I think I see your argument is economic for Uber, human-intervention for Cruise, but what is the wrong way for Tesla?

>but what is the wrong way for Tesla?

1. "We are leaders in FSD technology, but you have to hover your hands over the wheel and foot over the brake to take control at any second."

2. "Our FSD is far safer than manual driving, so says our data. But you have to take our word for it, because we won't release the data for research."

Lies and overpromising. I can say with a brutally straight face that our 2024 base-model Subaru Impreza's Level 2 features are safer than my 2018 Model 3's Autopilot. Less unsafe disengagements, less yanking the wheel random directions on strange markings, no sun-based issues.

Vapourware.

It’s so crazy how my vaporware does like 99% of my driving for me every day. I guess I am living in a vapor world where I happily pay $200/mo for vapor.

>It’s so crazy how my vaporware does like 99% of my driving for me every day.

There's no point lying about how finicky it is, or the number of disengagements you encounter. There's too much evidence to the contrary.

Recently one of the biggest FSD proponents on Twitter put out, essentially, a promotional video for FSD, and it showed multiple disengagements and an incredibly dangerous blown stop sign.

Nobody cares that half your commute you can sit there pretending not to drive down a highway. That's not full self driving.

> Recently one of the biggest FSD proponents on Twitter put out, essentially, a promotional video for FSD, and it showed multiple disengagements and an incredibly dangerous blown stop sign.

Don't forget, it was actually a comparison between Waymo and Tesla in SF. They tried so hard to show Tesla was better, but it was embarrassing how flat out dangerous it was.

Here's the compilation: https://twitter.com/elaifresh/status/1727889381309239731

At this point I don’t understand what the Tesla haters are even talking about.

I have the software. I use it daily. I am happy with it.

Somebody in twitter did a dangerous demonstration. This doesn’t change much.

Let’s talk about a different technology and maybe that could help you understand this:

There was a time when consumer drone tech would be looked at as “vaporware”. Almost certainly somebody in the 90s advertised something looking functionally like a DJI phantom and never delivered on it. Pretty much ever you robot I got advertised as a child comes to mind.

If somebody took a DJI phantom and crashed it into a building, does that make the current, existing, very real technology into “vaporware” in your mind?

There was a time when self driving tech was also vaporware, but that time has passed. Somebody using existing, very real technology in a stupid way doesn’t mean that it suddenly doesn’t exist.

I'm interested - can you link this?

I feel like accusing someone of lying is a bit of a leap. I would just guess the guy you're replying to lives somewhere easier to drive than SF.

No insult intended, but you're literally beta ... good luck with that, honestly.

But if you cannot see the issue with what has been promised, and what has been delivered, you're not living in vapour world, you're living in kool-aid world. You should be insulted, but instead you drink it up.

Again, no offense, you make your choices, everyone else makes theres, and the world moves on ... but the FSD saga has been an absolute sh1tshow by any reasonable definition.

The thing I've noticed is that people who buy Teslas love their car and people who don't hate it. It actually reminds me of the iPhone. Everyone who bought it loved it and there were lots of people online talking about how shit it was.

You should try thinking about why the term vaporware has the word “vapor” in it, and what it’s intended to describe.

Would condensed-vapourware be more preferred by you?

vapourware /ˈveɪpəwɛː/ nouninformal•Computing noun: vapourware; noun: vaporware

    software or hardware that has been advertised but is not yet available to buy, either because it is only a concept or because it is still being written or designed.

I see, so you'd classify Tesla's FSD as software that has been advertised but is not yet available to buy, because it is only a concept or is still being written or designed. Got it.

Correct. Glad we're getting somewhere here.

Very much still being written and designed. The fact that people are paying for a beta product is problematic to me, but that goes back to the snake-oil argument - a phenomenon well understood over time.

Hence, let's shake hands on: condensed-vapourware.

Good day.

No, by your definition any software released with bugs in a beta program users can pay to be a part of, while it's being developed, is vaporware. Under that definition you'd need to invent another word for what currently constitutes the actual meaning of vaporware, which is software that has not been released to real users. (Ie, software that for all intents and purposes doesn't exist, ie, its vaporous.)

You're just being silly now. One word. Robotaxi.

And that's not even the start of it. Is FSD feature complete but with bugs for just basic everyday use? No. And hasn't been for years. It's been revised and messed around since the start and is nowhere near ready for primetime, and possibly a decade or two away from what was promised near a decade ago.

I understand development processes, but not while you, me, or our families are on-board. If you're cool being the guinnea pig? Cool, be a guinnea pig. It's a free country, but that will not change my opinon about Tesla's.

Let's end this now. You love Tesla's and FSD. Cool, good for you.

I think their technology and engineers are impressive, but their quality as a carmaker, organisation, and their design language are absolutely sh1t ... (and I'm an EV fan, so don't go there).

Agree to disagree.

That's fair. I don't 'love' FSD, I just think ultimately what is going on here is Tesla has chosen a very different, more challenging path. They are more likely to fail than their competitors at this for this reason, but if they succeed, they will have a far cheaper, more general purpose solution for autonomous navigation. They decided to make that bet. If they were going to bolt LiDAR on their cars 10 years ago, I don't think we'd be seeing them behind to the degree they are now.

The whole point of self-driving, and why it's hard, is to handle that 1%. Nobody is saying you shouldn't be thrilled at the product or that it's not worth $200/mo to you. But it's not autonomous driving. It's not a robotaxi. You're paying for something else. The vaporware comment is in reference to Elon Musk's robotaxi claims -- he sold the product as something it isn't.

Tesla has killed by far the most people. They misrepresented their system to users and investors and almost entirely skipped testing to make consumers the testers, so they could try to catch up despite being almost a decade behind.

Our economy is built on a regulatory framework that protects consumers from companies that cut corners.

I've heard people say that Tesla is in the right because in the long term the tech will save more lives.

That's nonsense. If Tesla didn't cut corners, Waymo would get there just as fast as Tesla will cutting corners.

> Tesla has killed by far the most people

They’ve also driven by far the most miles. I’m no diehard Tesla fan, but I hate it when people don’t properly scale their data.

Take that up with Tesla. Tesla actively redacts their crash information and chooses to not publish even the most basic of data such as distance or crash counts, only unsubstantiated, unaudited conclusions. It is not the duty of the public to grant the benefit of the doubt to a deadly, incomplete product. It is the duty of the manufacturer to provide robust data and analysis corroborated by unbiased third parties positively establishing a sufficient degree of safety.

Tesla killed people, it is up to them to demonstrate the rate is sufficiently low to be considered safe. However, if Tesla chooses, as they do, to not produce robust evidence of its death rate that competent third parties are allowed to audit, then it should be presumed to be unsafe. Anything less does not meet even the basic standards expected of safety-critical product development.