Even if they could: Why settle for a car that is only as good as a human when the competitors are making cars that are better than a human?

▲ dotancohen 5 days ago | parent [-]

Cost, weight, and reliability. The best part is no part.

No part costs less, it also doesn't break, it also doesn't need to be installed, nor stocked in every crisis dealership's shelf, nor can a supplier hold up production. It doesn't add wires (complexity and size) to the wiring harness, or clog up the CAN bus message queue (LIDAR is a lot of data). It also does not need another dedicated place engineered for it, further constraining other systems and crash safety. Not to mention the electricity used, a premium resource in an electric vehicle of limited range.

That's all off the top of my head. I'm sure there's even better reasons out there.

▲ randerson 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

These are all good points. But that just seems like it adds cost to the car. A manufacturer could have an entry-level offering with just a camera and a high-end offering with LIDAR that costs extra for those who want the safest car they can afford. High-end cars already have so many more components and sensors than entry-level ones. There is a price point at which the manufacturer can make them reliable, supply spare parts & training, and increase the battery/engine size to compensate for the weight and power draw.

▲ terminalshort 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

We already have that. Tesla FSD is the cheap camera only option and Waymo is the expensive LIDAR option that costs ~150K (last time I heard). You can't buy a Waymo, though, because the price is not practical for an individually owned vehicle. But eventually I'm sure you will be able to.

▲ asadotzler 5 days ago | parent [-]

LIDAR does not add $150K to the cost. Dramatically customizing a production car, and adding everything it needs costs $150K. Lidar can be added for hundreds of dollars per car.

▲ dotancohen 5 days ago | parent [-]

  > Lidar can be added for hundreds of dollars per car.

Surprisingly, many production vehicles have a manufacturer profit under one thousand dollars. So that LIDAR would eat a significant portion of the margin on the vehicle.

	▲	matthewdgreen 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		But that’s sort of the point of the business model. Getting safe fully-self driving vehicles appears to require a better platform, given today’s limitations. You can achieve that better platform financially in a fleet vehicle where the cost of the sensors can be amortized over many rides, and the “FSD” capability translates directly into revenue. You can’t put an adequate sensor platform into a consumer vehicle today, which is what Tesla tried to promise and failed to deliver. Maybe someday it will be possible, but the appropriate strategy is to wait until that’s possible before selling products to the consumer market.

▲ dotancohen 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Not with Teslas. There are almost no options on a Tesla - it's mostly just colours and wheels once you've selected a drivetrain.

▲ dygd 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Teslas use automotive Ethernet for sensor data which has much more bandwidth compared to CAN bus

	▲	dotancohen 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		But also higher latency. Teslas also use a CAN bus. But LIDAR would probably be wired more directly to the computer then use a packet protocol.