Tesla FSD Full Self Driving & Rivian ?

[RedCanyon]

Then was mention in Tesla's earnings call yesterday that they are in talks with another car manufacture about licensing their full self driving software. I wonder if Rivian may be that manufacture. Driver+ seems to be way behind others, and I would expect they could more easily make the necessary hardware changes.

Faster Path to Market:

• Reduced Development Time: Leveraging Tesla's existing FSD system would save Rivian years of development on their Driver+ assistant. This allows Rivian to offer a more competitive product sooner.
• Improved Feature Set: Tesla's FSD is constantly evolving, offering features like lane-changing and traffic light recognition. Licensing FSD would instantly upgrade Rivian's Driver+ capabilities.

Addressing a Potential Customer Need:

• Market Demand: While Rivian hasn't prioritize self-driving, some customers might desire it, especially when Tesla officially rolls it out. FSD could attract a wider audience seeking advanced driver-assistance features.
• Competitive Landscape: Tesla is a leader in self-driving technology. Offering a comparable system would help Rivian compete more effectively.

Focus on Core Strengths:

• Frees Up Resources: By using FSD, Rivian's engineering team could focus on core vehicle development and differentiation, like Rivian's off-road focus.
• Faster Iteration: Licensing avoids the need for a complete in-house solution, allowing Rivian to adapt and improve Driver+ features more quickly based on Tesla's updates.

However, there are also potential drawbacks to consider:

• Cost: Licensing FSD might be expensive, impacting Rivian's profit margins.
• Integration Challenges: Integrating Tesla's software with Rivian's hardware and systems could be complex and time-consuming.
• Strategic Dependence: Rivian would become reliant on Tesla's roadmap for future advancements in self-driving technology.

Ultimately, the decision depends on Rivian's long-term vision. If self-driving becomes a priority (or a competitive requirement), licensing FSD could be a strategic move. But if Rivian prioritizes differentiation and driver engagement, focusing on in-house development of Driver+ might be their choice (... and we are in for a long wait).

Thoughts?

Sponsored

 

[DaveA]

I've had full self-driving since Day 1 of ownership....as in...I drive it myself.

 

[Eric9610]

The current version is very good but far away from perfect, I have it on my Model Y. The biggest problem is giving up the user data to Tesla. This is gold for these auto companies. If Rivian can figure out how to keep the user data from Tesla I see this being implemented.

I also don't know how you don't share the user data as this is how FSD gets better. So in short, I don't see this happening.

 

[Tim-in-CA]

I hear Tesla is in talks with Fisker and Vinfast to license FSD

 

[Nacho Rivian]

Then was mention in Tesla's earnings call yesterday that they are in talks with another car manufacture about licensing their full self driving software. I wonder if Rivian may be that manufacture. Driver+ seems to be way behind others, and I would expect they could more easily make the necessary hardware changes.

Faster Path to Market:

• Reduced Development Time: Leveraging Tesla's existing FSD system would save Rivian years of development on their Driver+ assistant. This allows Rivian to offer a more competitive product sooner.
• Improved Feature Set: Tesla's FSD is constantly evolving, offering features like lane-changing and traffic light recognition. Licensing FSD would instantly upgrade Rivian's Driver+ capabilities.

Addressing a Potential Customer Need:

• Market Demand: While Rivian hasn't prioritize self-driving, some customers might desire it, especially when Tesla officially rolls it out. FSD could attract a wider audience seeking advanced driver-assistance features.
• Competitive Landscape: Tesla is a leader in self-driving technology. Offering a comparable system would help Rivian compete more effectively.

Focus on Core Strengths:

• Frees Up Resources: By using FSD, Rivian's engineering team could focus on core vehicle development and differentiation, like Rivian's off-road focus.
• Faster Iteration: Licensing avoids the need for a complete in-house solution, allowing Rivian to adapt and improve Driver+ features more quickly based on Tesla's updates.

