It's from the 2016 earnings call. Sadly, I know of no free transcript sources anymore so you'll have to rely on second hand reporting like this one.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
It's from the 2016 earnings call. Sadly, I know of no free transcript sources anymore so you'll have to rely on second hand reporting like this one.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the source - I now see where that angle comes from. (Also, it's now clear that you weren't mis-reading it, that's what Elon said at the time.)
So the source quotes Elon verbatim, which I suppose is word for word:
"The original plan was to have a migration strategy where we have Mobileye and Tesla Vision operating at the same time, to have kind of a smooth process but But Mobileye refused to do that," Musk said during an earnings call with investors on Wednesday. "So that forced us to re-spin the board and kind of cross the Rubicon on Tesla Vision."
So I think if Tesla expected MobilEye to agree to such a migration strategy, it would have been an incredibly naive expectation: why would MobilEye make it easier for Tesla to replace them? Maybe Tesla offered a substantial sum for that, but I doubt it: MobilEye correctly valued themselves high and successfully sold to Intel.
Obviously the MobilEye characterization of the Tesla divorce being primarily over "safety" was probably complete bull-sugar as well, underlined by the $15b sale to Intel just a few months later. Selling your property and handing ownership of all your IP and developers over to a for-profit company doesn't ensure "safety", it surrenders control to a third party, for money.
What's naive is to assume that MobilEye would give Tesla a cross-license deal on their patent that extends beyond its use in combination with a MobilEye product. And even if it did, it will not prevent MobilEye patent attorneys to go ahead and look for infringements anyway. Their patent portofolio is broad enough. And even if there are technically no infringements, it will not guarantee that the end result is not Tesla paying a fee to MobilEye and/or vice versa. Patent litigation is vicious and does not follow common sense- nor techno-logic.
Without minimizing the impact of patent trolls, real companies engage in offensive patent litigation all the time. See the mobile space for how these battles between heavy weights can play out.
Hopefully, we'll see an eventual death of software patents, and this will all be moot. Though the momentum seems to have swung back in favor of software patents rather than against them lately it seems.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
There's basically one major example of 'going nuclear' patent litigation, between Apple and Samsung - and that fight ended after 7 years in a whimper for both parties and a settlement with a ~$0.5b payment that is mouse-nuts compared to the profits in that segment.
"Going nuclear" patent litigation is actually pretty rare in the high-tech segment. Check out the last 5 years of the smartphone patent wars:
Very little activity in the last 5 years, in a segment generating hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue.
That a supplier cannot sue a customer while the customer is using the supplier's product based on patent infringement of that product goes without saying - that's almost a boilerplate condition. But high-tech cross-licensing deals, especially when related to software patents, are usually not limited to the use of the product.
What's naive to assume is that Tesla would allow MobilEye to develop their product based on Tesla feedback, data and revenue, and allow MobilEye to undermine future Tesla products via patents.
It might still have happened though - I don't think we know.
j6Lpi429@3j
Closed
A tiny thing that I have resolved to do:
A big problem for teslas SP is that so much financial news is biased. A worse problem si that google seems to funnel that FUD to the top. If you search for TSLA on google finance, it shows 3 article and they are almost always seeking alpha bullshit. They choose those 3 presumably because they have the best 'engagement' (ie:clicks).
So each day I do this, I'm always clicking 'more' to find some non-SA articles and clicking them.
A small, free, easy way to help train google that seeking alpha is full of *sugar* and not 'news' that it should be promoting about TSLA.
A big problem for teslas SP is that so much financial news is biased. A worse problem si that google seems to funnel that FUD to the top. If you search for TSLA on google finance, it shows 3 article and they are almost always seeking alpha bullshit. They choose those 3 presumably because they have the best 'engagement' (ie:clicks).
So each day I do this, I'm always clicking 'more' to find some non-SA articles and clicking them.
A small, free, easy way to help train google that seeking alpha is full of *sugar* and not 'news' that it should be promoting about TSLA.
j6Lpi429@3j
Closed
Are you claiming that mobileye has developed their own ASIC? If so, where is the proof? if not, how can they even begin to compete on processing power at the same cost and power draw? or is this a six foot square box that draws 2 kilowatts?
