-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
FSD price increase this Monday
- Thread starter AnthonyLR
- Start date
MrBadger
Badger out
From the recent roadmaps that I have seen, I think a lot will be decided between now and 2023.
UK plans for self-driving cars threaten safety - insurance group — Reuters UK
maybe not too many years
MrBadger
Badger out
I'm not so sure. It may become very much simpler.
I use to work for an organisation heavily involved in this and the general consensus was that vehicle insurance would converge on a model not too dissimilar to that of any other high value object. The vehicle manufacturer would take on the driving risk. However from the recent roadmap (mentioned earlier) that I have seen that sets out the standards needed to achieve this, we are talking post 2023 and beyond.
"The problem for the insurance industry is that if a driver is not in charge of a vehicle, they would be classed as a passenger, which would create additional liability for insurers and could lead to higher premiums."
You do have to be in charge though. I doubt very much current and future ALKS will allow you to stop indicating your presence via torque on the steering wheel, seat sensors and/or the cabin camera watching you to make sure you are watching the road, etc.
If you could get into the passenger seat and the car would drive itself for an extended period of time without any "driver present" interaction at all, then I'd think they'd have the makings of a point, but from what I can tell this is already possible in the States in Teslas, and they don't seem to be losing their minds over it over there.
You do have to be in charge though. I doubt very much current and future ALKS will allow you to stop indicating your presence via torque on the steering wheel, seat sensors and/or the cabin camera watching you to make sure you are watching the road, etc.
If you could get into the passenger seat and the car would drive itself for an extended period of time without any "driver present" interaction at all, then I'd think they'd have the makings of a point, but from what I can tell this is already possible in the States in Teslas, and they don't seem to be losing their minds over it over there.
Why would it go up? My last major accident was a non fault claim, the cost of the claim was a 6 figure sum, settled 100% by the at fault party insurance company.
IF we get FSD, these cars will never speed, never get inpatient, and will record every second of a crash. I would suggest any fault in a crash will probably lie with the vehicle not obeying traffic rules.....How many human drivers break the 30mph speed limit every day?
I can see the opposite happening, if it transpires most accidents that involve a Robotaxi is a non fault claim in favour of the Robotaxi, than its the insurance costs of non Robotaxis which will sky rocket. And if you have FSD but choose to drive yourself be prepared to pay for the risk....
Remember the scene from Total Recall, Minority report and iRobot where human operators taking control of vehicles leads to mass accidents....
Glan gluaisne
Active Member
Perhaps worth looking at what FSD might/should lead to. I'm not at all convinced that the personal car ownership model is sustainable, and that as the level of autonomy gets to the stage where vehicles are safer without having human drivers (which I am absolutely certain will be the case) the case for owning a car will pretty much disappear.
For some time now, many things in our lives have been moving from an outright ownership model to a rental or subscription model. Anything where the value comes from having software that needs to be continually improved and updated cannot survive on a one-off purchase model. This is clear from the fact that everything from TV, through games to office systems are mainly now subscription services. As cars shift to having most of the added value provided by software (as is already the case for Tesla) then a subscription model makes more sense.
The ongoing cost of developing software has to be paid for somehow, and there's only so long that those purchasing new cars can subsidise the development of software for existing owners. In the computer world, I think Apple are probably the only company sticking to this old model, and I have a feeling that even they will have to follow the likes of Microsoft, and switch to subscription software before long.
Once people are paying a subscription for car ownership, it becomes a small step to allow them to have access to a range of different transport systems, to suit changing needs. For example, the subscription could provide a smaller commuting vehicle service when going to and from work, and a larger family vehicle for weekend or holiday use. The ability to have a vehicle "on call" to meet a range of different requirements will inevitably change how people think about cars. In turn, that will change the shape and style of cars. With no constraints imposed by needing driving facilities, plus a probable relaxation, in time, in crash protection structure requirements (collisions between fully autonomous, connected, vehicles should be near zero, and of lower impact speed), why should cars remain in the shapes we've got used to?
For some time now, many things in our lives have been moving from an outright ownership model to a rental or subscription model. Anything where the value comes from having software that needs to be continually improved and updated cannot survive on a one-off purchase model. This is clear from the fact that everything from TV, through games to office systems are mainly now subscription services. As cars shift to having most of the added value provided by software (as is already the case for Tesla) then a subscription model makes more sense.
