←back to thread

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

(riviantrackr.com)
319 points doctoboggan | 1 comments | 11 Dec 25 18:17 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
whimsicalism ◴[11 Dec 25 21:32 UTC] No.46237457[source]▶
> 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.

Doubt that is a politically tenable model.

"You're telling me my son Bobby died in a crash that could have been prevented with finished software but they only roll it out to people who have the money for a new car despite no technical limitation?" -- yeah, good luck

replies(2): >>46237634 #>>46239742 #
margalabargala ◴[11 Dec 25 21:45 UTC] No.46237634[source]▶
I mean that's basically how every car with half-assed barely-functional auto lane keeping sold in the last 7 years has worked.
replies(1): >>46237849 #
whimsicalism ◴[11 Dec 25 22:03 UTC] No.46237849[source]▶
i think self-driving changes the calculus
replies(1): >>46239754 #
margalabargala ◴[12 Dec 25 01:20 UTC] No.46239754{3}[source]▶
Relying on crappy lane keeping and crappy self driving are equally dangerous. If poor software drives you off the road, why does it matter what the feature was named?
replies(2): >>46239790 #>>46241542 #
1. ehsankia ◴[12 Dec 25 06:55 UTC] No.46241542{4}[source]▶
Anything before L4 is "driver assist", which means at the end of the day, the buck stops at the driver. Anything beyond L4, the car itself drives without requiring supervision, which makes a big difference. It's your responsibility to use lane assist in a reasonable way, it's not your responsibility to control how an L4 drives anymore. That's the point of self-driving, the "self" is responsible.