To be fair, without the baggage of tesla's ...overzealous... marketing, I think it will be possible for the dealers to pitch for it and yet deliver the message that it's "alpha" and risky.
back
1 comments
And why exactly would they do that?
"Hey you should buy this aftermarket autopilot system along with the car. No it isn't sold by Toyota. It's some small company you haven't heard of. No there's no warranty. Nope no safety data. You have to accept all liability for use. Yeah it might kill you and your kids. But hey, you get to be an alpha tester!"
99% of customers are going to walk out of the dealership after hearing that pitch.
Yeah, they’d walk out because that’s a bad-faith example of a pitch.
A good sales person would talk about any self-driving feature built in (eg lane following) then mention the car is compatible with third-party self-driving products like Comma.ai.
Just like how they talk about brakes, wheels, exhaust on sports cars - all areas customers may mod after purchase.
> then mention the car is compatible with third-party self-driving products like Comma.ai
What's in it for the sales person or the dealership?
That's a more realistic and reasonable way for the mention to unfold, but it's still not going to happen. The dealer is (usually) the party servicing the car's warranty, and they will definitely not appreciate or want to support this type of modification when a car is brought in.
Well, if they are going to present it that uncharitably then yes, people would walk out. Cars with basic ADAS have been selling just fine, and their ".* assist" features have been sold by dealerships just fine. This just slots into the same category. "Manages your steering on long straight stretches of highways" is not a hard thing to convey.
What you said would be the case if they had the baggage of "full self driving" marketing over 10 years.
You mean present it non-deceptively without exaggerating to the detriment of the user.
What would the developers tell their partners or friends in confidence? Are their claims in confidence supported by evidence that they made efforts to validate in proportion to the magnitude of their claims? Does that differ from what they say commercially? If so, then they are communicating deceptively to further their monetary interests.
That is not to say that other manufacturers are not communicating deceptively all the time as well, but complaining about truthful statements because they do not exaggerate to the detriment of the user for the monetary benefit of the manufacturer is silly.
Isn't the pitch for Tesla FSD quite similar? You still have to accept all the liability, and take over if software cannot handle it or tries to do the wrong thing.