←back to thread

Rivian Unveils Custom Silicon, R2 Lidar Roadmap, and Universal Hands Free

(riviantrackr.com)
319 points doctoboggan | 7 comments | 11 Dec 25 18:17 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
TulliusCicero ◴[11 Dec 25 18:50 UTC] 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 #
margalabargala ◴[11 Dec 25 19:16 UTC] No.46235819[source]▶
> the alternative would be a corporation constantly providing -- for free -- updates and even support if your car gets into an accident or stuck.

That's one alternative.

Another alternative would be that you get what you get at purchase time, and you have to buy a new car to get the newest update.

"Continuous development" isn't always a selling point when it's something with your life in its hands. A great example is Tesla. There are plenty of people who are thrilled with the continuous updates and changes to everything, and there are plenty of people that mock Tesla for it. Both groups are large markets that will have companies cater to them.

replies(5): >>46236064 #>>46236077 #>>46236214 #>>46237457 #>>46238002 #
nradov ◴[11 Dec 25 19:33 UTC] No.46236064[source]▶
The consumers who mock Tesla (and other auto manufacturers) that deliver continuous updates are rapidly dying off or moving into assisted living facilities. They're not going to be buying many new cars in coming years. Pursuing that market segment seems like literally a "dead" end.
replies(5): >>46236667 #>>46236756 #>>46239033 #>>46239409 #>>46239483 #
dzhiurgis ◴[11 Dec 25 23:51 UTC] No.46239033[source]▶
That's my impression too. You'd need to be 80 years old to be excited by a toyota.
replies(2): >>46239642 #>>46243179 #
1. hateselfdriving ◴[12 Dec 25 01:00 UTC] No.46239642[source]▶
I'm 31 and I'm very excited by the '86 Chevy truck I just got. You know why? It's _not_ "smart". The smartest thing on it is the old-school AM/FM radio. There's no software updates, there's nothing (built-in) tracking my every move. It's just a simple, repairable truck, for, you know, _driving_.

People have this strange obsession with over-complicating everything they possibly can.

replies(1): >>46240372 #
2. dzhiurgis ◴[12 Dec 25 02:57 UTC] No.46240372[source]▶
Car and house are usually most expensive persons purchases. It is absurd to not make them smart.
replies(1): >>46240527 #
3. hateselfdriving ◴[12 Dec 25 03:22 UTC] No.46240527[source]▶
Have you ever stopped to think _why_ cars specifically are so expensive? The manufacturers need to put on a fake show to the market and consumers and pretend they are innovating with new "features" every year. But in reality they stuff so many expensive, fragile, and difficult/ impossible to replace electronics and gadgets into cars because 1) every single piece in that car is marked up from the price they paid. The more (ideally expensive) components, the more they get to mark up as the middleman, the more they get to gouge the customer. 2) The more challenging it is to repair the car, the more likely you _must_ come back to the manufacturer (i.e. dealer) and pay them exorbitant fees to fix problems only they know how and have the parts to fix.
replies(2): >>46240548 #>>46240668 #
4. mbg721 ◴[12 Dec 25 03:25 UTC] No.46240548{3}[source]▶
I thought it was safety and environmental regulations, primarily. You have to have airbags, and now antilock brakes, and now rearview cameras, etc. If you were allowed to buy a new car built to the standard of the 1970s, it would be cheap.
replies(2): >>46240581 #>>46240732 #
5. hateselfdriving ◴[12 Dec 25 03:31 UTC] No.46240581{4}[source]▶
I've been keeping an eye on Slate lately. They _supposedly_ will be selling their trucks for sub $30k late 2026. Presumably they will meet every modern safety standard.
6. hateselfdriving ◴[12 Dec 25 03:46 UTC] No.46240668{3}[source]▶
3) The "smarter"/ more unnecessarily complex the vehicle, the easier it becomes to enact planned obsolescence, forcing you to forever buy a new vehicle every 5-7 years, if not more frequent.

4) The "smarter" the vehicle, the more they get to track you and sell your data. You'd think "oh in that case I'm sure it'll be like google where I'd pay a reduced price that's offset by the ad money". No, they will obviously happily rip you off on the vehicle itself AND by selling your data. edit: Because guess what? It's working! People are more than happy to fall for this stuff apparently. I mean hell, it's worked for the phone market too, as one other example.

I'd be ecstatic to see the entire industry wiped out by a newcomer on the scene.

7. hateselfdriving ◴[12 Dec 25 03:57 UTC] No.46240732{4}[source]▶
I am also very suspect of the origins of some of these regulations as well. Modern airbags are wonderful, don't get me wrong, but it's not unreasonable to question, in the US at least, whether auto manufacturers and their lobbyists have been causing new rules to be invented that coincidentally both require fancy, expensive technology AND increase the difficulty/ cost of meeting the standards as a mean to prevent new competitors from starting up in auto manufacturing. Rear-view cameras, eye tracking, and drunk-driving detection all come to mind.