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

https://riviantrackr.com/news/rivian-unveils-custom-silicon-r2-lidar-roadmap-universal-hands-free-and-its-next-gen-autonomy-platform/

by doctoboggan • 7 months ago

395 647 7 months ago

riviantrackr.com

bjord2• 7 months ago

is everyone designing their own silicon getting so much additional them-specific utility out of it that it's actually worth it?

darth_avocado3• 7 months ago

Rivian has a huge interest in being the outsourcer for legacy automakers. They’re not able to sell $100k cars enough and even with the promised R2, they probably will only be a small-ish player in the EV market. Their CEO recognizes how crazy good Chinese EVs are and currently they’re not even a competitor for Tesla.

But, VW is willing to pay $5B for their software platform. I think they want to extend that to being able to sell custom chips and “AI” capabilities, whatever that means.

igor472• 7 months ago

Which honestly is crazy to me. I have a Rivian, and to say the software is disappointing would be an understatement. There are heisenbugs galore; some examples:

* Doors refuse to open

* Lose the ability to control media playback using any controls

* Any button in the UI just opens and closes the windows

Granted, I'm a server side/backend engineer mostly, and I don't know much about writing software/firmware for a very hostile emf environment. But if any project I worked on had bugs like this, fixed at the rate they're fixed on Rivian, I would assume a badly flawed architecture or non existent technical leadership

Yet VW paid billions for this very software. I can't imagine how bad it must've been on their own stack that they gave up and bought this other seemingly broken stack

bickfordb• 7 months ago

I have the same question. It makes sense that they might need bespoke software, but how could they possibly be more efficient at creating chips than an AMD/Nvidia?

slashdave3• 7 months ago

Well, if AMD and/or Nvidia were to invest on a chip for an auto, maybe you might have a point.

potatolicious• 7 months ago

I share your skepticism. This feels like an attempt to tap the trainloads of money piling into "AI", for a company that is in pretty desperate need of more cash to stay alive.

In a vacuum there are potentially some advantages to doing your own silicon, especially if your goal is to sell the platform to other automakers as an OEM.

But custom silicon is pricey as hell (if you're doing anything non-trivial, at least), and the payoffs have a long lead time. For a company that's bleeding cash aggressively, with a short runway, to engage in this seems iffy. This sort of move makes a lot more sense if Rivian was an established maker that's cash-flow positive and is looking to cement their long-term lead with free cash flow. Buuuuut they aren't that.

thomasjb• 7 months ago

Possibly. Realistically this is replacing the expensive category of FPGA (Zynqs or similar with strong hardware CPU cores), this means they get all the peripherals they desire in hardware, and they can pick the core variant in order to optimise for their workloads (all the different vector extensions for example). There's an interesting market for that kind of thing, either full FPGA to ASIC replacement, or drop in replacement FPGAs of lower cost (The Rigol MHO98 replaced the Xilinx FPGA of the previous generation with a substitute from Fudan). If you're shipping a lot of hardware, that sort of thing becomes worthwhile.

wmf• 7 months ago

Nope, it's replacing Orin.

ShakataGaNai2• 7 months ago

I would wager that's because there isn't a lot of existing silicon that fits the bill. What COTS equipment is there that has all the CPU/Tensor horsepower these systems need... AND is reasonably power efficient AND is rated for a vehicle (wild temp extremes like -20F to 150F+, constant vibration, slams and impacts... and will keep working for 15 years).

Yea, Tesla has some. But they aren't sharing their secret sauce. You can't just throw a desktop computer in a car and expect it to survive for the duration. Ford et all aren't anywhere close to having "premium silicon".

So you're only option right now is to build your own. And hope maybe that you can sell/license your designs to others later and make bucks.

typewithrhythm4• 7 months ago

NVIDIA orin series is the big one for tensor horsepower. Horizon robotics and Qualcomm also have competitive automotive packages.

They are all expensive, but less than the risk adjusted cost of developing a chip.

ChuckMcM• 7 months ago

I was just in a discussion on this very topic. It's the build vs buy equation applied to silicon. Early in the tech boom the entire silicon stack was proprietary and required a lot of time and investment to train up people who could design the circuitry, we got our first "ASICS" which was basically a bunch of circuitry on a die and you then added your own metal layer so it was like having a bunch of components glued to a board and you could "customize" it by putting wires between the parts. Then we had fabs that needed more wafer starts so they started doing other peoples designs which required they standardize their cells and provide integration services (you brought a design and they mapped it to their standard cells and process). And as the density kept going up they kept having loots of free space they needed to fill up. The 'fabless' chip companies continued to invest in making new parts until the pipeline was pretty smooth. And at that point the level of training you needed a the origin to get it into silicon dropped to nearly zero, you just needed the designs. And into that space people who were neither 'chip' companies, nor were they 'fabless' OEMs, realized they could get their integration needs met by asking a company to make them a chip that did exactly what they wanted.

One the business side, the economics are fabulous, your competitors can't "clone" your product if they don't have your special sauce components. So in many ways it becomes a strategic advantage to maintaining your market position.

But all of that because the all up cost to go from specification to parts meeting the specification dropped into the range where you could build special parts and still price at the market for your finished product.

A really interesting illustration is to look at disk drive controller boards from the Shugart Associates ST-506 (5MB) drive, to Seagate's current offerings. It is illustrative because disk drives are a product that has been ruthlessly economized because of low margins. The ST-506 is all TTL logic and standard analog parts, and yet current products have semiconductor parts that are made exactly to Seagate's design specs and aren't sold to anyone else.

So to answer your question; apparently the economics work out. The costs associated with designing, testing, and packaging your own silicon appears to be cost effective even on products with exceptionally tight margins, it is likely a clear winner on a product that enjoys the margins that electric vehicles offer.

bjord2• 7 months ago

very interesting. thanks for sharing!

7e• 7 months ago

No, Waymo is just going to license their tech to normal automakers, like Toyota, and those licensees will win. Rivian is run by a Musk-wannabe but even this stock pump isn’t going to help with his sociopath, multibillion dollar compensation package.

darth_avocado3• 7 months ago

What stock pump, its cratered on the news.

SonOfKyuss• 7 months ago

That is curious. The market must not have faith in their ability to execute on their plans

TulliusCicero5• 7 months ago

Incendiary language aside, this does seem pretty likely to me. Waymo has already talked about wanting to license their driver for personally owned cars eventually; it just doesn't make sense for them to do so until they can cover more of the country (or countries). The more areas they cover, and especially when they can cover various popular freeways connecting different metro areas, the more it'll make sense for them to start partnering with automakers to sell the technology to consumers.

georgeburdell• 7 months ago

The CEO is different from Musk in a few key ways

1. He has a STEM PhD (from MIT)

2. He is conservative in what he discloses

3. Not outspoken or political

IMO one of Rivian’s benefits is its image as the anti-Tesla

cyberax3• 7 months ago

Yet no AndoidAuto. Pass.

suprnurd• 7 months ago

Where I live I am often surrounded by Waymo vehicles... is Lidar 100% safe for people to be around? I ask because I read an article about how Lidar on one of the new Volvos could destroy your phone camera if you pointed it at it? If Lidar can do that to a phone camera, can it hurt your eyes?

OneDeuxTriSeiGo3• 7 months ago

Depends on the type of LIDAR. LIDAR rated for vehicle use is at a wavelength opaque to the eyes so it hits the surface and fluid of your eye and reflects back rather than going through to your cones and rods.

It isn't however opaque for optical glass (since the LIDAR has to shine through optical glass in the first place) so it hits your camera lens, goes straight through, and slams the sensor.

kappi• 7 months ago

During the presentation, Rivian speaker specifically said it is safe for your camera sensors. Check the youtube video of their presentation

dllu3• 7 months ago

You seem to be implying that all automotive lidar are 1550 nm but that's not true. While there are lots of 1550 nm automotive lidars (Luminar on Volvo, Seyond on NIO) there are also plenty of 850 nm to 940 nm lidars are used in cars (Hesai, Robosense, etc). Those can pass through water and get focused to your retina, but they are also a lot lower power so they do not damage cameras.

slashdave3• 7 months ago

In terms of plain wattage, it cannot be dangerous. Unless, of course, you were to stand with your eye up against the sensor and maybe stare at it for a few minutes.

eutectic• 7 months ago

Lidars use pulsed lasers with peak powers up to the kW range.

doctoboggan5• 7 months ago

I watched the livestream and they said their hardware is "Camera Safe". I am not sure if camera safe and eye safe are correlated, but I would hope/expect that they would not release something that isn't known to be eye safe. I guess it's possible that the long term effects could prove bad, and we will all end up getting "Lidar Eye" dead spots in our vision.

dylan604• 7 months ago

Digital camera sensors are much more sensitive than eyeballs, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that it won't leave a permanent line across your eyeball like it can to a camera sensor

slashdave3• 7 months ago

Lidar Eye? No, how the heck would that happen? I mean, there is a dangerous source of light outside (we call it the "sun"), and yet we manage fine.

colechristensen2• 7 months ago

There are two kinds of safe. Safe when it's working as intended, and safe when it breaks.

