It's cool tech, but I think Comma's quickly running out of room for commercial success here because a single camera can only take you so far. With GM rolling out Supercruise onto the new Bolts next year, it's hard to see how these guys last for more than another couple of years. Best case for them is to get acquired by a desperate laggard, but that's not really a great outcome if you're an engineer at Comma.
Autopilot on Cars for $999
211–220 of 298 posts
Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No reason self-driving technology should be bundled with a car It seems to me that there are many reasons it should be bundled, and I'll bet that in the long run all self-driving cars will be integrated systems. It's not a good place for inconsistent installations or a modding mentality--imagine multiplying Uber and Tesla's programs a thousandfold with fewer resources and less accountability.
I disagree. I think if there's a clean uniform interface in which a device can receive video and make commands it could work out. Consider the fact that no auto maker I've seen, apart from Tesla, has made an infotainment system equivalent to a first generation iPad. I know its trendy to hate on infotainment, but I just want to see a map w/ directions to where I'm going. They're a lost cause in my opinion, and the les…
Autonomy is going to require a lot more than a CAN bus & some video interfaces. The specific sensors matter. The framerates matter. The field of view & mount points matter. The specific compute platform matters -- and it certainly shouldn't run on an Android or iPhone without automotive-rated components, realtime guarantees, etc.
All of these things argue strongly for a wholistic vehicle design rather than an aftermarket afterthought.
Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999
#213If self-driving companies really believed in their product, they would bundle car insurance that only works when self-driving is on with the product, and it would be cheaper than normal car insurance.
The Comma AI founder has explicitly stated that their endgame was the insurance business. I'm not sure if he has since changed his stance on this.
It makes sense, though, in a super surveillance-capitalism way. Offer a close-to-cost self-driving product and use the data to estimate the risk of everyone on the road (both the users of your product, but really anyone your product has eyes on).
The comma AI founder has said it's remarkably easy in the data to identify good and bad drivers, and that there is a strong bimodal distribution.
Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999
#214I bought my car with the express intent of getting a compatible car for Comma. My comma absolutely increased the utility of my car to me. Been on 3 huge road trips that I wouldn’t have considered without the device. 12 hours on the road isn’t something I would do everyday, but absolutely bearable with a comma.
If anything it sounds to me as if the comma provided a false sense of security. Drawing from experience driving 9 hours is already grueling. At hour 10, 11 or 12 would you have been able to take control during a failure of the system?
I have one. It's fairly limited so you are forced to pay attention all of the time and think about whether you need to take over. You just aren't doing the menial tasks of keeping the car centered in the lane or keeping a safe following distance.
If the system does something you don't like you just grab the wheel or touch the gas/brakes (the control messages it sends are lower priority for the car than driver inputs). It's also designed to disable itself if it sees gas or brake input.
It's really best considered as an upgrade to the stock lane keeping assist and dynamic cruise control found on most cars. Compared to the stock systems it's much better behaved (my stock Toyota system will happily drive straight across multiple lane lines in certain lighting conditions and it astounds me that such a thing could be sold), but it is a long long way from Level 4.
Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They are open about their mistakes, issues and tradeoffs, much more so than other companies. I don't think its right for engineers use this as a cudgel to beat them over the head. This openness gives us consumers an opportunity to look under the hood and evaluate the tech for what it is, which is a good thing and should be applauded. However. I’ve used that freedom to look at their code and processes and I’ve decid…
I'm honestly curious why you trust Volvo more. They're completely opaque. There's no issue board, can't even find a terms of service online. No over the air updates. Can't even find a technical manual or version number of the software you're running. I assume you just have some car salesman point you to the button to press. Independent reviews put open pilot much higher than Volvo despite volvo having much more reach…
Liability.
Volvo has something to lose. Comma.ai does not.
Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No reason self-driving technology should be bundled with a car It seems to me that there are many reasons it should be bundled, and I'll bet that in the long run all self-driving cars will be integrated systems. It's not a good place for inconsistent installations or a modding mentality--imagine multiplying Uber and Tesla's programs a thousandfold with fewer resources and less accountability.
or, imagine if there's standard interfaces between the motors/control system and the "brains" of self driving. Like how CDs and peripherals don't all need to come from the same manufacturer ('cept apple's!), because there's an industry standard for interoperability.