Its no good having the most amazing 3d vision system in the world if it costs ten thousands of dollars and adds weight and power-draw to the car.
pyromatter
Member
Let's not kid ourselves. Tesla is down because they had a terrible Q1, and now institutional investors are scared.
They're less scared now that Tesla has abundant cash on hand. But they need to prove that they can get back on the growth path. Tesla was up in Q4 because they had "turned the corner" to sustained profitability. They need to show, "Hey, we're back on track." to see those SPs again.
April was a pretty good start. If May numbers show sustained or growing Model 3 numbers vs. April, and a surge in S/X from the new model variants (assuming Tesla can produce them fast enough), that'll be more confidence that things are turning around. Then come official deliveries numbers at the start of July, and then (most likely late July) the Q2 ER. Each of these are important steps to show that things are back on track. At any point in that timeperiod, signs of high hiring / increasing shifts / etc will also work towards restoring said confidence.
As a side note, I hope that the pickup isn't until after at least deliveries, and preferably the ER. I want sentiment on Tesla to be improved before yet another product is added to the TODO list. Otherwise the response will be, "Yeah, it's great, but they have too much to do already with too little resources."
ED: Come to think of it, we may not see a real S/X surge until June. I mean, it's the 7th already, and AFAIK, nobody has gotten a revised S/X yet. Has anyone even gotten a delivery date yet?
Last edited:
Todd Burch
14-Year Member
Also seemed confident, only a little annoyed by the interruptions.
Todd Burch
14-Year Member
But two people have already told you the car has performed the maneuver (one of those people experienced it multiple times) and a third person has video of it. Therefore it must not exist because you don’t think they’d do it? Um...ok.
There are plenty of videos people post that people claim are AP that are not. You can find videos where people claim AP is avoiding potholes. I've even had my AP1 car adjust in the lane in a way that appeared to be avoiding potholes. Doesn't make it true.
I'm not saying that cars aren't moving to a side of the lane or perhaps slightly outside when there is a bicycle or exposed jersey barrier ahead. But the maneuver in that video was far beyond that.
The OP of that video even said he wasn't sure if it was him doing the maneuvering.
Show me several more videos of AP2+ cars doing this same maneuver, and it will be more believable. Not a single mention of this capability at the autonomy event?
I see plenty of videos of Model 3s involved in accidents on YouTube. None of them show proof yet that the car is autonomously avoiding other cars like this. Show me some. Like I said, I'd love to be wrong.
Last edited:
nice! this means that the coast-to-coast drive which I assume will happen on 99% freeways/highways, should get more and more in reach.
as foolish as this behavior looks from the outside, it might be the result of internal prioritization of what to do/what to fix/what to spend how much time for. The stuff you list is not of existential importance/urgency. Alas, I haven't observed Tesla/Elon doing existential mistakes (after all, the company still exists) (note: differentiate "existential mistakes" from "existential risks" [= bet the company]). Thus, I have trust that if something is existential, Tesla will take proper care. As they build up insurance, it will be existential to get the rates right (no-brainer). I assume they will prioritize this accordingly, which leads me to my original point: they will take proper care.
exactly. there's a lof of folks here who think that FSD is binary (it's only true FSD if it works everywhere, under any circumstance). that won't be the case. bad analogy: the original iPhone didn't even have 3G but, despite this constraint, sold quite well and obviously provided utility for the consumer. subsequent iterations then removed these constraints. it'll be similar here. FSD will be a USP and provide enormous utility, long before all edge cases are sufficiently solved.
not sure if those patents are actually defensible. could very well be that, once challenged, they are annulled very quickly. most of ML/computer vision stuff is hardly patentable. in this case it would not be a good move to pursue proactive lawsuits.
Last edited:
Mobileye's latest presentation from January (which i'm sure you have seen) clearly says mass production is due in march 2021 "The EyeQ® 5 chip was sampled in December ▪ Successfully passed all functional tests ▪ Design wins by 4 OEMs from 2021, volume above 8M ▪ Designed to support 3rd party programmability ▪ Series prod from 3/2021".
Also, I'm sure you know Mobileye's chip is just the accelerators and needs to be built into a full computer system with a CPU.
