• @AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1022 days ago

    Because that’s expensive and can be done with a camera.

    Expensive, as in probably less than $600? Compared to the $35000 cost of a tesla?

    (comparing the cost of the iPhone 12 (without lidar) and iPhone 12 pro (with lidar), we can guess that the sensor probably costs less than $200, so 3 of them (for left, right, and front) would cost probably less than $600)

    lidar can actually be very cheap and small. Unfortunately, Apple bought the only company that seems to make sensors like that (besides some other super high end models)

    There have been a lot of promising research papers on the technology lately though, so I expect more, higher resolution and cheaper lidar sensors to be available relatively soon (next couple years probably).

    • @Grippler@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      22 days ago

      Yeah that’s not even remotely the same type of sensor used in robotics and autonomous cars. Yes lidar is getting cheaper, but for high detail long range detection they’re much more expensive than the case of your iphone example. The iPhone “lidar” is less than useless in an automotive context.

    • @TypicalHog@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -422 days ago

      Perhaps. Idk, maybe I’m wrong. But it for sure seems it would be so much better if we achieved the same shit with a cheaper and more primitive simpler sensor.

      • @BURN@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        321 days ago

        To get the same resolution and quality of image in all lighting scenarios, cameras are actually going to be more expensive than LiDAR. Cameras suffer in low light, low contrast situations due to the physical limitations of bending light. More light = bigger lenses = higher cost, when LiDAR works better and is cheaper