]
There's more to it than feature size. Other companies have more general-purpose chips. Tesla basically built an ASIC for self-driving.
NVidia is the only chip that seems a bit heavy on GPU features. But the Volta architecture has tensor processors with full FP16 and INT8 support, so it seems useful for self-driving as far as I can tell.
MobilEye EyeQ4 and EyeQ5 has no other purpose than self-driving. EyeQ5 is going to be 7nm and is launching 2020. A full ASIC for self-driving as well.
And no one knows what the heck Google / Waymo is doing. All we know is that its working, today, in Phoenix Arizona, where anyone can use Google / Waymo's taxi service TODAY. We also know that Google employes the same researchers who made TPUs that powered AlphaGo. They're very secretive about their hardware (for good reason!), but they're the elephant in the room with regards to self-driving.
https://waymo.com/apply/
MobilEye EyeQ4 and EyeQ5 has no other purpose than self-driving. EyeQ5 is going to be 7nm and is launching 2020. A full ASIC for self-driving as well.
And no one knows what the heck Google / Waymo is doing. All we know is that its working, today, in Phoenix Arizona, where anyone can use Google / Waymo's taxi service TODAY. We also know that Google employes the same researchers who made TPUs that powered AlphaGo. They're very secretive about their hardware (for good reason!), but they're the elephant in the room with regards to self-driving.
https://waymo.com/apply/
> And no one knows what the heck Google / Waymo is doing. All we know is that its working, today, in Phoenix Arizona, where anyone can use Google / Waymo's taxi service TODAY.
This is false.
There are, to the best of anyone's knowledge, a handful of people in the Waymo One program (I'm fairly confident it's less than 10). Everyone in the Early Rider program is still under NDA. In order to be accepted to either, you have to apply. The application process being open to the public does not mean the service is public, anymore than the application process to Google being public means anyone can work at Google.
As to regards to how well it's working...they are definitely in the lead, and they do really have cars driving around, but all of them are still with safety drivers. Until they pull the safety drivers you can't really call them driverless and it shows a lack of faith in their product because it's not ready yet to actually be driverless.
Waymo lost their goodwill when they said they'd have the service you mentioned in 2018, basically pulled a bullshit PR event in order to "fulfill" their promise. It's pretty obvious though it was just so whoever was in charge could get some bonus attached to the timeline, very similar to how Google seems to launch products already - they do it so people can get promoted and then all the important people leave before the product is useful to anyone. It's no secret that almost the entire original team has already left and most of them have started competing against Waymo, so it seems they are confident they can take on Waymo and win - and they'd know better than anyone because they built Waymo.
And Waymo has since gone silent on when they'll expand their program, or pull the driver from the car, or pretty much anything. I agree it's a good idea for them to play their cards close to their chest, but compared to their past posturing that's a sign that it's not around the corner.
This is false.
There are, to the best of anyone's knowledge, a handful of people in the Waymo One program (I'm fairly confident it's less than 10). Everyone in the Early Rider program is still under NDA. In order to be accepted to either, you have to apply. The application process being open to the public does not mean the service is public, anymore than the application process to Google being public means anyone can work at Google.
As to regards to how well it's working...they are definitely in the lead, and they do really have cars driving around, but all of them are still with safety drivers. Until they pull the safety drivers you can't really call them driverless and it shows a lack of faith in their product because it's not ready yet to actually be driverless.
Waymo lost their goodwill when they said they'd have the service you mentioned in 2018, basically pulled a bullshit PR event in order to "fulfill" their promise. It's pretty obvious though it was just so whoever was in charge could get some bonus attached to the timeline, very similar to how Google seems to launch products already - they do it so people can get promoted and then all the important people leave before the product is useful to anyone. It's no secret that almost the entire original team has already left and most of them have started competing against Waymo, so it seems they are confident they can take on Waymo and win - and they'd know better than anyone because they built Waymo.
And Waymo has since gone silent on when they'll expand their program, or pull the driver from the car, or pretty much anything. I agree it's a good idea for them to play their cards close to their chest, but compared to their past posturing that's a sign that it's not around the corner.
My point is that Waymo has taken large and public steps forward. People have seen the Waymo cars (and have to deal with them) in Phoenix.
No one has ever seen a "Full self driving" car from Tesla, despite the fact that hundreds-of-thousands of people have paid $5000 for the promise of future hardware to be installed onto their car.
My point is: other companies are ahead, and have demonstrated capabilities above and beyond Tesla's 14nm chip team.
No one has ever seen a "Full self driving" car from Tesla, despite the fact that hundreds-of-thousands of people have paid $5000 for the promise of future hardware to be installed onto their car.
My point is: other companies are ahead, and have demonstrated capabilities above and beyond Tesla's 14nm chip team.
I'm not convinced one way or the other which is ahead out of Tesla and Waymo. Waymo have low interventions per mile but don't seem able to deal with heavy traffic for merging or turning. Tesla have had issues driving into things but are out there in heavy traffic.
Launching in 2020 means two years (starting in 2018) of using the more expensive and slower Nvidia chip. By using the 14nm process now, Tesla paid far less on upfront dev costs (we're talking tens of millions versus billions) and saved on unit costs right out the gate, putting them in better position for smaller process sizes in the future.
