Tesla, software and disruption(ben-evans.com)
ben-evans.com
Tesla, software and disruption
https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2018/8/29/tesla-software-and-disruption
126 comments
Why are touchscreens in cars touted as innovation? They are a usability disaster. It is much easier to, say, change the A/C power when the control is a physical control I can reach for and identify by touch.
I know that I successfully used hybrid button-touchscreen interface for my Prius for over a decade. It was great and resulted in no accidents or even distractions.
It's modular so additional features can be integrated by pure software so upgrades are possible.
Sure 90% touchscreen (some stuff is still manual) sounds crazy but Model3 owners don't seem to complain too much. I'd bet an 80% interface would work great today.
Enter a perfected voice control and L4 auto drive and we'll officially be living in the future.
It's modular so additional features can be integrated by pure software so upgrades are possible.
Sure 90% touchscreen (some stuff is still manual) sounds crazy but Model3 owners don't seem to complain too much. I'd bet an 80% interface would work great today.
Enter a perfected voice control and L4 auto drive and we'll officially be living in the future.
Voice control still sucks hard. And I'm a Canadian born English speaker with deep knowledge of ML trying to predict what queries will be simple enough for Siri to understand. Sometimes Siri will understand the query; but just say:
> I understand you, but I can't do that task. Sorry.
Nothing is more frustrating than a computer telling you it understands what you want it to do, and that want you want to do is reasonable / authorized, but refusing to do it anyway.
> I understand you, but I can't do that task. Sorry.
Nothing is more frustrating than a computer telling you it understands what you want it to do, and that want you want to do is reasonable / authorized, but refusing to do it anyway.
90%? There really aren't very many controls in a car, does that mean headlightd and windshield wipers are not on stalks but in a touchscreen?
Yes both on touchscreen headlight is automatic same with wipers thought.there are also keybindings to the multi way scroll wheels on the steering wheel. It also modify bindings based on last action.if you manually had to enable wipers it switches the scroll wheels to activate it.
Anyone else wonder if Tesla is going to overcome this lack of touch issue by introducting voice controls?
I have found it to actually not be a problem at all in my wife's Model 3. Almost everything you normally do while driving is one or two taps away and doesn't require as much cognitive load as you would think (Mirror adjustment sucks though). Mapping/Directions on the big touch screen is amazing. The radio/volume controls are on the steering wheel just like most cars.
Most modern cars use digital displays for AC now anyway and it requires you to look down to see what it is set to. My Audi looks like this:
https://cevpu.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2018-Audi-A5-Ca...
The BMW 4 series was similar:
https://st.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/10/2016/05/2016-bmw-...
The Porche Macan I test drove was a UX atrocity:
https://www.autocar.co.uk/sites/autocar.co.uk/files/styles/g...
All digital displays.
In all of the cars I test drove, the controls for AC/Radio/etc were all very low, tiny text, and require me to take my eyes completely off the road. At least with the model 3 display I can kind of keep the road in my peripheral vision.
Most modern cars use digital displays for AC now anyway and it requires you to look down to see what it is set to. My Audi looks like this:
https://cevpu.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2018-Audi-A5-Ca...
The BMW 4 series was similar:
https://st.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/10/2016/05/2016-bmw-...
The Porche Macan I test drove was a UX atrocity:
https://www.autocar.co.uk/sites/autocar.co.uk/files/styles/g...
All digital displays.
In all of the cars I test drove, the controls for AC/Radio/etc were all very low, tiny text, and require me to take my eyes completely off the road. At least with the model 3 display I can kind of keep the road in my peripheral vision.
In counterpoint, I've had a Model 3 for two weeks now, and can't operate the touchscreen at all while the car is moving. I can't hit the small buttons at arm's length while the car is bouncing around. The first (and last) time I tried to turn on the fog lights, I turned off the headlights instead.
So my personal rule now is, don't touch the screen while the car is moving.
So my personal rule now is, don't touch the screen while the car is moving.
Never drive a Macan, but unless Audi completely borked the UX (unlikely), first any adjustment to AC will be overlaid on the MMI/Navi screen, so you don't need to look down, and the process of "make it colder/warmer" involves nothing more than reaching to a physical button (easy to grab even in a moving car) and giving it a few clicks in one or another direction.
Saying that "one or two taps away" is in any way comparable in either usability or safety seems rather like saying that a coal-powered steam car form 100 years ago is as clean as that Tesla.
Saying that "one or two taps away" is in any way comparable in either usability or safety seems rather like saying that a coal-powered steam car form 100 years ago is as clean as that Tesla.
It is a little premature. I think it will make much more sense in two or three decades (?) *when we can get self driving mostly working.
This may be unpopular but control knobs are silly. How often do you reach for that climate control knob? Why can't the car just do the right thing? Why does the knob need to exist?
My opinion is that doing away with knobs we don't need to be persistent is a good thing. Now, in a car today with no real self driving, we want the brakes to be accessible by a persistent control and it is in all cars. I just think tweaking climate control isn't that high in the list of priorities.
This may be unpopular but control knobs are silly. How often do you reach for that climate control knob? Why can't the car just do the right thing? Why does the knob need to exist?
My opinion is that doing away with knobs we don't need to be persistent is a good thing. Now, in a car today with no real self driving, we want the brakes to be accessible by a persistent control and it is in all cars. I just think tweaking climate control isn't that high in the list of priorities.
Well, OK, but what makes a touchscreen an improvement? Why is it good to take knobs away? The number of 10 year old devices with knobs that still function is way higher than the number of 10 year old devices with touchscreens that still function, for many reasons.
Also, the volume and radio controls are high on the list of "things I like to control without taking my eyes off the road"
Also, the volume and radio controls are high on the list of "things I like to control without taking my eyes off the road"
I feel like I reach for climate control all the time. Cars have tiny enclosed cabins and they go from cold to hot quickly depending on sun/shade etc. And how would it do the right thing? The right temperature is pretty subjective.
You set the temperature you like once. It can use that as the default. That will cover most climate control cases, and then there's an override value for when you have passengers. Since there would be someone in the passenger seat then, they can do it whilst the driver drives. The override gets reset every 6 hours.
Theoretical way it could work; unsure how much of that applies to Tesla.
Theoretical way it could work; unsure how much of that applies to Tesla.
Temperature doesnt take in to account radiant heat (or lack thereof). If the sun is shining on you, and the cabin is set to 20, you'll be hot. If it's a cloudless winter night and -20 out, setting to 20 will be frigid cold. I mean just yesterday, I had to alternate between 18 and 22 depending whether the sun was shining on me, or was behind the car shining in the rear window (curvy road)
Good point. I wonder if that could be detected and compensated for, though?
Absolutely. My brain tells me I'm hot, and my motor system activates to move my arm, which adjusts the climate controls, bringing the temperature back within tolerance. It's pretty sophisticated.
Also could be done by the car's software thermostat determining how much resistance it is up against in keeping the car to a particular temperature and adjusting that way.
Lots of resistance => Lots of sun hitting the vehicle => Set the temperature a bit lower.
Lots of resistance => Lots of sun hitting the vehicle => Set the temperature a bit lower.
My (2011) car manual claims that there is a sun sensor that is used to control climate system, so I would assume that yes, it can.
I read a lot of articles on TSLA and usually fail to see any mention of their power business. Granted, this is a small part of revenue right now ($1.1BN for FY17 of $11.8BN total), but growing fast and with some highly visible data points (Puerto Rico, South Australia). They are going to win multi-billion-dollar contracts if the US or other countries decide to rebuild their grids. As a TSLA shareholder, this opportunity actually gets me more excited about the future of the company than autonomy. It seems to me they have less competition doing huge battery installations than building autonomous vehicles.
