AP 2.0 on submitted orders

[Driver Dave]

surcharge is an extra $1k

I think if you don't use or are interested in auto-pilot at all, it is of course fine to not get it.

The only thing it could hurt is resale value if you care about that, and aren't leasing.

Or if at some point you get curious, but then you could always pay the extra 1000.

 

[fillerup]

I personally think having to support a crippled AP2 to function as AP1 will be too much of an effort for Tesla to do, I don't have any real numbers but If there are 500 cars in order in this limbo state, I don't think its worth their time and effort to build and support this software for the life of the car. If they do it will just cost them more in the long run. Like others have said, these cars should get upgraded to AP2 automatically and raise the full self drive feature upgrade price to cover the difference for these limbo cars.

 

[Driver Dave]

I personally think having to support a crippled AP2 to function as AP1 will be too much of an effort for Tesla to do

I don't believe it will that hard. They just turn on one camera, radar, and say watch the lines, watch the cars. It is kind of a subset of what AP2 does, so it is really nothing extra to have an AP1 mode. In other words, AP2 does what AP1 does as part of what AP2 does. If that makes sense.

 

[⚡️ELECTROMAN⚡️]

We'll see. I would say it's a dumb move on Tesla's part if they limit the safety of it, just to get more money out of devoted customers.

 

[vandacca]

I'm sure that the system can work in this "dumbed-down" state, because there may be times that some of the cameras are obscured (rain, snow, malfunction, etc.) so it's probably designed to work in that way. However, I do agree that using less cameras would also reduce safety, so I can't see Tesla doing that.

However, I can see Tesla removing some convenience options (like automatic lane changes and all features that are tied to navigation like the highway-to-highway transfers).

Another thing to consider is that maybe Tesla is bound to FTC requirements. I remember years ago Apple needing to charge for features already in the phone due to FTC reporting requirements. Depending on Tesla reports things, they may not have a choice? Maybe someone with more financial experience could chime in.

 

[Dr Doom]

I'm sure that the system can work in this "dumbed-down" state, because there may be times that some of the cameras are obscured (rain, snow, malfunction, etc.) so it's probably designed to work in that way. However, I do agree that using less cameras would also reduce safety, so I can't see Tesla doing that.

However, I can see Tesla removing some convenience options (like automatic lane changes and all features that are tied to navigation like the highway-to-highway transfers).

Another thing to consider is that maybe Tesla is bound to FTC requirements. I remember years ago Apple needing to charge for features already in the phone due to FTC reporting requirements. Depending on Tesla reports things, they may not have a choice? Maybe someone with more financial experience could chime in.

this would be fine if the system is one system. but we're talking about now two different autopilot hardware systems- the original autopilot with mobile eye and also now tesla own autopilot hardware/sensors. this added complexity isn't necessary. it's not just software issues, they have to deal with hardware problems with restricting the autopilot 2.0 so it acts like autopilot 1.0.

 

[asrose]

Bad for us that got the AP1 delivered 2 weeks before the 2.0 announcement.

 

[gearchruncher]

I don't have any real numbers but If there are 500 cars in order in this limbo state, I don't think its worth their time and effort to build and support this software for the life of the car.

Someone ran reasonable numbers that showed at least 10K cars in this "limbo" state. Tesla makes about 1K cars per week, so 500 cars would mean only 3 days production represented all cars ordered before the AP2 announcement. If that was true, all would have been delivered by now, yet almost none have.

If there's 10K cars and it's a $2K upgrade, that is $20M in potential revenue. As much as I want it to be true that we'd get EAP for AP1 price, I'm sure Tesla can write a few lines of code to protect $20M. In fact, they could employ a full time person to manage this for the next 10 years and still make out.

 

[Dstrohl]

I suspect what we will see is the EAP will do what I would call assisted driving for highways, which tend to be easier to handle.. and FSDC will handle assisted driving fur many urban / suburban environments.

Not really the full self driving, level 5 that Elan spoke of, but something more like what was in the video. It still probably won't handle many situations, but as long as a driver is in the car, it would do MOST of the driving.

That way Tesla can say they met (minimally) what they sold with the FSDC option, and there would be a relatively clear difference between the options.

I suspect that way as well, they would not have to worry about too many regulatory problems as well.

And, as they get legal approval, they can update it.

 

[MP3Mike]

Tesla makes about 1K cars per week

Actually they are closer to 2,300 cars/week now. And if you figure orders are about 2 months out, 18,400 cars, plus people have ordered and delayed their cars up to 6 months out, there could easily be 20-40k cars in the situation of having paid for AP1 but getting AP2 hardware. So it could easily be $80M in potential revenue.

As far as not wanting to support that extra functionality in the code, I say they would anyhow. So that AP can gracefully degrade if multiple cameras fail and our get blocked. As long as one of the front facing cameras is still working you at least have basic AP functionality until the issue can be resolved.

 

[vandacca]

Tesla did do a really big push through September and moved a whole lot of vehicles. This AP2.0 upgrade may help explain why they needed to do that.

 

[ccutrer]

I'd guess the push is more likely to be cause, rather than effect. Either "we just pushed a ton of vehicles out, and have relatively few pending orders on the books. Now's a good time to make the switch and leave the fewest number in limbo". Or "let's not interrupt the quarter end numbers push by introducing new hardware". Or both.

 

[schtig]

any news on this topic?

 

[figers]

any news on this topic?

I think until AP 2.0 is at parity with AP 1.0 we don't know yet...