Volta architecture is much more general purpose than Tesla's.
If you're doing a custom ASIC hyper-focused on your application and you're not selling hundreds of millions of them, it doesn't make sense to lock yourself into paying of dev costs for cutting edge fabrication techniques with risk of yield problems and questionable per-unit economics.
Volta architecture is much more general purpose than Tesla's.
If you're doing a custom ASIC hyper-focused on your application and you're not selling hundreds of millions of them, it doesn't make sense to lock yourself into paying of dev costs for cutting edge fabrication techniques with risk of yield problems and questionable per-unit economics.
> Launching in 2020 means two years (starting in 2018) of using the more expensive and slower Nvidia chip.
You mean a cheaper and more industry established MobilEye EyeQ5 chip, with LiDAR capabilities, Tensor Units and all that good stuff.
------------
Let me ask you this: how many vehicles do you think Tesla will make in 2018 and 2019? A million? Two million?
Do remember, 2018 Tesla made only 244,920 cars. 2019 Q1 only had 70,000 cars, so Tesla is currently producing cars at a rate under 300,000 cars/year (maybe growing to 350,000 by the end of the year). Maybe Gigafactory 3 comes up in early 2020, and Tesla then makes 500k cars for 2020.
So... just about a million cars between 2018 to 2020, and I'm being quite generous on Tesla's growth potential here. Remember: not all of those cars having FSD or autopilot installed.
I'm not seeing how this 14nm chip is going to be a financially sound move for Tesla. They just don't make enough cars and they weren't watching out on industry standard chip upgrades.
You mean a cheaper and more industry established MobilEye EyeQ5 chip, with LiDAR capabilities, Tensor Units and all that good stuff.
------------
Let me ask you this: how many vehicles do you think Tesla will make in 2018 and 2019? A million? Two million?
Do remember, 2018 Tesla made only 244,920 cars. 2019 Q1 only had 70,000 cars, so Tesla is currently producing cars at a rate under 300,000 cars/year (maybe growing to 350,000 by the end of the year). Maybe Gigafactory 3 comes up in early 2020, and Tesla then makes 500k cars for 2020.
So... just about a million cars between 2018 to 2020, and I'm being quite generous on Tesla's growth potential here. Remember: not all of those cars having FSD or autopilot installed.
I'm not seeing how this 14nm chip is going to be a financially sound move for Tesla. They just don't make enough cars and they weren't watching out on industry standard chip upgrades.
14nm is a sound move for Tesla exactly because their volumes are lower. All their cars will have the new chip installed as it's part of the safety features as well (and gives them margin whenever someone decides to do an upgrade on their existing vehicle).
With these low volumes the sound move would be to buy chips from someone else. Just like Aston Martin is sourcing engines from third parties. Heck, even Mercedes is using Renault engines and BMW used Peugeot engines in Minis for years. And engines are a core competency of both, BMW and Mercedes. Chips for Tesla, not so much.
The thing is that no one makes a chip like Tesla wants that is tailored to their workflow. Tesla, by going with the 14nm process and inexpensively licensing core IP (i.e. for the ARM cores) and only customizing the NN portion, is able to keep chip dev costs low enough so that in the end they're saving a little money on unit costs, getting a power/performance benefit, and as a bonus is building in-house expertise that enhances their value as a company. That's not a bad plan, IMHO.
Also, a side note, but maybe it was a bad idea for BMW to use Peugeot engines in the Mini... I've not heard good things about them... (Which is irrelevant to the point at hand, of course.)
Also, a side note, but maybe it was a bad idea for BMW to use Peugeot engines in the Mini... I've not heard good things about them... (Which is irrelevant to the point at hand, of course.)
Regarding the last point, not really. It gave BMW access to smaller engines then they had in-house. AFAIK they switched to BMW engines once this whole down sizing started and they had the engines in house. And MINI sales were never an issue, so the idea was sound.
Aside from some potential benefits down the road coming from proprietary chips I don't see why Tesla would do it. Also the use cases are so similar that the use of in-house chips will hardly be a competitive advantage. So why burn additional cash on it if you can't afford it?
Tesla, and Musk, are risking everything by loosing focus and discipline. Even at SpaceX with their in-house satellite is goeing that way now. No idea why you would do that either.
Aside from some potential benefits down the road coming from proprietary chips I don't see why Tesla would do it. Also the use cases are so similar that the use of in-house chips will hardly be a competitive advantage. So why burn additional cash on it if you can't afford it?
Tesla, and Musk, are risking everything by loosing focus and discipline. Even at SpaceX with their in-house satellite is goeing that way now. No idea why you would do that either.
To go to Mars, SpaceX needs lots of steady revenue and low-cost launches. The more launches SpaceX does, the lower the cost per launch, due to the manufacturing learning curve and high reusability. Rather than wait for customers to come up with applications that require lots of launches, they made their own.
> It's not infeasible to train an automated driving system specifically suited to the streets of LA or wherever. Some place where it doesn't snow, doesn't rain often, and drivers/cyclists/pedestrians are fairly predictable (at least compared to someplace like Asia).