But yes there are lidar sensors out there where if broken in the right way could burn out your retinas permanently.

filoleg3• 7 months ago

Your eyes will be fine (assuming that we are talking about automotive LiDAR specifically).

Automotive LiDAR is designed to meet Class-1 laser eye-safety standard, which means "safe under normal conditions." It isn't some subjective/marketing thing, it is an official laser safety classification that is very regulated.

However, if you try to break that "normal conditions" rule by pressing your eyeball directly against an automotive LiDAR sensor for a very long period of time while it is blasting, you might cause yourself some damage.

The reason for why your phone camera would get damaged, but not your eyes, is due to the nature of how camera lenses work. They are designed to gather as much light as possible from a direction and focus it onto a flat, tiny sensor. The same LiDAR beam that is spread out for a large retina can become hyper-concentrated onto a handful of pixels through the camera optics.

tennysont2• 7 months ago

Why wouldn’t your eye lens focus LIDAR photons from the same source onto a small region of your retina in the same way that a phone camera lens focuses same-origin photos to a few pixels?

Sorry if this is a silly question, I honestly don’t have the greatest understanding of EM.

ramses0• 7 months ago

I looked this up for a laser-based projector, Class 2 is "blink reflex should protect you" and "don't be a doofus and stare into it for a long time". Look up the classifications on the google and you'll see other things like "don't look into the rays with a set of binoculars" and stuff.

Class 1 is pretty darned safe, but if you're continually bathed by 50 passing cars an hour while walking on a sidewalk... pitch it to a PhD student you know as something they should find or run a study on.

tonymet• 7 months ago

This is inconsistent with the basic concept. It’s projecting and reading lasers . By default some emissions will hit people in the eye. Even invisible light can damage tissue , especially in the eye

mcdonje• 7 months ago

What about if you're walking or biking next to congested motorway and most of the vehicles have LiDAR running at the same time? That's a lot of photons.

loeg• 7 months ago

The existing regulations here might be insufficient. There is definitely risk if the devices are not carefully designed to be safe.

krackers2• 7 months ago

To date I can't think of any existing lasers which you are intended to look at during daily use. Most consumer facing lasers are either class 1 but hidden (CD-ROM), or class 2 but basically not shined into your eye (barcode reader).

There was another discussion a week back https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46126780

The lack of accessible certification/testing docs for the lidars is also worrying. Where is the proof that it was even tested? Was it tested just via simulation, via a dummy eye stand-in, or with a real biological substitute?

What if there are biological concerns other than simply peak power involved with shining NIR into the eye? (For instance, it seems deep red light has some (beneficial) biological effects on mitochondria. How do we know that a pulsed NIR laser won't have similar but negative effects, even if it doesn't burn a hole in your retina.)

HighGoldstein• 7 months ago

When it becomes a widespread issue they'll just release Meta Glasses 5/Apple Vision 3 with the appropriate eye protection, and vision will be very affordable.

idontwantthis3• 7 months ago

Can anyone explain why RIVN is down 8% after this announcement? Were investors expecting hands free handjobs or something?

nrjames• 7 months ago

“Buy the rumors and sell the news.” Just typical market stuff.

idontwantthis3• 7 months ago

Now it almost reached $20 lol.

doctoboggan5• 7 months ago

Maybe they think custom silicon is biting off more than they can chew, coming at a time when they need to focus on R2 production and scale-up.

spankalee2• 7 months ago

I hold some RIVN and I'm wondering why they're spending resources on custom silicon instead of using something off-the-shelf. What is their advantage here? Can they hire the right people? Can they ship enough units to pay for it?

Those are my bearish questions. On the bullish side, the VW deal shows that they're willing and able to license part of their platform, so possibly have a big chance to recoup costs and maybe turn a profit just on that side, which justifies a big software + autonomy investment.

ssl-3• 7 months ago

If their idea is both novel and useful, and if it actually works, and they can actually produce it, then: They can sell it to other automakers.

(GM has made a lot of cars with their own transmissions. And at various times, they've supplied -lots- of them to other automakers all over the world. They've made a lot of money doing this.

Someone's gotta build the machine vision/control systems for all of these self-driving cars; that someone may well be Rivian.

It's not as sexy as something like a new convertible might be, or a $40k self-driving electric car, and a consumer might not even know that the new car in their driveway has expensive Rivian parts buried inside, but that future can be very profitable for them.)

behnamoh3• 7 months ago

Fair point. I think they wanted to sound super futuristic (they often borrow a page from Apple's book) but they forgot they're not Apple.

1970-01-012• 7 months ago

On the bullish side, the VW deal

Oh, I think everyone missed this. Rivian is betting Elon made a big mistake by designing FSD to be strictly for Tesla. Rivian are doing FSD to license it out to other manufacturers. They're planning to open a new market.

vrinsd2• 7 months ago

Frankly, the "need" for custom silicon seems self-imposed, with the idea of appearing to be a technology company first rather than a car / vehicle company.

Cruise automation was also for years working on custom silicon, I knew people there. Many people working on the custom devices didn't really believe in the mission statement either, but they were paid well, and got to do fun work, so they took the job.

What makes Rivian, or Tesla better at making the "normal" car pieces compared to Toyota, or Honda? The answer is they're really not better at those things and quite worse typically ; bad fit and finish, rattles, corroding suspension components, difficult to buy replacement parts, etc.

If these companies were truly about making electric cars available to all, a partnership with a car company that knows how to do the "regular car stuff" makes a LOT more sense.

Instead you have these companies that might be innovative in the drive train, electronics, batteries, and co-packaging who have to learn all the "hard" stuff normal car companies have been doing for a 100-years.

Now, instead of moving into a partnership with a regular car company, they're becoming hardware/software organizations making custom silicon with custom software.

Even doing custom silicon and the associated software takes YEARS of expertise to do it and not have a 1000 warts, not withtsanding going into a MOVING VEHICLE where the risks of making mistakes is life and limb.

So, my conclusion is this is more fancy smoke and mirrors to impress investors and the general public, but not in the best interest of end-users (people who buy vehicles to use as transportation).

colechristensen2• 7 months ago

Excessive hype leading up to selling the news, happens all the time.

hnburnsy• 7 months ago

They just told potential buyers to not buy an outdated Gen2 or an early R2, assuming it is not delayed.

vhodges• 7 months ago

It could be that Gen 3 shipping late 2026 is a concession that R2 might be delayed until then.

Personally I think they will ship R2 Gen 2 vehicles to the early adopters that are less concerned with ADAS.

My R2 reservation is very late (I had to redo it for reasons) so I probably won't be able to order one until it's available anyways.

nicksergeant3• 7 months ago

Meanwhile, the only thing people really want from Rivian is CarPlay / Android Auto support, lol.

airstrike2• 7 months ago

Not investors, though

cyode• 7 months ago

CarPlay and affordability. I was totally smitten last year with the R1S during a test drive. I'm not a car person but felt that spark people must feel when they obsess over their vehicles.

But it wasn't pushing-six-figures smitten, which is where you're at when you get a new one with customizations.

nicksergeant3• 7 months ago

Yep. I certainly wanted an R1S, but ended up in an EV9 due to CarPlay plus huge lease incentives. No regrets, and will probably get another after this lease is up.

ActorNightly4• 7 months ago

afforadbility

This 1000%.

Electric cars are supposed to be simple. Give me something in a shape of a Civic, with the engine replaced with a motor and a battery good for 150 miles, and sell it for $10-12k new. Don't even need an entertainment cluster, give me a place to put a tablet or a phone and just have a bluetooth speaker.

Instead, we are getting these boutique, expensive vehicles packed full of tech, but in the end, they still fundamentally suck as cars compared to gas alternatives, especially hybrid. I got a Prius Prime for my wife last year, the car is way better than any EV on the market in terms of usability. Driving to work and back can all be done in EV mode easily, and then when you wanna go somewhere, you can keep the car above 80 mph easily and get there faster without worrying about where to charge.

azinman2• 7 months ago

I want the smaller size and cost of the R2

legitster2• 7 months ago

I get where carmakers are coming from though.

Cars used to compete on distinctions between driving experience/fuel economy/reliability/etc. In comparison, differences between electric cars is mostly superfluous. They're very interchangeable.

