Waymo and Toyota outline partnership to advance autonomous driving deployment

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Reaction to the Waymo–Toyota Partnership

  • Many see the pairing as natural: Waymo supplies autonomy tech, Toyota supplies scale and build quality, potentially extending beyond robotaxis into personally owned vehicles.
  • Others think the announcement is very early-stage “corporate speak” (preliminary agreement to explore collaboration) and may never yield real products.
  • Some note Toyota is likely hedging: it can’t catch up to Waymo’s 15 years of work on full autonomy, so it’s cheaper to partner. Waymo, meanwhile, needs more vehicle platforms.
  • A few worry about large, sensor-heavy vehicles drawing vandalism and want slimmer, less conspicuous hardware designs.

Waymo vs Tesla and Other Autonomy Approaches

  • Strong divide on Tesla FSD: some owners say recent versions are finally “respectable” and greatly reduce driving load; others call it dangerous vaporware sold years too early.
  • Waymo is generally seen as more mature: it runs unsupervised robotaxi services in several cities, and some riders already trust it enough to sleep in the back.
  • Several argue Tesla’s constant “FSD this year” promises are a strategic hype play that crowds out competitors and investment, versus Waymo’s slower but more conservative rollout.
  • Debate over tech stack: some insist lidar is essential, others think vision-only systems will eventually match or exceed human-level perception given rapid AI advances.

Toyota’s Electrification and Hybrid Strategy

  • Intense disagreement over whether Toyota is “in a death spiral” or making smart, conservative bets.
  • Critics say Toyota squandered its Prius lead, lobbied against EVs, over-indexed on hydrogen, and is now behind pure EV makers.
  • Defenders point out: Toyota sells huge volumes of hybrids, often with long waitlists; hybrids are growing fast; and Toyota’s hybrid drivetrain is viewed as extremely reliable.
  • Many frame hybrids—especially plug‑in hybrids—as the current US “sweet spot”: electric for daily commuting, gasoline for long or rural trips, avoiding today’s charging headaches.
  • Others argue hybrids are a dead-end complexity tax, that EV ranges and charging speeds are improving quickly, and Toyota is risking being late to an inevitable transition.

EVs, Hybrids, and Real-World Use

  • Multiple anecdotes illustrate road‑trip charging pain vs. the convenience of home charging for daily use.
  • Long subthreads weigh: charging times vs. gas refueling, winter range loss, rural and mountain travel, plug‑in hybrid maintenance, gas going stale, and battery size/weight tradeoffs.
  • Some say EV inconvenience is now overstated, especially with high‑range models and fast chargers; others maintain that for much of North America, infrastructure still isn’t “there.”

Robotaxis, Uber, and Platform Power

  • There’s hope that Waymo democratizing its stack through OEM partnerships will counterbalance Tesla’s push toward a proprietary robotaxi network.
  • Discussion over Uber–Waymo dynamics: one side thinks Uber, as the customer-facing aggregator with global reach, has leverage; the other says Uber is just a temporary channel and Waymo can go direct-to-consumer.
  • Some believe driverless fleets will eventually undercut human-driven Uber on cost (no paid drivers, cars utilized all day), but note current Waymo hardware is expensive and fleets capital-intensive.

Safety, Liability, and Autonomy Levels

  • Several insist that true “autonomous” only starts when you can safely sleep or sit in the back; everything else is advanced driver assist.
  • Clarifications of SAE levels (L2–L5) recur; Tesla FSD is repeatedly identified as L2 “supervised,” while some other OEMs offer narrow L3 systems on specific highways.
  • Many argue safety claims are meaningless until companies accept full legal liability for crashes; Mercedes’ liability stance is cited as a contrast point, though others call that partly marketing.
  • Waymo’s published crash data and a cited “10x safer than humans” study are referenced approvingly, though not deeply interrogated.

Car Ownership, Transit, and Urban Design

  • One camp sees AVs as a path away from universal private car ownership toward on-demand fleets, with fewer cars, less parking, and safer roads.
  • Skeptics counter that autonomy could increase congestion: more people (kids, elderly, disabled) traveling by car, longer commutes made tolerable by multitasking, and empty vehicles circling instead of parking.
  • Strong push from some to prioritize buses, trains, and walkable urban design; AVs should supplement, not replace, mass transit.
  • Others argue that in car‑centric geographies (especially the US), the rail/bus “ship has sailed,” and AVs may be the most realistic improvement path.

Miscellaneous Themes

  • Desire for traditional controls: some commenters say this partnership gives them a non-Tesla future path as long as Toyota keeps physical buttons, dials, and stalks.
  • Accessibility: a blind commenter would accept limited, geofenced L4 if failure modes are safe (e.g., pull over and call a teleoperator).
  • Overall mood is a mix of genuine optimism about Waymo’s safety record and deployment, deep cynicism about Tesla’s timelines, and skepticism that any corporate MoU will quickly change everyday driving.