Here's a fun mental exercise: if you did want to run a self-driving car scam starting in 2016, how would you have made it different from Tesla's "Full Self-Driving"?
It's genuinely difficult to think of a better way to pull that off than exactly what Tesla has done.
Start with the most important consideration: the marks. Do you target VCs? Sure, they are hype-susceptible and fallible but they also have access to experts and lawyers. No, you would target the public, who know nothing.
Incidentally, only one AV developer takes consumer cash.
What's the pitch? Well, everyone else is pitching Level 4 robotaxis because the tech is pricy, so not that. Sell the dream: SAE Level 5 autonomy, but in a car that you can afford to own yourself. Better yet, it can be a robotaxi that works for you and pays for itself!
Needless to say, it helps a lot if you've been selling a Level 2 system with high control authority, no ODD limits, and no camera DMS. Especially if you've been hinting for a while that it's practically self-driving. People will believe you: it does steering, brakes AND gas!
Of course, you'll still need some misinformation to explain why they can make videos and offer rides in tough urban zones while you're stuck at Level 2 on easy suburban roads. Say theirs only works in a few square miles. They gotta map every day. Lidar makes AVs worse. Pile it up
Critical point: when you get called out on the misinformation, you have to, HAVE TO say it's because they're scared of you. You can't afford to get deep into actual technical discussions. Just blow them off with unshakeable confidence and some laugh-crying emojis.
You also need a really simple explanation for why you're going to win. Like, really, really, REALLY simple. Something like "we have x cars with cameras and a cellular connection, so we get the most data and the most data always wins in AI." That's it. Never, ever go deeper. Done.
Claim that victory is right around the corner a couple of times a year. Not so often it becomes a complete joke, but enough to show your confidence. Raise the price on a regular basis to "prove" you're getting closer, and drive FOMO.
Ignore the scattered laughter.
Obviously you also need to have spent years developing a culture of blind fanboying around your company and its leader, who should probably be a billionaire with at least one independent way to build his credibility (familiarity with internet culture should help too).
Anyway, if you can think of a better way to structure and run an AV scam than this I would love to hear it!
I genuinely don't think I can come up with a better one, but perhaps I just lack imagination. Help me out here.
Already forgot this one: launch the whole thing with a video claiming that "the person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons" but make it with demoware and film it over 4 days and 177 disengagements. Make basically no other videos. dailykanban.com/2017/02/03/ca-…
This is an important one too: people will assume that there are regulators who are so zealous in their guardianship that they might stop a bold innovator from changing the world. That also implies that they would stop this whole thing if it were a scam
This starts in five minutes, so you just have time to register and tune in. Really excited to learn more about the semifinalists in @USDOT's Inclusive Design Challenge!
Kathy Klinich of @UMTRI is explaining their work on a universal docking interface geometry for wheelchairs and an automated seatbelt system, aimed at allowing wheelchair users to use an autonomous vehicle without any human assistance. Such a cool and important project! 🦾🦾🦾
AV developer @May_Mobility's @tara_a_lanigan says accessibility is a core value for the company, which is why they teamed up with @UMTRI to pilot implementation of their wheelchair anchoring system in their autonomous shuttles as part of the USDOT Inclusive Design Challenge.
I needed some comedy today, and boy did this do the trick
Musk doesn't materially address any of the meaningful manufacturing questions/issues and Munro quickly stops even hinting at them and lobs softballs, but apparently this comes across as a deep, substantive and focused talk about manufacturing to lots of folks🤷♂️
"The real obstacle to Full Self-Driving is state-to-state variations in road lane markings" sure is a take.
Great job of spelling things out here by @Tim_Stevens. In my entirely personal opinion, showing this yoke publicly as a future vehicle option reeks of the sense of regulatory impunity Tesla has enjoyed in the US for years now.
Even where regulatory bodies are not particularly zealous or capable, most industries cultivate ~the appearance~ of deep respect for their regulator. That's certainly the norm in the auto industry. Breaking the rules is one thing, flouting the rules is very much another.
Musk likes to "pre-announce" things well before they're ready. New Tesla models. Self-Driving options. Funding rounds. LBOs. In 2009, he claimed DOE would soon disburse loans Tesla hadn't fully applied for. Here's a more recent and famous example 👇
Wow, this is huge. AI and the cloud have more short-term transformative potential for automotive product development, manufacturing and supply chain than AVs. Interesting consumer-facing moves here too, with unique Android-based "digital experiences" and an app ecosystem.
In LUDICROUS I talk about the fact that an app ecosystem is more fundamental to the smartphone revolution than the hardware form factor or UI.
Here's Elon Musk telling Steve Jurvetson in 2009 that "we've got people like writing apps for the car". 🤷♂️
The first "smartphone on wheels" will not be the first car with a giant screen or a smartphone-inspired UI, but a car that has a robust and meaningful ecosystem of useful and popular third party apps. That opportunity is still out there!
I'm so old, I remember when @montana_skeptic's oil/gas investments (part of a diversified family office portfolio he managed for his employer) was touted as proof positive that he was an utterly untrustworthy shill for planet-destroying fossil fuels. 🤔 electrek.co/2018/07/24/tes…
Like the Sandy Munro thing, the most galling part of this is not Musk's/Munro's behavior, but the shameless hypocrisy of his fanbase.
It just goes to show that, behind the facade of smarmy self-righteousness, the culture emanating from Tesla is utterly ruthless and unprincipled
Waymo CEO @johnkrafcik says Tesla is "absolutely not a competitor" to his autonomous drive technology company.
I talk to a lot of AV developers on a regular basis, and I can't think of a single one who does think of Tesla as a competitor. manager-magazin.de/unternehmen/au…
The response that "Teslas can self-drive everywhere and Waymo can't" based on FSD beta footage is laughable. In case you haven't seen this, here is a playlist of Waymo driving 1,000 miles across California without interventions... in 2009! youtube.com/playlist?list=…
If some long drives without interventions meant a company was on the cusp of real driverless L5 autonomy, Waymo would have got there a long time ago. It's just not the case: the more "nines" of reliability you stack up, the harder it gets. That's why AVs are later than predicted.