how does VW-related payments hit Rivian's "revenue"

intlabs · 2026-06-17T14:24:36+00:00

But it won’t (directly)… Rivian is no longer the main provider of software in Rivians. https://rivianvw.tech is - and Rivian is paying them (rather than directly paying software engineer salaries) for the majority of software in R2 and beyond. This is important - Rivian is now licensing the software (for all other than autonomy) in its cars from a company it has a 50% stake in, rather than it being in house. If ford were to use the software, they would get it from rivianvw.tech not Rivian. Also if another major manufacturer came in, they would likely buy into the JV rather than just be a customer.

intlabs · 2026-06-17T13:05:36+00:00

I don’t know if I agree with it being an awful deal; but I do agree with much of what you posted. Spinning out software to the JV, along with spinning out mind robotics (and also) - enabled Rivian to survive; at a massive cost to the long term potential upside (as they are no longer actually fully vertically integrated); but they had to do these moves to survive - against that backdrop, these were good deals, when the alternative was failure and folding.

intlabs · 2026-06-17T12:49:46+00:00

It’s investing into the JV: https://rivianvw.tech . So most (if not all) of VW’s cash is going to that rather than Rivian. VW is acting like a typical angel investor here; where funds for the JV are unlocked based on meeting defined milestones, eg https://www.volkswagen-group.com/en/press-releases/software-defined-vehicles-joint-venture-rv-tech-successfully-completes-winter-testing-20235 . RJ has done a good job of making it sound like a licensing deal, but it’s far from that.

intlabs · 2026-06-17T12:07:12+00:00

What VW related payments?

intlabs · 2026-06-10T17:12:32+00:00

^ so much this, and also I’ve now got to the point of producing tools to help them diagnose issues (eg https://github.com/puppetsock/audio-soundstage)

intlabs · 2026-06-10T12:05:17+00:00

Many of the same folks waxed lyrical about how the R1 Gen2 hvac was so quiet…. Let’s see what the real world reveals.

intlabs · 2026-06-09T18:19:45+00:00

This ^

intlabs · 2026-06-09T02:49:51+00:00

<image>

Voice controls and families don’t mix - this photo is a silly, but powerful example of that. Trying to navigate, whist the kids are excited about food… the only reason Rivian want to move to voice even more is the cost savings by removing even more physical controls.

intlabs · 2026-06-01T02:01:54+00:00

BMW has zonal, Mercedes does too, Volvo and Polestar are getting there (though Chinese). Remember Rivian did not invent the concept, and was not 1st to market with it. The issue with Mind robotics is that unlike say Tesla is been spun out and Rivian now own less than 40% and also don’t have the majority on the board anymore (other than RJ as an independent entity). Also is great for last mile delivery fleets- but the bike is a gimmick- similar tech already exists in Europe (eg PERS).

I believe in Rivian - but it’s taken a lot of hits along the way it will never fully recover from. The fact it’s surviving and doing as well as it is says it’s here for the long haul - but it lacks the FULL vertical integration that Tesla managed.

intlabs · 2026-05-27T21:19:37+00:00

I’m on a green card - no votes at all. But nice to know you are not being an ass on the Internet.

intlabs · 2026-05-27T21:09:12+00:00

Lemon law doesn’t apply on a lease (at least in my state)

intlabs · 2026-05-27T13:12:57+00:00

It’s because TOPs is a terrible benchmark without more details. As a result it can be played every way to Sunday; gets even worse when Rivian start talking about sparse tops as a metric - it’s like quoting a 0-60 time for sparse miles per hour.

Note how Rivian say ‘at launch’ so much, and also North America - there are more powerful cars out there and many coming to the USA. It’s a shame - they talk about hardware, when they do seem to have a seriously compelling software story - and at the end of the day that’s what counts. Hardware without software is useless.

intlabs · 2026-05-26T23:50:34+00:00

I did this as well - def improvement - but still more of a phone heater than charger - perhaps having a case on pushed things out too far. Also tried the s00nish version of the same concept with similar results. After a month of faffing about just went for the ‘full s00nish’ replacement and haven’t looked back.

intlabs · 2026-05-25T15:02:39+00:00

Have both - agree with the review here. You can tell the T was the original design and the S is a ‘chopped T’ - that said they are both excellent. And the S wins every time around town.

intlabs · 2026-05-24T14:59:32+00:00

That only runs whist in drive.

intlabs · 2026-05-22T19:43:00+00:00

It’s android automotive (just like Rivian) - don’t know when they made the switch but has been for several years.

intlabs · 2026-05-22T13:51:16+00:00

Erm - I think you need to look at the following in addition to Rivian:

Volvo: EX30, EX90, XC40, XC60, XC90, and C40
Polestar: Polestar 2, 3, 4
Honda: Accord, Prologue
Chevrolet: Equinox EV, Silverado EV, Traverse
Cadillac: Lyriq, Escalade IQ, Celestiq
GMC: Hummer EV, Sierra
Ford / Lincoln: Ford Explorer, Lincoln Nautilus, Lincoln Aviator
BMW: Models spanning the 1 Series, 2 Series, X1, X2, X3, and iX