I bet there are more corner cases than just bad weather and other traffic participants.
Glare from the sun, stuff that looks like one thing but turns out to be another close up, curious people wanting a closer look at the marvellous robotic car. That's just from a short brainstorm.
I bet there are more corner cases than just bad weather and other traffic participants.
Glare from the sun, stuff that looks like one thing but turns out to be another close up, curious people wanting a closer look at the marvellous robotic car. That's just from a short brainstorm.
> It's not infeasible to train an automated driving system specifically suited to the streets of LA or wherever
You don't know that.
You don't know that.
It seems to be completely pie in the sky type of thinking.
The only rational -non delusional- reason I see for the talk is if Musk does it to get better financing terms before the self driving hype dries down.
I think taxi services without driver are coming but the the secret sauce is remote human operator working together with high level of automation. Driver is the main cost of taxi service. If you get one operator to remotely oversee 20 highly autonomous vehicles and provide input when needed, the cost of taxi-service drops into a fraction of what it used to be and service is better than fully autonomous driving.
The only rational -non delusional- reason I see for the talk is if Musk does it to get better financing terms before the self driving hype dries down.
I think taxi services without driver are coming but the the secret sauce is remote human operator working together with high level of automation. Driver is the main cost of taxi service. If you get one operator to remotely oversee 20 highly autonomous vehicles and provide input when needed, the cost of taxi-service drops into a fraction of what it used to be and service is better than fully autonomous driving.
So humans that can barely drive a single vehicle will now be responsible for monitoring 20 vehicles in highly different environments that change at a moments notice?
Not at a moment's notice. The automation must react during emergencies, but humans can navigate and solve stuff that the automation can't.
Yes. The car is responsible for the safety in all circumstances and recognizes it's limitations. Think level 4 autonomy.
As soon as the car sees it cannot proceed properly, it parks somewhere or go in a safe situation and requests a remote human operator to intervene. Then the whole point is to have a call center sized so that you do not have to wait too much.
We're not there yet, and giving back the control to the passengers is also a possibility. However, in a world where passengers almost never drive, it might be safer to give the control to trained remote operators.
As soon as the car sees it cannot proceed properly, it parks somewhere or go in a safe situation and requests a remote human operator to intervene. Then the whole point is to have a call center sized so that you do not have to wait too much.
We're not there yet, and giving back the control to the passengers is also a possibility. However, in a world where passengers almost never drive, it might be safer to give the control to trained remote operators.
> It seems to be completely pie in the sky type of thinking.
Agreed. This is just more of the usual Musk hype. Maybe he will get some geofenced taxi service going in a suburb of Phoenix, where the roads are wide and straight and the weather is always sunny.
> the secret sauce is remote human operator
New startup idea: Instead of paying people to mine WoW gold 14 hours a day, pay them to pilot taxis via a low-latency satellite link. "Hi, I'm 'Joe' from 'The Bronx,' and I will be your taxi driver today."
> If you get one operator to remotely oversee 20 highly autonomous vehicles
This doesn't work, because the situations that require human intervention will also require near-human reaction times. That's not possible for a single human herding 20 cars.
Agreed. This is just more of the usual Musk hype. Maybe he will get some geofenced taxi service going in a suburb of Phoenix, where the roads are wide and straight and the weather is always sunny.
> the secret sauce is remote human operator
New startup idea: Instead of paying people to mine WoW gold 14 hours a day, pay them to pilot taxis via a low-latency satellite link. "Hi, I'm 'Joe' from 'The Bronx,' and I will be your taxi driver today."
> If you get one operator to remotely oversee 20 highly autonomous vehicles
This doesn't work, because the situations that require human intervention will also require near-human reaction times. That's not possible for a single human herding 20 cars.
> This doesn't work,
Automation must still react instantly to sudden situations (you need liars for this). Humans are there for difficult-to-navigate scenarios and stuff that robo-cars can't handle. Waymo is already testing this in geofenced areas.
Automation must still react instantly to sudden situations (you need liars for this). Humans are there for difficult-to-navigate scenarios and stuff that robo-cars can't handle. Waymo is already testing this in geofenced areas.
I would never trust such a ridiculous system. I don't know that many other people would either. Although I would also not trust a fully autonomous vehicle either until more evidence is provided that we were even within 20 years of it.
I don't think it's that far off at all.
https://x-matik.com/
https://x-matik.com/
Is it fair to ask at this point if Elon Musk is going crazy? His decisions of late seem unwise at best, irrational at worst. Maybe he should just concentrate on producing Model 3's and then the Model Y?
Or what would be really cool would if Tesla could produce multiple car models... at the same time!
Or what would be really cool would if Tesla could produce multiple car models... at the same time!
More like desperate. He has to hit targets that seem impossible otherwise he'll run out of cash.
I've always been skeptical of skipping LIDAR, but a recent study at Cornell found that with binocular vision they could be almost as accurate as LIDAR, but with much cheaper hardware.
https://www.therobotreport.com/researchers-back-teslas-non-l...
https://www.therobotreport.com/researchers-back-teslas-non-l...
That study has been highly disputed by people in the field; the methodology is questionable at best for the claims they're making.
Perhaps, but you can't dispute that humans don't have LIDAR.
