Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 582 posts

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#111

Post by cheema33 »

small_model wrote: post #56
disillusioned wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a weirdly tired counterpoint that Elon and Elonstans like to bandy about as if it's an apples to apples comparison. Humans have a weirdly ultra-high-dynamic-range binocular vision system mounted on an advanced ptz/swivel gimbal that allows for a great degree of freedom of movement, parallax effects, and a complex heuristic system for analyzing vision data. The Tesla FSD system has... well, sure, a few more ca…

Waymos are still making lots of errors that a human wouldn't (Stopping in middle of a road due to a puddle was a recent one https://dmnews.co.uk/waymo-robotaxi-spotted-unable-to-cross-... ) 17 years after betting on LIDAR, I think Tesla is ahead now in most respects. It's could be wrong though we will probably know by the end of this year.

> I think Tesla is ahead now in most respects

Do you actually own a Tesla? I do. With FSD. And let me assure you, you are very wrong.

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#112

Post by Fricken »

small_model wrote: post #29

'MicroVision says its sensor could one day break the $100 barrier'. When an article says one day, read not in the next decade.

Around a decade ago the nascent LIDAR industry boomed and dozens of startups emerged out of nowhere all racing to make cheap automotive grade LIDAR, and here we are.

Of course MicroVisiom is only claiming their LIDAR to be suitable for advanced driver assist, but ADAS encompasses a wide array of capabilities: basically everything between cruise control and robotaxis, so there's no definition of how much LIDAR you need to do the job, just however much you feel like. Tesla feels like none at all.

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#113

Post by IsTom »

eurekin wrote: post #104
pedro_caetano wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any deeper study on long term effects regarding retinal damage? I would imagine, even with safe dosages, there would be some form of cumulative effect in terms of retinal phototoxicity. More so if we consider the scenario that this becomes a standard COTS feature in cars and we are walking around a city centre with a fleet of hundreds of thousands of these laser sources.

Some lidar units simply use the wavelength that the human eye is opaque to. The grandparent comment is about camera lenses with little to no near infrared cutoff filter. Some older iPhones were like that and that was the original breaking story.

> human eye is opaque to

Absorbing the laser isn't necessarily any good. Very hypothetically it could lead to cataracts.

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#114

Post by keyKeeper »

echoangle wrote: post #109
keyKeeper wrote: post #84

There are laser measurers sold for a few buck on Temu. Robot vacuums sold for few hundred dollars have Lidars that map out the room in a seconds. Is there any actual technical reason why automobile Lidar be expensive? Just combine visual processing with single point sampler that will feed points of interest and accurate model of the surroundings will be built.

Probably one factor is range. The article talks about 200-300m range, a robot vacuum has maybe 10m best case?

For example this one has 120m range with 1cm accuracy and its 15 euros: https://www.temu.com/bg-en/-digital-laser-distance-meter-50m...

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#115

Post by xavortm »

keyKeeper wrote: post #84

There are laser measurers sold for a few buck on Temu. Robot vacuums sold for few hundred dollars have Lidars that map out the room in a seconds. Is there any actual technical reason why automobile Lidar be expensive? Just combine visual processing with single point sampler that will feed points of interest and accurate model of the surroundings will be built.

to add to the rest of the comments, a reliability standard also adds on cost. The scale is different, but compare a car bolt vs manned space mission craft's bolt.

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#116

Post by keyKeeper »

foepys wrote: post #99
qznc wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know that automotive parts of the standard requirement to withstand 80°C (or 120°C for military use). A robot vacuum working in a living room can probably be made cheaper because it does not have to face as harsh environments? Also, range is probably a factor. In a living room, you probably need something like 20m max. You car should "see" farther.

Not only that but vibrations play a big part as well, especially on ICE vehicles.

Vibrations are surely an issue with electromechanical systems but hardly with electronics. There are plenty of cheap electronic accessories for cars and you can observe that those keep functioning for years.

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#117

Post by Zanfa »

StopDisinfo910 wrote: post #83
Zanfa wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say the numbers listed here prove the GPs point of poor enforcement. The largest fine is roughly 0.97% of Meta's 2023 revenue, the equivalent of a $600 fine for somebody making 60k / year. It's a tiny-tiny cost of doing business at best, definitely not a deterrent, given Meta's blatant disregard for GDPR since then.

1% of Meta's global revenue is a tiny-tiny cost of doing business? At that point, I think I can stop even trying to argue here. It's a massive fine any way you put it. Especially when you consider the ceiling hasn't been reached and non compliance is more and more costly by design.

It's not even 1% of their annual revenue, let alone the entire multi year period they've been in breach before and since. It's nothing to them.

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#118

Post by pbmonster »

formerly_proven wrote: post #82
tonetegeatinst wrote: post #76

Radar is extremely expensive, and lifar is just below that. Glad to see someone lowering the cost of this technology, and hope to see lots of engineers using this tech as a result. We might even see a boom in LIDAR tech as a result

What makes you say radar is extremely expensive? Virtually every car from the last decade has at least one, many have two or more. They’re barely more than a PCB and a radar ASIC.

If you want to compete with LIDAR, you need high resolution 4D (range, velocity, azimuth, and height) RADAR. Those are usually phased arrays with expensive phase sensitive electronics, and behind that a chip that can do a lot of Fourier transforms very quickly.

The cheap RADAR devices you're talking about usually only output range and velocity, sometimes for a handful of rather large azimuth slices. That doesn't compete with LIDAR at all.

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#119

Post by zelphirkalt »

Since lidar has distance information and cameras do not, it was always a ridiculous idea by a certain company to use cameras only. Lidar using cars are going to replace at least the ones that don't make use of this obvious answer to obstacle detection challenges.

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#120

Post by whatsupdog »

foepys wrote: post #99
qznc wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know that automotive parts of the standard requirement to withstand 80°C (or 120°C for military use). A robot vacuum working in a living room can probably be made cheaper because it does not have to face as harsh environments? Also, range is probably a factor. In a living room, you probably need something like 20m max. You car should "see" farther.

Not only that but vibrations play a big part as well, especially on ICE vehicles.

Please keep politics out of it.
Post reply on HN