Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google has reportedly stopped developing its own self-driving car

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 232 posts

Re: Google has reportedly stopped developing its own self-driving car

#191

Post by toomuchtodo »

SilasX wrote: post #173
toomuchtodo wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber profit margin: 0. GM/Ford Profit Margin: 9-12% Tesla Profit Margin: 22.8% Go where the margin is.

Which, by those very figures, would be in selling cars to ridesharing services, not competing with them.

Why would Musk and Tesla sell cars to ridesharing services when they can collect a piece of the revenue that they share with Tesla owners who participate on the Tesla Network rideshare service? Why should Tesla allow Uber or Lyft to profit off of its extensive autopilot work? They shouldn't, and they won't.

Re: Google has reportedly stopped developing its own self-driving car

#192

Post by dragonwriter »

usrusr wrote: post #30
Pyxl101 wrote: post #3

Is that surprising? I never assumed that Google was planning to build actual cars with this tech. I suppose I never really thought that deeply about how it would roll out, but if I had, I would have guessed partnerships with others in the industry. If they can nail "self-driving tech" as well as they've nailed search, they'll potentially earn licensing fees from all vehicles, rather than from the slice of vehicles th…

At first glance, Google becoming a car industry supplier like Delphi or Bosch seems just as weird. I kind of was expecting them to eventually go for the robocab business, with the steely bits manufactured by some Chinese OEM or underutilized plants in Detroit, Wolfsburg or wherever. It could be nicely phased in in limited access, limited range, low speed settings like e.g. island resorts. But repeating the Android mo…

> I kind of was expecting them to eventually go for the robocab business

Google's already using Maps to commoditize ride services (which will transfer to robocabs once they are on offer), so I can see them having the front and back end of that business while all the boring bits in the middle are commodities provided by others.

Re: Google has reportedly stopped developing its own self-driving car

#193

Post by greglindahl »

shostack wrote: post #106
usrusr wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At first glance, Google becoming a car industry supplier like Delphi or Bosch seems just as weird. I kind of was expecting them to eventually go for the robocab business, with the steely bits manufactured by some Chinese OEM or underutilized plants in Detroit, Wolfsburg or wherever. It could be nicely phased in in limited access, limited range, low speed settings like e.g. island resorts. But repeating the Android mo…

With Google's shift to provide answers, not just information, Maps seems like a crutch. If I'm in a fully autonomous car, I don't want to look at a map. I want to tell my assistant where I want to go and not worry about the rest. This would be akin to providing the answer (getting you from A to B) without the information (poking at a map).

There are a ton of ambiguous place-names.

Re: Google has reportedly stopped developing its own self-driving car

#194

Post by Bartweiss »

ProAm wrote: post #172
pakl wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Working on self-driving cars, much like working on advanced robots, requires tight integration between the software, sensors, and motors. These aspects cannot really be developed independently, especially if you want to end up with an optimized system that could be a product. Safety is a part of this, too. Google has ~10 years of experience in self-driving cars. They also have acquired many robotics companies. Surely…

> Google has ~10 years of experience in self-driving cars. They also have acquired many robotics companies. Surely, they know this. Really I think Google loses steam very easily when key people leave the team. I don't believe they have the mgmt infrastructure to keep the ball rolling when people get bored, run into hurdles, etc....

20% time and individual project ownership at Google X have helped to make Google a famous employer, but I do get the sense that the drawbacks are becoming more visible as the company grows and people move on.

Some of this is undoubtedly belt-tightening, but it's a lot easier to ax a specific project when it had a few fervent advocates who are no longer around. I'd be surprised if this wasn't a factor in the high project churn Google is known for.

Re: Google has reportedly stopped developing its own self-driving car

#195

Post by greglindahl »

lambdadmitry wrote: post #63

Slightly off-topic, but: > While Google may be taking its pedal off the gas for self-driving vehicles Is it considered OK to include obvious puns like that in a seemingly serious publication?

The Economist stuffs everything full of puns.

