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

Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 201 posts

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

#81

Post by millstone »

derefr wrote: post #68
krschultz wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It doesn't need a cool factor" That was the death knell of Google Glass (at least in its current incarnation). Seems that Google hasn't learned much.

AFAIK, Google Glass was explicitly a prototype, meant to visually advertise itself as a prototype to anyone who looked at it—in the same way that, say, a breadboard or a caseless Arduino visually advertises itself as a prototype. Seeing someone wearing Google Glasses was meant to put you in mind that they were testing something and you could help them test it, not that they were using a piece of everyday consumer ele…

Google has tried hard to make Google Glass fashionable in its current incarnation. That's why they are inserting it into New York Fashion Week, getting designer frames, etc.

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

#82

Post by aetherson »

millstone wrote: post #52
jasonwilk wrote: post #16

The way Google seems to be approaching self-driving cars is the right one in my opinion. Self-driving cars will be on-demand, booked through something like Uber and will not be owned by the end-user. I feel that the other car companies working on self-driving car technology for consumers are wasting their time. The main reason I enjoy owning a nice car is that I like driving it. If I wasn't in control of driving my c…

My family doesn't own our cars because we like driving them. We own them for convenience! The prospect of ordering a car, waiting for it to arrive, futzing with car seats, transferring car toys, dealing with scarcity and surge pricing, etc. for every trip is very unappealing. And renting is usually more expensive than owning anyways! In the near term, I'm looking forwards to hybrid assistive technologies. We took a v…

I think that virtually nobody who is certain that self-driving cars will be short-term rentals (ie, the Uber model) has children. It's a HUGE blind spot that the of course mostly very young, mostly childless tech commentariat has.

The value of car ownership as a way to have large amounts of your property available at whatever location you are presently at without you constantly engaging in a bunch of loading and unloading work is not to be underestimated.

(There are plenty of other ways that long-term rental or ownership of driverless cars makes sense, too. How prevalent a ride-for-hire model will be is going to depend on lots of details about the technology; it's not a given.)

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

#83

Post by lambda »

nichodges wrote: post #11

My initial reaction was dismay that Google seemingly didn't consult any decent auto designers on this. But then I wonder if that's actually fine. My kids will likely be baffled by the idea that we attached so much of our own identity to our cars. The financial investment in cars to make a statement about ourselves (over and above getting us from A to B) is immensely irrational. With self driving cars ownership will l…

I don't want to own a self-driving car. I want the self-driving equivalent of a taxi or Uber. Press a button on my phone, the closest one shows up, drives me where I want to go, and then hangs out nearby for the next person or goes back to the closest designated parking location.

These self-driving cars will be cheaper than even UberX/Lyft/whatever, as there is no driver to have to pay. They can be smaller than a cab, taking up much less parking room (they can park too close for their doors to open, and they don't need to including seating for a driver), which can actually be a fairly significant cost in the city, where convenient parking spaces can sell for as much as a house does elsewhere.

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

#84

Post by drcode »

amckenna wrote: post #25

A lot of people are bashing the car's appearance, but I think people forget that putting the first driverless cars on the road is as much a PR challenge as it is a technological challenge. Truly autonomous driverless cars is a huge shift in the way we have operated for almost 100 years. There will be a lot of caution and resistance from political groups, concerned citizens, entrenched interests, etc. The car that the…

> the first car on the roads will just be making in town trips and will be limited to 25mph

I think the rest of us are going to start loathing these timidly-driving things: "Oh f%#k! I'm stuck behind a self-driving car again, now I'll be late for my meeting."

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

#86

Post by cuu508 »

jmeekr wrote: post #35
nichodges wrote: post #11

My initial reaction was dismay that Google seemingly didn't consult any decent auto designers on this. But then I wonder if that's actually fine. My kids will likely be baffled by the idea that we attached so much of our own identity to our cars. The financial investment in cars to make a statement about ourselves (over and above getting us from A to B) is immensely irrational. With self driving cars ownership will l…

Good points but some people just enjoy the act of driving and take a lot of pride in customizing their cars to match their tastes. A fundamentally human trait that will of course adjust to changing technology, but won't go away as staunchly as you think.

so we'll use our "driver's cars" on scenic roads and racetracks. I don't think many people enjoy driving through heavy city traffic.