For the next generation of car buyers, infotainment and features are going to be the main features. And if you are handing all of that away to the tech companies, your entire company is going to just become another captive hardware partner of the tech giants.

nicksergeant3• 7 months ago

I don't know. I would argue that driving experience and reliability are still very much going to be things in the electric car market. I'm an EV9 owner and we have issues w/ the suspension making it feel sloppy over some bumps. There's going to be a ton of nuance in terms of how all of these different electric vehicles drive, ride, and are experienced. And those are all going to come down to the vehicle manufacturers themselves, not just the technology partner for screens.

beanjuice• 7 months ago

... So the answer is to make a series of worse products?

jayd162• 7 months ago

If they actually planned to compete on it they could just offer Carplay support as an option, no?

nightski3• 7 months ago

Oh wow it doesn't have Carplay/Android Auto? Yes they definitely differentiated themselves, into me not wanting one anymore...

wilg• 7 months ago

What, no. I'd buy a Rivian R2 right now to replace my Model Y if it 1) existed and 2) matched FSD features.

dawnerd• 7 months ago

I'm in the same boat. My Model Y has to last until the R2 with lidar comes out. Hopefully it'll have some value left in it.

hansonkd• 7 months ago

It's maddening that $100k purchases get totally nerfed by bad software. Absolutely crazy to me that I can go out find a super nice car I want and have to walk away because of bad software or no carplay support.

Hovertruck2• 7 months ago

I hear this a lot and it's surprising to me. We have three cars in our family (two with carplay and the Rivian) and carplay always feels like such a downgraded experience compared to that of the Rivian.

doctoboggan5• 7 months ago

I have a plex server and use Prologue for audio books. What would my experience on Rivian be like? I am guessing I would have to connect to the infotainment system as a bluetooth speaker? Would I be able to easily skip forward/backward and see the current chapter?

I've been using car play for the better part of the past decade and don't know what it looks like in vehicles without it.

octorian3• 7 months ago

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I'll take a car infotainment system that doesn't need CarPlay/AndroidAuto to be usable (and lacks it) over one that requires a phone attached via CarPlay/AndroidAuto to be usable.

I use Android Auto on rental cars all the time.

My daily driver is a Tesla (Model S /w MCU v2) that doesn't have it. And doesn't need it to provide a usable experience.

simondotau13• 7 months ago

I've only rented Teslas but I can see how most people would consider CP/AA to be unnecessary given the quality of their integrated software. But for me, the two things Tesla can't do (and CP/AA can) is

1. Waze;

2. My preferred third-party podcasting app.

neogodless• 7 months ago

If the software has the same library as your phone, then I could why you see it as on par.

Android Automotive has a much smaller library than Android Auto, so the selection for audio apps, such as podcasts and music, are much more limited. The options for map software is smaller too. Also Android Automotive doesn't necessarily use your phone's existing internet connection. Depending on the maker, you have to subscribe to a separate data plan.

jinushaun• 7 months ago

And real door handles. And real buttons. And better customer service.

Who was this announcement for? I’m at a point where I think Rivian’s real customers are investors.

TulliusCicero5• 7 months ago

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.

margalabargala4• 7 months ago

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.

nradov6• 7 months ago

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.

LeoPanthera• 7 months ago

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.

The Mercedes-Benz model.

SecretDreams2• 7 months ago

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.

We can always choose. The subscriptions aren't mandatory? And there's an alternative to the subscription where they offer it to you for a one time cost.

whimsicalism4• 7 months ago

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

jdminhbg• 7 months ago

Both groups are large markets that will have companies cater to them.

More likely, one group is a large market that companies will cater to and the other group is a small market that will be very loud about their displeasure on the internet.

joquarky• 7 months ago

I'm getting up there in age and I'm getting a bit tired of designers moving things around.

It's taking longer to update my muscle memory each time.

I still get pissed off at the Play Store app regularly for moving the search bar AND not focusing keyboard input on it when I click the search icon.

stavros• 7 months ago

Why would I own a car when I can Waymo one?

mulderc• 7 months ago

I’m with you but there are plenty of places where public transit is superior to driving and people still drive.

nradov6• 7 months ago

My cars are more than just transportation. They're mobile storage lockers where I can keep my stuff reasonably secure. They're a place to sit warm and dry while I wait for something else. They're (semi) private changing rooms where I can put on my cycling kit. Regardless of who does the driving I'll never give up owning (or at least leasing) my own private cars.

Rebelgecko2• 7 months ago

I don't know you or your situation, but many people (including the idealized version of Rivian's target market) like going places that Waymo currently doesn't. There's also tradeoffs with cost, wait time, # of passengers, cargo, etc. Some people may also want to automate "boring" driving while still having the option to do "fun" driving

paxys2• 7 months ago

Why do people own cars when they can just Uber?

TulliusCicero5• 7 months ago

Having your stuff in it already, it's always available immediately (for you), not needing to worry as much about getting it dirty at the beach or with a dog, going to remote places where calling a Waymo may be infeasible or would take a really long time. Probably also cheaper if you drive really frequently.

jen20• 7 months ago

Because lugging around two child seats when you get out at the other end fucking sucks.

m4637• 7 months ago

If you want to leave the waymo boundaries?

stackedinserter3• 7 months ago

Can you waimo to another city or to camping?

behnamoh3• 7 months ago

Imagine having a vehicle with +680 hp (or 1000 hp in case of Rivian quad) and then drive it autonomously... sigh where's the fun in that?

filoleg3• 7 months ago

There is nothing fun about sitting in traffic on your commute to/from work, and neither there is much fun in doing long-distance driving in a straight line on highway for hours on end (regardless of the horsepower). That's what autonomous driving is for imo.

There is a lot of fun in driving a high-hp car on track or offroad or in some not-much-populated area or in plenty of other scenarios. That's where using autonomous driving mode would feel preposterous to me.

TulliusCicero5• 7 months ago

How much fun is it actually to drive around doing daily errands or commuting?

Personally, I look at the 40,000 people killed each year in traffic crashes in the US, and I think, the sooner we all stop driving (on public roads) the better.

cyberax3• 7 months ago

You make a good argument in favor of not allowing 680hp light vehicles on public roads.

bryanlarsen4• 7 months ago

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.

apercu3• 7 months ago

Curious where you live? The only place I ever paid insurance premiums that high (and not quite that high) was in Ontario. I pay $70.

phkahler• 7 months ago

> 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.

echelon5• 7 months ago

I would pay so much for my own SUV to self-drive as well as Waymo.

Keyword: my own SUV. Not a rental. With the possibility for me to take over and drive it myself if service fails or if I want to do so.

The significant unlock is that I get to haul gear, packages, family. I don't need to keep it clean. The muddy dogs, the hiking trip, the week-long road trip.

If my car could drive me, I'd do way more road trips and skip flying. It's almost as romantic as a California Zephyr or Coast Starlight trip. And I can camp out of it.

No cramped airlines. No catching colds by being packed in a sardine can with a stressed out immune system.

No sharing space with people on public transit. I can work and watch movies and listen to music and hang out with my wife, my friends. People won't stare at me, and I can eat in peace or just be myself in my own space.

I might even work in a nomadic lifestyle if I don't have to drive all the time. Our country is so big and there's so much to see.

One day you might even be able to attach a trailer. Bikes, jet skis, ATVs. People might simply live on the road, traveling all the time.

Big cars seem preferable. Lots of space for internal creature comforts. Laying back, lounging. Watching, reading, eating. Changing clothes, camping, even cooking.

Some people might even buy autonomous RVs. I'm sure that'll be a big thing in its own right.

It's bidirectional too! People can come to you as you go to them. Meet in the middle. Same thing with packages, food, etc.

This would be the biggest thing in travel, transport, logistics, perhaps ever. It's a huge unlock. It feels downright revolutionary. Like a total change in how we might live our lives.

This might turn big suburbs from food/culture deserts into the default places people want to live as they have more space for cheaper - because the commute falls apart.

This honestly sounds better than a house, but if you can also own an affordable large home in the suburbs as your home base - that's incredible. You don't need a tiny expensive place in the city. You could fall asleep in your car and wake up for breakfast in the city. Spend some time at home, then make a trek to the mountains. All without wasting any time. No more driving, no more traffic. Commuting becomes leisure. It becomes you time.

This is also kind of a super power that big countries (in terms of area) with lots of roads and highways will enjoy the most. It doesn't do much in a dense city, but once you add mountains and forests and streams and deserts and oceans - that's magic.

Maybe our vast interstate highway infrastructure will suddenly grow ten times in value.

Roads might become more important than ever. We might even start building more.

If the insurance and autonomy come bundled as a subscription after you purchase or lease your vehicle, that's super easy for people to activate and spend money on.

This is such a romantic dream, and I'm so hyped for this.

I would pay an ungodly sum to unlock this. It can't come soon enough. Would subscribe in a heartbeat.

harikb• 7 months ago

History suggests it won't be that clean.

1. High-severity accidents might drop, but the industry bleeds money on high-frequency, low-speed incidents (parking lots, neighborhood scrapes). Autonomy has diminishing returns here; it doesn't magically prevent the chaos of mixed-use environments.

2. Insurance is a capital management game. We’ll likely see a tech company try this, fail to cover a catastrophic liability due to lack of reserves, and trigger a massive backlash.

It reminds me of early internet optimism: we thought connectivity would make truth impossible to hide. Instead, we got the opposite. Tech rarely solves complex markets linearly.

neodymiumphish• 7 months ago

I think there will actually be a couple interesting adjustments/market forces acting in the car companies' favor.