EyeQ5 accelerator chip is 24 Tops & 10 Watts. Tesla's NN accelerator chip is 36 TOPs and 15 Watts. So both 2.4 Tops/Watt. Though I would expect EyeQ5 is unlikely to reach its maximum 24 Tops for Tesla's code.
For Intel's full solution, (8-core Intel Atom® C3XX4 SoC and two Mobileye EyeQ®5 SoCs) Intel says this is 1x Xavier in Power and 1.6x Xavier in DL Tops. Presumably this means 48 Tops and 30 Watts or 1.6 Tops/Watt (below Tesla's full system at 144 Tops, 72 Watts & 2.0 Tops/Watt). But again, Tesla's code will likely run more efficiently on its own system, the Mobileye chip isn't built for redundancy in the same way as Tesla's, Mobileye's full system is just 48 Tops vs Tesla's 144 Tops, & Mobileye's chip isn't being mass produced until 2021.
Finally, the core of Tesla's strategy is Data First. All their software and hardware choices are built around that. Until somebody else starts rolling out infrastructure to filter, process and upload data from hundreds of thousands of cars, they do not have the same strategy as Tesla and Tesla is not copying their strategy.
Singer3000
Member
Yes, let's see a full quarter of 5,000 per week Model 3 production please. Tesla finally achieved a single week of 5k Model 3 as far back as Q2 2018.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Also note another very important detail: the EyeQ5 chip uses a 7 nm process, while Tesla's chip uses a much larger, 14 nm process. Once Tesla shrinks to 7 nm they'll be way ahead in performance per watts metrics.
The reason for Tesla's performance edge is that I don't think the EyeQ5 chip is nearly as drastic a re-design as Tesla's chip - from the slides and board photos it appears that EyeQ5 is a relatively small, cache-coherent NN co-processor that is part of a larger system and separate caches - while Tesla's very large chip comes with freely addressable SRAM integrated on the chip.
I'm sure Intel will be able to re-design their chip too - but at that point we are talking about a 2023-2025 time frame and Tesla has a ~5 years R&D advantage.
Pras
Member
A surprisingly fair article on wsj.
Tesla Plans to Sell Owners Cheaper Car Insurance
Many have paywall so here it is.
————-
Tesla Inc. is creating its own branded insurance program, a move the electric-car maker believes will enable it to offer a lower-cost product to drivers.
Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk has been working with a unit of Virginia-based MarkelCorp. and another company, which hasn’t been named, to offer the branded insurance, according to Markel and regulatory insurance filings in California, where Tesla is based.
Mod: Posting entire copyrighted articles is both illegal and against the terms of service. --ggr.
Tesla Plans to Sell Owners Cheaper Car Insurance
Many have paywall so here it is.
————-
Tesla Inc. is creating its own branded insurance program, a move the electric-car maker believes will enable it to offer a lower-cost product to drivers.
Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk has been working with a unit of Virginia-based MarkelCorp. and another company, which hasn’t been named, to offer the branded insurance, according to Markel and regulatory insurance filings in California, where Tesla is based.
Mod: Posting entire copyrighted articles is both illegal and against the terms of service. --ggr.
Last edited by a moderator:
Alphacrux
Member
No delivery date yet on the S. But I just put in the order a week ago, on 4/30. No VIN yet. Status says, ‘Prepare for delivery”.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: access to in-car data about everything about how drivers drive is an insurer's dream come true.
They'll be able to sculpt precise risk profiles for every driver, rather than just broad demographic and accident / ticket history info. Potentially down to the level of "how often do they drive through X intersection in Y direction at Z speed, versus how likely is an accident at X intersection in Y direction at Z speed?" Their pricing will far more accurately reflect actual driver risk profiles vs. its competitors, and adapt in real-time as driving patterns change. So safe drivers will get lower bids and go with them (since competitors won't realize how safe said drivers are), and risky drivers will get higher bids and choose a competitor (since the competitors won't realize how risky they are).
Complete dream come true for them. They should always be able to underbid for safe drivers, however much is necessary to ensure that the vast majority of safe drivers choose them. Any difference between "what they feel they need to bid in order to get safe drivers to choose them" and "what they actually feel they need the premium to be in order to profit", they pocket.
They'll basically be doing to insurance what Google did to advertising.
