←back to thread

319 points doctoboggan | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
TulliusCicero ◴[] No.46235375[source]
Autonomy subscriptions are how things are going to go, I called this a long time ago. It makes too much sense in terms of continuous development and operations/support to not have a subscription -- and subscriptions will likely double as insurance at some point in the future (once the car is driving itself 100% of the time, and liability is always with the self driving stack anyway).

Of course, people won't like this, I'm not exactly enthused either, but the alternative would be a corporation constantly providing -- for free -- updates and even support if your car gets into an accident or stuck. That doesn't really make sense from a business perspective.

replies(18): >>46235819 #>>46235936 #>>46235949 #>>46236024 #>>46236150 #>>46236188 #>>46236255 #>>46237451 #>>46237487 #>>46238071 #>>46238397 #>>46238855 #>>46239572 #>>46240212 #>>46240694 #>>46242103 #>>46242505 #>>46242708 #
bryanlarsen ◴[] No.46236024[source]
Agreed, it seems inevitable that autonomy and insurance are going to be bundled.

1. Courts are finding Tesla partially liable for collisions, so they've already got some of the downsides of insurance (aka the payout) without the upside (the premium).

2. Waymo data shows a significant injury reduction rate. If it's true and not manipulated data, it's natural for the car companies to want to capture some of this upside.

3. It just seems like a much easier sell. I wouldn't pay $100/month for self-driving, but $150 a month for self-driving + insurance? That's more than I currently pay for insurance, but not a lot more. And I've got relatively cheap insurance: charging $250/month for insurance + self-driving will be cheaper than what some people pay for just insurance alone.

I don't think we need to hit 100% self-driving for the bundled insurance to be viable. 90% self-driving should still have a substantially lower accident rate if the Waymo data is accurate and extends.

replies(9): >>46236098 #>>46236522 #>>46236731 #>>46237640 #>>46238483 #>>46239662 #>>46240208 #>>46241770 #>>46243195 #
phkahler ◴[] No.46236522[source]
>> Waymo data shows a significant injury reduction rate. If it's true and not manipulated data, it's natural for the car companies to want to capture some of this upside.

If you can insure the car for less, the car company can charge more for the car. I don't want to pay a subscription (rent) for a car I buy.

replies(1): >>46236619 #
bryanlarsen ◴[] No.46236619[source]
I think you're in the minority. I can't find the reference, but I believe more customers are willing to pay $100/month for Tesla FSD than are willing to pay $10K once.
replies(3): >>46237505 #>>46238919 #>>46241010 #
1. typewithrhythm ◴[] No.46237505[source]
Tesla fsd is far from complete enough to be a data point; people who pay the 10k are gambling that when fsd is improved the cost will be much higher.
replies(1): >>46238826 #
2. Alive-in-2025 ◴[] No.46238826[source]
And today only fools pay the 10K one time cost. Tesla even priced the monthly amount to encourage you to go monthly. There's lots of reasons, including that they're not going to be able to upgrade people who got cars with the previous hardware, so endless lawsuits trying to get a promised but never provided upgrade from 3 to 4.