Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Transportation AI Power Security Software News Hardware Science Technology

Tesla and Autopilot Supplier Mobileye Split Up After Fatal Crash (usatoday.com) 128

An anonymous reader quotes a report from USA Today: Tesla and Mobileye, one of the top suppliers to its Autopilot partial self-driving system, are parting ways in the wake of the May accident that killed an owner of one of its electric Model S sedans. Mobileye is considered a leader in developing the equipment that will be needed for fully self-driving cars. The Israeli tech company will continue to support and maintain current Tesla products, including upgrades that should help the Autopilot system with crash avoidance and to better allow the car to steer itself, said Chairman Amnon Shashua in releasing the company's second-quarter earnings Tuesday. Shashua said moving cars to higher levels of self-driving capability "is a paradigm shift both in terms of function complexity and the need to ensure an extremely high level of safety." He added there is "much at stake" in terms of Mobileye's reputation, and that it is best to end the relationship with Tesla by the end of the year. Tesla CEO Elon Musk, meeting with reporters at the company's new battery Gigafactory outside Reno, indicated that Tesla can go forward without Mobileye. "Us parting ways was somewhat inevitable. There's nothing unexpected here from our standpoint," Musk said. "We're committed to autonomy. They'll go their way, and we'll go ours."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tesla and Autopilot Supplier Mobileye Split Up After Fatal Crash

Comments Filter:
  • So basically my Tesla is now obsolete? Thanks Elon.
    • Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by aXis100 ( 690904 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2016 @08:33PM (#52595935)

      Shocked! I say I'm shocked that a boutique car made by a startup company directed by an eccentric tycoon could possibly have had a supplier or design change. Unfathomable!

      First world problems mate.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        Its OK. Don't worry about me. I'll just give it to my kid and get the new one when it comes out.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        "is best to end the relationship with Tesla by the end of the year"

        it's extremely rare that a parts supplier stops being a parts supplier by their decision. only reasons could be the customer(tesla) not paying it's bills or using them out of spec in a manner that might bite them later, and it basically says just that on the inv. call. so tesla and the sensor manufacturer were probably at odds over them shipping the autopilot sw. the sensor manufacturer knows that it can't be good enough with the sensors the

        • Seems like a one-sided take. I would say there is a nearly equal chance that Tesla is dissatisfied at their capabilities and realizes they need to bring it in-house to better serve themselves. There is also that potential for litigation and being able to point fingers at another party.

          As for the term autopilot, in its aviation context it is pretty reasonable. It isn't like they are calling it Chauffer...

          • I would say there is a nearly equal chance that Tesla is dissatisfied at their capabilities and realizes they need to bring it in-house to better serve themselves.

            In any case, that is what Tesla needs to do if MobileEye is unwilling or can't build autonomous cars.

          • Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Immerman ( 2627577 ) on Thursday July 28, 2016 @01:02AM (#52596961)

            Despite initially feeling the same as you about the Autopilot name, I've been cooling rapidly on it for one simple reason: in practice an aviation autopilot can handle pretty much anything that it is likely to encounter well enough for a distracted pilot to take many seconds assessing any crisis situation before having to take control. And that's key, because if the pilot's input is not needed, then human nature dictates that they're likely to be distracted when a situation that *does* need their input arises.

            Tesla's Autopilot is not yet anywhere near that competent, not because it's technical competency is lacking in comparison, quite the opposite in fact, but because its expected operating environment is far more crowded and chaotic, and most crises will unfold far more rapidly, having already reached a conclusion before an inevitably distracted driver can hope to assess the situation. As such, Autopilot will need to be FAR more competent than it currently is just to be able to offer the same level of real-world functionality and safety as its relatively crude aviation counterpart.

            I'd say it's currently got 70-80% of the needed functionality worked out, which means, as any programmer can attest, that only 90% or so of the work remains to be done.

            • by Anonymous Coward

              That, yes, and also...

              A normal 3 axis autopilot will take a plane from climb to descent, without pilot input, in like 99.99% of flights. Therefore "auto".
              Even your most basic roll "autopilot" (keeps the wings level) deserves to some extent the "auto" moniker, because keeping the wings level is 50% of what a pilot has to do when flying the plane. It's first pointing out that the _very first_ autopilot did more than that.