There's even less of a moat for Tesla in selling batteries to utilities than there is for their cars.
And SolarCity was heading to zero. It was acquired by Tesla because Elon had to bail himself out or the myth of Elon Musk as Tony Stark would have been undone. But also because he along with his cousins would have lost a lot of money. That's compounded by the fact that Elon is significantly personally leveraged and any loss of confidence in Elon Musk Inc. or a decline in his holdings would imperil his other companies [1].
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-supports-his-business...
And SolarCity was heading to zero. It was acquired by Tesla because Elon had to bail himself out or the myth of Elon Musk as Tony Stark would have been undone. But also because he along with his cousins would have lost a lot of money. That's compounded by the fact that Elon is significantly personally leveraged and any loss of confidence in Elon Musk Inc. or a decline in his holdings would imperil his other companies [1].
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-supports-his-business...
Especially since Tesla doesn't make cells. They buy from Panasonic. Panasonic competes directly with Tesla in home and bulk energy storage.[1]
[1] https://na.panasonic.com/us/energy-solutions/battery-storage...
[1] https://na.panasonic.com/us/energy-solutions/battery-storage...
That product is not made by Panasonic but by Pika Energy (https://www.pika-energy.com/harbor-battery/).
Never heard of Pika before? Me neither.
Which is why they are not as much a threat to Tesla's Powerwall as you claim.
When you order from Tesla (https://www.tesla.com/powerwall) you get some inkling of how much it'll cost.
When you order from Pika (https://www.pika-energy.com/purchase/)? "Call us".
I yet have to see any serious competition to Tesla's Powerwall. BMW tried to compete and they folded (https://electrek.co/2018/04/30/mercedes-benz-kills-tesla-pow...).
Never heard of Pika before? Me neither.
Which is why they are not as much a threat to Tesla's Powerwall as you claim.
When you order from Tesla (https://www.tesla.com/powerwall) you get some inkling of how much it'll cost.
When you order from Pika (https://www.pika-energy.com/purchase/)? "Call us".
I yet have to see any serious competition to Tesla's Powerwall. BMW tried to compete and they folded (https://electrek.co/2018/04/30/mercedes-benz-kills-tesla-pow...).
The other solar providers are usually done the traditional car way. You find some local company (akin to a car dealership) to install your panels, and they'll tell you how much it costs.
EnergySage does give you some insight to the price before you buy though.
Basically, you don't buy the battery from Pika energy, you buy it from a local dealer.
EnergySage does give you some insight to the price before you buy though.
Basically, you don't buy the battery from Pika energy, you buy it from a local dealer.
So gigafactory is not making cells?
Gigafactory is Panasonic as much as Tesla.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigafactory_1#Operations
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigafactory_1#Operations
"Tesla owns the land and building, and leases part of the building to Panasonic, which owns some of the cell production equipment" In what world this translates to "as much"?
At which point making a better product at lower prices stopped being a moat?
SolarCity was a totally different business (installing traditional solar panels but mostly the business was financing those installation) and Tesla is winding it down.
The future of energy in Tesla is Solar Roof, Powerwalls (residential storage) and Powerpacks (utility-scale storage).
In storage Tesla has significant advantages on cost because of scale. Battery cell production is a Joint Venture with Panasonic (so I'm sure they get them cheaper than anyone else) and they have greater scale than all non-Panasonic cells and the batteries involve lots more components (and cost) that just cells and Tesla makes that, at scale.
Powerwall is significantly better looking than the competition I could find (LG Chem RESU and Pika Harbor are plain ugly, Sonnen eco looks decent).
Tesla has superior marketing and distribution (all those people buying Teslas are exposed to Solar Roof and Powerwalls and can order online).
Solar Roof looks like a product without the competitor.
Both Powerwall and Solar Roof are sold out a year in advance.
I'm less versed in utility storage business but based on headlines Tesla is killing there as well, breaking size records one after another, doubling the size of the business YoY, which is a crazy growth.
If you claim competition then name names and provide data that shows that they are actually doing better than Tesla on some reasonable metric like revenue.
SolarCity was a totally different business (installing traditional solar panels but mostly the business was financing those installation) and Tesla is winding it down.
The future of energy in Tesla is Solar Roof, Powerwalls (residential storage) and Powerpacks (utility-scale storage).
In storage Tesla has significant advantages on cost because of scale. Battery cell production is a Joint Venture with Panasonic (so I'm sure they get them cheaper than anyone else) and they have greater scale than all non-Panasonic cells and the batteries involve lots more components (and cost) that just cells and Tesla makes that, at scale.
Powerwall is significantly better looking than the competition I could find (LG Chem RESU and Pika Harbor are plain ugly, Sonnen eco looks decent).
Tesla has superior marketing and distribution (all those people buying Teslas are exposed to Solar Roof and Powerwalls and can order online).
Solar Roof looks like a product without the competitor.
Both Powerwall and Solar Roof are sold out a year in advance.
I'm less versed in utility storage business but based on headlines Tesla is killing there as well, breaking size records one after another, doubling the size of the business YoY, which is a crazy growth.
If you claim competition then name names and provide data that shows that they are actually doing better than Tesla on some reasonable metric like revenue.
There may be reason to question whether the solar roof product is as it appears: https://mansionengineer.com/2018/08/10/elon-musk-tesla-and-t...
This sense that his whole set of companies are some kind of scam that is some fakey leveraged house of cards with fake revenue, growth, and future potential is wrong, and tired. Any company can lose out long term by not innovating and growing, whether that's GM, IBM, Amazon, or Tesla. Tesla is in their innovative growth phase. And they make actual products that are years ahead of their competitors. There's no other solar roofs. Amazon was seen as a company that couldn't make a profit, but everyone can see now that it was a clever set of choices about long term vs short term.
Sure, there's plenty of things tesla could do better, like make reliable production targets, not have to kill themselves. But they do keep growing their production and sales. They make generally excellent products, their customers like them. Their stock is crazily highly valued, but at the same time their company is leading a market, crushing basically the entire automotive industry. There's no need for a conspiracy of financial chicanery to explain how they got here - smart financing, use of incentives that were available to any other company (look how much Nissan got) that were intended to grow a new market. And look, there's a new market for evs.
Sure, there's plenty of things tesla could do better, like make reliable production targets, not have to kill themselves. But they do keep growing their production and sales. They make generally excellent products, their customers like them. Their stock is crazily highly valued, but at the same time their company is leading a market, crushing basically the entire automotive industry. There's no need for a conspiracy of financial chicanery to explain how they got here - smart financing, use of incentives that were available to any other company (look how much Nissan got) that were intended to grow a new market. And look, there's a new market for evs.
> They are going to win multi-billion-dollar contracts if the US or other countries decide to rebuild their grids.
That’s only true if Tesla can build large grid-scale storage at a price and in a time frame competitive with other technologies. Tesla knows how to assemble lithium ion cells into packs at a good price point, and they have voltage-boosting rectifiers (aka battery chargers) that are compact and presumably cheap. One would imagine they have a decent inverter technology, seen in the Powerwall for example, but there’s no strong evidence it’s any better than anyone else’s.
The grid doesn’t need compact power electronics that have high energy-to-weight ratios, though. It needs reliable power electronics that work at high voltage as a good energy-to-coat ratio.