First, if the insurance applies to fully autonomous driving only, then I suspect they’ll reach a point where the cost of insurance+automation ends up being less than just insurance through third parties.

Second, cutting into the traditional insurance market share is likely to increase costs for those who remain on traditional insurance, assuming there’s a significant enough number of people jumping ship. Combined, this creates a huge incentive for more users to jump on the self-driving bandwagon.

darkstar_16• 7 months ago

I actually I'd be even willing to downgrade my car one level if I'm not driving and just sitting in the back seat. Will likely be cheaper for me to own even with the increased subscription.

potato37328423• 7 months ago

Waymo does a lot of urban miles and they do so fairly timidly. The flip side of the that coin is Tesla FSD and you don't hear people simping for their safety record much around here.

What if the difference between human and computer is basically nil (for the next ten years or so) and turns out to cost as much as glass coverage?

Furthermore, it's not like you can slap this stuff on a 2000 Ford Tarus. You're inherently incurring the insurance burden of a fancy modern car with obscenely expensive everything to even get into the kind of vehicle that could/would be equipped with autonomy.

dv_dt2• 7 months ago

Maybe, but it might just push many would-be car owners to just use a service and forego buying a car altogether. What's the point of paying the capital expense, and a subscription expense for a car vs just calling up a Waymo. The traditional car makers should really be wary as they've historically been terrible at service offerings.

rconti• 7 months ago

Autonomy + insurance is an interesting way to arrive at what the insurers are already trying to push with their tracker dongles, where they encourage you to drive like a mouse by putting bits of carrot in front of you.

I had been worried that non-tracked insurance would become increasingly expensive once we reached a tipping point where more and more drivers accepted the devil's bargain, but likely the trackers will be obsoleted by autonomy.

jayd162• 7 months ago

a corporation constantly providing -- for free -- updates and even support

Corporations could decide to only advertise shipped features, not beta tests.

JumpCrisscross3• 7 months ago

Autonomy subscriptions are how things are going to go

In America, maybe. Chinese manufacturers are already treating self driving as table stakes. If I have a choice between a subscription car and one that just works, I’m buying the latter.

continuous development and operations/support

ICE vehicles require continuous servicing and manufacturer support.

rootusrootus12• 7 months ago

In America, maybe. Chinese manufacturers

Let's revisit this conversation after China's cutthroat automotive competition is resolved. That era passed a long time ago in the US.

whatever1• 7 months ago

Uber charges like $100 per hour the customers. I feel once we reach autonomy this will be the baseline.

kakacik• 7 months ago

Unrealistic for 99% of the world, billions live where they earn such sum for more than a week. Not all of those have cars, but many do. This is just some little SV + maybe NY bubble thinking. Also EU would show a big fat finger to such predatory pricing.

general1465• 7 months ago

Let's be real. A staggering amount of drivers are incapable to switch on Automatic Cruise Control or trigger automatic parking. They know how to start the car, how to switch lights and wipers on/off and that's about it.

Paying subscription for something what they are never going to use is going to be a hard sell.

rootusrootus12• 7 months ago

And to be even more real, a staggering amount of drivers won't be able to afford an autonomous driving subscription even if they wanted to. Or a car new enough or in good enough condition to have functional self driving.

seanmcdirmid2• 7 months ago

I have auto parking and never use it, it came with the advanced parking sensors that I do use heavily. I forget how to use auto cruise because I drive outside of the city so rarely, it takes me awhile to “trust it” again when I do some highway driving.

stackedinserter3• 7 months ago

Probably a big chunk of these tried ACC a few times, found that ACC sucks unless you're on perfectly clean empty highway, and said "screw it I'll drive it myself".

setgree• 7 months ago

The other possible future is you rent the car for exactly when you need it and don’t pay a monthly bill— or your monthly bill pays for a certain number of rides/minutes/miles per month. In which case the subscription costs are managed by the provider, who might be the manufacturer and might not.

At least in cities, a fully-functioning, on-demand autonomous fleet would probably be superior to car ownership in just about every way except as a status symbol.

1shooner• 7 months ago

The monopolist providing this service would be de-incentivized from ever equipping for all the demand, and the last 10% of capacity being bid on by the last 20% of demand would make this a constant stress and struggle.

Meanwhile it's an excuse for another century of more car lanes and less mass transit infrastructure.

tadfisher• 7 months ago

There used to be a service like this, called Car2Go. Not autonomous, but more like how scooter/bike rentals work. It was fantastic, and in no way profitable.

tonyhart72• 7 months ago

Yeah, its called taxi

we already have those

wat100003• 7 months ago

Subscriptions are how things are going to go in general. This is just one example of the larger trend. Companies find it very annoying that they have to keep coming up with ways to provide new value in order to keep getting money from people.

Some car companies are already trying out subscriptions for stuff that requires zero ongoing support, like seat heaters. Outside of cars, so much software is switching to subscriptions, whether or not it makes sense. The software for my security cameras has become completely infested by ads, but you can pay for a subscription to make them go away. I own the cameras outright, but not really, since the software needed to use them is basically rented, either with cash or with my eyeballs. Most paid apps I come across these days want a monthly fee to keep using it, they're not content to just sell me a copy.

delfinom• 7 months ago

Eh they are offering a one time payment for autonomy for $2500 which is equal to 4.1 years of paying $50/mo.

It's not a unreasonable cost for development but also maintenance of the self driving system.

beeflet• 7 months ago

yeah but what if comma.ai or something cannibalizes this with open source tech?

danielheath• 7 months ago

Why would I own my own car in this scenario (vs paying one of the autonomous driving companies to send a car my way when I need one)?

bluGill20• 7 months ago

Because if you own your car you leave your golf clubs in there just in case you get invited for a round.

If you are the type who is willing to be seen in a used car you can save a lot of money since the rental car needs to be newer cars just in case someone who wouldn't be seen in a used car wants one - and this adds a lot of cost.

rahulstein• 7 months ago

Apple products are good counter examples to your point. The cost of the basic software and OS w/ updates is included in the hardware

citizenpaul• 7 months ago

Counter counter point. Apple's most expensive offering is something like $1000-$1500 and they basically rely on people upgrading every year or two. Almost like a ........subscription.

Rather than a car which a person may keep for 20 years at a one time huge purchase. Its not really reasonable to expect a company to support something longer than even lifer employees will be there to work on it.

I do really really hate the idea of automotive subscription services though.

jillesvangurp• 7 months ago

Agreed, autonomy is a service and not a feature of the car. It has to be. There is inherent cost as you use it and associated liabilities, legal requirements for auditing, technical need for maintenance and dealing with updates in a timely fashion.

You could make the point that owning the car is a lot less important if you don't drive it yourself. If Uber didn't have to pay drivers, they could expand their area of operation to basically everywhere. Drivers need to be paid so having them drive long distance is relatively expensive. That constrains the area of operation. But otherwise, cost per mile is very low. So, orchestrating pickups in the country side becomes possible.

It's going to enable night time travel as well. Nap/sleep while traveling. Wake up at your destination. That's going to revolutionize commutes as well and enable people to live much further away from work. A four hour commute is much less of a problem if you can spend the time working or napping.

That in turn is going to do wonders for real estate prices. Because there are a lot of nice places to live that are currently far away from cities and therefore still relatively affordable. We got a preview of that during the lock downs when people figured out that remote working is a thing.

tonyhart72• 7 months ago

if we talking about future, its where self driving AI is actually better than 99.9% of the human and human driving manually would void insurance

ineedasername• 7 months ago

If that’s the way things go, subscription, there aught to be insurance coverage built into that. It’s required anyway and the extent to which a driver relies on SD, and has to pay a sub, then it’s the SD responsible for accidents, not in full but part, and insurance can reflect that as well. But if the two are inextricable as a requirement anyway, there should be baked in standardized procedures for “things have gone wrong, which was a known inevitability, and this is the framework for handling it.”

UniverseHacker3• 7 months ago

Of course, people won't like this

I love it because I have exactly zero interest in using this and wouldn’t want to pay for it anyways- and I’d rather more of the drivers around me were actually driving as well.

HPsquared3• 7 months ago

I'd rather the other cars around me are attentive, polite and robotic. It's better than people looking at their phones.

jklinger4102• 7 months ago

And therefore opens up other features to subscription models as well. We've already seen it in some cars, tested in others, etc.

Breza• 7 months ago

I agree with you. Subscription revenue has explicitly been part of Tesla's strategy for years. I'm not sure when this statement first appeared in their SEC findings, but this is from their 2021 10-K:

"As our vehicles are capable of being updated remotely over-the-air, our customers may purchase additional paid options and features through the Tesla app or through the in-vehicle user interface. We expect that this functionality will also allow us to offer certain options and features on a subscription basis in the future."

prepend8• 7 months ago

Or isn’t the alternative a local AI that runs autonomously?