Re: Google has reportedly stopped developing its own self-driving car

#196

Post by callalex »

Bedon292 wrote: post #161
iainmerrick wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're imagining a pleasant future where self-driving cars have solved congestion, isn't some kind of car pooling going to be necessary? It's fundamentally silly for millions of commuters to each travel in their own car, and robot cars aren't going to fix that. Buses make massively more efficient use of road space (when they're reasonably full, anyway). Robot cars should reduce accidents, and parking problems will…

Valid point, car pooling would definitely be a good thing. And I think people would be more willing if it was more efficient than it is. Uber Pool does not seem to match people very well. Scheduled rides could probably be very optimized, so its two minutes out of the way, for each person, and no one really minds. Also optimizations like, if the rider isn't there yet, don't even go for them and pass them on to the nex…

You just described a bus.

Re: Google has reportedly stopped developing its own self-driving car

#197

Post by dragonwriter »

iainmerrick wrote: post #148
Bedon292 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pool also appears to be the default option now, so I on a recent trip accidentally got a pool a couple times. I didn't know the first time, and forgot the second. Second time was also a 'pool' with no additional riders, so it was a happy accident for a cheaper ride. Perhaps people bet on that as well?

If we're imagining a pleasant future where self-driving cars have solved congestion, isn't some kind of car pooling going to be necessary? It's fundamentally silly for millions of commuters to each travel in their own car, and robot cars aren't going to fix that. Buses make massively more efficient use of road space (when they're reasonably full, anyway). Robot cars should reduce accidents, and parking problems will…

> If we're imagining a pleasant future where self-driving cars have solved congestion, isn't some kind of car pooling going to be necessary

Maybe, maybe not. Small one-person "pod" cars that link up into road trains automatically are also a possibility, and have basically the same benefit for congestion as sharing without actually sharing the same pod.

Re: Google has reportedly stopped developing its own self-driving car

#198

Post by 0xfeba »

woodpanel wrote: post #190
greglindahl wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of Google's testing was done on US 101 and other interstates at highway speeds, insomuch as there wasn't a traffic jam at the time.

Highspeed testing is important. Also the complexity of the traffic is. Some say that the high speed of the German Autobahn is what made German premium cars so technically advanced. As soon as you get faster than 130-150 km/h most cars will let you know they weren't built for this. BMW, Daimler or Audi make 230 km/h ++ feel safe and sound (which I often think they shouldn't). A Tesla for example can't perform autonomo…

A quite ride at speed only really means it's a luxury car. Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Ford, et. al have had plenty of experience making cars that can go fast, and they also make luxury cars.

In any passenger car, getting in a wreck at 100 km/h or above is more than likely a fatal event. "5 Star" safety ratings and the EU equivalent are only for 30~55 km/h crashes. Granted, even highway crashes involve some braking before impact, but the faster you go the more difficult it is to slow down enough to a 'safe' speed before impact.

Besides, the sensors on cars are more than capable of driving at 150 KM/H. While they cannot "see" as far as a human, they require much less time to process what they do see.

Re: Google has reportedly stopped developing its own self-driving car

#200

Post by oli5679 »

jerf wrote: post #139
baggachipz wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, perhaps, but the counter to this is that they could "benefit from the closed system of vertical integration" that seems to be all the rage these days. I could envision a scenario where they partner with existing manufacturers for a couple years, then "courageously" break off and produce their own vehicle in order to "control the process".

That would be one hell of an ecosystem to bootstrap, even starting with a partnership with an existing company, even for Google. Building "a" car isn't that hard. Building a car that conforms with all regulations, has had all the testing done on it, can be manufactured at any useful scale, and, oh, also is something that people want to buy, is not a problem that should be underestimated. (Yes, props to Tesla. They di…

You aren't simplifying, you're misrepresenting. A company wants to invest in projects with an expected return exceeding it's cost of capital for the project. It doesn't matter if you lower your overall rate of return.

To give a concrete example, imagine I have a hotel in New York generating profits of $50 mn/year. If it required an investment of $100 mn to build hotels, making another one in Atlanta that generates profits of $10 mn per year would still be sensible if these exceed the financing costs. My return on (book) assets would fall from 50% - 30% but my profits would rise from $45-50 mn.

Tax, risk and use of management time can complicate the issue but your point isn't first-order correct...

Post reply on HN