It's just a matter of time before AI can drive better than humans even if using similar vision. Especially in aggregate (e.g., factoring in distracted drivers).
It's just a matter of time before AI can drive better than humans even if using similar vision. Especially in aggregate (e.g., factoring in distracted drivers).
Humans don't only have vision.
Humans have an ocular-vestibular system that makes it possible to perform SLAM[1]-like processing; when in motion, your balance and visual input like the parallax effect can help the brain build a mapped 3D volume and determine your position, orientation and velocity and your relation to other objects within that volume.
VSLAM, visual SLAM, which is what you have to employ if relying largely on vision-only, is so far cruder than that.
I'm sure Tesla has some sensor fusion that also employs GPS and short-range radar/ultrasonar to help.
You can get some velocity and positional data through GPS, but it will have quite a lot of latency and is very coarse (at least the commercially accessible part).
SLAM is much, much easier to do with LIDAR since that will give you a point cloud 3D model. With VSLAM, you have to infer the depth data and build it up over time, and it's a much harder problem to solve reliably. OTOH, LIDAR's Achilles heel is, however, heavy rain/sleet/snow. Waymo has shown off using deep learning to filter the bulk of the noise out, but it looks like it's still early days there.
Vision isn't great for sleet/snow either, to be fair.
[1]: simultaneous localization and mapping
VSLAM, visual SLAM, which is what you have to employ if relying largely on vision-only, is so far cruder than that.
I'm sure Tesla has some sensor fusion that also employs GPS and short-range radar/ultrasonar to help.
You can get some velocity and positional data through GPS, but it will have quite a lot of latency and is very coarse (at least the commercially accessible part).
SLAM is much, much easier to do with LIDAR since that will give you a point cloud 3D model. With VSLAM, you have to infer the depth data and build it up over time, and it's a much harder problem to solve reliably. OTOH, LIDAR's Achilles heel is, however, heavy rain/sleet/snow. Waymo has shown off using deep learning to filter the bulk of the noise out, but it looks like it's still early days there.
Vision isn't great for sleet/snow either, to be fair.
[1]: simultaneous localization and mapping
Tesla had a vid of their system doing that quite well https://youtu.be/Ucp0TTmvqOE?t=8324
Every smartphone has a gyroscope and accelerometer. Surely Teslas have them too, feeding into the model with the other sensors.
This post seemed to use a lot of acronyms and technical words to say not much, are you just saying that humans have more than one camera and gyros, integrated well?
Sure, but they have a vastly superior processing unit to make sense of those images. The question isn't necessarily if binocular vision is better than LIDAR or not but rather which one works best with the current crop of artificial brains and algorithms.
I am not considering here situations where either system is impaired since that will lead to varied degrees of failure with both.
I am not considering here situations where either system is impaired since that will lead to varied degrees of failure with both.
True, but lots of animals with much smaller visual cortexes also manage to avoid running into things.
This is a good point, but it ignores the often forgotten other half of the equation - human (or in this case animal) eyes. The human eye has orders of magnitude more dynamic range than the best DSLR cameras. This means in edge cases the camera will not see something important, such as a person, when a human will. And when I say the camera will not see it, I mean even a person looking at the camera will not see it, because the image is obscured or washed out or something similar.
Garbage in garbage out. Don't skimp on your sensors.
Garbage in garbage out. Don't skimp on your sensors.
You can get arbitrarily high dynamic range by tinting some pixels, or using a second camera at a different iso. As a silly example, imagine combining the image from a low light camera with one sitting behind a welding shield.
And sure enough their brains are more advanced and capable than our current computers, especially the ones that easily fit in a car. Even human vision (for the purpose of driving) is more advanced than cameras you might see in a car.
And you're oversimplifying a little, it goes far beyond just avoiding obstacles. You need to be able to anticipate, learn and adapt to completely new situations, understand consequences and things that aren't strictly related to what happens on the road. That's something even most mammals fail to do. Our computers are not there and they won't be for some time.
And you're oversimplifying a little, it goes far beyond just avoiding obstacles. You need to be able to anticipate, learn and adapt to completely new situations, understand consequences and things that aren't strictly related to what happens on the road. That's something even most mammals fail to do. Our computers are not there and they won't be for some time.
But not when moving at highway speeds with many other moving objects.
Small birds chase each other around, fly through thick forests or jungle, dodge predators including larger birds, and fly in large flocks. Based on the squabbles I see from my front porch, they seem to at least match human drivers on reaction time.
I'm not convinced absolute speed is that important of a variable, when comparing to something much smaller dealing with closer distances, but some birds actually do reach highway speeds and beyond: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-fastest-birds-in-the...
But the fastest relative to size might be the hummingbird, which can fly 30mph backwards: https://www.ponderweasel.com/what-bird-can-fly-backwards/
The Anna's hummingbird has been clocked at up to 50mph in a dive, or 385 body lengths per second. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/the-hummingbird-thats-faster...
I'm not convinced absolute speed is that important of a variable, when comparing to something much smaller dealing with closer distances, but some birds actually do reach highway speeds and beyond: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-fastest-birds-in-the...