However, there are also potential drawbacks to consider:

• Cost: Licensing FSD might be expensive, impacting Rivian's profit margins.
• Integration Challenges: Integrating Tesla's software with Rivian's hardware and systems could be complex and time-consuming.
• Strategic Dependence: Rivian would become reliant on Tesla's roadmap for future advancements in self-driving technology.

Ultimately, the decision depends on Rivian's long-term vision. If self-driving becomes a priority (or a competitive requirement), licensing FSD could be a strategic move. But if Rivian prioritizes differentiation and driver engagement, focusing on in-house development of Driver+ might be their choice (... and we are in for a long wait).

Thoughts?

Honestly, I enjoy driving Rivian so much. And I don’t need FSD. For a long distance trip, we take our van. Basic driver assistance features in my R1 is sufficient.

 

[Hercules10]

Not sure I want FSD, San Antonio roads are constantly under construction. Only need it on long trips. Tesla has killed enough folks testing their FSD. I don't want to be a test subject.

 

[Electrified Outdoors]

I can do without FSD in the rivian, but I think longer term. Any kind of licensing would benefit Tesla. If I were Tesla I would license it at least at this stage for next to nothing. The reason why is this will help my AI solve the full self-driving problem. The more vehicles you have in the fleet, the quicker you will be able to solve this problem. The real revenue for Tesla comes after the problem is solved and licensing after that.

My two cents anyway.

TLDR Short-Term benefit for other oems long-term benefit for Tesla.

 

[DaveA]

I hear Tesla is in talks with Fisker and Vinfast to license FSD

Full Self Destroying? Think those 2 already have all the market share on that.

 

[RedRaiderRivian]

Given previous arrangements with Mercedes-Benz seems like it would make more sense to license their tech.

https://mashable.com/article/mercedes-benz-level-3-autonomy

 

[agame32]

We have FSD on our Model Y and other than amusing our kids at low speed around the neighborhood with the car under close supervision, I don’t see a realistic use case. We got in “cheap” when it was $5-6000 and obviously not worth it as using it on actual streets still seems dangerous. I even tried it again recently and it made an unsafe unprotected left with an oncoming car it apparently didn’t see because of the large truck opposite me.

 

[Rivian Head]

I think FSD on my Teslas makes us safer drivers, and will gladly pay $99 monthly subscription fee. Will see what the data reveals about adoption rate as well as safety. The best part is that it gets better every 2 -3 weeks as Tesla continues to accumulate tons of data nobody else has. This is the “ moat” Tesla has created. I am old enough to know when cruise control first came out as an option, and thought to myself I would never use it. Autonomous driving is inevitable driven by AI, and consumers will demand it as the standard feature in a few years. Likely insurance and government may demand it as the standard safety features as data reveals it saves lives like seat belts. Instead of spending 10 billions of money it doesn’t have, Rivian will be better off using FSD licensed from Tesla. It will appeal to buyers who wants “Tesla Technology “ but can’t stand Elon.

 

[UnsungZero_OldTimeAdMan]

Unlikely that other manufacturer is Rivian. There is much bad press surrounding Tesla FSD. Rivian has enough bad press of its own.

Also, the actual quote is "one major automaker about licensing Full Self-Driving". By annual volume, Rivian is not "major".

 

[lefkonj]

If Rivian did this I would use it less than I do now. Sorry but Tesla isn't the amazing company people make them up to be. Rivian's Driver+ is great for how most people use it. I for one am not a believer in having the car drive itself, if you want that take an uber/lyft/cab. Plenty of companies do a great job with this solution, so leave it alone. Tesla is just trying to get money from anything they can because they now are facing competition on all fronts, and it is obvious they are losing.

 

[Rivian Head]

Given previous arrangements with Mercedes-Benz seems like it would make more sense to license their tech.

https://mashable.com/article/mercedes-benz-level-3-autonomy

Mercedes system level 3 is limited to certain highways with certain speed limits etc, and its hardware is too expensive for mass adoption.

 

[mikehmb]

I don’t want Tesla software in my RIvian. Full stop.

If I want Tesla tech I’ll buy a Tesla.

Sponsored