That’s only true if Tesla can build large grid-scale storage at a price and in a time frame competitive with other technologies. Tesla knows how to assemble lithium ion cells into packs at a good price point, and they have voltage-boosting rectifiers (aka battery chargers) that are compact and presumably cheap. One would imagine they have a decent inverter technology, seen in the Powerwall for example, but there’s no strong evidence it’s any better than anyone else’s.
The grid doesn’t need compact power electronics that have high energy-to-weight ratios, though. It needs reliable power electronics that work at high voltage as a good energy-to-coat ratio.
I couldn't agree more with this. Tesla should really look at spinning off the power business into a separate company. Focus being an important reason but equally trying to bring some isolation from Musk's now toxic reputation.
In Australia and elsewhere governments have to navigate some political minefields to roll out these large scale renewable projects. And having Musk be a liability instead of an asset would definitely tip some of these projects into the unpalatable region. It's that much of a knife edge at least here in Australia.
Which is all a shame because Tesla has been extremely successful in the Australian domestic power market and the system has intervened on many occasions now to help stabilise the grid.
In Australia and elsewhere governments have to navigate some political minefields to roll out these large scale renewable projects. And having Musk be a liability instead of an asset would definitely tip some of these projects into the unpalatable region. It's that much of a knife edge at least here in Australia.
Which is all a shame because Tesla has been extremely successful in the Australian domestic power market and the system has intervened on many occasions now to help stabilise the grid.
How much profit do those projects bring?
Tesla lost money on the Australia project. They bought the battery cells from Samsung and put them in a Tesla branded unit. Samsung also could have installed the battery themselves (always cheaper to cut out a middle man), but Tesla was willing to buy their cells and then sell them at a loss to Australia.
Tesla got a ton of publicity out of it, though, so it was probably a win for all parties involved.
Tesla got a ton of publicity out of it, though, so it was probably a win for all parties involved.
And your source for that information? (other than using Samsung cells).
I'm really curious because claiming they lost money on that project is rather specific.
Also, claiming that Samsung could have done that is specific.
Was Samsung one of the 90 bidder on that project?
Did Samsung do any utility-scale storage installation.
Does Samsung even have a competing product? Contrary to what you seem to assume, Powerpacks involve a bit more than putting li-ion cells in a box.
I'm really curious because claiming they lost money on that project is rather specific.
Also, claiming that Samsung could have done that is specific.
Was Samsung one of the 90 bidder on that project?
Did Samsung do any utility-scale storage installation.
Does Samsung even have a competing product? Contrary to what you seem to assume, Powerpacks involve a bit more than putting li-ion cells in a box.
Samsung bid, Tesla underbid them, and yes Samsung has utility level energy storage solutions:
http://www.samsungsdi.com/ess/energy-storage-system-applicat...
http://www.samsungsdi.com/ess/energy-storage-system-applicat...
Apparently they made the life of people in the region (administration, utility and consumers) a lot better with their system. I'm not very knowledgeable on this topic but it seems that it was a superb demo for Tesla.
I don't know you how you know they lost money, but I guess it's not surprising that the first implementation in Oz lost money. My company sells database software. We sell our stuff at a significant discount to the first entrant in a new market area, so we can get some traction, and use their name to help as a listed company. This is completely standard. It seems like you are suggesting this was some underhanded behavior.
Hard to tell at this point. At least in South Australia I think he pretty much built it at cost just to have a reference site to help persuade other governments.
That said you would think these projects would be profitable since they are billion dollars purchases made by governments.
That said you would think these projects would be profitable since they are billion dollars purchases made by governments.
That was bidded by private companies and financed by private consortium. My understanding is that ongoing revenue will break it even. Initial install was near zero margin.
What "massive amount of data" from Tesla? They don't send all the video back to HQ. Tesla owners have observed large uploads, but apparently they are software crash dumps.
They are not crash dumps only. It includes images along with data of area where images where taken. It's not gbs thought. They only ask the car to upload relevant needed data. Example I want you to send pictures Everytime you get into a construction zone.
It's probably a representation of the video data that has value to providing autonomy. Plus all the path & geo data. With a few hundred thousand cars collecting it, I'd say that's "massive".
I don’t get why Tesla added the self driving stuff at all. Just seems like a lot of wasted investment that keeps the price of the car high. They could have released a much cheaper model 3 without it, and likely deal with less bad press from their cars killing their owners.
It's not mandatory to buy the self driving car. They want it on the car regardless of the customer buys it or not. They have other uses for the hardware.
Tesla is going to find it increasingly difficult as new competitors come online. For example, Autocar just gave Jaguar's I-Pace a positive review in a head-to-head comparison [1]. IMHO the I-Pace is a good-looking car, and has a superior interior to the Tesla. As more manufacturers catch up, can Tesla survive?
[1] https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/tesla-model-s-vs...
[1] https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/tesla-model-s-vs...
The i-pace looks nice, but really showcases the technical lead that Tesla has. The i-pace is bigger, with less interior space, and poorer energy efficiency, which ultimately leads to less-than-great range.
Maybe a second generation of it will be competitive.
Maybe a second generation of it will be competitive.
The I-Pace range isn't that much different from the Tesla. Anyway, the point isn't that the I-Pace is better, it's that it -- and the many other EVs coming from major manufacturers -- is competitive enough to take sales away from Tesla.
there's no supercharger like network for the i-pace, making it only a city car. Tesla can drive from seattle to bamff, or portland to san diego or across the country. no other car can do that.
Tesla has no monopoly on charging stations, which are popping up everywhere. In the UK, for example: https://www.zap-map.com/live/
Agreed, they just staked out a lot of the good spots way ahead of the other companies. Tesla needs some pressure from other companies at least trying to compete. That requires a high power charging network, dealer interest in selling, good cars, and enough to sell. Up to now the competitors are mostly 0/4, although the bolt seems good, as is the i-pace. The i3 was a wasted opportunity (tiny gas tank, too small a battery). Let's see if the next gen is any good, and if they can built enough charging stations to matter. Europe seems way ahead of the us on high power charging (except for tesla).
Yeah, Tesla's lead is much smaller in Europe, IMO. In the US, going long distances with most EVs is really impractical. The Tesla can go almost anywhere, though.
Excellent article with well-reasoned analysis of the range of future possibilities for Tesla. But one disappointing omission is any mention of ride-hailing - surely it will have enormous consequences for the entire auto industry because people will for the most part stop buying cars and switch to autonomous taxis. This will (a) reduce the demand for number of new cars produced; (b) reduce the profit from each car (nobody really cares about the color or horsepower or brand of the taxi they take to work)
I suspect ride hailing, just like taxies, is only viable in large, extremely dense cities. Those are really rather rare in the US. I don't know that they will be any more disruptive than taxies in the US unless society changes.
If Tesla is the first to crack autonomy they will win, regardless of ride-hailing. If Tesla doesn't crack autonomy they're likely to go under, regardless of ride-hailing.
> If Tesla is the first to crack autonomy they will win, regardless of ride-hailing.
I think that's a bit strong. People don't replace their cars all that often, and no massive increase in demand for Tesla's cars is going to cause their production numbers to jump.
If they get full autonomy out five years ahead of Waymo and Cruise (good luck), they still probably won't win a dominant share of the market longer-term.
> If Tesla doesn't crack autonomy they're likely to go under
Shrugs, I think autonomy could seriously hurt them, whoever invents it. Tesla builds "a better car" -- nice acceleration, clean interface, more reliable -- and autonomous ride-hailing in cities essentially leads to the cars themselves not being an important point of differentiation.
