Live data from Hacker News

Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

spectrum.ieee.org

331–340 of 582 posts

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

#331
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The interesting part is that it keeps going up. You seem to believe we have somehow reached a cap where Meta can just expense it as a cost of doing business. That's not how European law works. The fine maximum is far higher and repeated non compliance keeps making the fines higher and higher. It's a ladder not a sizing precedent.

Unfortunately it doesn't in practice. Meta's total revenue since 2018 when GDPR came into force is just shy of $1T. Even with all the smaller fines combined, the total amount of GDPR related fines is in the range of $3B. It's a rounding error.

There isn't a trend of increasing fines, nor has any fine even reached the cap, let alone applied multiple times for the recurring violations. Even more with the current US administration's foreign policy towards the EU.

While GDPR as a law is fine, with the exception of enforcement limitations, enforcement so far has been a complete joke.

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

#332
post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not disagreeing with what you’re saying, but does Alphabet actually intend Waymo to be a trillion dollar retail car business itself, selling cars to everyone? Or would they be happy to sell all those super cool things to OEMs? In a world where “everyone” can make a car affordable that can run Waymo’s software, they may be happy to license all that to “everyone” and simply collect fat royalty checks, à la Microsof…

Do OEMs want to manage their own ride-share platforms? 10+ apps/providers?

I think they were referring to making personal vehicles self driving. Probably the rideshare market is just the start for Waymo.

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

#333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is silly. Cameras are cheap. Have both. Sensors that sense differently in different conditions is not an exotic new problem. The kalman filter has existed for about a billion years and machine learning filters do an even better job.

Cameras are cheap, but, as I understand: 1) it's not cheap to produce lidars at a stable predictable quality in millions; 2) car driving training data sets for lidars are much scarcer (and will always be much scarcer due to cameras' higher prevalence) and at a much lower quality; 3) combined camera+lidar data sets are even scarcer.

1. Automotive LiDAR is down to $350 in China already. BYD is starting to put LiDAR in even entry level cars. (It's been in their mid and high end cars for a while).

2+3. BYD collects extensive training data from customers, much like Tesla does. They will have no trouble with training.

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

#335
post #306
post #268

Before y'all say that now everyone will be able to get Waymo's sensor suite for hundreds of dollars instead of tens of thousands, that's the easy part. Waymo benefits from Google's unparalleled geospatial data. Waymo also has a support architecture that doesn't depend on real time remote operation, which can't be implemented reliably in almost all cases. You can't be following your supposedly unsupervised cars with a…

I’m not disagreeing with what you’re saying, but does Alphabet actually intend Waymo to be a trillion dollar retail car business itself, selling cars to everyone? Or would they be happy to sell all those super cool things to OEMs? In a world where “everyone” can make a car affordable that can run Waymo’s software, they may be happy to license all that to “everyone” and simply collect fat royalty checks, à la Microsof…

> but does Alphabet actually intend Waymo to be a trillion dollar retail car business itself, selling cars to everyone?

Google doesn't do retail other than Chromecast and Pixel phones, and that is already annoying to them as it is because it involves something Google is notoriously bad at - actual customer support.

Starting up a car brand is orders of magnitude worse.

For one, people actually need to trust your brand to survive for at least five to ten years - cars are an investment, and a car that I can't trust to get safety-relevant spare parts (brake rotors, brake pads, axle bearings) all of a sudden is essentially an oversized paperweight. For a company such as Google, this alone (remember Killed By Google) is a huge obstacle to overcome.

Then, you need production. Sure, you can go to Magna or other contract manufacturers, or have an established large brand build vehicles for you, or you say you have to go the Tesla route and build everything from scratch. Either way has associated pros and cons.

And then, you need a nationwide network of spare parts, dealerships, repair shops and technicians that can fix the issues that people will get alone because the wide masses abuse cars in ways you might not even dare think about while testing, or because other people run into your cars and so your cars need repairs.

Even being a derivative of an established car brand can be a royal PITA. Let's take Mercedes Benz as an example with the 2003-2009 Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren. On paper, it's a Mercedes vehicle, with a lot of the parts actually originating from stock Mercedes cars - but most dealerships will refuse to work on it. Either because they lack the support to even properly jack the car up, or because they lack the specialized tools for the AMG engine, or because they cannot even order the parts as Mercedes gates repairs for that thing to special shops. Or, again Mercedes, with Maybach luxury cars. The situation isn't as bad as with the McLaren, but their cars are challenging in another way - the S 650 Pullman weighs around 3 metric tons empty and is 6.50 meters long. Good luck finding a jack even capable of lifting that beast, most Mercedes sports-car shops don't carry jacks that are normally used to lift Mercedes Vito transporters!

Even Tesla, and they've been at it for the better part of two decades, still struggles with that. Their shitty spare parts logistics actually drive up not just insurance prices for their own customers, but for everyone - hit a Tesla with your Dodge and be at fault, and now your insurance has to pay out for months of a rental car because Tesla can't be arsed to provide the body shop the Tesla ends up at with spare parts in any reasonable time.

