Google has reportedly stopped developing its own self-driving car • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by jerf » Tue, Dec 13, 2016, 7:40 PM UTC

oli5679 wrote: post #200

jerf wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

Your example doesn't apply because my point applies to different businesses, not just "investments" in general. A hotelier buying or building another hotel is just expanding, not investing in different businesses. A hotelier that is making 10% RoI in the hotel industry would be ill-advised to take on a car rental business that makes 3% RoI, because that car rental business won't be free, and they should be investing that money where they can make 10% RoI.

Google, paradoxically, by having such a good RoI on ads has a hard time taking on other businesses. This is a big part of why they spun so much stuff off; if they stay within Google, business forces would tend to starve them despite the abundance of resources that at first glance seem to be available. It's why you see companies so often cut product lines that are profitable, but not as profitable as something else... or, to put that another way, this isn't something I'm hypothesizing about how it might happen because of the theory, it's a thing that happens all the time. I've seen at least two major passes of it at the company I work at.

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

#222

Post by jerf » Tue, Dec 13, 2016, 7:42 PM UTC

iainmerrick wrote: post #145

jerf wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Large profitable businesses can't economically afford to take on new businesses that are significantly less profitable than their current businesses Whoa there, isn't that completely backwards? Who can afford to invest in new businesses if not large, profitable companies? because the rational business decision then is to reallocate the resources being given to the unprofitable sub-business and give them to the profit…

It's not clear to me that Amazon actually has one business line that is both huge and so massively profitable that it prevents them from spreading out. They are huge, but they don't make the profits that Google, Microsoft, or Apple does.

I wouldn't be surprised to see AWS get spun out as it continues to grow in the next 3-10 years, because unless the trajectory of that subbusiness changes, it threatens to become the business that is too profitable to put resources anywhere else.

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

#223

Post by TheSpiceIsLife » Tue, Dec 13, 2016, 8:14 PM UTC

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…

I've got a 2013 Nexus tablet, and it's got all sorts of things in it that aren't from Google.

The majority of components in a car are not manufactured by the car maker.

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

#224

Post by ars » Tue, Dec 13, 2016, 8:35 PM UTC

Symmetry wrote: post #101

MarHoff wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he does. We must let go delusional thinking that with current AI we can safely throw autonomous car in a dense urban area. Using autonomous car to improve mobility in rural area (eg. for elders people) would prove much more applicable as a paid service and complemental to public transportation. But if mainstream geeks and investors keep dreaming about K2000 they will be deceived by current AI.

Google's been safely driving cars around in a dense urban environment for a while now.

If you check, you see that they have only been driving in limited parts of the journey (the easiest parts obviously).

It's not an end to end trip.

The cars are also unable to handle unexpected changes in traffic lights, or road signage.

They are very very far from being able to drive entirely independently.

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

#225

Post by oli5679 » Tue, Dec 13, 2016, 8:38 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #221

oli5679 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

Your example doesn't apply because my point applies to different businesses , not just "investments" in general. A hotelier buying or building another hotel is just expanding, not investing in different businesses. A hotelier that is making 10% RoI in the hotel industry would be ill-advised to take on a car rental business that makes 3% RoI, because that car rental business won't be free, and they should be investing…

Ok so if a business a) has limited management bandwidth and many promising options or b) has a particularly cyclical/risky business model that results in a high cost of borrowing then you're right.

These are somewhat linked to profitability as you say, but a safe slow-growth company generating massive profits (eg Coca-Cola) doesn't face this.

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

#226

Post by iainmerrick » Tue, Dec 13, 2016, 9:04 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #222

iainmerrick wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Large profitable businesses can't economically afford to take on new businesses that are significantly less profitable than their current businesses Whoa there, isn't that completely backwards? Who can afford to invest in new businesses if not large, profitable companies? because the rational business decision then is to reallocate the resources being given to the unprofitable sub-business and give them to the profit…

It's not clear to me that Amazon actually has one business line that is both huge and so massively profitable that it prevents them from spreading out. They are huge, but they don't make the profits that Google, Microsoft, or Apple does. I wouldn't be surprised to see AWS get spun out as it continues to grow in the next 3-10 years, because unless the trajectory of that subbusiness changes, it threatens to become the…

But Amazon has explicitly chosen to keep its margins tight, and aggressively invest for expansion. In a sense they choose not to make huge profits. They're famous for it!

I still don't buy your general point. It's true that some large companies have run into trouble because they were afraid of damaging their core product. But that's a risk everyone's aware of now -- the whole "innovator's dilemma" thing.

What's an example of a large successful company that was thereby prevented from spreading out? I don't mean companies that failed due to complacency, or overly rigid business practices, but where their size actually worked against them.

(Hmm, possibly we really mean the same thing, we're just describing it in different ways...)

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

#227

Post by jandrese » Tue, Dec 13, 2016, 9:38 PM UTC

greglindahl wrote: post #165

jandrese wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect Google got cold feet when they started considering the liability issues once this goes mainstream. Even their millions of miles road tests were done at low speeds near their campus.

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.

From what I understand their vehicle was limited to 25mph, how did they do the highway speed testing?

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

#228

Post by greglindahl » Tue, Dec 13, 2016, 11:00 PM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #227

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.

From what I understand their vehicle was limited to 25mph, how did they do the highway speed testing?

Google uses Lexus cars for highway-speed testing.

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

#229

Post by euyyn » Tue, Dec 13, 2016, 11:14 PM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #227

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.

From what I understand their vehicle was limited to 25mph, how did they do the highway speed testing?

That's the Koala-type. The first iteration were modified Lexus', and self-driving in highways is much easier than in cities, so it's attacked first.

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

#230

Post by luca_ing » Wed, Dec 14, 2016, 8:48 AM UTC

0xfeba wrote: post #198

woodpanel wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

And then you get something like the adaptive cruise control on my BMW.

The bloody thing controls like a human just learning to drive - only focusing on what's right in front of it, instead of the general road situation, and making correspondingly jerky and drastic (albeit safe) maneuvers.

I often have to look ahead for it, and turn it off when I see a situation brewing that will entice it to drive like a moron. Then I handle that situation (typically by doing essentially nothing, e.g. just coasting for a few seconds), and turn it back on.