But the fastest relative to size might be the hummingbird, which can fly 30mph backwards: https://www.ponderweasel.com/what-bird-can-fly-backwards/
The Anna's hummingbird has been clocked at up to 50mph in a dive, or 385 body lengths per second. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/the-hummingbird-thats-faster...
[deleted]
Humans also have an unacceptable accident rate. The goal is to far surpass currently-accepted safety standards, and building a 3D model of the world at 10+ HZ can only help with that.
>Humans also have an unacceptable accident rate
How is it considered unacceptable? It has been acceptable for humans to drive in every country since 100+ years.
Anyway, the biggest problems with humans driving that cause accidents are distractions like smartphone usage, sleepiness, excessive speeding, tailgating, road rage, drunk driving, old age, being new to driving, being tired, medical problems like strokes, seizures, diabetic comas etc. which automated driving will solve.
How is it considered unacceptable? It has been acceptable for humans to drive in every country since 100+ years.
Anyway, the biggest problems with humans driving that cause accidents are distractions like smartphone usage, sleepiness, excessive speeding, tailgating, road rage, drunk driving, old age, being new to driving, being tired, medical problems like strokes, seizures, diabetic comas etc. which automated driving will solve.
Anthony Levandowski of Waymo LIDAR fame has said he now agrees with Elon Musk ("a wiser person than me") that LIDAR is a crutch.
https://youtu.be/fNgEG5rCav4?t=105
https://youtu.be/fNgEG5rCav4?t=105
Anthony Levandowski is so sleazy he makes Vinod Khosla look like a good guy. He is (well, was) one of the most untrustworthy people in the Valley, so much so he had to leave for China to start his next company because even local VCs - who care about money and nothing but money - found him too sketchy to work with.
You can be sleazy and untrustworthy and still be smart and right. I wouldn't use VC funding as signaling, considering how many VC folks blindly funded Theranos (which wasn't just outright fraud, but abusive pursuit of whistleblowers).
It's fairly clear machine vision is going to surpass LIDAR in the near future (taking capability and cost into account), doesn't take a robotics expert to see that.
It's fairly clear machine vision is going to surpass LIDAR in the near future (taking capability and cost into account), doesn't take a robotics expert to see that.
Probably has nothing to do with the fact that a lot of LIDAR related tech and research now belong to Waymo and Uber. Add to this the cost of LIDAR and it starts making sense that anyone (re)starting in this field would avoid LIDAR and go for the cheaper and more accessible option.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I wonder why the person who was taken to court over (allegedly) stealing Waymo's IP related to LIDAR would be wary of using LIDAR in his new projects...
DARPA should have continued their self driving car competitions after their Urban challenge, but limiting the input to just commodity cameras. The field would be much further along.
The researchers found that analyzing the captured images from a bird’s-eye view, rather than the more traditional frontal view, more than tripled their accuracy, making stereo camera a viable and low-cost alternative to LiDAR.
I look forward to the day when cars have giraffe-necks protruding from their roofs, mounted with stereo cameras...
But until then, the researchers actually just confirmed that front-mount cameras are only about a third as accurate as LIDAR.
I look forward to the day when cars have giraffe-necks protruding from their roofs, mounted with stereo cameras...
But until then, the researchers actually just confirmed that front-mount cameras are only about a third as accurate as LIDAR.
I'm REALLY unclear how you decided to post this giraffe comment...
The picture and the words in the article show cameras next to the rear view mirror.
""" Using two inexpensive cameras on either side of a vehicle’s windshield, Cornell researchers have discovered they can detect objects with nearly LiDAR’s accuracy and at a fraction of the cost."""
The picture and the words in the article show cameras next to the rear view mirror.
""" Using two inexpensive cameras on either side of a vehicle’s windshield, Cornell researchers have discovered they can detect objects with nearly LiDAR’s accuracy and at a fraction of the cost."""
That's not what the article originally said, so it appears that it's been updated since then. Good think I quoted the relevant section of the article in my comment...
That being said, existing self-driving cars already have some cameras at that level without displaying the sort of accuracy the researchers found, which relates to the methodology issues other commenters have noted.
That being said, existing self-driving cars already have some cameras at that level without displaying the sort of accuracy the researchers found, which relates to the methodology issues other commenters have noted.
That quote I posted was the sentences just before the ones you selected.
Why don't you read the paper a bit -
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.07179.pdf
And then work out why they used the words "birds eye" that you found so upsetting.
Why don't you read the paper a bit -
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.07179.pdf
And then work out why they used the words "birds eye" that you found so upsetting.
Thanks for the paper. I actually agree with those complaining about the methodology of the paper and if anything, having read the article I agree it even more strongly states why LIDAR is essential for the foreseeable future.
The research paper, in a nutshell, was about transforming stereovisual images to psuedo-birds eye data, like roof-mounted LIDAR. This, theoretically, would result in about a 350% improvement over current vision-based methods...but still only 50% of that of existing LIDAR systems. In exchange, you just have to 1) convert the stereovisual data to a 3d point cloud, 2) transform the point cloud to birds-eye perspective, and 3) run the LIDAR systems on the point cloud, and 4) do that all in milli-seconds.
