Hacker News Reader

Comment by criley2 | Hacker News Reader

"I'm no way a GM fanboy (do they even exists), but could we be fair?"

You didn't even read my post, and you want to talk about fair?

I very clearly state that Tesla is updating new features into cars, while GM is not.

That Tesla gets phase 1, phase 2, and beyond, while GM merely labels phase 1 by a marketing name and will never update it ever.

There is a massive chasm here between buying a car today that will "may take you to mars", and buying a car today that "will absolutely, never, ever, ever be capable of going to mars".

So let's be fair.

View on HN

So let's be fair.

GM has a Level 2, maybe Level 3, self-driving platform in its current generation of self-driving cars. It's not claiming that current cards will be able to achieve Level 4 or 5 self-driving functionality. But it is expecting that future generations of their cars will, especially once low-cost LIDARs are incorporated into their platform.

Tesla has, being charitable, a Level 1 self-driving platform. Current Tesla cars don't have the sensors or processing power to handle the demands necessary for Level 3 self-driving, let alone Level 5 (i.e., truly autonomous functionality). Hell, Tesla's current hardware platform does't even have the same level of functionality as their original self-driving hardware (using MobiEye), which was just glorified lane-keeping and self-parking, i.e., Level 1 self-driving.

Tesla is playing a dangerous marketing game and deserves to be called on their bullshit.

I read your comment. And I stand my point.

Even being very very friendly and interpreting your comment in the way you clarified it, there is an assumption in your comment. The assumption is that Tesla will be able to bring their car to Level 5, full autonomy, while GM will not be able to that. And let me ask you why you say so? Just because Tesla, in a marketing move, tells you they will be able to do that, and GM is not doing that? Maybe GM has a legal department that warned them not to do that?

To paraphrase your point, no there's no difference between a car that, according to their marketing "will maybe be able to go to mars" and a car that "has the hardware that could be maybe able to go to mars, but we prefer to tell you now because we could be liable if we fail". I understand the value of aspirational statements, but still...

Can you point to 1 time a GM vehicle was substantially enhanced through a software update?

If so, your point has merit.

If not, you are hiding behind hypotheticals in a very dishonest way.

I have NEVER heard of GM upgrading existing vehicles with significant new functionality through a FREE software update.

If that is the truth, that they have never done it, never announced it, and yet you come here and suggest that they are in fact doing something that they are not, that is supremely dishonest.

I researched GM for half an hour to find evidence that you are not being dishonest. That you are not hiding behind some really bad hypothetical.

But I found nothing to exonerate your position from the realm of "fantastical hypothetical rendered dishonestly", so I hope you can respond and help me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com