Established car brands however have all of that ironed out for many, many decades now. American, Asian, European, doesn't matter. And the spare parts don't even have to be made for cars: ask your local Volkswagen dealer to order a few pieces of "199 398 500 A" and one piece of "199 398 500 B" and you'll probably have a lead time of less than a day, at least in Germany - for the uninitiated: that part number belongs to the famous sausage, the second one to the accompanying curry ketchup, with more sausages being sold each year than actual cars.

And established car brands also bring something to the table: their own experiences with integrating smart technology. Yes, particularly German carmakers are notoriously bad in that regard, but for example Mercedes Benz was the first car brand in the world to get a certified Level 3 system on the road [1] and are now working on a Level 4 certification [2]. That kind of experience in navigating bureaucracy, integration and testing cannot be paid for in money.

tl;dr: I see no way in which Waymo goes to general availability regarding selling cars. They will run their own autonomous car fleets in select markets where they can fully control everything, but seeing Waymo tech generally available will be as part of established car brands.

[1] https://group.mercedes-benz.com/technologie/autonomes-fahren...

[2] https://group.mercedes-benz.com/technologie/autonomes-fahren...

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

#336

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.

Karpathy provided additional context on the removal of LiDAR during his Lex Fridman Podcast appearance. This article condenses what he said: https://archive.is/PPiVG And here's one of Elon's mentions (he also has talked about it quite a bit in various spots). https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/1959831831668228450?s=20 Edit: My personal view is that LiDAR and other sensors are extremely useful, but I worked on aircra…

Based on that list it boils down to 2 things it seems:

- cost (no longer a problem)

- too much code needed and it bloats the data pipelines. Does anyone have any actual evidence of this being the case? Like yes, code would be needed, but why is that innately a bad thing? Bloated data pipelines feels like another hand-wave when I think if you do it right it’s fine. As proven by Waymo.

Really curious if any Tesla engineers feel like this is still the best way forward or if it’s just a matter of having to listen to the big guy musk.

I’ve always felt that relying on vision only would be a detriment because even humans with good vision get into circumstances where they get hurt because of temporary vision hindrances. Think heavy snow, heavy rain, heavy fog, even just when you crest a hill at a certain time of day and the sun flashes you

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

#337

will Musk backtrack on the whole CV enough, that's how humans do it if price becomes this low?

Well he's also argued that just using CV reduces sensor contention and he claims it improves performance and release velocity, which is why they also got rid of radar and ultrasonic sensors. I am doubtful although it'll be interesting to see regardless

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

#338

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.

Karpathy provided additional context on the removal of LiDAR during his Lex Fridman Podcast appearance. This article condenses what he said: https://archive.is/PPiVG And here's one of Elon's mentions (he also has talked about it quite a bit in various spots). https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/1959831831668228450?s=20 Edit: My personal view is that LiDAR and other sensors are extremely useful, but I worked on aircra…

The points linked repeatedly focus on cost and complexity as justification, even explicitly stating musks desire to minimise components in Kaparthy’s list.

They don’t focus on safety or effectiveness except to say that vision should be ‘sufficient’. Which is damning with faint praise imho.

If that link was to try and argue that the removal of sensors makes perfect sense i have to point out that anyone that reads that would likely have their negative viewpoint hardened. It was done to reduce cost (back when the sensors were 1000’s) and out of a ridiculous desire by Musk for minimalism. It’s the same desire that removed the indicator stalk i might add.

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

#339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's the reasoning. The reasoning was simply that LIDAR was (and incorrectly predicted to always be) significantly more expensive than cameras, and hypothetically that should be fine because, well, humans drive with only two eyes. Musk miscalculated on 1) cost reduction in LIDAR and 2) how incredible the human brain is compared to computers. Having similar sensors certainly doesn't guarantee your acci…

> how incredible the human brain is compared to computers. It is pretty incredible but people will (rightly so?) hold automated drivers to an ultra high standard. If automated driving systems cause accidents at anywhere near the human rate, it'll be outlawed pretty quickly.

> If automated driving systems cause accidents at anywhere near the human rate, it'll be outlawed pretty quickly.

This is evidently false. Robotaxi crash rates exceed human drivers', but there's not an effective regulatory agency to outlaw them!

https://futurism.com/advanced-transport/tesla-robotaxis-cras...

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

#340
post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why make things more complicated than they need to be? Humans don't have lidar and we are the only intelligence that can reliably drive. Lidar just seems like feature engineering, which has proven to be a dead end in most other AI applications (bitter lesson). https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~eunsol/courses/data/bitter_lesson...

Self driving cars are not equipped with human brains so this doesn’t really make sense. “We should achieve self driving cars via replicating the human brain” strikes me as an incredibly inefficient and difficult way to solve the problem.

Then you deeply underestimate how difficult the problem is, and deeply misunderstand where all the effort has been spent in developing autonomous vehicles.
Post reply on HN