The research paper, in a nutshell, was about transforming stereovisual images to psuedo-birds eye data, like roof-mounted LIDAR. This, theoretically, would result in about a 350% improvement over current vision-based methods...but still only 50% of that of existing LIDAR systems. In exchange, you just have to 1) convert the stereovisual data to a 3d point cloud, 2) transform the point cloud to birds-eye perspective, and 3) run the LIDAR systems on the point cloud, and 4) do that all in milli-seconds.
The researchers described a new way of processing the data, claiming a dramatic improvement over previous methods.
In accuracy, over existing visual systems, but still worse than LIDAR and at the cost of several processing-intensive intermediate steps.
In any conceivable situation where you'd use this, it would actually be better to just use LIDAR.
In any conceivable situation where you'd use this, it would actually be better to just use LIDAR.
I'm imagining a Mario Kart style drone that floats above the vehicles with a camera.
And as a bonus, if the car flies off the road into the river, it can use a fishing pole style winch to pull your vehicle out of the water and place it back on the road.
And as a bonus, if the car flies off the road into the river, it can use a fishing pole style winch to pull your vehicle out of the water and place it back on the road.
"Is theoretically possible" != "we can have an implementation next year" != "we'll have it past regulatory approval next year"
The best reason I can see to skip LIDAR isn't its expense but the reliability given opaque to LIDAR but transparent to vision obstructions like mist.
You don't buy his claims that lidar is non necessary and even inefficient at sdv ?
Elon/Tesla have a vested interest in making sure LIDAR isn't required by law for self-driving vehicles. In addition, his NN-camera-powered-cars are still trying to drive themselves into highway barriers.
Requiring a specific technical solution with problems of its own by law is a wet dream for whoever holds the IP to that technical solution. Now accusing others of having a vested interest in MAYBE opposing this hypothetical law that no one has actually proposed is just gas-lighting and possibly projection.
LiDAR means he'd have to retrofit vehicles, given how he promised every purchaser that their cars are self-driving ready.
LiDAR literally will cost him money, so yeah, that's a conflict.
LiDAR literally will cost him money, so yeah, that's a conflict.
Yeah but back to its point, he argued lidar was not optimal for "computer vision", do you think it has limits that would be shadowed by multi camera NN analysis ?
That he's doing bad PR is another point (that we can discuss also but is harder to comment on objectively)
That he's doing bad PR is another point (that we can discuss also but is harder to comment on objectively)
Do you believe lidar is so necessary that it must be mandated by law?
This article is a little disingenuous. The margins on model3's have been reported at 20% and they've been hugely successful in the market.
So now it makes sense to ramp up in China, in Europe and Japan etc. This obviously takes upfront investment before the product can be produced. All companies with a popular product face this kind of financing hurdle.
The difference now is that the end game of the automotive industry is now a fair bit clearer than it was even a few years ago. Most of the pieces are on the table you just have to put them together. Musk understands this, it appears that most other automotive makers are still in denial.
Tesla will need a lot more financing before this game is done. Telsa is the current favorite, and up one set to nil, but with a lot of game left to play.
So now it makes sense to ramp up in China, in Europe and Japan etc. This obviously takes upfront investment before the product can be produced. All companies with a popular product face this kind of financing hurdle.
The difference now is that the end game of the automotive industry is now a fair bit clearer than it was even a few years ago. Most of the pieces are on the table you just have to put them together. Musk understands this, it appears that most other automotive makers are still in denial.
Tesla will need a lot more financing before this game is done. Telsa is the current favorite, and up one set to nil, but with a lot of game left to play.
Musk has done amazing things but his amazing ability to take risk and leverage is something that prevents me from investing into his business. The tech he is business develops is here to stay but investors may not get the return they want. There is endless stream of new ideas while not delivering fully on the old ideas (for the investors).
Tesla bet it's financial future into being able to mass produce Model 3 profitably in large quantities. The amount of debt Tesla has prevents them from retreating into smaller scale luxury cars. When Model 3 is in trouble, lets move to the taxi-scheme.
They have to dilute the stocks again and again and current owners see less of the (possible) future profits.
There will be some kind of economic slowdown or correction in the next few years. Tesla has maybe one more financing round left until the music stops.
Tesla bet it's financial future into being able to mass produce Model 3 profitably in large quantities. The amount of debt Tesla has prevents them from retreating into smaller scale luxury cars. When Model 3 is in trouble, lets move to the taxi-scheme.
They have to dilute the stocks again and again and current owners see less of the (possible) future profits.
There will be some kind of economic slowdown or correction in the next few years. Tesla has maybe one more financing round left until the music stops.
Tesla has gone ~15x since IPO. Unlike virtually every other tech-related IPO, it was possible for retail investors to invest in a risky, growth-oriented company. They IPO'ed at a 2.2B cap, meanwhile all major tech-related IPOs seem to be about 10B.
If you're a retail investor looking for high risk/high reward stocks, Tesla was a rare exception. In most other cases, only large funds have access to growth companies like that. I'd like to see more IPOs like Tesla's, rather than reserving wealth growth only for those with tons of money.
In short, if you're not interested in taking advantage of an option, don't assume other people think the same way.