The ongoing cost of developing software has to be paid for somehow, and there's only so long that those purchasing new cars can subsidise the development of software for existing owners. In the computer world, I think Apple are probably the only company sticking to this old model, and I have a feeling that even they will have to follow the likes of Microsoft, and switch to subscription software before long.
Once people are paying a subscription for car ownership, it becomes a small step to allow them to have access to a range of different transport systems, to suit changing needs. For example, the subscription could provide a smaller commuting vehicle service when going to and from work, and a larger family vehicle for weekend or holiday use. The ability to have a vehicle "on call" to meet a range of different requirements will inevitably change how people think about cars. In turn, that will change the shape and style of cars. With no constraints imposed by needing driving facilities, plus a probable relaxation, in time, in crash protection structure requirements (collisions between fully autonomous, connected, vehicles should be near zero, and of lower impact speed), why should cars remain in the shapes we've got used to?
JupiterMan
Active Member
Proposed ALKS legislation does exactly this, with legislation being penned to allow driver to watch movies etc whilst car is in control. There is then a proposed hand back within a set time frame (proposed four seconds) when the car transfers responsibility back to the driver.
Safe use of Automated Lane Keeping System on GB motorways: call for evidence
The driver has to remain in position however and alert/able to take over - but no actual engagement whilst car drives.
Apple already do a subscription service for iPhones. You pay an ongoing cost and get upgraded to new models when they’re released.
I don’t think SaaS is necessarily universally good for consumers though. One could make a compelling argument that locking customers into a SaaS model means you don’t have to dedicate as much resources into making products etc have a reasonable lifespan, since you know your customers will be obliged to upgrade anyway. You can also cease development on features etc and lock them behind future releases arbitrarily. We used to use Adobe Creative Suite 6 at work, paid for in full as one off licenses. Now we pay £300+ a month and can only use it at all as long as we keep paying, etc. If you just wanted to use Photoshop now you basically can’t unless you use an ancient, unsupported version.
So, yeah, SaaS models are as much about profitability as they are benefiting consumers I think.
Glan gluaisne
Active Member
I agree that profitability is the driver for subscription service models, but in part that's been driven by the cost increases from developing ever more complex applications, and keeping those applications ahead of the competition.
Off-topic, but one of my personal beefs is with the application of the subscription software mode to home use software. It's one reason I still run a lot of older software that I bought back when perpetual licensing was still a thing. The software still does everything it did when I bought it, which is more than I ever need, but the problem now is that I have to faff around to get it to run on new hardware (Apple haven't helped by stopping 32 bit apps from running on Catalina, which is a PITA). More and more I'm finding it easier to run stuff on a Linux box, which will happily run older apps with no issues, even some old Windows programmes (using Wine).
Off-topic, but one of my personal beefs is with the application of the subscription software mode to home use software. It's one reason I still run a lot of older software that I bought back when perpetual licensing was still a thing. The software still does everything it did when I bought it, which is more than I ever need, but the problem now is that I have to faff around to get it to run on new hardware (Apple haven't helped by stopping 32 bit apps from running on Catalina, which is a PITA). More and more I'm finding it easier to run stuff on a Linux box, which will happily run older apps with no issues, even some old Windows programmes (using Wine).
I feel your pain with buying bl@@dy Creative Cloud licences for our team. Grrrr. Used to buy the packages outright but now we fork out hundreds per month for the privilege. That said, one of the team is looking at alternatives to see if we can kick Adobe into touch. Nearly done for all the web work but I suspect it will be trickier for the design/graphics side. That said, most of our other software is all going the same way.
Right vent over, back on topic
I've managed to negotiate a discount every year by either threatening to ditch everything (becoming a harder sell every year, Adobe know full well there isn't really anything comparable out there if your team uses several of their apps), or signing up with a completely new account (as new customers tend to get discounts), etc. It's ridiculous really.
As you say it's a sign of the times really. I understand the argument that SaaS pays for more development, but I do also believe that it encourages some bad practices too. If you're in contract with Creative Cloud then you've pretty much got no leverage.
As you say it's a sign of the times really. I understand the argument that SaaS pays for more development, but I do also believe that it encourages some bad practices too. If you're in contract with Creative Cloud then you've pretty much got no leverage.
Similar threads