I think that's a bit strong. People don't replace their cars all that often, and no massive increase in demand for Tesla's cars is going to cause their production numbers to jump.
If they get full autonomy out five years ahead of Waymo and Cruise (good luck), they still probably won't win a dominant share of the market longer-term.
> If Tesla doesn't crack autonomy they're likely to go under
Shrugs, I think autonomy could seriously hurt them, whoever invents it. Tesla builds "a better car" -- nice acceleration, clean interface, more reliable -- and autonomous ride-hailing in cities essentially leads to the cars themselves not being an important point of differentiation.
I don't think they will go under. They believe they will make enough model 3s to be profitable quarterly in the second half of 2018. They could also just sell stock if they needed more money short term. They are at least 10 years ahead on superchargers, long term driving. I'm coming up on 6 years of free long distance driving with my model s. There's no other ev with that capability. The next i-pace is missing charging away from your house.
Actually it would be nice to see someone take a crack at that... There are so many aspects there... Women and families may not want to jump in a car that other people touch. People that commute across the desert. Surely it will have an affect, but it might not exactly kill the auto industry.. but it might be enough to make a strong winner for the ones that can remain in a reduced market.
I think an important advantage is vertical integration. Similar to Apple and iPhone, Tesla controls most of the stack. They can do a lot more than their competitors.
There are a ton of differences between Apple and Tesla. Most noticeably, Apple actually made a profit selling the iPhone.
6-years after the release of the Model S, Telsa has yet to turn a profit. And instead, is facing bankruptcy within the next two years unless it can roll over its debt or otherwise raise yet a few more billion $$$$.
Compare and contrast: the iPhone was released in 2007. The Tesla Model S was released in 2012. Steve Jobs died in 2011 (4-years after the iPhone). You can tell that that Apple was a successful company by the time Steve Jobs died.
Furthermore, Apple accomplished its iPhone launch during the 2007 to 2008 financial crisis. In contrast, Tesla's rampup is during the cheapest money ever to be seen in modern history: low interest rates and a grand bull market.
The political, environmental, and financial headwinds Apple faced during its time to create the iPhone were exponentially more difficult than Tesla's. And yet, Apple turned a profit and became a lasting company. The same cannot be said yet of Tesla.
6-years after the release of the Model S, Telsa has yet to turn a profit. And instead, is facing bankruptcy within the next two years unless it can roll over its debt or otherwise raise yet a few more billion $$$$.
Compare and contrast: the iPhone was released in 2007. The Tesla Model S was released in 2012. Steve Jobs died in 2011 (4-years after the iPhone). You can tell that that Apple was a successful company by the time Steve Jobs died.
Furthermore, Apple accomplished its iPhone launch during the 2007 to 2008 financial crisis. In contrast, Tesla's rampup is during the cheapest money ever to be seen in modern history: low interest rates and a grand bull market.
The political, environmental, and financial headwinds Apple faced during its time to create the iPhone were exponentially more difficult than Tesla's. And yet, Apple turned a profit and became a lasting company. The same cannot be said yet of Tesla.
“The political, environmental, and financial headwinds Apple faced during its time to create the iPhone were exponentially more difficult than Tesla's.“
I get that you might not be bullish on Tesla, but do you seriously believe this?
I get that you might not be bullish on Tesla, but do you seriously believe this?
Were you around during the 2008 financial recession?
Major US banks were literally going bankrupt, credit dried up. There was almost no opportunity to borrow money, the stock market was crashing, no opportunity to IPO or perform a secondary offering.
Tesla is operating under one of the greatest, and longest, bull markets the US has ever seen. The great 2011 to 2018 (maybe longer??) boom. Tesla has been able to either secondary-offering, or borrow, roughly billion+ each year, every year, since its IPO.
During recent years, its borrowed or otherwise raised over $2 billion / year.
Major US banks were literally going bankrupt, credit dried up. There was almost no opportunity to borrow money, the stock market was crashing, no opportunity to IPO or perform a secondary offering.
Tesla is operating under one of the greatest, and longest, bull markets the US has ever seen. The great 2011 to 2018 (maybe longer??) boom. Tesla has been able to either secondary-offering, or borrow, roughly billion+ each year, every year, since its IPO.
During recent years, its borrowed or otherwise raised over $2 billion / year.
I was. And all that might even be relevant if you weren't comparing Tesla to Apple.
The iPhone actually launched in 2007, the same year in which Apple generated over $24B in revenue and was sitting on $15B in cash at the end of the fiscal year. In 2008, they did $37B in revenue and ended the fiscal year sitting on about $25B in cash.
The claim that Apple's financial challenges with launching a smartphone were "exponentially" greater than Tesla's, is laughable.
The iPhone actually launched in 2007, the same year in which Apple generated over $24B in revenue and was sitting on $15B in cash at the end of the fiscal year. In 2008, they did $37B in revenue and ended the fiscal year sitting on about $25B in cash.
The claim that Apple's financial challenges with launching a smartphone were "exponentially" greater than Tesla's, is laughable.
> And all that might even be relevant if you weren't comparing Tesla to Apple.
I'm not comparing Apple to Tesla. The parent article is. And I'm trying to point out how utterly silly the comparison is.
Quote the first paragraph:
> When Nokia people looked at the first iPhone, they saw a not-great phone with some cool features that they were going to build too, being produced at a small fraction of the volumes they were selling. They shrugged. “No 3G, and just look at the camera!”
> When many car company people look at a Tesla, they see a not-great car with some cool features that they’re going to build too, being produced at a small fraction of the volumes they’re selling. “Look at the fit and finish, and the panel gaps, and the tent!”
--------
This comparison is fundamentally insane, and shouldn't be the starting point of any serious discussion.
I'm not comparing Apple to Tesla. The parent article is. And I'm trying to point out how utterly silly the comparison is.
Quote the first paragraph:
> When Nokia people looked at the first iPhone, they saw a not-great phone with some cool features that they were going to build too, being produced at a small fraction of the volumes they were selling. They shrugged. “No 3G, and just look at the camera!”
> When many car company people look at a Tesla, they see a not-great car with some cool features that they’re going to build too, being produced at a small fraction of the volumes they’re selling. “Look at the fit and finish, and the panel gaps, and the tent!”
--------
This comparison is fundamentally insane, and shouldn't be the starting point of any serious discussion.
You said:
“The political, environmental, and financial headwinds Apple faced during its time to create the iPhone were exponentially more difficult than Tesla's.“
I brought attention to this and showed how ridiculous of an assertion it was.
And now you're saying: "I'm not comparing Apple to Tesla. The parent article is. And I'm trying to point out how utterly silly the comparison is."
The other quotes you've added are all irrelevant. You're all over the place. Give it a rest and come back when you have a properly thought out point to make with some evidence to support it.
I brought attention to this and showed how ridiculous of an assertion it was.
And now you're saying: "I'm not comparing Apple to Tesla. The parent article is. And I'm trying to point out how utterly silly the comparison is."
The other quotes you've added are all irrelevant. You're all over the place. Give it a rest and come back when you have a properly thought out point to make with some evidence to support it.
You did say it was ridiculous, but never proved it. Apple may have had money in the bank but selling a luxury product in the middle of a financial crisis was an up hill battle.
Consumer confidence was at all time lows and disposable income saw the biggest drop since the great depression. People were more concerned about whether they'd still have a job and savings rates upticked dramatically while salaries fell.
