Rivian's gambit for full autonomy
11–20 of 126 posts
Re: Rivian's gambit for full autonomy
#12Dear humans at Rivian. If your vehicle didn't look like a cartoon, I might consider one. It's not conformity, or even ego. It's the same reason I don't wear a clown outfit in public. I don't own a lot of things, but they all look nice. Until then, I enjoy the tech story.
Re: Rivian's gambit for full autonomy
#13Re: Rivian's gambit for full autonomy
#14> Rivian says it will charge $49.99 a month, or $2,500 up front, versus Tesla’s $99 per month for its rival system, which is somewhat misleadingly called Full Self-Driving (Supervised), or FSD. Mercedes, meanwhile, plans to charge $3,950 for a three-year subscription for the forthcoming MB.Drive Assist Pro If and when FSD systems become a reality and are safer than human drivers, I would expect that regulators will r…
That assumes that suppliers are available to affordably add it.
So far Tesla is the only company remotely close to unsupervised self-driving that doesn't add $1000s to the BoM cost of the car.
Re: Rivian's gambit for full autonomy
#15Dear humans at Rivian. If your vehicle didn't look like a cartoon, I might consider one. It's not conformity, or even ego. It's the same reason I don't wear a clown outfit in public. I don't own a lot of things, but they all look nice. Until then, I enjoy the tech story.
People complained about the Prius, but plenty of people drove Mini Coopers, which looked even more ridiculous and were far less functional. You can't please everybody.
It's a fairly generic body shape, but the headlamp and grille shape is distinctively "happy" instead of "aggressive" (this is a real thing, and it's intentionally designed for in lamp/grille shapes on cars)
Personally, I don't want "aggressive" near my cars. They kill enough people already, and I'm tired by how common it is for manufacturers to push aggressive body shapes.
Re: Rivian's gambit for full autonomy
#16[flagged]
Re: Rivian's gambit for full autonomy
#17car company != software company. Building a car gets you approximately 0% closer to knowing how to make a safe software driver . Writing AV software is exceptionally hard. We only have 2 safe functioning drivers presently: humans (debatable) and Waymo. Apple spent $7(?) billion and gave up. Uber and GM have also set billions on fire with nothing to show for it. Tesla might get there, but it could still be 5 years awa…
As of August Tesla had 80+ unsupervised taxis in operation with more than 380k miles driven total, and they are required to report incidents to the NHTSA. At the rate at which they are adding miles, if they are not now safer than human drivers, we should know soon.
Re: Rivian's gambit for full autonomy
#18[flagged]
Re: Rivian's gambit for full autonomy
#19> Rivian says it will charge $49.99 a month, or $2,500 up front, versus Tesla’s $99 per month for its rival system, which is somewhat misleadingly called Full Self-Driving (Supervised), or FSD. Mercedes, meanwhile, plans to charge $3,950 for a three-year subscription for the forthcoming MB.Drive Assist Pro If and when FSD systems become a reality and are safer than human drivers, I would expect that regulators will r…
Re: Rivian's gambit for full autonomy
#20car company != software company. Building a car gets you approximately 0% closer to knowing how to make a safe software driver . Writing AV software is exceptionally hard. We only have 2 safe functioning drivers presently: humans (debatable) and Waymo. Apple spent $7(?) billion and gave up. Uber and GM have also set billions on fire with nothing to show for it. Tesla might get there, but it could still be 5 years awa…