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

311–320 of 582 posts

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

#311

Post by scarmig »

xp84 wrote: post #306
Zigurd wrote: 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…

It would be smarter to take that approach. Google's core competency is technology, technical infrastructure, and research. More mundane things like manufacturing and customer service are... shall we say, less of a core competency. Take the high value add, leave other things to automakers to duke it out. Also good for avoiding attracting even more regulatory attention.

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

#312

Post by Zigurd »

xp84 wrote: post #306
Zigurd wrote: 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…

That is one plausible outcome. Waymo is experimenting with partnerships with ride hailing apps on the one hand, and building their software into Toyotas on the other hand. So far they have built a few thousand vehicles in a factory run by Magna, which specializes in low volume vehicles. Hyundai wants to sell Waymo tens of thousands of vehicles. That's going to look different in fundamental ways.

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

#313

Post by naravara »

estearum wrote: post #159
galangalalgol wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reasoning is cynical but sound. If the system uses only the sensing modes people have, it will make the mistakes people do. If a jury thinks "well I could have done that either!" You win. It doesn't matter if your system has fewer accidents if some of the failure modes are different than human ones, because the jury will think "how could it not figure that out?"

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…

Considering he also runs a company that puts computer chips inside brains to augment them you’d think he ought to have a more sound understanding as to the limits of both.

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

#314

Post by zozbot234 »

nlitened wrote: post #227
zozbot234 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does this matter? You have to slow down in rain/snow/fog anyway, so only having cameras available doesn't hurt you all that much. But then in clear weather lidar can only help.

If your vision is good enough to drive in rain/snow/fog, you don't need lidar in clear conditions. If you planned to spend $10B on vision and $10B on lidar — you would be better off spending $20B on better vision.

> If yo[u can] drive in rain/snow/fog, you don't need lidar in clear conditions

Of course you do, you're driving at much higher speeds and so is the surrounding traffic. You can't just guess what you might be looking at, you have to make clear decisions promptly. Lidar is excellent in that case.

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

#315

Post by [deleted] »

Zigurd wrote: 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…

[deleted]

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

#316

Post by nova22033 »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #119

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.

It's not complicated. LIDAR hardware was in short supply during COVID. Elon obviously couldn't slow down production and sink the inflated stock price.

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

#317

Post by array_key_first »

MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #301
zelphirkalt wrote: post #119

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.

I find it comical that people continue to go back to this rage well against "a certain company" for their vision-only approach when the truth is they have the best automatic driving system an individual can buy, rivaling Waymo and beating the Chinese brands. Why are the commenters not pissed at the dozens of other car companies who have done absolutely nothing in this space? Answer: because it's not nearly as fun to…

1. Tesla is not competitive with Waymo, they're not even in the same class. Waymo is 10 years ahead at least. I understand you can't buy a Waymo, but still.

2. Other car companies are properly valued, Tesla is overinflated.

3. Other cars, even basic Hondas, have the same level of self driving as Teslas.

4. Other car companies don't lie to their customers about their capabilities or what they're buying.

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

#318

Post by StopDisinfo910 »

Detrytus wrote: post #220
StopDisinfo910 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maximum GDPR fine is 4% of global revenue in the previous year. If a company has 30% profit margin then they can, in theory, treat is as a cost of doing business, indefinitely.

It's 4% per fine. Each violation is a fine and Meta owns multiple companies that can be fined. But 4% of global revenue already can't be treated as just a cost of doing business. Their shareholders would murder them.

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

#319

Post by tzs »

small_model wrote: post #27
geminiboy wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have had the pleasure of riding a few times in SanFrancisco. The drive was delightful and felt really safe. It handled the SF terrain, traffic and mixed traffic like trams very well. I wouldnt trust a self driving tesla ( or any camera only systems) though!

Why wouldn't you trust a Telsa, millions of people let there Tesla drive them all over USA (not geofences like Waymo) without touching the wheel from parking spot to parking spot everyday. Have you tried it?

> millions of people let there Tesla drive them all over USA

There aren't a million Teslas with FSD active in the US. According to Tesla in their latest earnings report there are 1.1 million people worldwide with FSD.

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

#320

Post by philistine »

nlitened wrote: post #174
zelphirkalt wrote: post #119

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.

As I understand, lidars don't work well in rain/snow/fog. So in the real world, where you have limited resources (research and production investment, people talent, AI training time and dataset breadth, power consumption) that you could redistribute between two systems (vision and lidar), but one of the systems would contradict the other in dangerous driving conditions — it's smarter to just max out vision and ignore…

Why does that strategy absolutely require the lidar to be absent from the car? When was less technology the solution to a software problem?
Post reply on HN