They could even offer plans that change monthly, so if for example you go on an overseas vacation for several weeks and don't drive your car during that timeperiod, your insurance bill for that month would be very low. And for rental cars, they could generate instantaneous profiles on renters' driving habits, alongside how frequently each car is being rented. If the rental company also shared profile data for the renters, the insurance company could then have its driver profiles follow the users forward when they're not driving Teslas. Or make a distinction between how they drive when they're in their own car vs. when they're in a rental. And they could share data back to partnered rental agencies, which could lead to discounts or surcharges on car rental due to the higher or lower insurance costs. The possibilities are limitless. Insurance companies would kill for this sort of data. Meanwhile, their competitors will be running blind.
Of course, anyone who doesn't want their data shared should always be able to opt out... knowing that that's automatically going to mean no possibility of getting reduced rates.
They'll be able to sculpt precise risk profiles for every driver, rather than just broad demographic and accident / ticket history info. Potentially down to the level of "how often do they drive through X intersection in Y direction at Z speed, versus how likely is an accident at X intersection in Y direction at Z speed?" Their pricing will far more accurately reflect actual driver risk profiles vs. its competitors, and adapt in real-time as driving patterns change. So safe drivers will get lower bids and go with them (since competitors won't realize how safe said drivers are), and risky drivers will get higher bids and choose a competitor (since the competitors won't realize how risky they are).
Complete dream come true for them. They should always be able to underbid for safe drivers, however much is necessary to ensure that the vast majority of safe drivers choose them. Any difference between "what they feel they need to bid in order to get safe drivers to choose them" and "what they actually feel they need the premium to be in order to profit", they pocket.
They'll basically be doing to insurance what Google did to advertising.
They could even offer plans that change monthly, so if for example you go on an overseas vacation for several weeks and don't drive your car during that timeperiod, your insurance bill for that month would be very low. And for rental cars, they could generate instantaneous profiles on renters' driving habits, alongside how frequently each car is being rented. If the rental company also shared profile data for the renters, the insurance company could then have its driver profiles follow the users forward when they're not driving Teslas. Or make a distinction between how they drive when they're in their own car vs. when they're in a rental. And they could share data back to partnered rental agencies, which could lead to discounts or surcharges on car rental due to the higher or lower insurance costs. The possibilities are limitless. Insurance companies would kill for this sort of data. Meanwhile, their competitors will be running blind.
Of course, anyone who doesn't want their data shared should always be able to opt out... knowing that that's automatically going to mean no possibility of getting reduced rates.
Last edited:
Pras
Member
@pyromatter
Thanks.
One thing not much discussed (maybe I missed) is that the factory is a long sleek design, so no longer U shaped assembly lines. Should simplify a lot as the access to lines can be unhindered from both sides ( include part supply and storage next to line). Also the cost of production and logistics should reduce when from seat to battery to GA all happen in one place.
Thanks.
One thing not much discussed (maybe I missed) is that the factory is a long sleek design, so no longer U shaped assembly lines. Should simplify a lot as the access to lines can be unhindered from both sides ( include part supply and storage next to line). Also the cost of production and logistics should reduce when from seat to battery to GA all happen in one place.
Last edited:
It's not only about going nuclear. There are many companies paying and receiving royalties based on intellectual property like patents without having to go all the way nuclear but still with extensive disagreement and negotiations. Something like that is almost guaranteed to happen to the autonomous vehicle field once it matures and Tesla, if it is successful, is going to carry the biggest mark on its back.
Roll back to 2014 when MobilEye was selling its chips to several high volume traditional manufacturers and there is an unproven Tesla selling low volume. Revenue from Tesla was literally mousenuts. We are talking pre-Model 3 when even perpetual optimist Elon was only planning for the high volume car 5 years out (famously brought forward by 2 years after it's exceptionally release) Who do you think it was who was dictating terms in that deal then? With MobileEye management knowing that there was significant interest from some of the biggest players to buy them out? That MobilEye was able to unilaterally scrap a supplier deal with Tesla leaving the company with a difficult upgrade path underlines the power dynamic at the time between both companies. Note also that after the succesfull launch of the Model 3 Tesla themselves admitted that they'd finally be able to be taken serious by tier-I suppliers. There is nothing that indicates that Tesla has an extensive cross license deal with MobilEye that would provide significant cover in a possible patent fallout war between both companies.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
