+ the salaries of everyone working on that stuff, not just assembly but also writing the code to support it

Not that I disagree, either: at the volumes that a modest car company puts out, I'd assume it's easily worth the, say, 3% cost premium on the car's total price to have something that can actually see things you don't see and thus makes a safer system. It might even reduce costs by having lower requirements for the vision hardware and software, but that's not something I can know. There's a lot of unknowns here that I think mean we can't really do a good comparison indeed

As the article notes, Tesla conveniently “fixed” their thermals and durability issue that caused by inventing a feature called cabin overheat protection and marketing it as for people/animals overheating and not for the non-automotive-spec electronics in the cabin.

If you can’t bring auto quality electronics to the car, just change the car so it avoids standard auto thermal conditions ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

https://www.thedrive.com/tech/27989/teslas-screen-saga-shows...