              By contrast Tesla's lane avoidance++ does not come anywhere close of doing 50% of what th

            • Ok, let's talk about the purpose and practical capability of a plane's autopilot:

              • Is it there so the pilot (in charge) can sleep?
              • Does it eliminate the need for a second pilot?
              • Does it allow the pilot to prop a DVD player on the yoke and watch Harry Potter?
              • Do pilots fear for their jobs because of autopilots?
              • Do airlines plan on eliminating the copilot role?
              • And ultimately, What does the autopilot do if faced with input data it cannot reconcile?

              Autopilot is there to reduce pilot workload, it is not there to auto

              • Lets be clear, most of that list is specifically talking about airline rules designed to push potential liability as low as reasonably possible in order to maximize profit margins and minimize PR disasters, NOT to maintain a reasonable level of safety. In private aircraft where a much lower automobile level of safety is acceptable, planes are routinely flown without a copilot, and I suspect books and DVD players do in fact get used during clear sky flying far more often than you expect without issue.

                I care

              • The thing that is different with Tesla's system is that they do have ambitions of it taking you door to door eventually.

                That's not really different. Airlines would love to eliminate pilots... eventually.

          • by DrYak ( 748999 ) on Thursday July 28, 2016 @03:58AM (#52597417) Homepage

            I think the name "autopilot" starts to suffer the same fate as the name "hacker": they both have a precise meaning, but in the general use by the public, the meaning has shifted

            Hacker used to be someone who is good at McGuyvering [tvtropes.org], at finding creative uses, etc.
            But the press ended up using it for Cracker, someone who just breaks into things, not necessarily showing any creativity.

            Same happenned with Autopilot: in aviation, it is a very precise thing - an apparatus which can take care automatically of the small minute details of flying the plane. The human need to provide it an order (a destination) and then only watch over it and control that everything is going well, but not actually hold the commands themselves.
            Nobody has ever deigned this for the whole crew to take a nap while it is on.

            Same in a boat: the autopilot will keep a destination, so you don't need to hold the wheel. That doesn't mean that you should be napping, you still need to whatch out for dangers, obstacles, etc.

            But suddenly, the general public has taken a different meaning: as you say, now the think of it as Chauffeur: the Chauffeur (not necessarily electronic, it can be a human) takes care of everything, while you can safely take a nap or whatch some harry potter.

            Elon should have called it "Ship's Commander mode" (as the one which gives orders instead of holding the wheel) sound both mor awesome and a little bit less passive role for the driver.

            • Same happenned with Autopilot: in aviation, it is a very precise thing

              Who told you that? They lied. There are lots of different things in aviation, all called autopilot. We handle the distinction by breaking autopilot devices down into classes, which are defined by capability. In fact, "autopilot" means many different things, from a simple system that can only maintain a heading to complex systems (and when I say "complex", I don't mean supercomputers, only as opposed to a function you can implement with discrete analog components, as the oldest autopilots did.

              The autopilot s

              • The autopilot systems on the newest commercial jets are capable of handling landings unassisted, at least, if everything is working. This is just not that hard a job any more.

                I very well know that.
                But still, the thing officially requires a human being to check it, and none of there is currently approved for total autonomous / "unmanned cockpit" for flying people around.

                - It *could* fly people around autonomously.
                - It *would* propbably fly poeple around in case of an emergency (e.g.: if both pilot an co-pilot are sick and unconscious)
                - but normally we still require human attendance just in case, and not nap instead.
                it's officially called an autopilot

                That's the exact same situatio

                • An Arduino with MultiWii (GPL'd) is enough to take a plane off from a field, fly waypoints and take pictures or drop bombs or what have you and then return to home and land again. And that's without any beacon signal from the ground.

                  And the official precise terminology for that is called an *Unmaned Aerial Vehicle*. (UAV) (Or drone in the common parlance) More precisely an *autonomous* one.
                  Just like google call their car "autonomous" or "driver-less". Not simply autopilot.

                  I know all of this. Nothing I said would lead an intelligent person to believe that I don't. So why are you saying it, when it's completely irrelevant to this conversation? FYI, I've built and programmed my own drones (both multicopter and fixed wing) and am a member of the AMA in good standing. I only mentioned drones as an aside to explain how trivial such a thing is today, as such things are measured.

                  Do you know what you call a simple computer on a boat which maintains your heading, and does nothing else? Yep, you guessed it, that's an autopilot.
                  Yup. I even mentioned it in my above post.

                  And that's why I think "Ship's Commander mode" would be adapted. I would convey in layman's term what they though when saying "autopilot".