Also, the robotaxi is not some zany idea Musk randomly came up. It's been publicly on their website for 3 years now and in their internal road maps for long before that: https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/blog/master-plan-part-deux
It's really bizarre to see the constant condemnation of Musk, because he chooses to have an ambitions long-term plan and follow through with it.
If you're a retail investor looking for high risk/high reward stocks, Tesla was a rare exception. In most other cases, only large funds have access to growth companies like that. I'd like to see more IPOs like Tesla's, rather than reserving wealth growth only for those with tons of money.
In short, if you're not interested in taking advantage of an option, don't assume other people think the same way.
Also, the robotaxi is not some zany idea Musk randomly came up. It's been publicly on their website for 3 years now and in their internal road maps for long before that: https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/blog/master-plan-part-deux
It's really bizarre to see the constant condemnation of Musk, because he chooses to have an ambitions long-term plan and follow through with it.
> meanwhile all major tech-related IPOs seem to be about 10B.
I have some notable counters to that premise.
Square, $31.3 billion market cap. At IPO ~$5 billion.
Shopify, $27.8 billion market cap. At IPO ~$3 billion (already 9x after four years).
Splunk, $20 billion market cap. At IPO ~$5 billion.
Palo Alto Networks, $23.7 billion market cap. At IPO ~$5 billion.
Fortinet, $15.8 billion market cap. At IPO $1.5 billion.
ServiceNow, $50.3 billion market cap. At IPO ~$4.5 billion.
Atlassian, $26.5 billion market cap. At IPO ~$6.5 billion.
Twilio, $16.5 billion market cap. At IPO ~$4.5 billion.
Zendesk, $9.3 billion market cap. At IPO ~$1.7 billion.
Salesforce.com, $127 billion market cap. At IPO ~$3 billion. It hit 15x in about the same time as Tesla.
Netflix, $167 billion market cap. At IPO... a couple hundred million dollars. It hit 15x in eight years. This and CRM reach back a ways now, however you still could have easily purchased NFLX for sub $10 / share as recently as 2012.
And there are a bunch of tech-related companies that may yet produce 15x style net post IPO returns in the coming years. Such as HubSpot, which has a $7.6b market cap, versus ~$1.2b at IPO in 2014. Could have picked up ETSY at $7 / share (sub $900m market cap) well after its IPO, now $68 ($8.1b market cap).
I have some notable counters to that premise.
Square, $31.3 billion market cap. At IPO ~$5 billion.
Shopify, $27.8 billion market cap. At IPO ~$3 billion (already 9x after four years).
Splunk, $20 billion market cap. At IPO ~$5 billion.
Palo Alto Networks, $23.7 billion market cap. At IPO ~$5 billion.
Fortinet, $15.8 billion market cap. At IPO $1.5 billion.
ServiceNow, $50.3 billion market cap. At IPO ~$4.5 billion.
Atlassian, $26.5 billion market cap. At IPO ~$6.5 billion.
Twilio, $16.5 billion market cap. At IPO ~$4.5 billion.
Zendesk, $9.3 billion market cap. At IPO ~$1.7 billion.
Salesforce.com, $127 billion market cap. At IPO ~$3 billion. It hit 15x in about the same time as Tesla.
Netflix, $167 billion market cap. At IPO... a couple hundred million dollars. It hit 15x in eight years. This and CRM reach back a ways now, however you still could have easily purchased NFLX for sub $10 / share as recently as 2012.
And there are a bunch of tech-related companies that may yet produce 15x style net post IPO returns in the coming years. Such as HubSpot, which has a $7.6b market cap, versus ~$1.2b at IPO in 2014. Could have picked up ETSY at $7 / share (sub $900m market cap) well after its IPO, now $68 ($8.1b market cap).
If you a retail investor looking for high risk/high reward stocks, Tesla today is not what Tesla was during IPO. The need for more money and future stock dilution means that risk is significantly higher but reward is going to be lower.
Well, you claimed he has not delivered for investors because he has not executed well on his plans. Tesla's plans have been on their website since 2006: https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-...
Tesla has executed very well on those plans and delivered very handsomely for investors.
Now you're saying, today they are different. Are they? Or is it just simple 20/20 hindsight? Did you happen to invest at $17 and sell at $350?
There was even more skepticism of them before their IPO (ie, the famous "Tesla Death Watch" series from 2008) and I think they were in a far, far more precarious position back then.
Tesla has executed very well on those plans and delivered very handsomely for investors.
Now you're saying, today they are different. Are they? Or is it just simple 20/20 hindsight? Did you happen to invest at $17 and sell at $350?
There was even more skepticism of them before their IPO (ie, the famous "Tesla Death Watch" series from 2008) and I think they were in a far, far more precarious position back then.
> risk is significantly higher but reward is going to be lower.
Is that not true for all companies as they grow?
Is that not true for all companies as they grow?
No; Microsoft (for instance) today is much less riskier than Microsoft in 1988. It likely won't experience meteoric growth, but neither is it likely to crash tomorrow. Ideally, risk/reward are inversely correlated.
I also invested early for similar reasons.
Though seeing what Tesla constantly has to deal with, if I was ever in a position to decide to IPO in the future I’d want to stay private for as long as possible.
