11–20 of 86 posts
How much of that $1.1 are recouped as "investments in research" etc. and thus contributing to tax-deductions (and in some cases even subsidies)?
I think by most accounts - 1) Google / Waymo is by far the furthest ahead in self-driving tech. 2) Self-driving is possible in at least certain circumstances in the next decade or two (already is to an extent today). 3) Transportation / automobiles is an absolutely massive industry. Even companies like Dana, Inc (maker of axles) have $4bil valuations. It's easy to see how a self-driving tech maker would be worth far…
How do you come to that first conclusion? It seems difficult to tell who is the “furthest ahead” because it’s a pretty complex race. For starters, we can’t even say with certainty who all of the competitors are. Some are very quiet or at early stages but could be working on a breakthrough problem that turns out to be a pivot point. Some are specializing. Who is going to scale up the best and most cost efficient solid…
It's in all of these companies' best interests to look like they're in the lead.
The tech we can judge the progress of is the tech we can actually test and use.
It is not really that much! 1.1 B in 6 years on a moonshot project.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you come to that first conclusion? It seems difficult to tell who is the “furthest ahead” because it’s a pretty complex race. For starters, we can’t even say with certainty who all of the competitors are. Some are very quiet or at early stages but could be working on a breakthrough problem that turns out to be a pivot point. Some are specializing. Who is going to scale up the best and most cost efficient solid…
Indeed, the only comparison we have for Google's progress in most cases is what they claim. The few times other parties have stepped in and spoken up, there's been some less rosy truths in there. It's in all of these companies' best interests to look like they're in the lead. The tech we can judge the progress of is the tech we can actually test and use.
What are you referring to?
I think by most accounts - 1) Google / Waymo is by far the furthest ahead in self-driving tech. 2) Self-driving is possible in at least certain circumstances in the next decade or two (already is to an extent today). 3) Transportation / automobiles is an absolutely massive industry. Even companies like Dana, Inc (maker of axles) have $4bil valuations. It's easy to see how a self-driving tech maker would be worth far…
Seriously, they'd make trillions from self-driving tech. They'd end up spinning off an Uber-like self-driving ride service, and then they can track you and serve ads to you wherever you go. The data mining potential alone is huge.
I think by most accounts - 1) Google / Waymo is by far the furthest ahead in self-driving tech. 2) Self-driving is possible in at least certain circumstances in the next decade or two (already is to an extent today). 3) Transportation / automobiles is an absolutely massive industry. Even companies like Dana, Inc (maker of axles) have $4bil valuations. It's easy to see how a self-driving tech maker would be worth far…
How do you come to that first conclusion? It seems difficult to tell who is the “furthest ahead” because it’s a pretty complex race. For starters, we can’t even say with certainty who all of the competitors are. Some are very quiet or at early stages but could be working on a breakthrough problem that turns out to be a pivot point. Some are specializing. Who is going to scale up the best and most cost efficient solid…
Maybe they're not the first right now, but they're safely in the lead, waiting for the others to fumble.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, the only comparison we have for Google's progress in most cases is what they claim. The few times other parties have stepped in and spoken up, there's been some less rosy truths in there. It's in all of these companies' best interests to look like they're in the lead. The tech we can judge the progress of is the tech we can actually test and use.
> The few times other parties have stepped in and spoken up, there's been some less rosy truths in there. What are you referring to?
Consider that at the time, an engineer told him that the car was dependent on a level of mapping detail that was impractical at a nationwide level, that the car would run a red light if it wasn't on the car's map.
The article also cites that the cars would have issues in bright sunlight, particularly determining the color of stoplights, that they couldn't handle construction sites consistently, etc.
Now, in contrast, this is months after Google said it "didn't need pedals or steering anymore", in articles like this: http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/28/tech/innovation/google-self-dr...
Also, consider the Slate article mentions Google Self-Driving Cars don't know how to park, two full years after the PR stunt which shows a blind man doing so in a Self-Driving Car. (Which was almost certainly a heavily staged operation.)
It's safe to assume Google has improved upon some or probably all of these issues in the last couple of years, but I think that article shows a stunning difference between where a press team says a technology is and where it actually is.
I think by most accounts - 1) Google / Waymo is by far the furthest ahead in self-driving tech. 2) Self-driving is possible in at least certain circumstances in the next decade or two (already is to an extent today). 3) Transportation / automobiles is an absolutely massive industry. Even companies like Dana, Inc (maker of axles) have $4bil valuations. It's easy to see how a self-driving tech maker would be worth far…
> Given 1-4, $1.1B doesn't seem like much. Seriously, they'd make trillions from self-driving tech. They'd end up spinning off an Uber-like self-driving ride service, and then they can track you and serve ads to you wherever you go. The data mining potential alone is huge.
Don't care to participate? Your steakhouse will show up on Google Maps if the user knows precisely where to zoom in or the exact name of the restaurant. Otherwise, "Hey Google, take me to a great steakhouse" and off we go..
$94 billion in cash burning a hole in their pocket. $20x billion in new cash pouring in annually, expanding by 10%-20% per year. In another two years they'll be net cash richer than Apple is (as unlike Apple they pay no dividend and have almost entirely avoided taking on debt). There aren't very many large companies they can buy with that money, due to perpetually increasing anti-trust concerns. I suppose they could…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The few times other parties have stepped in and spoken up, there's been some less rosy truths in there. What are you referring to?
An excellent example is a 2014 article in Slate: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/10/... Consider that at the time, an engineer told him that the car was dependent on a level of mapping detail that was impractical at a nationwide level, that the car would run a red light if it wasn't on the car's map. The article also cites that the cars would have issues in bright sunlight, particularly deter…