We’d may for updates and new models, but no need for a subscription.

Of course the manufacturer makes more money with a subscription and this is the reason they want it.

frankfrank13• 7 months ago

Is there some tight coupling on autonomy + electric cars? Seems the only 2 viable hands-free car companies are Tesla and Rivian. I don't see myself ever getting an electric car, but it doesn't seem like the big car companies are anywhere near this.

hartator• 7 months ago

I think the shift to EV is inevitable.

colordrops5• 7 months ago

I agree, but it won't happen until EVs get more range.

sofixa• 7 months ago

No, the only Level 3 self-driving system is Drive Pilot by Mercedes. They have it on the S-Class and EQS sedans, so one ICE/hybrid and one EV.

It even comes with legal liability for the car manufacturer, that's how confident they are in the tech. None of this kind of hopium: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...

iknowstuff3• 7 months ago

So confident that it only works with a lead car to follow, on select stretches of freeways, below a certain speed, on sunny days

simondotau13• 7 months ago

It's not real L3, it's marketing department L3. Two years after launch it's still only supported in two US states. Now that Mercedes got their headline, it's effectively abandonware.

If it was real L3, Drive Pilot would be considered the vehicle operator for legal purposes. Mercedes would take full responsibility for any driving infringements or collisions that occur during its use. In reality, Mercedes cannot indemnify you from driving infringements, and for collisions they only promise to cover "insurance costs" which probably doesn't include any downstream reputational consequences of making an insurance claim.

jerlam2• 7 months ago

No, there is no coupling between EVs and automation.

Ford BlueCruise and Mercedes Drive Pilot are equipped on some ICE vehicles, and are hands-free driving on (some) highways.

Mercedes Drive Pilot is classified as L3 which is better than Tesla or Rivian.

jazzyjackson• 7 months ago

I know this ain't a bitch-about-bluecruise thread but it's crazy to me they shipped it as is, it disengages silently as a matter of course - only indication is an animation on the speedometer. You basically have to keep your hands in the wheel just in case, not to mention shouting at you to pay attention when you glance over at the radio. Handsfree but keep your eyeballs facing front !

red75prime2• 7 months ago

Mercedes Drive Pilot is classified as L3 which is better than Tesla or Rivian.

Try to find videos where people actually use it. A handful of 1 minute long promotional and car reviewers' videos. It's mostly a marketing move.

dgarrett• 7 months ago

Mercedes Drive Pilot is classified as L3 which is better than Tesla or Rivian.

"DRIVE PILOT can be activated in heavy traffic jams at a speed of 40 MPH or less on a pre-defined freeway network approved by Mercedes-Benz. DRIVE PILOT operates in daytime lighting conditions when inclement weather is not present and in areas where there is not a construction zone." [0]

[0] https://www.mbusa.com/en/owners/manuals/drive-pilot#2

jedberg• 7 months ago

The coupling is more with cost than drive train, but consumers most likely to pay extra for autonomy are the same ones willing to pay extra for electric.

Which is why you see it on the Mercedes ICE vehicle. Because it's a high cost vehicle to start with.

jmtulloss3• 7 months ago

The reason for this is Rivian and Tesla bet big on software defined platforms… ie every piece of hardware talks to a small number of central computers instead of many independent systems. This gives them a huge leg up in developing software than can actually take all the available input and use it to control all aspects of the vehicle.

Downside is all the buttons are on a screen. But I’ve grudgingly decided it’s worth it for software upgrades.

criddell• 7 months ago

Is the paint job supposed to resemble R2-D2?

doctoboggan5• 7 months ago

I loved to see that they plan on running the Rivian Assistant LLM onboard using their new Gen 3 hardware. Great that they see that as a valuable feature and I hope to see the industry move that way.

asadm• 7 months ago

I hear many Rivian customers really love Comma.ai, so much that they are #1 on Comma dash.

ShakataGaNai2• 7 months ago

Probably a lot of overlap in the venn diagram of people who would like the two things. Mostly the "Early Adopter" circle.

Also a lot of cars have a lot of limitations with comma.ai. Yes, you can install it on all sorts but there are limitations like: above 32mph, cannot resume from stop, cannot take tight corners, cannot do stop light detection, requires additional car upgrades/features, only known to support model year 2021. Etc.

Rivian supports everything, it has a customer base who LOVE technology, are willing to try new things, and ... have disposable income for a $1k extra gadget.

maherbeg• 7 months ago

a lot of the gen1 users will likely swap over to it though. They basically have dropped improvements for gen1 autonomy which is rug-pullish :(

cryptoegorophy4• 7 months ago

I’ve seen videos of massive touch screen stuttering, is it still a thing on rivian?

daemonologist• 7 months ago

The R2(-D2) livery is a fun touch

orliesaurus2• 7 months ago

Watching this unfold... I keep thinking about the supply chain... how many rare minerals go into this custom silicon?

ALSO what happens when the first generation hits end-of-life... will there be a clear path to recycling? I want to believe these platforms will last more than a subscription cycle...

BUT I guess we won't know until we see a teardown...

spankalee2• 7 months ago

Why would more minerals go into custom silicon than off-the-shelf silicon? How would recycling be any different?

orliesaurus2• 7 months ago

not "more"

porphyra2• 7 months ago

typical automotive 905 nm lidars are just CMOS chips similar to cameras and regular computer chips

porphyra2• 7 months ago

Rivians have been spotted with giant Velodyne VLS-128 "Alpha Puck"s since several years ago [1]. But from last I checked, Rivian's ADAS is still struggling with ping-ponging in lanes on curved stretches, and it only works on a small set of pre-mapped highways. Highly doubtful that "universal hands free" is coming.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/mqijd2/riv...

typewithrhythm4• 7 months ago

The big lidars are for ground truth collection. They get used in projects ranging from autonomous development all the way down to budget adaptive cruise control or parking sensor benchmarking.

Zee23• 7 months ago

The ping-ponging is certainly a Gen1 problem. (My Gen1 does this.) Gen1 was essentially an off-the-shelf Mobileye unit, and the performance was, as expected, not good.

Gen2 autonomy stack is completely unrelated to Gen1, and from what I hear is a completely different level of reliability.

(also - this presentation covered yet another, unrelated, gen3 autonomy stack, which shares none of the hardware or models with the existing gen2 stack, either.)

thebeardisred• 7 months ago

What I'm wondering is that the stack up of licensed processor IP looks like.

mtoner23• 7 months ago

how about they try to make their cars profitably first....

behnamoh3• 7 months ago

They'd rather make their board and CEO profitable first...

jjtheblunt• 7 months ago

looks like they're profitable already if counting cars and software on them.

https://rivian.com/newsroom/article/rivian-releases-third-qu...

mrcwinn• 7 months ago

This is really poor execution. You're taking a complex, low margin vehicle and introducing even more cost and supply chain complexity. On top of that, you're essentially making a proxy bet that more expensive hardware (LIDAR) will beat Tesla's software bet.

It's absolutely fair to criticize Elon for his ridiculous FSD timeline claims, but here we are now evaluating the market: if you have experienced the latest FSD, Waymo's and now Rivian's bet is just so obviously the exact wrong bet.

senordevnyc4• 7 months ago

Waymo is delivering millions of paid rides per month all over the country with no one in the driver's seat. Tesla still can't manage that in one small city without a backup driver in the front.

But yes, just like the dozens of other times I've read this comment for years now, I'm sure "the latest version of FSD" is so groundbreaking, and it's all about to change!

JumpCrisscross3• 7 months ago

if you have experienced the latest FSD, Waymo's and now Rivian's bet is just so obviously the exact wrong bet

I have. It’s wild for anyone to say this.

Waymo works. FSD mostly works, and I seriously considered getting a Tesla after borrowing one last week. But it needs to be supervised—this is apparent both in its attention requirement and the one time last week it tried to bolt into a red-lit intersection.

The state of the art is Waymo. The jury is still out on whether cameras only can replicate its success. If it can’t, that safety margin could mean game over for FSD on the insurance or regulatory levels. In that case, Rivian could be No. 2 to Waymo (which will be No. 1 if cameras only doesn’t pan out, given they have infinite money from Google). That’s a good bet.

And if cameras only works, you’ll still have the ultra premium segment Tesla seems to have abandoned and which may be wary of licensing from Waymo.

Rover2227• 7 months ago

Waymo operates on guardrails, with a lot more human-in-the-loop (remotely) help than most people seem aware of.

Tesla's already have similar capabilities, in a much wider range of roads, in vehicles that cost 80% less to manufacture.

They're both achieving impressive results. But if you read beyond headlines, Tesla is setup for such more more success than Waymo in the next 1-2 years.

RivieraKid3• 7 months ago

My first instinct is also that Rivian's strategy doesn't make sense. Self-driving is a monumentally hard problem, to be successful you need a world-class engineering and research team, resources and time.

I suspect that when Rivian has an L3 product, Waymo will be already offering an L4 package to car manufacturers.

dzhiurgis16• 7 months ago

It's not camera vs lidar, it's AI vs AI.

