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

GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 692 posts

Re: GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

#131

Post by PaulWaldman »

boshalfoshal wrote: post #110
rgovostes wrote: post #3

> GM said in a statement that “... an increasingly competitive robotaxi market” were the reasons for the change. Isn't there basically Google/Waymo and then, seemingly much further behind, Tesla Cybertaxi, Amazon/Zoox, and Uber/Yandex? Cruise allegedly has one of the most sophisticated autonomous driving platforms, and GM's Super Cruise (if they share any tech) is comparable to Tesla FSD. Strange that they would bow…

Supercruise might be comparable to Tesla's "Autosteer" product but its incomparable to Tesla's paid "FSD Supervised" product. The latter is closer to a Waymo or Cruise than it is to a Mercedes or GM driver assist.

Eh, Tesls's FSD and Autopilot as well as GM's Supercruise are all classified as SAEJ3016 Automation Level 2.

Re: GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

#132

Post by llamaimperative »

porphyra wrote: post #128
jefftk wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The latter is closer to a Waymo or Cruise than it is to a Mercedes or GM driver assist. It depends how you look at it, but in the (super limited) cases where you can use Mercedes Drive Pilot you can legally and safely read a book, watch a movie, or work while in the driver's seat. [1] That's not the case with any Tesla product. [1] https://www.mbusa.com/en/owners/manuals/drive-pilot

The MB Drive Pilot only works at ridiculously low speeds (under 40 mph), on select highways, no sharp turns, no weather, no construction zones, lanes clearly visible, etc. It's laughable to compare it against FSD which works everywhere. FSD has been flawless when driving on such easy conditions for years.

Are you assuming MB Drive Pilot couldn’t also work pretty well outside of its design domain?

This argument is always so silly because it’s just an argument about the correct way to build a safe control system (i.e. with guaranteed performance characteristics in a defined operational domain) versus the incorrect way to do it (just kinda work over an ambiguously defined set of conditions and hope you don’t kill too many innocent people to cripple your business).

Re: GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

#133

Post by schiffern »

margalabargala wrote: post #115
rgovostes wrote: post #3

> GM said in a statement that “... an increasingly competitive robotaxi market” were the reasons for the change. Isn't there basically Google/Waymo and then, seemingly much further behind, Tesla Cybertaxi, Amazon/Zoox, and Uber/Yandex? Cruise allegedly has one of the most sophisticated autonomous driving platforms, and GM's Super Cruise (if they share any tech) is comparable to Tesla FSD. Strange that they would bow…

> Small anecdote: I visited a GM dealership this week and the salesperson told me Super Cruise was not enabled for test drives. The excuse was pretty weak, like the dealership would have to pay for the service or something. GM might have the technology but they are completely bungling the strategy. That was a your-dealership issue, not a GM issue. GM doesn't run the dealerships (though they sure have plenty of influe…

That's a "GM's business model" problem, which is again a GM problem.

The top-selling EV maker in the US doesn't have any dealerships, so clearly it's not an insurmountable problem. GM just hasn't prioritized surmounting it.

Re: GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

#134

Post by madeofpalk »

fixprix wrote: post #59
standardUser wrote: post #19

Waymo needs competition. Who else is even close to being able to provide it? I'd hate to think Tesla is next in line because they haven't even started a commercial pilot program yet.

I don't see how Waymo is going to survive the onslaught that is CyberCab. Cheaper to build and operate, more efficient, much faster to build, and deployable across all cities without any manual configuration. The clock is ticking on Waymo, they have 2 years to figure out how to compete otherwise they're cooked. It's very similar to legacy space and internet, the existing players saw SpaceX coming years out, did nothi…

Very possible, but first you've got to ship.

Re: GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

#135

Post by Tagbert »

rgovostes wrote: post #28
schiffern wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that GM and Ford have no viable strategy for transitioning these features into taxi services, whereas Tesla does. Not sure how it's suddenly so controversial to realize that Detroit is terrible at software strategy. This has been the conventional wisdom (and with good reason) for quite some time.

I briefly owned a Chevy Volt with the worst infotainment UX imaginable. I found a quote from a Chevy spokesperson describing it as an "Apple-like experience," presumably because the graphic designer on Fiverr found the Gradient tool in their pirated copy of Illustrator CS6.

That is a 10-year old UI based on their even older designs from their ICE vehicles. The newer UI for the Ultium is much more modern. Not as severely styled as some other companies not not as overdone as that old UI.

Re: GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

#136

Post by mbreese »

jaimex2 wrote: post #120
boshalfoshal wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supercruise might be comparable to Tesla's "Autosteer" product but its incomparable to Tesla's paid "FSD Supervised" product. The latter is closer to a Waymo or Cruise than it is to a Mercedes or GM driver assist.

It's not even close between Tesla and Waymo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv9HtWUf27s Arguably this is Waymo in its "home turf"

Arguably, it would be a better comparison if the Tesla was restricted from highway driving. I understand the letting the car figure out its own route, but I’m more interested in seeing the Tesla navigate city streets.

Re: GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

#137

Post by achierius »

acchow wrote: post #60
throwaway48476 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So stupid. If something has proved to be possible then you as number 2 can hire people from 1 to replicate it. China is built on this principle.

Probably China will always outpay Cruise so you see migration from Waymo to Chinese companies, but not to cruise

Huh? Cruise was paying $400k+ for like 3YoE. I don't think China is paying more than that.

Re: GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

#138

Post by schiffern »

jedberg wrote: post #80
correlator wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow that must have been a wild experience 10 years ago! Today, I think they should do this. It is rare I need to touch the wheel or pedal these days and people should experience it.

Yeah 10 years ago it was a bit much. It was pretty much just lane keeping and distance keeping, but it didn't read signs or lights yet. So if you're coming up on a signal it would just keep going!

Quick, nobody tell them about cruise control. ;-)

  > Chrysler was the first manufacturer to implement the device in 1958. They called it “Auto-Pilot” and it appeared in their luxury model as an upgraded option. Soon after, General Motors installed it in their Cadillac vehicles, naming it “Cruise Control” which has stuck to this day.
https://www.folsomautomall.com/blog/2022/november/21/the-his...

Re: GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

#140

Post by red75prime »

PaulWaldman wrote: post #131
boshalfoshal wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supercruise might be comparable to Tesla's "Autosteer" product but its incomparable to Tesla's paid "FSD Supervised" product. The latter is closer to a Waymo or Cruise than it is to a Mercedes or GM driver assist.

Eh, Tesls's FSD and Autopilot as well as GM's Supercruise are all classified as SAEJ3016 Automation Level 2.

Which tells approximately nothing about their relative capabilities. The fallback system is the driver (who needs to be ready to take over immediately) and the range of conditions for autonomous operation is better than Level 1.
Post reply on HN