[leesec]

Which company is in the lead is a very contentious topic it seems. This one specific feature doesn't seem to push it one way or the other. But IMO Tesla has the best approach and has a huge lead on the data collection pipeline. No other self driving company has even close to as many cars to test on / gather data from.

[mrep]

> But IMO Tesla has the best approach and has a huge lead on the data collection pipeline.

Not only that, but by using cheap hardware that consumers can reasonably afford, they really only need to get to level 3 (eyes off so you can work/entertain but driver still in the seat) for it to be massively beneficial for everyone who commutes to work.

Waymo pretty much requires level 4 as it's too expensive to be sold as a consumer car and nobody will be in a taxi when it is driving between customers.

[bllguo]

contentious? Genuinely curious for a source here. everything ive ever seen says Waymo is far in the lead, though I dont work in this space.

[leesec]

The contentious part is that Waymo doesn't have a product yet. It's easy to imagine something is better when you can't actually use it.

In truth there are only 3 self driving products that I know of available today. Tesla's Autopilot, GM's Supercruise (only on CT6), and commma.ai's openpilot.

Of those Autopilot is easily the best.

I never know why a source would matter in these cases as the writers of these sources usually have no idea and the answer isn't clear anyways. But if you want you can use me as a source because I'm an engineer who worked in automotive and has driven all 3 of aforementiond products. I also am not sure Waymo will ever release a feasible product other than their LIDAR.

[icelancer]

>> It's easy to imagine something is better when you can't actually use it.

Yup. Carmack illustrated this very well in his interviews when he would not talk about unreleased games vs. Doom/Quake/whatever. He always said: "It's really easy to be the best graphics engine when it isn't available to the public."

[bllguo]

That is a great point. Would you agree that the _narrative_ is that Waymo has the superior tech right now? Or did I misjudge that?

I suppose I used the wrong word. Any expert or well-informed opinion is what I was after.

[leesec]

Yes I would agree Waymo owns the narrative and a lot of it is based on their disengagement stats. I wouldn't say those tell the whole story.

They are also completely different approaches, i.e. Waymo using LIDAR and Tesla relying on cameras as the primary sensor.

But the major question is can LIDAR _ever_ be financially feasible, and if so can it become feasible faster than camera gets good enough at vision. Right now the sensors on the Waymo van probably cost more than the van itself.

That's either a very expensive purchase for the consumer or a very large amount of cap-ex Waymo would have to put up for a fleet of self-driving taxis.

And if it turns out cameras were the right choice, or visa versa, that means the opposite company would have spent a LOT of their R&D funding on the wrong tech, and would be way behind.

[reitzensteinm]

Waymo quotes $7500 per car for the LIDAR unit, which is financially feasible today for consumer vehicles, even if it only supplied level 3. It's trivial for a level 4 robotaxi. But only once the software works.

Even discounting aesthetics, Tesla couldn't have bolted it on to every car sold in the hope that it'll work in a few years time. They'd be bankrupt by now. They were forced to use cameras if they wanted any intermediate progress.

I get that there's a lot of misinformation about Tesla and you're trying to correct it. Even as a Tesla bear I acknowledge that.

But don't do it by creating further misinformation about competitors. You're just adding to the noise.

[leesec]

That's just one LIDAR, count how many are on their vans. (I think 5)