Tesla is dumping Mobileye???

[voyager]

It's other way around - BMW would probably not like Tesla getting the latest tech. MBLY needed a partner after Tesla's departure, BMW needed autonomous tech and Intel to get "foot in the door".

I think the alliance is positive for MBLY and puts pressure on Tesla, however, just like MBLY-Tesla, MBLY-Intel are temporary allies.

Are OEMs like BMW able to claim vendors?

 

[stopcrazypp]

Are OEMs like BMW able to claim vendors?

Anything is possible. You just need to sign a contract. I don't think there are any laws against signing exclusive contracts with a vendor.

As a general comment, I can see justification for both reasons (whether Mobileye initiated or Tesla initiated). I can see Mobileye ending from pressure by BMW/Intel, Mobileye wanting to get away from Tesla's autopilot controversy, or disagreeing with the extensive customization Tesla has done. I can see Tesla ending from wanting to move things in house, reducing the development time, or adopting a different company with better technology or deal (like Nvidia maybe). A reason for mutual ending of the relationship would be disagreements over ownership of data (this had ended other autonomous car partnerships before).

 

[NicoV]

Thinking about it I think it is a good thing, because Tesla will have control of more components from scratch so they can provide tighter integration and more superior final solution. They hired a person who worked in AMD on processor manufacturing and it means that they started panning to bring everything in house some time ago.

'A person' is a bit of an understatement. That's like saying they hired 'a musician' if they would hire Mick Jagger. They hired Jim Keller, Jim Keller (engineer) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , and with him, a lot of his collegues from AMD. I'm pretty confident they will build a world class chip.

 

[Tam]

...It is a big blow for Mobileye.

George Hotz, Comma.ai CEO says: "Without a doubt it’s Tesla who parted ways.”

"Mobileye isn’t innovative enough for Tesla."

"“Their stated mission is to lower the safety rating of cars that don’t have their technology,” he toldRecode. “So when you have a company like that versus a company like Tesla who actually wants to build incredible cars, there’s absolutely no reason Tesla needs Mobileye.”"

In the wake of a fatal crash, Tesla will quit using Mobileye's chips for Autopilot vision

 

[Vitold]

What Geo Hotz thinks about Mobileye and who called it quits:

In the wake of a fatal crash, Tesla will quit using Mobileye's chips for Autopilot vision

“Their stated mission is to lower the safety rating of cars that don’t have their technology,” he told Recode. “So when you have a company like that versus a company like Tesla who actually wants to build incredible cars, there’s absolutely no reason Tesla needs Mobileye.”

 

[Vitold]

Are OEMs like BMW able to claim vendors?

Mobileye CEO said that Tesla did not want to work with them like BMW and Intel are willing to (MBLY wants their data probably):

"There is much at stake here, to Mobileye’s reputation and to the industry at large. Mobileye believes that achieving this objective requires partnerships that go beyond the typical OEM / supplier relationship, such as our recently announced collaboration with BMW and Intel. Mobileye will continue to pursue similar such relationships.”

Since BMW are beyond 'typical OEM' they probably will get the latest and greatest before anyone else (OEM's). Tesla does not want that special relationship, obviously thinking they can do better.

 

[scottf200]

Aside: This doesn't seem to make sense in an X subforum vs Tesla overall one.

Well who will Tesla turn to? Mobileye was the king and various other companies are using them.

related keyword didn't help me search.

related:www.mobileye.com link related:www.mobileye.com - Google Search

 

[scottf200]

Also do this search as Mobileye is doing crowd sourced maps with GM, VW, Nissan, etc, etc. With all those players they will get a lot more data than Tesla one would imagine ... I mean they will add it to some of their ICE cars too.

crowd sourced maps mobileye - Google Search

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Power consumption and performance per watt may be issues for ICE with limited electric power to support these, but not an issue for EVs.

I'd rather have lower power consumption and performance per watt though. Even in a car with a huge battery, every bit of saved energy helps.

Also, electronics that have high heat dissipation require more cooling, which means more wasted energy and the need to accommodate more parts in the car.

George Hotz, Comma.ai CEO says: "Without a doubt it’s Tesla who parted ways.”

"Mobileye isn’t innovative enough for Tesla."

I would take anything that George Hotz says with a grain of salt. First, he's not working for Tesla and probably has no idea what is really going on there. Second, he says things that are a combination of arrogance and irrelevance. From the linked re/code article, he said:

“Tesla has a lot of trouble attracting machine-learning talent. They don’t have a cafeteria, for example. So people are going to Google and Apple,” he said. “But to be honest, the Mobileye system is so easy to reproduce; you don’t need the best talent. I did it in a couple of months. Our software can already do more than Mobileye’s.”