Consumer confidence was at all time lows and disposable income saw the biggest drop since the great depression. People were more concerned about whether they'd still have a job and savings rates upticked dramatically while salaries fell.
Have you looked at Apple's performance during that time period? As I pointed out in my previous post, Apple was sitting on $25B in cash in 2008. Additionally, their annual revenue nearly tripled and their profit quadrupled from 2007-2010. That's not an up hill battle.
All your talk about the economic environment during the recession is irrelevant because Apple had $25B cash in the bank and the iPhone was a hit, even though it was a luxury item being sold during the recession. The massive scale of their business and their overall success insulated them from the larger ramifications of the economic downturn. Tesla is operating in the opposite economic environment today, but they are not as financially surefooted as Apple was during the launch of the iPhone. So, to get back to the point, to claim that the financial challenges Apple faced bringing the iPhone to market were exponentially more difficult than Tesla's, just isn't true.
All your talk about the economic environment during the recession is irrelevant because Apple had $25B cash in the bank and the iPhone was a hit, even though it was a luxury item being sold during the recession. The massive scale of their business and their overall success insulated them from the larger ramifications of the economic downturn. Tesla is operating in the opposite economic environment today, but they are not as financially surefooted as Apple was during the launch of the iPhone. So, to get back to the point, to claim that the financial challenges Apple faced bringing the iPhone to market were exponentially more difficult than Tesla's, just isn't true.
Yes and making the iPhone a hit is a lot harder when your customers don't have any money to spend.
Nobody is saying Apple couldn't afford the R&D to build the physical phones.
Nobody is saying Apple couldn't afford the R&D to build the physical phones.
It's not harder when you have $25B in cash to spend on fancy marketing, advertising, promotion etc. Do you not understand how massive of an advantage that is? It effectively makes you recession proof. Additionally, you can look at Apple's financials to see that they had no problem selling millions of iPhones through the recession. In fact Q4 of 2009 was their most profitable quarter ever (up until that point) which was the tail end of the recession. It was a radically successful launch by all metrics.
Any way you look at it, launching the iPhone, given Apple's cash, marketing muscle, and hw/sw expertise, wasn't as challenging (even in a recession)as bringing an electric vehicle to market and it by no means was "exponentially more difficult" – in the words of the OP.
I don't have anything more to add to this discussion. I think it's clear that the OP's claim is incredibly uninformed and wildly inaccurate.
Any way you look at it, launching the iPhone, given Apple's cash, marketing muscle, and hw/sw expertise, wasn't as challenging (even in a recession)as bringing an electric vehicle to market and it by no means was "exponentially more difficult" – in the words of the OP.
I don't have anything more to add to this discussion. I think it's clear that the OP's claim is incredibly uninformed and wildly inaccurate.
> It's not harder when you have $25B in cash to spend on fancy marketing, advertising, promotion etc. Do you not understand how massive of an advantage that is?
Come on. Its Mr. Musk's decision to make a company take advantage of debt markets instead of waiting for a few years for the Roadster or Model S to make some profits. Tesla's current financial situation is 100% the decision of Musk.
Musk chose debt and stock offerings because he wanted to take advantage of bull market conditions. He's received something on the order of ~$10 Billion from investors, either from the debt market or the stock market (IPOs or Secondary offerings).
If Tesla were to try its strategy of "IPO to get a ton of money each year, every year" during any other time in US history, it would have literally come across a recession and run out of money.
The Gigafactory was literally built on top of debt and stock offerings. Tesla never had that money to begin with.
Come on. Its Mr. Musk's decision to make a company take advantage of debt markets instead of waiting for a few years for the Roadster or Model S to make some profits. Tesla's current financial situation is 100% the decision of Musk.
Musk chose debt and stock offerings because he wanted to take advantage of bull market conditions. He's received something on the order of ~$10 Billion from investors, either from the debt market or the stock market (IPOs or Secondary offerings).
If Tesla were to try its strategy of "IPO to get a ton of money each year, every year" during any other time in US history, it would have literally come across a recession and run out of money.
The Gigafactory was literally built on top of debt and stock offerings. Tesla never had that money to begin with.
come on, apple was never suffering under financial constraints like tesla has been. That is just a sill comparison.
"Suffering" ???
Tesla has received $1+ BILLION a year over the past few years from the stock market, and roughly $3.8 Billion from the debt / bond market so far.
A lot of companies would be able to survive if the market magically came up with $2 Billion / year for that company to spend every year.
You might say that its Musk's advantage that he's cultivated the cult of personality. And you'd be correct about that. But I wouldn't call Tesla's financial situation to be "suffering", not by a long shot.
The correct description is "wasted". Musk WASTED the tons, and tons, and tons of money he received from investors. He's not cash flow positive, even after all of these billions of dollars have come in.
$0.813 Billion in 2013: https://www.thestreet.com/story/11924981/1/elon-musk-invests...
$2 Billion in 2014: https://www.ft.com/content/2f2387a0-a00a-11e3-9c65-00144feab...
$0.738 Billion in 2015: http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/tesla-stock-sale-cash/
$1.45 Billion in 2016: https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/20/tesla-raises-146b-in-stock-s...
$262 Million Stocks + $850 Million Bonds in 2017: https://www.investopedia.com/news/what-market-thinks-about-t...
------------
Etc. Etc. The financial markets have been very, very kind to Tesla. Any failures on Tesla is 100% Musk's fault at this point. No other company raises billions of dollars every year under normal situations (where "normal" is defined as, any period outside of the 2011 to 2018 bull-run of the current market)
Tesla has received $1+ BILLION a year over the past few years from the stock market, and roughly $3.8 Billion from the debt / bond market so far.
A lot of companies would be able to survive if the market magically came up with $2 Billion / year for that company to spend every year.
You might say that its Musk's advantage that he's cultivated the cult of personality. And you'd be correct about that. But I wouldn't call Tesla's financial situation to be "suffering", not by a long shot.
The correct description is "wasted". Musk WASTED the tons, and tons, and tons of money he received from investors. He's not cash flow positive, even after all of these billions of dollars have come in.
$0.813 Billion in 2013: https://www.thestreet.com/story/11924981/1/elon-musk-invests...
$2 Billion in 2014: https://www.ft.com/content/2f2387a0-a00a-11e3-9c65-00144feab...
$0.738 Billion in 2015: http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/tesla-stock-sale-cash/
$1.45 Billion in 2016: https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/20/tesla-raises-146b-in-stock-s...
$262 Million Stocks + $850 Million Bonds in 2017: https://www.investopedia.com/news/what-market-thinks-about-t...
------------
Etc. Etc. The financial markets have been very, very kind to Tesla. Any failures on Tesla is 100% Musk's fault at this point. No other company raises billions of dollars every year under normal situations (where "normal" is defined as, any period outside of the 2011 to 2018 bull-run of the current market)
This comparison is flat out ridiculous. Jobs returned to Apple 10 years before the iPhone and launched a series of successful and profitable products: iMac, iPod, and iTunes leveraging an existing rabid fanbase, and putting them in prime position to design and launch a category changer like the iPhone. I'm not particularly impressed with Musk or Tesla, but you can't compare bootstrapping an automobile company to leveraging a decades-old vertically integrated consumer electronics behemoth to disrupt UX in a $1000 hand-held device. The financial crisis was probably the optimal time to launch such a product.
They are two different companies. Apple had its share of turmoil during the 30 years it was a company prior to the success of iPhone. For instance, having around six months of money left to burn when acquiring NEXT in 1996. Tesla has been around for ~15y. Sure, tech cycles are getting shorter, but still, it's a long slog over many years to scale any vertically involved hardware company.
