91–100 of 232 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which tells me there's something fundamentally wrong with the automotive (for these specific examples, but there are others) industry. Edit: typo.
The profit incentive isn't there. Cars as a Service will drastically reduce overall car sales so why would you expect a car company be at the vanguard of a movement that will gut their industry?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which tells me there's something fundamentally wrong with the automotive (for these specific examples, but there are others) industry. Edit: typo.
Eh, other companies were heading towards the same goal in smaller increments (and more slowly). First it was cruise control, then emergency auto-braking, then assisted cruise control, then lane assist, then lane change assist, then object identification with cameras, etc... It's just that they didn't publicise their goal of 'the car will do all the driving'. It was the same logical endpoint though.
> The Information reports that Google’s self-driving car unit — known internally as Chauffeur — is working with establish automotive names to develop cars which will include some self-driving features, but won’t ditch the steering wheel and pedal controls. Self-Driving cards to self-driving technology was the exact same news which was reported out of Apple "Project Titan" too. It seems to be a trend in this self-driv…
Manufacturing and legislation is difficult enough, but how did Apple/Google plan distribution? Servicing? It is not comparable to consumer tech, very few would buy a car where it is unsure if this is only a hobby and if it it will be supported 5 years down the road. The incumbent car companies have a massive advantage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, maybe because they built prototype cars and used them in their PR?
Google's koala cars were never intended to be the beginning of an automobile manufacturing venture, they're just an example of the form factoer for vehicles Google would like to see built by existing manufacturers, running Google's Autonomous OS and sensor suite, on a Google branded transportation network. Google has been pursuing partnerships with car makers for years, so I'm not sure what part of this report from T…
The only way this could have worked was to push cyclists and meat-drivers off the road and hand the bulk of the decision making to something centralized. I'm so thankful this vision appears to be dying.
Someone (I think Jeremy Clarkson) has compared cars to horses. Horses used to be just utility animals, mistreated, etc. With the advent of cars they became sport and leisure animals, well-treated and owned only by rich people. Manual driving cars will probably still exist, but for sport and leisure, and just like horses, confined to racetracks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is not in the DNA of Google. Google has ventured in that area though, just take a look at Pixel, their smartphone. But the scale difference between developing a smartphone and a car is quite a big step. I am not that surprised though, getting into the car market is difficult and unsure. Just doing the technology part seems to make more sense imo.
Yes: and just take a look at how many people are unhappy with the support they get on their Pixel[1]. The number of people who would be able to tolerate Google's level of hands-off with a car, where the expectation is typically "for the first couple years if anything is even slightly weird you can drive it to your local dealer and someone's job is to try to make you super happy", is going to be much much much lower t…
When my Pixel won't start, I am a little less contactable for a while.
When my car won't start, I'm not getting to work.
I'm wondering what this pivot will do the morale in the Chauffeur team. There has been so much turbulence in the team with several key members leaving to form their own company because they were so frustrated with the pace. I can't imagine partnering with a traditional automaker will increase the pace.
I think this is the Android playbook. Partner with phone/car manufacturers and let them do what they do. You got to worry about customizations/fragmentation but I am not sure if that is going to be an issue for a 'behind the scenes' technology. You got to somehow tie this into Android Auto (license this?) for an integrated environment and integrations with phones or onboard maps (to get the search dollars).
...Alphabet's stock price is going to go higher, but the trade-off here is talent walking away. Given the HN post the other day about the CFO, I'm sure there's much more to come - google's not going to be a company where the dreamers go for much longer. Lets see how it goes...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes: and just take a look at how many people are unhappy with the support they get on their Pixel[1]. The number of people who would be able to tolerate Google's level of hands-off with a car, where the expectation is typically "for the first couple years if anything is even slightly weird you can drive it to your local dealer and someone's job is to try to make you super happy", is going to be much much much lower t…
That's the difference between want and need. When my Pixel won't start, I am a little less contactable for a while. When my car won't start, I'm not getting to work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which tells me there's something fundamentally wrong with the automotive (for these specific examples, but there are others) industry. Edit: typo.
The profit incentive isn't there. Cars as a Service will drastically reduce overall car sales so why would you expect a car company be at the vanguard of a movement that will gut their industry?