Hotz boasted back in December than his tricked out Acura ILX would self-drive better than the Tesla Model S in a short amount of time. That claim hasn't panned out.

 

[hockeythug]

Kind of saw this coming when Tesla wasn't going to share their data with Mobileye's pool.

 

[Tam]

...I would take anything that George Hotz says with a grain of salt...

Could he mean Tesla doesn't have a free all-you-can-eat cafeteria

 

[Tam]

Tesla Motors Inc (TSLA) Doesn't Require "Obsolete" EyeQ Chips: Chowdhry

Our popular analyst Trip Chowdhry from Global Equities Research "claimed that Mobileye’s technology is “obsolete”

There's a need for processing a field of vision between 150-180 degrees but Mobileye can offer only 50 degrees.

Its processors do not offer required dynamic range, thus it cannot distinguish objects in high light or dark conditions.

He believes Tesla will use LIDAR in future.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

He believes Tesla will use LIDAR in future.

Not according to Musk, but people can change their mind.

 

[sillydriver]

I assume Tesla is bringing in house what they were doing with Mobileye for the same reason Apple brought in house what they were doing with google on maps: they want to control what they see as a core platform/competence. I just hope Tesla does better than Apple has with maps!

 

[3Victoria]

I think EM believes that they can achieve a low resolution 3D image (point cloud) from the radar unit. While this would be lower resolution than using Lidar, it has the advantage of seeing through weather (rain, snow).

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Our popular analyst Trip Chowdhry from Global Equities Research "claimed that Mobileye’s technology is “obsolete”

There's a need for processing a field of vision between 150-180 degrees but Mobileye can offer only 50 degrees.

Its processors do not offer required dynamic range, thus it cannot distinguish objects in high light or dark conditions.

He believes Tesla will use LIDAR in future.

I'm astonished that whatever company Trip Chowdhry works for hasn't fired his ass yet. EyeQ3 won't be "obsolete" until something better reaches the marketplace.

The EyeQ3 platform might not have these items, but that's not to say Mobileye won't offer improvements in the future.

 

[sillydriver]

I'm sure the decision to go in house was made a while ago, given the hiring of chip designers. I think the consequences are

1) the transition to 2.0 is not imminent but at least a while off, and

2) there will be a greater discontinuity (as opposed to incremental change) between 1.0 and 2.0 -- obviously in hardware but also in software algorithms and functionality. The likelihood of upgradability for existing owners is lower.

 

[Johan]

I'm sure the decision to go in house was made a while ago, given the hiring of chip designers. I think the consequences are

1) the transition to 2.0 is not imminent but at least a while off, and

2) there will be a greater discontinuity (as opposed to incremental change) between 1.0 and 2.0 -- obviously in hardware but also in software algorithms and functionality. The likelihood of upgradability for existing owners is lower.

I agree, but with regard to your point #2 there really was never much likelihood of upgradability even if they stayed with Mobileye as hardware supplier.

 

[sillydriver]

I agree, but with regard to your point #2 there really was never much likelihood of upgradability even if they stayed with Mobileye as hardware supplier.

Agreed. But we could hope!

Less hope now.

 

[sillydriver]

I'm astonished that whatever company Trip Chowdhry works for hasn't fired his ass yet. EyeQ3 won't be "obsolete" until something better reaches the marketplace.

The EyeQ3 platform might not have these items, but that's not to say Mobileye won't offer improvements in the future.

Tesla Motors Inc (TSLA) Doesn't Require "Obsolete" EyeQ Chips: Chowdhry

Our popular analyst Trip Chowdhry from Global Equities Research "claimed that Mobileye’s technology is “obsolete”

There's a need for processing a field of vision between 150-180 degrees but Mobileye can offer only 50 degrees.

Its processors do not offer required dynamic range, thus it cannot distinguish objects in high light or dark conditions.

He believes Tesla will use LIDAR in future.

If that's Chowdhry's reasoning it seems bizarre to me. Mobileye's core hardware does multiply-accumulate operations for neural networks, just as GPU hardware can can do the same. Changing the field of view is a matter of changing a cheap lens and perhaps some trivial parameters in the software. Changing the dynamic range is a matter of changing the camera, which I'm sure is outsourced, to one with a different spec. Not a big deal.

I suspect Tesla going in-house has more to do with their wanting to control what they believe will be a core differentiating technology.