I mean, if you want to compare the current state of Tesla to the state of Apple in 1996, I think that more or less solidifies my point?
Tesla cannot be compared to the 2000-era Apple company. There are simply too many differences.
Tesla cannot be compared to the 2000-era Apple company. There are simply too many differences.
Then we agree.
Do you know how to read a financial statement? They have 26% gross margins on the Model S. Model 3 just turned gross margin positive in Q2. Your response is boring and boneheaded. Next.
I'm not talking gross margin. I'm talking raw and simple profits. If I wanted to talk about margins, I would have said "margin" in my post earlier. I said profit.
To be more specific, how about the words "Cash Flow Positive" ?? In any case, Tesla has only had ONE profitable quarter since its IPO, and has never had a profitable year.
To be more specific, how about the words "Cash Flow Positive" ?? In any case, Tesla has only had ONE profitable quarter since its IPO, and has never had a profitable year.
Tesla is not a company that wanted to nor needed to be cash flow positive until now. They raised cheap capital and applied it to grow their business faster than bootstrapping would have allowed.
Which is why the point about margins is so crucial. No one anticipated such great margins on an electric car. The tear down analysis demonstrates that the $35k standard-range Model 3 is not a unicorn, but will be profitable to make and sell once the production lines have any slack at all at the higher price points.
Which is why the point about margins is so crucial. No one anticipated such great margins on an electric car. The tear down analysis demonstrates that the $35k standard-range Model 3 is not a unicorn, but will be profitable to make and sell once the production lines have any slack at all at the higher price points.
But the point of tesla is they are making investments long term. Yes, they definitely need to produce those new products that justify all that money (like the model 3). They don't have dozens of different car products where they can trade off their current cash flow against future development costs - they have had just the S & X. How can you evaluate any company if you can't think about these separately - how much profit they make on one widget, and how much they spend on developing infrastructure and the next things, how much value will that have.
> But the point of tesla is they are making investments long term.
What definition of "long term" do we have here?
How many years did it take for Apple to become profitable from the iPod? The iPad? The iPhone? It was profitable throughout all of those years.
That's the very point of technology gadgets: they don't require huge upfront costs like Tesla. Apple does have innovations (see their custom ARM chip, which is consistently superior to Snapdragon in benchmarks every year). But even with the billions of dollars needed to custom-make an uncore from scratch, Apple remains profitable.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/267728/apples-net-income...
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TSLA/tesla/net-inc...
Since 2005 (and maybe earlier), Apple has made a profit every quarter. Since 2009 (before Tesla's IPO), Tesla has NEVER made a profit.
Its completely insane to compare these two companies. They're run completely differently, aside from both being California based.
What definition of "long term" do we have here?
How many years did it take for Apple to become profitable from the iPod? The iPad? The iPhone? It was profitable throughout all of those years.
That's the very point of technology gadgets: they don't require huge upfront costs like Tesla. Apple does have innovations (see their custom ARM chip, which is consistently superior to Snapdragon in benchmarks every year). But even with the billions of dollars needed to custom-make an uncore from scratch, Apple remains profitable.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/267728/apples-net-income...
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TSLA/tesla/net-inc...
Since 2005 (and maybe earlier), Apple has made a profit every quarter. Since 2009 (before Tesla's IPO), Tesla has NEVER made a profit.
Its completely insane to compare these two companies. They're run completely differently, aside from both being California based.
Mainstream car companies used to do that then decided it wasn't a good idea and that their suppliers were better at innovation.
Something missing from this article: Tesla doesn't necessarily need to solve the vision only SLAM/Autonomy problem itself. If anyone solves the problem, and is willing to sell it. Tesla can immediately license it and turn their fleet of 200k+ Autopilot 2 cars into self driving cars overnight.
> Tesla can immediately license it
Aren't they already licensing the second generation from Nvidia on Nvidia hardware?
> Autopilot 2 cars into self driving cars overnight.
That's presuming that the current sensor arrays, computing power and their arrangements will be compatible with the new technology.
Aren't they already licensing the second generation from Nvidia on Nvidia hardware?
> Autopilot 2 cars into self driving cars overnight.
That's presuming that the current sensor arrays, computing power and their arrangements will be compatible with the new technology.
No. Tesla does not use Nvidia software libraries afaik. They do license the socs and gpus on a board designed by tesla. Based on the drive px1 reference design. Being changed in 6-8 months to a custom made asic made specifically for self driving by Tesla.
Whilst that's true, it doesn't seem likely that we go from where we are now (Can't do autonomous driving) to a point where can get fully autonomous driving, and then to a point where we can do fully autonomous driving with the reduced sensors available on existing Teslas in a period of time that makes sense.
I thought we were done with the autopilot fantasies?
How is that a moat?
it seems the article boils down to the autonomy puzzle in Tesla. Could Tesla make the autonomy a realization with their approach? would waymo approach be better in the future?
One thing I think that is missing, although it mentioned people love their Tesla and so is other thing in life. It is the fact that I felt that this is derived from the way Tesla designed the car, it is intuitive just like when the first Iphone introduced. There is no whistle and bells like the traditional car. Just like iphone compare to Nokia.
My big take away is harder for the car company to become a software company than a software company become a car company. Not to mentioned as a car company, it has lots of 'legacy' or baggage that they have to deal with.
The works is two times harder I think for an incumbent to become a software company as a compare software company to become a hardware company. First: As an incumbent they have to unlearned the old way of doing or thinking about what a car company is. Second: If they are successful at the first one, then they have to learn how to do the software.
While for Tesla, is only 1 step which is to learn how to make car (about the hardware). Tesla does not need to unlearn about things because it has no legacy.
In my experience it is harder to unlearn about things rather than learning about things. I might be wrong :)
One thing I think that is missing, although it mentioned people love their Tesla and so is other thing in life. It is the fact that I felt that this is derived from the way Tesla designed the car, it is intuitive just like when the first Iphone introduced. There is no whistle and bells like the traditional car. Just like iphone compare to Nokia.
My big take away is harder for the car company to become a software company than a software company become a car company. Not to mentioned as a car company, it has lots of 'legacy' or baggage that they have to deal with.
The works is two times harder I think for an incumbent to become a software company as a compare software company to become a hardware company. First: As an incumbent they have to unlearned the old way of doing or thinking about what a car company is. Second: If they are successful at the first one, then they have to learn how to do the software.
While for Tesla, is only 1 step which is to learn how to make car (about the hardware). Tesla does not need to unlearn about things because it has no legacy.
In my experience it is harder to unlearn about things rather than learning about things. I might be wrong :)
> It is the fact that I felt that this is derived from the way Tesla designed the car, it is intuitive just like when the first Iphone introduced.
I beg to differ. The iPhone was intuitive in that all the (built-in) apps were nicely laid out so you could easily interact with them while you are looking at the phone and giving it most of your attention. Kind of like a Tesla is nicely laid out so that you can mostly easily figure out how to, say, adjust the ventilation while looking at the big display and giving it a decent amount of attention.
This is far better than the car I grew up with that made you press the totally unintuitive recirculate button when you wanted recirculation.
</sarcasm>
To Tesla’s credit, their on/off/drive/reverse control is vastly superior to anyone else’s. Heck, several brands still screw up their “off” button badly enough that it kills people by CO poisoning.
I beg to differ. The iPhone was intuitive in that all the (built-in) apps were nicely laid out so you could easily interact with them while you are looking at the phone and giving it most of your attention. Kind of like a Tesla is nicely laid out so that you can mostly easily figure out how to, say, adjust the ventilation while looking at the big display and giving it a decent amount of attention.