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

#88

Post by ghaff »

millstone wrote: post #52
jasonwilk wrote: post #16

The way Google seems to be approaching self-driving cars is the right one in my opinion. Self-driving cars will be on-demand, booked through something like Uber and will not be owned by the end-user. I feel that the other car companies working on self-driving car technology for consumers are wasting their time. The main reason I enjoy owning a nice car is that I like driving it. If I wasn't in control of driving my c…

My family doesn't own our cars because we like driving them. We own them for convenience! The prospect of ordering a car, waiting for it to arrive, futzing with car seats, transferring car toys, dealing with scarcity and surge pricing, etc. for every trip is very unappealing. And renting is usually more expensive than owning anyways! In the near term, I'm looking forwards to hybrid assistive technologies. We took a v…

From a technology perspective as well, autonomous operations on designated sections of highways seems much more practical and nearer-term than visions of robo-Uber. I suspect a lot of the enthusiasm comes from urbanites who only marginally need a car today. And the capability gap between today's assistive technologies or even truly autonomous highway operations and being able to just virtually hail a robotic cab in a city seems as if it's a lot bigger than a lot of people appreciate. I suspect this has been the source of much of the tension between the auto makers and Google. I'm all for having a vision of what's ultimately probably possible but there would seem to be pretty compelling interim steps that seem much more achievable in interesting time horizons. They're probably not very interesting is you just drive around cities or congested suburbia but they look pretty appealing if you do any amount of longer distance driving.

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

#89

Post by ghaff »

zanny wrote: post #78
manticore_alpha wrote: post #2

Unfortunately, these things just don't have a cool factor. Here's to hoping Tesla moves forward much more quickly (and regular car manufacturers as well.) It's something Google probably just doesn't "get" - but a lot of people's identities are tied to their cars. It's why we have colors, shapes, brands, options. This car may be "perfect" algorithmically, but it doesn't mean it stirs the soul.

Autos will never be sold to consumers. At least the general public. Or at least average people will never buy one. It is a tremendous, insane, unacceptable waste to have autos parked all day. The only way these things make sense is through subscription services where you can summon a car from a fleet whenever you want, so that you can maximize utilization.

However, the reason for that is that the majority of people keep roughly the same hours. And the current system at least has the advantage that cars are generally near their owners rather than driving additional miles to get to centralized locations. Given various assumptions, utilization could certainly be increased--though we already have the ZipCar and taxi options--but I'm unconvinced that the pay-per-use economics are going to be as compelling as you think.

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

#90

Post by defen »

wahsd wrote: post #57
nichodges wrote: post #11

My initial reaction was dismay that Google seemingly didn't consult any decent auto designers on this. But then I wonder if that's actually fine. My kids will likely be baffled by the idea that we attached so much of our own identity to our cars. The financial investment in cars to make a statement about ourselves (over and above getting us from A to B) is immensely irrational. With self driving cars ownership will l…

Forget your kids... I'm baffled. I'm baffled that people are willing to squander so much money on cars, especially people who have relatively little of it. If you think about it I'm sure you pay tens of thousands of dollars on a thing that moves you around but ultimately, sits around way more than not. I am somewhat anxious to see how this plays out financially and economically otherwise. Will these cars cost the sam…

> Forget your kids... I'm baffled. I'm baffled that people are willing to squander so much money on cars, especially people who have relatively little of it. If you think about it I'm sure you pay tens of thousands of dollars on a thing that moves you around but ultimately, sits around way more than not.

It's a status symbol. If you don't understand them or why cars function as such...you probably don't understand people :)

Post reply on HN