Waymo's AI so far has been narrowly focused few cities. Good start, but remains to be seen who will scale out quicker. IMO both will succeed.

Right now if you want a personal car Tesla's FSD is the only option and will remain so for likely a decade. Waymo doesn't seem to be excited about their mission at all. If it moves to Google's graveyard they'll be like "meh" while it's mission critical for Tesla.

AnotherGoodName• 7 months ago

Your statement on more expensive hardware likely isn't true if you factor in full costs. Lidar gives you things for free with little extra processing (or power) that optical takes extra work to do poorly with higher latency.

Also LIDAR has just plain dropped in price, well over 10x, while nVidia hardware (even the automotive specific variants) have not.

https://cleantechnica.com/2025/03/20/lidars-wicked-cost-drop...

bryanlarsen4• 7 months ago

You're taking a complex, low margin vehicle

Taxi services are not low margin. A taxi typically does about 500,000 miles over its lifetime; adding $10,000 to that cost is 2 cents per mile, increasing price by about 1%.

adrr• 7 months ago

I own FSD, its no where near autonomy.

esafak• 7 months ago

If only they had a good designer. They have the ugliest frames.

fidotron• 7 months ago

They also like to indulge in massive post purchase UX changes so if you like it now there is a good chance you won't in a year.

plebianRube• 7 months ago

In the future, we could use some sort of traffic management system, were cars which conform to a standard are able to 'link-up' and move as one unit like a train, it would relieve alot of the stop and go and improve flow on congested roads, possibly with denser traffic. I'd bet alot of daily commuters woild subscribe to something like that.

1970-01-012• 7 months ago

That was planned a very long time ago. It was too early, and we completely squandered it. Now the spectrum allocated for V2V it is gone.

https://www.butzel.com/alert-The-Latest-Development-in-the-S...

teach• 7 months ago

Yeah, I saw a demo of this in a robotics lab at my local university like 20+ years ago and thought full self-driving was right around the corner.

It will probably EVENTUALLY show up, but I'm thinking it's more like decades away at this point.

uberman4• 7 months ago

Why do people what self driving cars at all? I certainly hate the thought of having to pay for any of this. Even if the end product is subscription based, all these feature cost money up front making new cars super expensive.

bluGill20• 7 months ago

It remains to be seen, but there is reason to believe that self driving cars will be enough safer than regular cars that I as a citizen want everyone to have them if you have a car.

I have kids who walk, ride bikes, and I do the same. There are a lot of terrible drivers out there - the average driver who thinks they are better than everyone else is still terrible (yes this includes me - I'm one of the few honest enough to admit I'm not good, but I'm about equal to everyone else)

ricardobeat3• 7 months ago

Doing long highway drives is effortless. Think cruise control, but you can let go of the wheel.

The hardware necessary for level 2 autonomy is estimated to cost about US$400 in a Tesla. Much higher for companies using Lidar though prices are coming down as well.

kjkjadksj4• 7 months ago

Driving is already effortless. It’s not like you actively think about steering.

aclatuts• 7 months ago

My sister plans to just buy the self driving subscription for the month they go on road trips and thats it. Far better than buying it up front.

fragmede4• 7 months ago

I don't think so. My financial situation isn't hers though, and I don't even own one. I borrowed a friend's for a 550 mile road trip this past weekend and then for a few days after. It's there enough to do the usual daily trips with minimal interaction, so while road trips is the obvious situation for it it's also really nice to have the rest of the time. It sucks that it costs so much when it could be free, but we still live under capitalism so that's just how that one goes.

m4637• 7 months ago

I think it helps you drive. It takes away the tedium of driving and reduces your workload.

Big wins are: 1) stop-and-go traffic 2) long boring highway trips

infrequent but just as important - emergency braking

That said I absolutely hate that this seems to give tesla the "courage" to remove physical driver controls (like turn signal stalks, drive select stalks, full controls for wipers, lights and defrost)

rootusrootus12• 7 months ago

As an aside, IIRC they put the turn signal stalk back in a recent update. It saves them a few bucks per car to use buttons instead, but there are people who will not buy a Tesla without a turn-signal stalk -- and the loss on that is probably 500x what is saved by not putting in a stalk.

justinholt• 7 months ago

I like approaching it from an accessibility standpoint. I don't need it and I enjoy the act of driving. That said, if I had vision impairment and wanted freedom to travel further from home with no assistance self driving cars make a lot more sense.

The product isn't necessarily "for me", but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

squigz• 7 months ago

I'm extremely visually impaired. I'd rather see (ha) good public transport. I also sincerely doubt (and hope so) that I'd be legally able to drive a car simply because it has "self-driving" - what if I need to take control of it? What happens if someone gets hurt because of it? Am I liable, even though I don't have a license?

readthenotes1• 7 months ago

I would like self-driving car for myself, but more so, I would like it for all the other drivers on the road who regularly try to kill me or destroy my car.

mike-cardwell5• 7 months ago

I'd love to get in my car and go to sleep for a couple of hours or read a book whilst it drives me somewhere. Imagine if it could even pull over and charge up without any kind of intervention too. You could get in your car, and get a full nights sleep whilst it drive you somewhere 500 miles away.

Also, at some point, I'm probably going to be too old to drive safely, which will restrict my travels. Not if self driving gets to the point where that doesn't matter anymore.

llbeansandrice11• 7 months ago

This is a train.

You want a train.

If you don't like sharing space with other people, you want a private room on a train.

These cars and their supporting infrastructure should cost more than a private room on a train because they are less efficient and have more negative externalities than a private room on a train.

uberman4• 7 months ago

Cool and all, but up until companies started putting this stuff in cars they cost $30k. Now the average car is 50k. The average car is now more expensive than my BMW 3 series with the premium package from a few years back. I don't want to pay for your fantasy of going to sleep in your car and waking up someplace new. I dont want to pay for the ability of my car to self park or be summoned to me. Most new features of cars dont interest me in the slightest.

kjkjadksj4• 7 months ago

Too bad the law says you can’t do this

wat100003• 7 months ago

Driving can be annoying. I like it in some cases, but it's no fun when there's a ton of traffic, lots of stop lights, etc. I'd love to be able to push a button and let it handle the grunt work in those cases.

Sometimes I want to do something else. Maybe adjust my music, or send a text. If the car can keep me going while I do that, it would be nice.

I live with two people who can't drive. Often I have to take them to things. Tonight I'm going to spend about 90 minutes going, waiting, and coming back, so one of them can do something. It would be great if I could just put them in the car and say, have fun, see you later, and stay home while the car takes them there and back.

rootusrootus12• 7 months ago

Anecdotally, whenever I have to tote someone around who cannot drive, it is nearly universally true that they also cannot get in and out of the car without help, too. So that has to be arranged, a self-driving car won't be able to solve it.

lowbloodsugar• 7 months ago

One day, all personal transport will be AI, and lunatics like me who enjoy performance driving will have special vehicles we drive at a track. Self driving cars are great. That you can’t afford one is just a matter of time.

rootusrootus12• 7 months ago

Could happen. But we still allow horse-drawn carriages on some roads. I think I'll be long dead (and I wouldn't be surprised if everyone in this discussion will be long dead as well) before we kick human drivers off the road.

If we really gave a shit about driving-related fatalities, there is a lot of fruit hanging way lower than replacing the average sober driver.

davej• 7 months ago

You sound like someone who doesn't spend 1+ hour every day commuting in traffic. :)

llbeansandrice11• 7 months ago

The replies to this comment are very telling. Everyone is highlighting various desires and issues with cars:

- Cars are dangerous to people not in cars - Cars require your undivided attention (and even that isn't fool-proof) - Cars are inaccessible: age, eyesight, control operation, etc. - There's a lot of traffic (iow there's a lot of cars)

What people are expressing a desire for is more robust public transit and transportation facilities that protect everyone: peds, drivers, cyclists, etc.

The best way to solve all of these problems, totally ignoring self-driving for a moment, is to reduce the total number of vehicle miles traveled. Reduce the number of car trips. Reduce the length of car trips. If there are less cars, there is less danger from cars. If there are less cars, there is less traffic. The only way to have less cars is to provide alternatives: street cars, bike trails, pedestrian facilities, sub-regional buses and trains, inter-regional trains (or buses).

Literally all of these problems get significantly better when there are less drivers on the road. Trains can provide the inter-regional travel that allows you to work, read, hangout, sleep, etc. without the constant danger of having to watch the road the entire time.

Self-driving cars will certainly be useful, but I think people are really missing the point that the root of the problem is cars specifically. They can (and will!) still be available for people that truly want or need them, but harm reduction is the name of the game. Even changing a portion of your trip from car to something else can make a huge difference! It doesn't have to be door-to-door, it could be that you drive to a park-n-ride. Or you stop driving to the local downtown in the spring, summer, and fall.