This is far better than the car I grew up with that made you press the totally unintuitive recirculate button when you wanted recirculation.
</sarcasm>
To Tesla’s credit, their on/off/drive/reverse control is vastly superior to anyone else’s. Heck, several brands still screw up their “off” button badly enough that it kills people by CO poisoning.
> To Tesla’s credit, their on/off/drive/reverse control is vastly superior to anyone else’s.
They got it from Mercedes, as well as all the other steering wheel stalks (lights, window washers, cruise control), as well as the driver door window and mirrors control pad.
Good on them for selecting the best on the market, but it's not their invention.
They got it from Mercedes, as well as all the other steering wheel stalks (lights, window washers, cruise control), as well as the driver door window and mirrors control pad.
Good on them for selecting the best on the market, but it's not their invention.
As far as I know, Teslas are unique or nearly unique in that you can put the car in park and exit the car and there is no risk that you accidentally leave the car on. Certainly in Toyota vehicles (even brand new) you can arrive at your destination, do the wrong sequence of button presses, and end up with the car in park (so it won't roll), with the engine physically off (because the car has automatic stop-start, so it is likely to turn off the engine by itself when you park) and exit the car, and end up with the car in a state that will restart the engine when it starts to cool down or when the 12V system wants to be topped off and start emitting CO. In your garage.
I've made this mistake myself, although not in a garage, and I've noticed it before I actually exited the car. But a surprising number of people have actually died due to this UI failure.
I've made this mistake myself, although not in a garage, and I've noticed it before I actually exited the car. But a surprising number of people have actually died due to this UI failure.
I don't think his talking about the physical button and the model 3 one uses a custom made one with a different layout. Their old one at one point was a Mercedes one they later switches to another design don't remember from which OEM.
>Not to mentioned as a car company, it has lots of 'legacy' or baggage that they have to deal with.
Yeah, all "legacy" is bad. What could they possibly have learned in 100 years of building cars? Nothing that Tesla can't replicate in less than a decade! Meanwhile, Tesla owners are recommending a checklist of possible defects to look for when you go to pick up your vehicle. Non-super-fans will never tolerate that.
No bells and whistles? Simpler than the tactile interface of legacy cars? This is simply not true.
Yeah, all "legacy" is bad. What could they possibly have learned in 100 years of building cars? Nothing that Tesla can't replicate in less than a decade! Meanwhile, Tesla owners are recommending a checklist of possible defects to look for when you go to pick up your vehicle. Non-super-fans will never tolerate that.
No bells and whistles? Simpler than the tactile interface of legacy cars? This is simply not true.
what does "non-superfans won't tolerate that" mean? I have a tesla, it's fine. it was made by humans, I'm sure it has some problems, but its just a car.
andrej karpathy is kinda pretty freaking legit but I think the waymo team is probably stronger/larger and has significantly more engineering maturity.
caveat: I don't do vision.
caveat: I don't do vision.
for anyone who maybe got confused SLAM stands for
Simultaneous Localization and Mapping.
edit: I think if it is possible to do SLAM without LIDAR waymo will definitely beat TESLA to the punch since waymo has an absurd amount of vision data labelled with the lidar-measured-depth.
edit: I think if it is possible to do SLAM without LIDAR waymo will definitely beat TESLA to the punch since waymo has an absurd amount of vision data labelled with the lidar-measured-depth.
Speaking of that. I’d think we could possibly train on simulations. We’d have the 3d information plus the rendered 2d camera view.
I don't know if people do this for vision yet but I know some people doing this for RL for robotic control.
Google has a simulation for their cars that does this. Nvidia has a hw suit for this purpose too and for testing autopilot hardware by feeding it data from another rack/server
"That is, it’s entirely possible that Waymo, or someone else, gets autonomy to work in 202x with a $1000 or $2000 LIDAR and vision sensor suite and Tesla still doesn’t have it working with vision alone."
In this scenario there still may be an upside for Tesla. For Waymo to cover the world in LIDAR-equipped cars will take decades. Tesla already sells cars all over the world. The Tesla car sharing network may scale extremely quickly as a result. Even if Waymo takes some markets first, once Tesla has autonomy working, they can be in most markets at the flip of a switch.
Since the cars participating in the sharing network would be from Tesla purchasers, people may purchase the cars as an investment, meaning there would be no capital cost to Tesla in scaling their network. They just need to be able to produce enough Model 3s and get autonomy working. Then they can take profits from both the sale of the car and the clip of the car sharing network.
In this scenario there still may be an upside for Tesla. For Waymo to cover the world in LIDAR-equipped cars will take decades. Tesla already sells cars all over the world. The Tesla car sharing network may scale extremely quickly as a result. Even if Waymo takes some markets first, once Tesla has autonomy working, they can be in most markets at the flip of a switch.
Since the cars participating in the sharing network would be from Tesla purchasers, people may purchase the cars as an investment, meaning there would be no capital cost to Tesla in scaling their network. They just need to be able to produce enough Model 3s and get autonomy working. Then they can take profits from both the sale of the car and the clip of the car sharing network.
Is LIDAR actually better than video? If I understand LIDAR correctly, it gives a 1D array of depth data and is fairly limited in either resolution or speed. Video provides much more data at higher speed, and it seems like it'd be easier to identify objects from 2D color images. Stereo (never mind eight cameras) can be used to derive depth information.
But I'm not a practitioner, so educate me. How does LIDAR beat video?
But I'm not a practitioner, so educate me. How does LIDAR beat video?
I was quoting the article, but I think LIDAR is a bit more like having a 3D model of the world around the vehicle. The processing of a 1D array into a usable point cloud is not of concern at the frontier of autonomous vehicle research.
My understanding is that the main reason Tesla would choose video instead is that cameras are super-cheap in comparison to LIDAR, and theoretically good enough if you have AI that can understand what the cameras are seeing. I have a feeling that Musk is pushing OpenAI toward researching the technology that Tesla will need to make their approach work. I hope they are successful; it is probably the fastest path toward ubiquitous autonomous vehicles. It's likely that Waymo can get theirs working faster, but they can't scale the distribution side as fast as Tesla could.
My understanding is that the main reason Tesla would choose video instead is that cameras are super-cheap in comparison to LIDAR, and theoretically good enough if you have AI that can understand what the cameras are seeing. I have a feeling that Musk is pushing OpenAI toward researching the technology that Tesla will need to make their approach work. I hope they are successful; it is probably the fastest path toward ubiquitous autonomous vehicles. It's likely that Waymo can get theirs working faster, but they can't scale the distribution side as fast as Tesla could.
> There’s an old car industry joke that you can see the organization chart of a car company in the dashboard, and also see that the steering wheel team hates the gear stick team.
So, Conway's Law then! Can anyone tell us more about this car industry adage?
So, Conway's Law then! Can anyone tell us more about this car industry adage?
yea I loved seeing that but a quick googling didn't net me anything more.
[deleted]
If batteries are getting so cheap why isn’t anyone making battery powered: chainsaws, full size vacuum cleaners, jet skis, ride on mowers? All of those would be revolutionary.
"If batteries are getting so cheap why isn’t anyone making battery powered: chainsaws, full size vacuum cleaners, jet skis, ride on mowers?"
They are. The fire department I volunteer at has put the dewalt battery powered chainsaw in service on our engines (which is significant as we deal with a lot of downed trees, etc.)