Apple music peripherals are a great example of what I'm talking about. They don't use bluetooth because W1 chips (their integrated solution) blow bluetooth out of the water. Bluetooth can still exist in other devices because people don't need low latency and high bitrates, but they definitely need their cars not to crash because a standard causes hardware and software from different vendors to run into interoperability quirks. There's no agreement on the best hardware or even the type of hardware for self-driving, so there will be a lot of those quirks.
Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. I think if there's a clean uniform interface in which a device can receive video and make commands it could work out. Consider the fact that no auto maker I've seen, apart from Tesla, has made an infotainment system equivalent to a first generation iPad. I know its trendy to hate on infotainment, but I just want to see a map w/ directions to where I'm going. They're a lost cause in my opinion, and the les…
Autonomy is going to require a lot more than a CAN bus & some video interfaces. The specific sensors matter. The framerates matter. The field of view & mount points matter. The specific compute platform matters -- and it certainly shouldn't run on an Android or iPhone without automotive-rated components, realtime guarantees, etc. All of these things argue strongly for a wholistic vehicle design rather than an afterma…
That's fair. But I think for their current use case, lane keep assist, they make due with less. They're comfortable in level 2 self driving. For anything above that you're probably right, but I would love to see big auto outsource much of it a company dedicated to self-driving. Specialization is essential in these sensitive fields and automakers already rely on suppliers heavily. Very few can get away with the Apple model and even Apple relies on outside parts.
The funny thing is that w/ any other product we would scoff at fully integrated end to end solution for a product that doesn't exist. No product market fit, no minimum viable product, no incremental products.
Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They are open about their mistakes, issues and tradeoffs, much more so than other companies. I don't think its right for engineers use this as a cudgel to beat them over the head. This openness gives us consumers an opportunity to look under the hood and evaluate the tech for what it is, which is a good thing and should be applauded. However. I’ve used that freedom to look at their code and processes and I’ve decid…
I'm honestly curious why you trust Volvo more. They're completely opaque. There's no issue board, can't even find a terms of service online. No over the air updates. Can't even find a technical manual or version number of the software you're running. I assume you just have some car salesman point you to the button to press. Independent reviews put open pilot much higher than Volvo despite volvo having much more reach…
> And I'd be willing to bet their processes and standards are much better than big auto.
Comma has a neat product, but I really do not agree with comments like this. The auto industry is terrible, but they are miles ahead of Comma in the process realm.
The industry has spent a lot of time on safety standards like ASIL and AUTOSAR. They would never allow Comma to ship, because it is written in Python, a pausable language (absurd), and without any hardware protections like lockstep processors or watchdogs, if only because it is literally a consumer phone. A system connected to the steering and acceleration of a vehicle freezing while still in control is ridiculous.
Comma will kill someone; it is only a matter of when, not if.
Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
In fact we have the opposite, where MetroMile advertises lower premiums, while conveniently occupying your ODB2 port, without providing pass-through, preventing the use of Comma’s product (this honestly makes me consider switching from Geico to MetroMile, so I’m not subsidizing Comma customers, but there are other issues with MetroMile...).
> so I’m not subsidizing Comma customers Is this a thing outside of a tiny subset of hackerspace?
Consumer Reports rated Comma #1 for driver assistance tech, implying fitness for the mainstream market.
Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen a few videos of it. It really is just a half step up from active lane keeping. It will proactively keep you centered and manage your speed with no interaction, whereas normal lane keeping only kicks in if you are about to drift out of the lane.
A "half step up" doesn't really do it justice. Most current LKA + Adaptive Cruise Control on cars will only keep you in the lane for a few seconds before requiring human engagement. The Comma Openpilot has already driven intervention free for hours.
Yeah I realize I am a bit reserved in my description, and it is incredible that a phone can be used to do what its doing. I really like this product and I'm glad somebody is making a self upgradeable module you can put in a car and get these features, as opposed to them being trapped in a model year's trim level and irreversibly obsolete like other modern car electronics.
My main goal was to provide a reference to its capabilities without invoking "self driving".