Though seeing what Tesla constantly has to deal with, if I was ever in a position to decide to IPO in the future I’d want to stay private for as long as possible.
Anyone with a scintilla of intuition about human behavior would have recognized at least a year ago that Musk was begging for a way out of Tesla. The talks he gave about how overworked he was, the tweets, and the violation of the judge’s orders screamed out that he had given up.
He wants a way out of Tesla being a publicly listed company. If you had listened to him as much as you want to think you have you’d know his stress is due to obligations to shareholders and effectively working with one hand tied behind his back because as far as the board is concerned shareholder value is more important than anything else.
I didn’t claim I had listened to him much. I remember his “Skynet is coming” remarks at the national governors association, and prior to warning about AI he made some rather sad comments about how the stress was getting to be too much for him. Watch it on YouTube. It was clear that he was at a breaking point. Not to mention the Rogan interview.
I think Musk realized some time ago that Tesla was going to get close, but just shy of long term profitability. He’s looking for a way out that doesn’t involve him saying “uncle”.
I think Musk realized some time ago that Tesla was going to get close, but just shy of long term profitability. He’s looking for a way out that doesn’t involve him saying “uncle”.
Ford has $150B in debt. Toyota has double that.
Yes, but Ford has revenues of $160B and Toyota has revenues of $2,642B vs Tesla's $21B. More importantly, both Toyota and Ford are profitable. In fact, both Ford and Toyota have profits larger than Tesla's entire revenue stream.
And I would assume a better, read positive, cash flow. Then debt is not such a big problem.
Ford and Tesla's market cap are about the same at $40 billion, yet Ford's total liabilities are ten times Tesla's: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/F/ford-motor/total...
That doesn't mean Ford is ten times as likely to go under - indeed the market cap's being the same means that buyers and sellers generally believe that Ford can carry ten times as much debt as Tesla with about the same risk.
That doesn't mean Ford is ten times as likely to go under - indeed the market cap's being the same means that buyers and sellers generally believe that Ford can carry ten times as much debt as Tesla with about the same risk.
"Enterprise Value", which includes debt, is a much more accurate measure of a company's size than market cap. By that measure, Ford's Enterprise Value is $190B vs Tesla's $50B.
Ford's sales are about 7.5X Tesla, and it's EV is about 4X Tesla.
Tesla's financials and market cap are not completely out of whack when compared to other car companies.
Ford's sales are about 7.5X Tesla, and it's EV is about 4X Tesla.
Tesla's financials and market cap are not completely out of whack when compared to other car companies.
> Tesla's financials
Tesla has literally never made a yearly profit in its life. Tesla hasn't even had positive yearly cash-flow for its entire life.
The best Tesla ever got was Q3 / Q4 2018, a very modest profit of a couple hundred-million dollars. But this was very quickly wiped out by Q1 2019 with a $700 Million loss and $1.4 Billion negative cash flow.
Tesla's financials are a complete disaster. Tesla's stock price has absolutely no bearing on its financials. Investors are chasing Tesla's future, they're hooked onto its story and 10-year plan. Tesla investors always ignore the finances of today.
Tesla has literally never made a yearly profit in its life. Tesla hasn't even had positive yearly cash-flow for its entire life.
The best Tesla ever got was Q3 / Q4 2018, a very modest profit of a couple hundred-million dollars. But this was very quickly wiped out by Q1 2019 with a $700 Million loss and $1.4 Billion negative cash flow.
Tesla's financials are a complete disaster. Tesla's stock price has absolutely no bearing on its financials. Investors are chasing Tesla's future, they're hooked onto its story and 10-year plan. Tesla investors always ignore the finances of today.
Can you apply the same logic to Uber/Lyft?
Yes, but Uber / Lyft loses less money than Tesla.
So Uber / Lyft will fail at a later date than Tesla will fail. Note that Uber/Lyft can potentially become profitable by simply raising prices, but there's no easy way for Tesla to raise prices. (In fact, they haven't really deployed the promised $35,000 M3 yet in wide numbers. Tesla's customers are still expecting price cuts... to get to the $35k number)
So Uber / Lyft will fail at a later date than Tesla will fail. Note that Uber/Lyft can potentially become profitable by simply raising prices, but there's no easy way for Tesla to raise prices. (In fact, they haven't really deployed the promised $35,000 M3 yet in wide numbers. Tesla's customers are still expecting price cuts... to get to the $35k number)
But they are profitable and cash flow positive.
I still think that traditional auto makers are in big trouble, some of them in far bigger trouble than Tesla. If the trend towards electric vehicles accelerates they are potentially sitting on mountains of stranded costs.
I still think that traditional auto makers are in big trouble, some of them in far bigger trouble than Tesla. If the trend towards electric vehicles accelerates they are potentially sitting on mountains of stranded costs.
Yes but how much of that is current and how much higher is their cash flow? I would expect Tesla's Current Ratio to be dismal by comparison.
So... are we living on the same planet? Does Musk seriously think that Tesla will have solved full autonomous driving, with no LIDAR, and have commercialized a functioning robotaxi service, by next year? This is so far outside of the realm of possibility that it's like saying he's going to Pluto next week.