                  So, just to be clear: you think "ship's commander mode" would be a better name for something that behaves

                  • So why are you saying it, when it's completely irrelevant to this conversation?

                    I find relevant to the conversation to point out "things that joe 6 pack might accidentally call an 'autopilot' even if other terminology is prefered by people in the field".

                    It's relevant to a discussion thread where one of the theme is "Telsa's Autopilot is exactly what is also called an autopilot on airplanes and in boats and thus is reasonable name for this technology" vs. "The word 'autopilot' is a dangerous name because people are going to expect way too much from it".

                    And that's why I think "Ship's Commander mode" would be adapted. I would convey in layman's term what they though when saying "autopilot".

                    So, just to be clear: you think "ship's commander mode" would be a better name for something that behaves more like a ship's "autopilot", and not even vaguely or remotely like a "ship's commander" (which is a human) at all? I would love it if you could draw me a road map to that conclusion,

                    I'm VERY bad at marketing.

                    In this

          • As for the term autopilot, in its aviation context it is pretty reasonable. It isn't like they are calling it Chauffer...

            I get the idea people think the aircraft autopilots a some magical device that allows pilots to sleep while steering the aeroplane around mountains, weather and other aircraft. Where as the reality is a bit more like this [wikipedia.org]:

            He [Lubitz] had set the autopilot to descend to 100 feet (30 m) and accelerated the speed of the descending aircraft several times thereafter.[105][106] The aircraft was travelling at 700 kilometres per hour (430 mph) when it crashed into the mountain [1,800m ASL].

        • To call it "Autopilot" is a pernicious deception. Teslas don't fly. The proper aviation context is taxiing, and even it's hands-off from rotation to rollout, taxiing still requires eyeballs out the window and a hand on the tiller (or feet on the rudders.) The aerospace community knows better. There has never been a serious proposal to automate the taxiing task.

        • by abmw ( 2668449 )
          An OEM comes an OEM replaces them, Delphi, Lear, and infineon all have these system available for any manufacturer with money.
      • by mysidia ( 191772 )

        boutique car made by a startup company directed by an eccentric tycoon could possibly have had a supplier or design change. Unfathomable!

        It is a bid odd, the timing of the supplier change, however. Did MobilEye deliver something substandard or that failed to meet specs? Did Tesla find a better option to replace MobilEye?

        Maybe this is just a cost-cutting measure which happens to coincide with the fatal crash by chance alone.

        Or... : Is Tesla dissatisfied with the MobilEye components on any rational

    • Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2016 @10:44PM (#52596487) Journal

      So basically my Tesla is now obsolete? Thanks Elon.

      Most people buy a Tesla because it's electric and fast, NOT because it has a bot.

    • by SirSlud ( 67381 )

      Which part of "The Israeli tech company will continue to support and maintain current Tesla products" is complicated?

      • We all know what "maintenance" means. It is a codename for "dont call us".
        • by dave420 ( 699308 )

          I don't, so you are incorrect that we all know. How about making a real argument as opposed to relying on obviously-nonsensical generalisations and appeals?

  • Wow (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27, 2016 @08:52PM (#52596029)

    Impressed but not surprised Mobileye would ditch Tesla. If one of my customers was using my shit recklessly on public beta experiments that got people killed I would ditch them too.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Tesla ditched Mobileye, and not the other way around. Mobileye's stock went down by 10% after this. Tesla's didn't.

      • Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Thursday July 28, 2016 @06:55AM (#52597957) Homepage Journal

        Tesla ditched Mobileye, and not the other way around. Mobileye's stock went down by 10% after this. Tesla's didn't.

        Welcome to slashdot, where the moderators are dumbfucks and the points don't matter. Guess what? Mobileeye ditched Tesla [bloomberg.com], to spend more time working with other manufacturers [fool.com]. They probably saw the writing on the wall: Tesla wants to control every part of their car internally, and working with Mobileye was just a way to get their foot in the door sooner with a product. Sooner or later, Tesla would have dropped them. While their stock has taken a big hit since the announcement, it's probably best for them in the long run. It's also great for Tesla, since they can deflect some of the blame onto their now-departed partner.

        Whose stock dips after an announcement doesn't inherently tell you anything, mostly because the market is not rational.

    • Re:Wow (Score:4, Interesting)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Thursday July 28, 2016 @02:38AM (#52597191)

      And yet the opposite was true. Mobileyes isn't the one who terminated the relationship.