Most of the people in this comment section want better public transit. It can be made to work even if the goal is to go skiing or mountain biking once you arrive. Cars need to stop being the default and become the exception. It's cheaper, more efficient, safer, and healthier.

rootusrootus12• 7 months ago

What people are expressing a desire for is more robust public transit and transportation facilities that protect everyone: peds, drivers, cyclists, etc.

I'm going to take a guess here that you're in a bubble. Most people don't give more than a passing thought to protecting anybody else on the road but themselves and their own loved ones. You could say enlightened self interest means this should extend to random strangers, but I bet that as a practical matter it does not. I'd even go farther and suggest that the largest plurality of people who support public transit want it so that it will take other people off the road, not them.

cryptoegorophy4• 7 months ago

Because you haven’t tried it. I want to buy Cadilac ev but the biggest downside is the lack of FSD. Once you go FSD you never go back.

herbturbo• 7 months ago

That all sounds great but with CARIAD now being involved at Rivian I won’t hold my breath on that roadmap being executed.

ricardobeat3• 7 months ago

Those blue stripes look amazing in a retro-future kind of way. About time cars started getting back some personality.

NickM• 7 months ago

I don’t think that the production model will look like that, I believe it’s a wrap. Also suspect it’s a bit of a joke on the model being called the R2 (the colors and patterns are reminiscent of R2-D2).

nextstep2• 7 months ago

These companies are only surviving because of US protectionism. This tech is more expensive than then Chinese equivalent from 2-3 years ago (look at what Xiaomi or BYD released as their 2024 models).

These cars will not sell well outside of the US.

ricardobeat3• 7 months ago

While the software is indeed behind - e.g. Nio already had all of this in 2022/2023, and a much better UI, I'm sure the upcoming Rivian R2 and R3 would sell very well in Europe.

nextstep2• 7 months ago

Europe will probably be the largest market where US EVs will try to compete with Chinese cars. BYD is already selling better spec’d models for less than this Rivian, and Xiaomi will enter the market late 2026.

I don’t see how Rivian can compete, either on price or features.

viburnum• 7 months ago

Quite the qualification for self-driving: "as long as there are clearly painted lane lines."

pstuart2• 7 months ago

+3.5 million miles out of ~4.x million miles of existing roads -- not too shabby.

Seems like a good start to me, and I'd rather they approach as cautiously as possible.

m4637• 7 months ago

I notice that tesla seems to choose (highlight in blue) the left and/or right lane lines or the car in front of you. But it still seems to work without lines.

japhyr• 7 months ago

Fully autonomous driving in all conditions in all locations is clearly a hard problem that's still not solved.

I'm very happy with any company that clearly spells out the situations where their tech works, and the situations where it doesn't yet work.

RivieraKid3• 7 months ago

I've been saying that it's semi-solved, in the sense that we have a decent idea of how to get there without requiring major breakthroughs. (By "we" I mean Waymo.)

red75prime2• 7 months ago

I can't find how it will operate. Will it detect a situation where lines are not painted sufficiently clearly, warn you, and disengage? Or will you need to detect where it begins to operate wonky because lines aren't painted sufficiently clearly and to take over? I guess it's the second. It's hands-off, not eyes-off.

Also, I would like to see a car company that is further down the road of full autonomy clearly describing all the long tail scenarios. It's just impossible.

octorian3• 7 months ago

The endless list of "exception" cases is why I'm continuous skeptical about any sort of full-self-driving claims.

Sure, you can cover everything they can think of. But there are so many cases you can't predict, or which don't have an obvious solution, and it often comes down to a human judgement call that doesn't always have a programmatically-clear right answer.

Zee23• 7 months ago

That was specifically for their existing Gen2 highway assist expansion. Not the Gen3 custom silicon full autonomy that they were discussing for the rest of the presentation.

magguzu• 7 months ago

I'm getting real tired of seeing Silicon Valley reinvent trains.

andreybaskov• 7 months ago

Out of all things I'm actually surprised they went straight to custom silicon, but gotta respect that decision. It's likely the only way to compete with Tesla right now.

iambateman• 7 months ago

it seems like car-makers themselves feel burdened to make their own self-driving tech, as opposed to outsourcing the software to a third party.

Dell and HP don’t make operating systems…it seems like having a handful of companies focused on getting the self-driving part right without the need to also specialize in manufacturing would be beneficial.

My first inclination was to be bullish on Rivian, and there’s no question that their vehicles are beautiful. But is there anything to suggest they have an advantage over Tesla or other automakers when it comes to self-driving?

dymk• 7 months ago

They could have a better driving assistance package than 99% of other cars on the road for 1/10 the price by using OpenPilot as the LKAS, or installing a Comma in the car.

Real shame nobody has taken that approach, not even a fork

AlotOfReading5• 7 months ago

Comma had made essentially no efforts to meet the requirements of automotive systems the last time I looked at them. They would be an incredibly risky supplier for systems that could easily come under regulatory scrutiny.

rootusrootus12• 7 months ago

I recently ordered a Comma Four, which I will install BluePilot on and use with my Lightning. I'm looking forward to seeing how competent it is. Gets good reviews, at least, so I'm hoping.

I do wonder if there will be many more iterations, though, with so many manufacturers switching over to an encrypted canbus and locking out the control method comma uses.

plun9• 7 months ago

Aptera has: https://aptera.us/openpilot-release

hogehoge512• 7 months ago

Most traditional OEMs in the automotive industry are integrators. They write a specification, and a Tier 1 supplier provides a black box matching that spec. (Tier 1 in turn provides a spec to its suppliers and integrates their parts)

This has several consequences - Tier 1 suppliers are waiting on input/approval from OEM before proceeding with projects - Tier 1 suppliers don't necessarily have the capital to do work "at risk", even if they could build the part without approval/specifications. (TBH - some do) - Each layer of the supply chain lacks context on the whole project and product line and cannot achieve efficiencies outside of the scope of its contract.

These haven't really been a problem for mechanical parts and E/E parts that have well-defined functions and interfaces and have a lot of re-use from previous generations. It works really well with Kaizen (incremental innovation).

To outsource it, a traditional OEM would need to completely specify the behaviour of said self-driving system, baseline the specification, put out the requests for quotation, etc. Tier 1 then needs to analyse the spec, estimate it, break it down in to sub work packages, work with its suppliers, etc. From an optimisation point of view, this is really inefficient partitioning of the problem space. For greenfields development, an emergent specification via experimentation may be better - but that won't fit in traditional V-model sub-contract OEMs/Tier 1s use.

That flow doesn't need to be followed; the suppliers could raise/allocate capital and build the self-driving stack "at risk" - and this seems to be done (Tier IV, Waymo, etc). But as it's new technology, I assume Rivian think they can do better by themselves and can get the capital for the development as part of an integrated solution while they are smaller it might seem they should not waste limited capitial that way - but integration will save a lot of inefficiency in sharing specifications across boundaries, full system integration and deriving emergent specification via experimentation rather than some MBSE folly.

rootusrootus12• 7 months ago

Don't many automakers outsource level 2 driving aids these days? Typically someone like Mobileye?

jmtulloss3• 7 months ago

Not only is Rivian betting on an integrated platform being important for their own cars long term, they’ve also essentially sold that portion of their business to VW. They are investing in the software platform for a lot more cars than just the rivian branded ones.

jklinger4102• 7 months ago

Have you ever heard of comma.ai? What do you think about it?

riazrizvi• 7 months ago

It’s probably a sensible concern that if they use someone else’s tech, they’ll be subsidizing that company’s eventual mastery of the self-driving space, who will then be able to control pricing. The only long game, I imagine, is to create your own self-driving tech, so that your own customers are investing in your own long term success, not someone else’s.

SecretDreams2• 7 months ago

as opposed to outsourcing the software to a third party.

All about margins and data protection

Dell and HP don’t make operating systems…

They come from an era where this style of thinking didn't really exist and now they're in an era where market share almost entirely prevents new players/ideas from entering. If it was 2025 and OS market share wasn't static and the PC was just taking off, we'd probably see far more attempts at OS development to better monetize the PC products the vendors sell.

thetwentyone• 7 months ago

One aspect is that Tesla is all cameras, whereas Rivian sees it as important to have multi-sensor suites (cameras, ultrasonic, radar, and in Gen 3: lidar). TBH as a customer I prefer to know that the latter is protecting me instead of just cameras.

roguecoder5• 7 months ago

It also suggests to me a more-professionalized R&D culture.

Tesla claiming it planned to implement self-driving with just cameras has always meant I don't trust anything they touch.

roguecoder5• 7 months ago

HP did write their own operating system: HP RTE. It wasn't until decades later, after the platform became commodified and they stopped designing their own chips, that they went with someone else's.

And of course, Microsoft made their own cards back in the day, and they still make the XBox as integrated hardware.

This technology is way too early for commodification. Right now, Rivian is a data play.

