GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

GM’s decision on Cruise

  • GM will stop funding Cruise as a standalone robotaxi business and fold its tech into in‑house driver‑assist systems.
  • Reported spend was on the order of $1–2B/year; GM stock rose after the cut, implying investors didn’t value Cruise highly.
  • Many see this as finance-driven short‑termism and an admission GM is “not cut out for the future”; others note the huge cost, slow scaling, and regulatory backlash after Cruise’s pedestrian-drag incident and alleged misrepresentation to regulators.

Robotaxi business viability

  • Several comments question robotaxi unit economics: expensive sensor stacks (~$100k historically), large fleets, and long timelines versus uncertain fares and margins.
  • Waymo is viewed as the only US robotaxi at scale (multiple cities, paying rides), sustained by Alphabet’s deep pockets.
  • Some argue the market (taxis, trucking, aging drivers) is ultimately huge; others say big automakers exiting (Ford/Argo, GM/Cruise) signals the business case is weak or distant.

Tesla, Waymo, and other AV approaches

  • Large, polarized debate:
    • Pro‑Tesla side: FSD v12/13 is described as “remarkably good,” end‑to‑end, vision‑only, improving rapidly with massive data and compute; claim Tesla is structurally better positioned to scale globally and may soon challenge or surpass Waymo.
    • Skeptical side: FSD is still Level 2, requires constant supervision, makes dangerous mistakes (red lights, pedestrians, odd intersections), and is far from reliable enough for unsupervised service; Waymo’s Level 4 robotaxis are already operating safely for the public in several cities.
  • Mercedes’ limited Level 3 system is cited as legally “hands‑off but very constrained”; arguments over whether narrow, certified L3 is better than broad but supervised L2.
  • Some expect only a few winners (often named: Tesla, comma.ai, Waymo); others think the entire full‑robotaxi vision may be overhyped.

Dealerships, subscriptions, and adoption

  • Multiple anecdotes of GM/Ford dealers:
    • Salespeople poorly trained on Super Cruise / BlueCruise and other tech.
    • Features locked behind paid subscriptions and apps; sometimes disabled on demo cars.
  • Many criticize the US dealership model as rent‑seeking, hostile to EVs and advanced features, and misaligned with automakers and customers.
  • Tesla’s direct sales, fixed pricing, and app‑centric service are frequently praised, though some report long repair waits in earlier years.

Safety, regulation, and ethics

  • Strong disagreement about acceptable risk:
    • One camp emphasizes that humans already cause massive road carnage; AVs don’t need perfection, just to beat human rates.
    • Another insists AVs must be much safer than average humans and are currently far from proven, especially outside narrow geofences and ideal conditions.
  • Concerns about “beta‑testing on public roads,” deceptive incident reporting (especially for Cruise), and Tesla shifting blame to drivers versus Mercedes assuming liability within L3.

Broader attitudes toward autonomy and cars

  • Some think interest in “self‑driving” add‑ons is cooling: expensive L2.5 features deliver little value if drivers must stay fully alert; many cancel subscriptions.
  • Others say true unsupervised autonomy (read a book, sleep, send kids alone, drunk rides home) would be transformative and still worth pursuing.
  • Side discussions touch on:
    • Whether more autonomy means more cars and traffic versus more efficient fleets.
    • Environmental trade‑offs of keeping old ICE cars vs buying new EVs; lifecycle CO₂ math is debated and left unresolved.