I am personally (slowly) switching to battery operated tools for lighter duty mowing and trimming at my ranch (dewalt and bosch).
Further, I see that while the big brands (Polaris, Kawasaki, Yamaha) do not yet have electric quads, you can find them on alibaba, etc., to be shipped to the US.
Heavier duty use-cased - like very large chainsaws and mowers - will still have people like me using IC engines but regular homeowners and even contractors/pros will be switched over to battery for almost everything landscaping/mowing related in the next ten years. It couldn't happen too soon.
They are. The fire department I volunteer at has put the dewalt battery powered chainsaw in service on our engines (which is significant as we deal with a lot of downed trees, etc.)
I am personally (slowly) switching to battery operated tools for lighter duty mowing and trimming at my ranch (dewalt and bosch).
Further, I see that while the big brands (Polaris, Kawasaki, Yamaha) do not yet have electric quads, you can find them on alibaba, etc., to be shipped to the US.
Heavier duty use-cased - like very large chainsaws and mowers - will still have people like me using IC engines but regular homeowners and even contractors/pros will be switched over to battery for almost everything landscaping/mowing related in the next ten years. It couldn't happen too soon.
Most tool brands (milwaukee, dewalt, ryobi) are transitioning from tool companies to battery companies. Lots of cheap tools and expensive batteries.
Also, battery powered chainsaws (husqvarna is well regarded for their chainsaws): https://www.husqvarna.com/us/products/chainsaws/536li-xp/966...
battery powered riding lawnmowers (ryobi not well known for ride-on mowers): https://www.homedepot.com/p/Ryobi-38-in-75-Ah-Battery-Electr...
Also, battery powered chainsaws (husqvarna is well regarded for their chainsaws): https://www.husqvarna.com/us/products/chainsaws/536li-xp/966...
battery powered riding lawnmowers (ryobi not well known for ride-on mowers): https://www.homedepot.com/p/Ryobi-38-in-75-Ah-Battery-Electr...
Battery powered chainsaws are very popular for light duty work. Small battery powered vacuums are also very popular.
You might as well ask, if batteries are getting cheap, why isn't anybody making cordless drills?
You might as well ask, if batteries are getting cheap, why isn't anybody making cordless drills?
Ride-on mower companies are entering the electric space - Ryobi and Troy-Bilt have consumer-level options, Cub Cadet have a prosumer/light pro model (RZT S Zero), and Mean Green make a full line of commercial grade electric mowers.
Electric chainsaws have been a thing for years and have moved from the trimmer size space to the prosumer/light pro space (see the Husqvarna 536Li XP).
Hoover make a full sized appearance canister/upright hybrid vacuum (Air Cordless Lift). In this space, though, I think the prevalence of smaller stick-style cordless vacuums is because the technology enables them rather than because the technology can't be scaled up. The Dyson V6/V7/V8/V10 models aren't great in terms of quality IMO but are very convenient and popular and the V10 is more than sufficient for home vacuuming tasks.
Electric chainsaws have been a thing for years and have moved from the trimmer size space to the prosumer/light pro space (see the Husqvarna 536Li XP).
Hoover make a full sized appearance canister/upright hybrid vacuum (Air Cordless Lift). In this space, though, I think the prevalence of smaller stick-style cordless vacuums is because the technology enables them rather than because the technology can't be scaled up. The Dyson V6/V7/V8/V10 models aren't great in terms of quality IMO but are very convenient and popular and the V10 is more than sufficient for home vacuuming tasks.
For me for a long time the example of tool that cannot be reasonably battery powered were angle grinders and SDS-mount hammer drills. DeWalt makes both of these for a few years.
batteries are getting cheaper but good long term reliable batteries will still set you back a bit. I have had an electric mower, edger, and blower. I only kept the last item. The first just didn't last well enough even with a spare battery and it was already degrading before the end of the season. The edger just didn't cut it, sorry about the pun.
There are riding electric mowers but the cost keeps most off of them and honestly unless it has thermal management I am not soaking money into one.
If anything shows how far they need to go is motorcycles. Yeah there are a few decent ones out there but if you do highway speeds their mileage plummets.
and finally comes charging, it is silly enough with phone, table, head sets, and more. now I will need a garage full of at minimum 20a 240v plugs if not higher rated. homes just are not designed around that yet
There are riding electric mowers but the cost keeps most off of them and honestly unless it has thermal management I am not soaking money into one.
If anything shows how far they need to go is motorcycles. Yeah there are a few decent ones out there but if you do highway speeds their mileage plummets.
and finally comes charging, it is silly enough with phone, table, head sets, and more. now I will need a garage full of at minimum 20a 240v plugs if not higher rated. homes just are not designed around that yet
The newest Zero electric motorcycles will go around 100 miles at real highway speeds, which isn't bad compared to most small-tank gas motorcycles (although obviously lack of refueling options is an issue). I do think they're a good illustration of the cost issue, though, as they're astronomically expensive.
F Zero motorcycles, supported them buying one of the first production bikes and now it sits with a dead battery and zero no longer sells replacments shafting all it's first gen bike owners.
Wow, now that I am looking this up the pre-2012 Zero bikes used Molicell LiMn2O4 batteries instead of more common LiFePO4s (see A123) or ubiquitous LiCoO2 batteries. This gives them a deeper voltage range and makes them require some form of reengineering to replace with more modern battery technology, which really does suck.
I've been getting into Lowes' Kobalt branded series of power tools [1] built to run on 80V lithium batteries. Their 18" chainsaw is perfect for casual trimming and a tree or two every couple of months. With multiple batteries and chargers it's possible to run continuously.
The main unknown for me is how durable the tools will be over time, and how the batteries will hold up.
[1] https://www.kobalttools.com/outdoor-tools/80v
The main unknown for me is how durable the tools will be over time, and how the batteries will hold up.
[1] https://www.kobalttools.com/outdoor-tools/80v
Dyson discontinued all their cabled vacuum cleaners when they released the V10.
Autonomous driving is such a big opportunity, that trying to do it wihtout LIDARs is a giant premature optimization.
Just like trying to make fully automated assembly plants.
Whatever edge it may give on sensor cost savings in the long run, it has a steep penalty in time to market.
Even if eventually they make it without LIDARs, guess what? The competitors with successful fleets won’t be too far behind.
Just like trying to make fully automated assembly plants.
Whatever edge it may give on sensor cost savings in the long run, it has a steep penalty in time to market.
Even if eventually they make it without LIDARs, guess what? The competitors with successful fleets won’t be too far behind.
If lidar was available for a few thousand, I think they would have used it. But it was much much more expensive in 2012 when I got my first one. Now they are kind of committed because they promised it would work for the generation 2.5 hardware in the model 3. So if they can't make it work, they'd have to refund 5k for a lot of sellers, or pay for upgrading to new hardware. I have gen 2 hardware, but I kind of doubt that it will be enough for autodriving.
"When many car company people look at a Tesla, they see a not-great car with some cool features that they’re going to build too, being produced at a small fraction of the volumes they’re selling. “Look at the fit and finish, and the panel gaps, and the tent!” "
Is this the basis of the article?
The earliest Tesla car is rodster right? THAT IS A GREAT CAR in every aspect, right?...
Is this the basis of the article?
The earliest Tesla car is rodster right? THAT IS A GREAT CAR in every aspect, right?...
The earliest Tesla was a Lotus Elise with an electric motor and batteries installed by Tesla
But I think a lot of people are stuck on that earlier car and don't get the engineering capability that Tesla has built over time.