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

Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 200 posts

Re: Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

#161

Post by scarface74 »

justicezyx wrote: post #159
scarface74 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The underlying technology for AWS was developed internally and it was not customer facing at first. Will this myth ever die? https://www.networkworld.com/article/2891297/the-myth-about-...

I think the internal tech is definitely part of original AWS, but of course, quickly it grows beyond that, and the majority of aws has no relevance with other Amazon tech. But the statement is definitely right at the beginning. Plus, AWS no longer use such narrative anyway.

No it never was. AWS was always built from the ground up to be an external service. A number of publicly available interviews say the same thing.

https://www.se-radio.net/2014/12/episode-216-adrian-cockcrof...

Edit: that’s not the right podcast. This was before he went to AWS. I can’t for the life of me find the interview.

Re: Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

#162

Post by strgcmc »

7952 wrote: post #95
redredrobot wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Amazon doesn’t invest in greenfield projects that are not customer facing I don't think this is very true, they are just very good at turning around and selling the internal tech. The underlying technology for AWS was developed internally and it was not customer facing at first. Similarly if you look at their internal data platforms, they have invested heavily even though it's not customer facing (yet, because even…

Wasn't there an edict that amazon internal services have to be designed from the ground up to be externalizable. So even internal technology is designed with being customer facing in mind.

There is no mandate that I'm aware of (not that I know everything about everything), but it's definitely the case that projects with "externalization potential" (making up a phrase out of thin air) will generally be more likely to get funded and prioritized (of course, why wouldn't they be preferred?).

So, even without a mandate, the market forces at play in terms of proposing roadmap projects and choosing what to invest in, will naturally tend to favor those solutions with can pull double-duty (solve an immediate problem/pain-point that Amazon already has, and with a clear path/potential to be converted into or evolve into an external sell-able service too).

Re: Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

#163

Post by xxpor »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #121
7952 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't there an edict that amazon internal services have to be designed from the ground up to be externalizable. So even internal technology is designed with being customer facing in mind.

Does than mandate predate the creation of AWS?

According to the Yegge rant, it was some time around 2001/2002/2003, so yes.

https://gist.github.com/chitchcock/1281611

Re: Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

#164

Post by DavidFerris »

csours wrote: post #126
goshx wrote: post #83

> Zoox has been by far the most ambitious self-driving tech company as it's been working on developing a fully integrated vehicle, not just the core autonomous technology. > Zoox planned from the beginning to develop the technology, build a car and operate a robotaxi service. Not even Waymo is trying to bite off that much (although Cruise is). Is Tesla intentionally omitted or am I missing something?

Disclaimer up front: I work for GM, this is solely my opinion and it is my opinion alone. I think the tech press doesn't believe that Tesla is building a self-driving product. I don't know if camera based computer vision by itself will ever be enough for full self driving. I think we can demonstrate that it is not enough at this time, and we can also demonstrate that human vision also fails at times; human vision has…

"I don't know if camera based computer vision by itself will ever be enough for full self driving."

Rebuttal: If you had a 3D camera sitting in the driver's seat of a car and hooked up the control to a remote controller, I believe that car could be drive-able. A sufficiently advanced perception/control system could theoretically use the same 3D camera feed and replace the driver. Not saying it's easy, just that all the necessary info to drive a car safely can be contained in camera feeds.

Re: Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

#165

Post by xxpor »

smilekzs wrote: post #139
sailfast wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SOME truck drivers (the ones that keep their jobs) will get a lifestyle "increase" because it will be local, but demand will drop substantially. Even so, these "lifestyle increase" jobs would only exist until autonomous driving gets better. Even if that's two decades it's not something you'd want to rely on as an occupation. Not saying it's the wrong way to go - it absolutely is the right way to move logistics forwar…

A truck driver's job is more than, uh, driving the truck. Inspection of the cargo and the conditions of the truck are things unlikely to be automated any time soon even if feasible (there will be regulation resistance at the very least). Yard maneuvers too, or you would have seen fully automated airport ground traffic management by now. The job would pay less, not sure by how much, but my take is that the job will no…