Their platform means they have consistency other providers don't have. They have data from the existing trucks on the road, and they'll roll out these sensors long before they roll out self-driving. Cleverly they've also pitched these as "adventure" vehicles, which means they'll have some data from rarer situations, not just highways. Off-road performance, for example, will add anomalies that they can use to stress-test self-driving code. If a car could handle areas without roads, it is less likely to kill people if a mudslide happens. Or a shadow falls across the bridge.

riddley• 7 months ago

HP-UX?

gnarlouse• 7 months ago

Rivian coming for Teslas crown? I honestly think Rivians are unattractive. Like if a jeep and scion had a drunken tryst. Haven’t seen the interior before though.

But I’d be glad if somebody was competitive enough to force Elon to behave again.

diddid• 7 months ago

Interesting contrast to all this tech is that my wife liked the Rivian, but when I told her they won’t do car play that interest went to 0. Can CarPlay not play nice with these things or do they want to keep all the tech dollars to themselves?

cr125rider• 7 months ago

In 6 years I don’t want your laggy legacy system with unsupported apps. I want my new phone to power the experience. Most of my experience in a car is digital, the physical needs to do its best to get out of the way. I hope Rivian fails for missing this obvious point.

jonathanlb• 7 months ago

Most of my experience in a car is digital

What do you mean? My experience in a budget car from the early 2010s is entirely the opposite, so I don't understand fully.

staticshock• 7 months ago

Direct quote from RJ Scaringe, founder/CEO of Rivian:

This is a decision. It's generated, I said there's many millions of decisions, many of them will never get noticed and they're just under the surface. One of those decisions that's been noticed quite a bit is the fact that we've intentionally not included CarPlay in the vehicle. And that's not to say we don't think a close partnership with Apple is important. So we have Apple Music integration, we have a bunch of Apple integrations that are yet to come, we have a great relationship with the team at Apple. But it was more to say, we just felt and continue to feel very strongly about creating a consistent, fully integrated digital experience where you're not jumping between apps, let's say from a CarPlay app back to the vehicle app. And it's quite jarring when you don't have, let's say vehicle level controls when you're in the CarPlay environment. That view we've had since the early, early days. I think that's going to become even more important and more true in a world of integrated AI.

https://cheekypint.transistor.fm/14/transcript

mlsu• 7 months ago

I can think of an easy way to have the controls accessible no matter what's going on on the touchscreen, but then again that's probably what disqualifies me from being the CEO of a big car company.

LoganDark2• 7 months ago

Rivian's infotainment system uses Google Maps which I am not a big fan of. I wish they would support CarPlay in addition to everything else, so that I wouldn't lose my maps.

lotsofpulp5• 7 months ago

Bullshit response. It would cost Rivian nothing to allow Apple (and Android) devices to use the monitor in the car as a second screen to be able to play music and whatnot, they just don’t want to to increase vendor lock in.

They could easily make their screen compatible with Carplay/Android Auto and provide whatever experience Rivian wants to at the same time, and they could let the drivers choose which to use.

And I write this as someone with a Model Y who does not miss Carplay (although it would be nice to have).

FinnKuhn2• 7 months ago

All of the mentioned issues are mostly solved with Apple CarPlay Ultra though so this doesn't explain to me why they don't offer that.

thedougd• 7 months ago

You'll need to spend an additional $1500 over 10 years for Rivian Connect+ to use music streaming services on their infotainment system. No additional cellular costs for using CarPlay or Android Auto.

billti• 7 months ago

I was hesitant buying my Tesla this year (first one) as I really liked having CarPlay in my prior car (Jeep). But after having it a while, it's really a non-issue. The Tesla Apple Music app is pretty good. Their maps and navigation is pretty good (and integrated with FSD). And I can easily just use the bluetooth connection for a couple other minor things I occasionally use.

m4637• 7 months ago

Their maps and navigation is pretty good (and integrated with FSD)

I got a loaner with fsd and tried it out.

There was this one trip I took to a store and for some reason, the nav route detoured off the road to the next street over, then joined back with the route.

I think this is a thing nav systems do and people just ignore it and go the right way.

except the tesla tried to drive the dumb route.

lol

etothet• 7 months ago

I’ll start off by saying that the model Y is one of the best mid-level cars I’ve driven so the issues I mention below are worth the tradeoffs to me.

In my experience, Tesla navigation can be pretty bad when navigating my large urban city. During peak traffic times it often tries to send me down roads that are notoriously known for traffic backing up. Most times when I end up following those suggested routes, my ETA essentially becomes meaningless.

I’ve found Google, Waze, and Apple maps to be a lot better in this respect.

I do miss having CarPlay. That’s not to say I think the music integration you mentioned is bad, but I find the overall UI in my model Y to be a bit confusing - and the lower icons seem to sometimes randomly change from what I have them set as.

ProfessorZoom• 7 months ago

Car companies are notorious for having awful software, awful update systems, and awful software teams. So much so that people have come to think that if a car doesn't have CarPlay, that it probably sucks to interface with (which is a safe assumption). Even Tesla is working on adding CarPlay, despite having good software. A lot of people refuse to even consider the idea of a car without CarPlay, and the car companies are to blame

bearjaws• 7 months ago

You know 5 years from now Apple and Google will charge the car manufacturers millions to enable CarPlay / Android Auto.

Enshitiffication has one end, they will screw everyone long term.

I don't blame any manufacturer who bows out.

modeless• 7 months ago

I think it makes sense to do an ASIC later, but not now. Chip development is expensive and risky. They ought to at least start selling a product with positive gross margin first.

pm90• 7 months ago

Its possible that they have tried that and the market isn’t giving them what they need at the price they want. I do mostly agree with you though; its the economics of the car thats gonna supercharge adoption.

EDIT: another commenter mentioned that their platform is used by other companies (VW perhaps?). With that information, it might make more sense to do this.

dvrj101• 7 months ago

acquiring steradian semiconductors was a quite good move.

Rover2227• 7 months ago

Any company adding fancy hardware (beyond good cameras and inference chips) to achieve self driving is on the wrong track at this point. Software is what will win this game.

Of course, Waymo has achieved good results with A LOT of fancy hardware. But it's hard to see how they stand a chance against Cybercab mass production (probably behind schedule, but eventually).

I think Rivian has the best-looking line of EVs out there. Maybe they will be able to come from behind in self-driving tech. But this big reveal is not that promising, IMO.

horsawlarway• 7 months ago

An alternate take here:

The "fancy" hardware is going to get dirt cheap, and in a game where you're asking your customer to trust you with their lives, reliability is going to win. Combine that with time to market, and Tesla feels like a pretty clear "risky bet" at best... Maybe they make it work, but they have to do it before the other companies make lidar cheap, and prices have fallen dramatically over the past 10 years, for much better hardware.

Rover2227• 7 months ago

Yeah, that is all reasonable. I think the jury is still out on if sensor fusion can really get far enough up the march of nines (will it work in 99.99 percent of scenarios)? Karpathy has given some good interviews about why Tesla ditched the sensor fusion approach and switched to vision-only.

Same can be said for vision-only, of course. Maybe it won't every quite get to 99.99.

lunias3• 7 months ago

As opposed to more tech, I'd prefer (significantly) less mass.

krosaen2• 7 months ago

You probably don't want a long range EV then?

lunias3• 7 months ago

Less mass will yield longer range. I know you're referring to the battery accounting for a large percentage of the weight, but a smaller vehicle will get the same range with a smaller battery, and the weight savings compound. If the vehicle weighs less, then all the components supporting that weight can weigh less as well. Unsprung mass can be reduced significantly. Acceleration, braking, handling, and top speed all improve as a result. Components will also generally cost less, reducing the price of the vehicle and making it cheaper to maintain.

unstatusthequo• 7 months ago

Gotta hand it to Rivian. Solid progress. Not having those features is why I didn’t buy one before. These advances make it a bit more attractive.

nathan_compton• 7 months ago

I cannot give a shit about hands free driving. If I have to pay attention I may as well just drive the damn car.

I will care when they sell the cars without steering wheels.

roguecoder5• 7 months ago

It is nice to see a car company investing in a sensor platform that could actually safely self-drive.

It is unfortunate that the existing market participants seem hell-bent on destroying consumer confidence in self-driving before this will make it to market.

We desperately need a safety regimen for self-driving cars that takes it as seriously as airplane safety.

declan_roberts• 7 months ago

Have you driven in Tesla FSD 14 yet? I've been in both Waymo and the latest version of FSD from Tesla. They are very, very good.

flounder3• 7 months ago

How many hours have you spent with the latest Tesla FSD in congested neighborhoods or unprotected left turns at sunset? It may be "good," but it's not even remotely close to the current Waymo experience, especially when it comes to abnormal situations. I am continually blown away by how Waymo behaves (spent 3 hours in them this past week). I'm rooting for Tesla, but it is nowhere near Waymo as of today.

SoftTalker4• 7 months ago

RIVN doing quite well today.

matty22• 7 months ago

Yeah, but does it have CarPlay yet?

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

Related Stories