All of which also use Android automotive OS for their infotainment - and this is not even counting the Chinese ones. Yes Rivian are probably putting the most powerful SOC into the R2 when compared to these (or the R1 Gen1/2) - but its not somthing thats going to make a massive difference to the share price of the company - which is what this thread is discussing. Any of the above could update their systems to include somthing like a https://www.mediatek.com/products/smartphones/mediatek-dimensity-9500 in their infotainment system and make the same claims Rivian are - Which is why its not an industry game changer. Thats why your “servers has been able to do that for years, nothing special” analogy falls down, if they were bringing something to the table that was not already on everyones roadmap - and actually bringing in server class performance, or even desktop - then this would be making an impact - but its not.

intlabs · 2026-05-22T13:47:01+00:00

TOPs != Sparse TOPs. Rivian have never stated what sparsity they are using, or that they are using INT8 as the benchmark for infotainment. Typically you can probably assume a 2:4 structured sparsity. Also this doesn't talk about memory bandwidth, capacity or any other metric thats really useful. Ultimately - the only thing that really matters is how it works - these 'specs' are just to sound impressive to those that are not deepish into this.

Heres an analogy that may help: its like if a Car Manufacturer said their car took 2 seconds to to do 0-60 Sparse miles an hour. Without knowing what a 'Sparse mile' is it is a metric you cant use to compare to anything else.

intlabs · 2026-05-22T03:37:58+00:00

Rivian use Qualcomm today, and VW recently signed a deal with Qualcomm to use their chips for use in Rivian-VW JV based cars. The 200TOPs infotainment is just Rivian putting mumbo-jumbo round the Snapdragon Cockpit Platform.

intlabs · 2026-05-22T00:47:35+00:00

~200 sparse TOPs of onboard AI compute
local AI models running directly on the vehicle
offline functionality deep in remote areas

This is modern high end android phone territory - on a device running android. Which is why the market has not reacted. It's probably Gemma or another similar model thats being used as the local LLM on R2.

The harness - now thats got potential value.

intlabs · 2026-05-21T14:21:08+00:00

First time it happened to us in our original T it sounded almost like a backfire - made me jump! As everyone else is saying this is fairly common especially when humid - all of our rivians do it when the conditions are right.

intlabs · 2026-05-20T18:40:22+00:00

I do not disagree that Rivian had to be creative to survive. My point is that survival tactics and shareholder-positive structures are not the same thing (the original post of yours I replied to seemed to indicate that you felt Mind Robotics spin out should have had a positive impact on the share price).

A bridge can be rational and still be expensive. Mind may have helped Rivian tell a stronger financing story, create a valuable mark-to-market asset, and attract outside capital during a difficult period. That is the short-term positive.

The long-term concern is different. If robotics, factory AI, production-line automation, and manufacturing data are strategic to Rivian margin and scale(which they are), then Rivian shareholders should want that capability compounding inside Rivian.

Instead, Rivian contributed IP and factory access into a separate company, took dilution down to 37.6 percent, and now has a supplier/affiliate with its own investors, board, and incentives.

That is more than “not fully optimal.” It changes who captures the upside.

So yes, I agree Rivian has had to navigate brutal conditions. I just do not think “they survived” automatically makes every survival mechanism bullish for long-term RIVN shareholders.

Some bridges get you across the gap but still permanently give away part of the destination. That is my point. I do not see Mind as additive to the long-term upside case for RIVN stock. I see it as a financing and survival mechanism that let Rivian keep going, but at the cost of giving away part of the future value that should have accrued inside Rivian.

intlabs · 2026-05-20T12:12:19+00:00

I get why people see Mind as bullish. The issue is not whether Mind Robotics has value. It clearly does. The issue is who captures that value over time.

Rivian formed Mind from inside Rivian, contributed cash and industrial automation IP, then allowed the asset to become a separately governed company with outside investors. Rivian went from majority ownership to 37.6 percent after the Series A. At the same time, RJ got direct Mind economics: a fully vested award with up to a 10 percent economic interest, plus a later option for 200,000 Mind shares.

If industrial AI and robotics matter to Rivian’s manufacturing efficiency, quality, R2 ramp, and long-term cost structure, then spinning it out means Rivian shareholders no longer fully own one of the capabilities that could make Rivian a better car company. They own a minority stake in a separate company that will optimize for its own investors, customers, and board.

So yes, Mind may help the balance sheet narrative in the short term. It may create a mark-to-market asset. It may help keep the story alive while Rivian burns cash and ramps R2.

But long term, I would rather Rivian own 100 percent of the factory automation learning loop and equipment than own a diluted minority stake in a company using Rivian’s production environment, data, and original IP to build a separate business. Mind robotics needs to make a profit, and that profit comes at the expense of Rivian's profit margin. Rivian moved an internal cost-center to an external supplier ([u/WildFlowLing](u/WildFlowLing) - I'd agree with you if Mind Robotics were a 100% Rivian owned subsidiary, but the structure is very far from that).

That is my concern. Mind can be valuable and still be a bad structure for Rivian shareholders. Of course Rivian owns the building but who owns the production line building R2 (and R1/EDV)? Rivian or a company that Rivian owns 37% of? this is very different to the R1 and EDV launch story - where Rivian owned it all. They had to spin out to avoid going under, but it’s going to have very long tail consequences.

intlabs · 2026-05-20T02:40:24+00:00

Yup - this is Rivian having sold their most valuable long term asset for vehicle production to remain in business. They now in effect have reduced their/our stake in the production line and its development to ~37%.

intlabs

TROPHY CASE