I think that's what OP was basically saying though. All of the 'local' jobs (driving in a yard, dropping off trailers at customer warehouses, inspecting cargo, etc) will stick around. The bulk 'driving across the country' jobs might start to go away. So I'm imagining a truck driver, who lives in NJ, will still pick up a container at the Port of Elizabeth, do their inspection, load the container on the truck, and drive it out of the port. They'll get as far as the entrance to the NJ Turnpike, and then set the truck up for autonomous driving all the way to Nebraska on I-80. The truck drives to Nebraska, where it's headed to a warehouse. At the exit from the highway, a new driver will be waiting to hop in. He'll then drive it the rest of the way.

In between, gas stations will have full service again for diesel. There will be some way to automatically charge the truck for fuel.

Re: Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

#166

Post by numpad0 »

hevelvarik wrote: post #107
numpad0 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zoom is Level 4, any experimental SDCs is Level 4 and all production SDC technology is Level 2. Few manufacturers thought L3 is simple enough to at least try, but all were abandoned for above reasons. By definitions, Level 2: driver always pays attention Level 3: car pays attention, may request driver Level 4: car do not require driver This seems simple enough, but Level 3 requires car to be able to drive entirely by…

Thanks for defining. I’m missing something: what is the purpose of level 3. Isn’t level 4 all you could ask for?

Automotive industry wanted a gradual transition from manually driven cars to fully robotic cars. That’s fine, but they didn’t ask for inputs from software engineers about how to do it.

So they worded that that you may have either:

1) no wheels, or

2) wheels that may shear off, or

3) wheels that may shear off but continue to support weight for a while, or

4) wheels that don’t shear off under normal conditions, or

5) wheels that don’t shear off under any circumstances.

Simple enough right?

Re: Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

#167

Post by wildfire »

jkingsbery wrote: post #158
whoisjuan wrote: post #6

Zoox raised almost a billion so terrible exit for the investors, who basically just parked their money for several years. Zoox likely ran out of money and nobody wants to keep dumping money in this space given the anemic progress in the last couple of years. But here is an interesting take. Amazon is an formidable acquirer and probably the only big-tech that knows how to squeeze from their M&A activity. They probably…

As someone who works for Amazon, I can tell you there is plenty of impressive technology built within Amazon that is only used internally to Amazon.

I doubt it, otherwise you would name it.

Re: Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

#169

Post by Tempest1981 »

scarface74 wrote: post #114
redredrobot wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Amazon doesn’t invest in greenfield projects that are not customer facing I don't think this is very true, they are just very good at turning around and selling the internal tech. The underlying technology for AWS was developed internally and it was not customer facing at first. Similarly if you look at their internal data platforms, they have invested heavily even though it's not customer facing (yet, because even…

The underlying technology for AWS was developed internally and it was not customer facing at first. Will this myth ever die? https://www.networkworld.com/article/2891297/the-myth-about-...

Did Amazon internally dog-food it before it went public? Maybe that's the confusion.

Re: Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

#170

Post by mynameisvlad »

csours wrote: post #127
hevelvarik wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for defining. I’m missing something: what is the purpose of level 3. Isn’t level 4 all you could ask for?

If you're a consumer, you probably don't want level 3. If you're a company selling self driving cars, you probably don't want level 3. If you're a research organization developing self driving cars, you will find yourself stuck at level 3, because level 4 is really really hard. Going from level 3 to level 4 means getting rid of any problem that would keep you at level 3. Disclaimer: I work for GM, not on SDC, this is…

As someone who owns a Tesla, I think a lot of people want level 3 even if they don't realize it. Obviously if level 4 was available, people would go for it, but perfect is the enemy of good, and even with Tesla's L2 technology, it makes driving significantly easier. Continuously being ready to take over control vs controlling is a huge leap already.
Post reply on HN