      Also just as well you're not in business, or maybe this is why you're not in business. Terminating a lucrative contact because a customer has an issue for which the customer has full liability and is handling the full PR outfall? If you're that interested on giving away money let me know and I'll send you my paypal details.

      • And yet the opposite was true. Mobileyes isn't the one who terminated the relationship.

        Literally everyone is reporting the opposite, so where are you getting your information?

  • Blame game again? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This sounds familiar. Oh yeah... Ford and Firestone parting ways because they were blaming each other for Explorer rollovers. It's funny how the rollovers continued after they put everything else but Firestones on them.
    • Yes, some mugs continued to roll their trucks. But the obvious point you are missing is that most of the failed tires came from Firestone's Juliet plant, not the others. So there was an actual product defect.

  • by OverlordQ ( 264228 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2016 @09:20PM (#52596137) Journal

    Two musky stories in a row? Some PR firm must be getting some big dollars.

    • Two musky stories in a row? Some PR firm must be getting some big dollars.

      It's pretty obvious Musk put some sort of major PR campaign into motion over the past couple of weeks. Probably costing his investors a fortune.

    • by catchblue22 ( 1004569 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2016 @11:13PM (#52596603) Homepage

      Two musky stories in a row? Some PR firm must be getting some big dollars.

      Not really. Lots of people just really like Musk's products. I mean, he landed a fucking rocket on a boat! He makes the world's fastest production SUV. His autopilot is orders of magnitude better [thedrive.com] than the competition.

      Musk is in some ways similar to Steve Jobs. Early on, trolls would shit over Apple products. Too expensive. Too simple. Then Jobs guided Apple to be the most profitable company in the world. Why? Because people liked Apple products. Musk received nearly 400000 pre-orders for their next car. Why? Because people liked the car when they saw it. It wasn't some tricky marketing campaign. People just like how the Model 3 looks, and how it performs.

      • Musk is in some ways similar to Steve Jobs. Early on, trolls would shit over Apple products. Too expensive. Too simple. Then Jobs guided Apple to be the most profitable company in the world.

        Those people weren't trolls: Jobs worshipper detected. Your turtleneck is a bit too tight this month. Those people were just wrong. They forgot that stupid people will pay to be fucked over if it gets them ooh shiny shiny.

        • Jobs worshipper detected. Your turtleneck is a bit too tight this month.

          No not necessarily. I personally do not like IOS. I think it is an overly restrictive black box-ish OS that puts too much control over MY computer in the hands of Apple. I also do not like that Apple seems to be pushing for OSX and IOS to merge. I use a OSX and Linux, and if Apple pisses me off to much, I will shift more towards Linux, and perhaps towards a Chrome-book/Android (never Microsoft!).

          However you cannot deny the magnitude of what Jobs accomplished as a leader of Apple. He led his company to

          • However you cannot deny the magnitude of what Jobs accomplished as a leader of Apple.

            I don't, at all. He realized that you could separate suckers from money by candy coating computers. That was a seriously important realization which has changed our world for the better... for corporations.

            Meanwhile he led the creation of the brilliant NeXT OS.

            You will note that until it got picked up by Apple, which would have been a massive mistake if they didn't get Jobs in the bargain as they could have had BeOS instead, he was leading it straight into the ground. It was priced out of reach for consumers, and it was too fiddly and nonstandard for businesses

        • They forgot that stupid people will pay to be fucked over if it gets them ooh shiny shiny.

          Well he must have been on to something. Almost all phones now are clones of the iPhone. BTW, I use Android.

  • great another clickbait title.... In reality Tesla already were planning on ditching them before the so called crash nonsense.. They already were upgrading their autopilot project and had already attracted developers and technicians before the (much hyped) news broke about the so called crash.. But now they media wants to spin it like it was because of the so called crash, as that is much more sensational than what actually is going on...
    • Designing a chip like the EyeQ v3 chip is a very large multi-year project. Tesla has hired a couple of designers, but they can't possibly be designing their own chip to replace the EyeQ. It would be akin to Dell hiring a couple of s/w engineers and saying they are writing a replacement for WIndows. I expect that in reality, Tesla are trying to integrate some of their existing s/w with other chips and new board design. From what I understand, they have disagreed about futures, and on realistic vs unrealis
  • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday July 28, 2016 @06:53AM (#52597949)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Working...