You forgot to mention that the Cruise vehicle did not cause the initial accident, but then created its own horrible situation. By running over a woman, that probably couldn't of been avoided, then started to drag her under the vehicle for 20ish feet. Then lied about it. Then they said the vehicles requires people to remote control the cars every 4-5 miles. Also that the car depend entirely on a wireless connection and lidar pre-mapping. Meaning they have failed in dense areas because of a weak signal, blocking all traffic. The mapping reason is also why other companies only operate in small geo-fenced areas.
Cruise and Waymo are not fully autonomous. They have 1+ remote operators per vehicle. Mobileye doesn't produce anything that's fully autonomous and in public use.
There's no remote operators in Cruise or Waymo. There are monitors, which is what an autonomous fleet should have, but these aren't remote control cars.
@@asymmetricinvesting i understand that. What we don't know is how often they have to intervene. So they are remote controlled cars some % of the time and they are monitored 100% of the time. Until and unless the underlying system improves these will not be cost competitive with human driven taxis. The business model currently sucks.
@@adamsawyer1763 Yes, if nothing improves it would be a terrible business. My point is, I want to bet on companies who have proven products on the road where we can see and assess the risk/reward. With California data we could see Apple had terrible autonomous products because it had interventions every few miles as reported to regulators. Waymo and Cruise go tens of thousands of miles without interventions. BTW, Rimac was announced today with Mobileye technology. Level 4. We will see how that goes.
"I'm not interested in companies who are not putting a product on the road, that is actually driving itself". Tesla is THE ONLY company who is actually having a product which is driving by itself without beeing geofenced. There are TONS of videos on RU-vid on which you can see, how FSD is handling traffic. This level of bias is just ludacris to me.
@@asymmetricinvesting Yes. Because teslas software is allready capable to drive by itself. The human is a supervisor at this point. Like the dude who is sitting in an office somewhere to take over the waymos when shit hits the fan. There is no use in a car which can drive in a fenced area (therefore getting approval quicker for driverless feature) but won"t do a thing when you"re out of the fence. Teslas approach is global (well only USA atm but its the first step) All others are doing some geofenced "driverless city taxi". Can and will work in cities but won"t ever work outside. Kinda obvious i thought but guess i was wrong
@@asymmetricinvesting yes. (something Tesla can't do yet.) Once Tesla has solved full autonomy, geofencing will not be a restriction and that is a big deal.
Testa fan boys crying :D Dont pay attention to them. I like your approach. Instead of fantasying of potential future you work with things that are already known. Interesting fact - Mobileye MC is 22B. In comparison Rheinmetall is 22B. And Rheinmetall has more back orders than the size of the company itself.. On the other hand, Mobileye has assets of almost 14B and no debt and 1,24B cash, which is very nice. But company is in very early stage, very hard to predict something. More gamble than calculated bet. I would wait. GM .. hmm. Shitty cars, but fundamentals of the company are proven. They are stable and profitable. And according to value investing calculations - undervalued. I just dont like that they as most other vehicle companies too have a lot of debt. BUT. Debt is 122B while they have 171B of assets. Not that bad.. (110B liabilities though). 61B equity while MC is 53B. Not bad, not bad. Strong company, at least from the numbers, I would say. Earnings stable. Revenue is growing. Nice. Even if you dont look at Cruise, the fundamental numbers GM have are nice. But. Those are just numbers, I would need to do sentimental analysis, research on their cars, on their CEO and so on.. For example VOW also has even nicer numbers but I would not buy VOW. I would probably bet some disposable cash on Cruise, but putting it together with GM makes it a lot more complicated. I would say WAYMO probably has the most potential with such a tech giant as an Alphabet behind their back. Alphabet earnings and revenue are growing and they show a lot of potential still. But when I calculate google price it looks like all possible future growth and earnings of 5 years are already priced into the stock price.. :(
Fair enough leaving Tesla out if this, there are plenty of videos about that. Mobileye has no chance. Their lack of having a car of their own will make them iterate too slowly. The Chinese will have them for breakfast. Waymo have a huge capital cost disadvantage. Once they have the technical solution solved they will need to figure out how to reduce their cost by an order of magnitude. Cruise have a huge advantage over the others as they can make the cars. I don't see any of these guys improving on humans driving taxis in cost.
