The Google X moonshot factory is struggling to get products out the door

This is true but mostly irrelevant, because mapping data is the least valuable self-driving data. Google focuses on it because Google has it already. Google Maps is one of the things Google has that few else have, so it's obvious for them to build their technology on it... nobody else can copy them.

But if you have the most cars collecting the freshest data, you still have to bear in mind, the car collecting that data, is currently relying on the old data. Which means your cars can't trust the map data. And the reality is, with how much things in the real world change, your map data will never be trustworthy. You can have it, but you can't rely on it.

Which is a better self-driving car? The car that can look at a cloud-based 3D map of every object in the entire town, assuming it's current, and decide on a route? Or the car that can ping Google Maps, get told "turn left on Main, right on Washington" then entirely from it's live surroundings, decide how to drive?

Sure, they could definitely do similarly to what Uber just announced, in a small scope area like the Bay Area suburbs. But that's not likely to be a high margin product, certainly not something Google would want to hang onto long term. It's far smarter to be selling software licenses or cloud access to millions of units built by other car manufacturers and operated by individuals or other companies at scale, that's where the money is.

But you also have to realize that you'll also highlight the weaknesses of the technology. People may not be able to easily specify to the car where they'd like to disembark. What if people want to be taken just outside the service area? Uber is including a human with their self-driving project for now, which doesn't save them (or you) any money.

Google learned from Glass that a small number of users and a lot of public attention and hype about a product can quickly eviscerate it. The technology was good, but people without hands-on experience misunderstood it, and a couple small incidents became national news. A small rollout can just as easily kill your project as kick it off.

The requirement of what you need to compare with that data though, is important. Tesla's cars are training off less detailed data, yes. But that also means they're designed to work with less data available. Google's cars require $150,000 worth of sensor hardware. Will that price go down, sure? But Tesla's will be even cheaper.

Meh.

If you're familiar with the internals of Google (or have ever worked there), then you wouldn't even be slightly surprised by the content of this article or the ever present stream of product failures from Google. In fact, if you're aware, then you know things are likely to remain this way until something is done about all the BS present internally.

You see the "difficult to work-- FOR" and almost (or all out) sociopathic leaders being outed to some extent in the last year or so: commonplace. That is, Google likes to position itself as being above such stupidity, but if you listen to what they say more carefully, you see this is their default/go-to strategy. That is, they explicitly seek out such personalities (similar to many VCs), as they believe (based on "data") that it's what's more likely to lead to success.

Also, while it would be easy to believe Google is all about the "moon shots" they like touting/hyping (especially given how much money they are dumping in that direction), if you look at who they are putting in key positions, and how everything is setup, you immediately realize that (regardless of what they are doing) it will all likely go nowhere.

Something is very strange about that place. It's like they have no brain. It's like they are just outright stupid. Which I suppose is hard to say (and have believed), especially after years of hype (and supporting anecdotes) about its exceptionally talented pool of employees.

Essentially, it often seems like a sea of INTJs who like to parade around as though they know what to do with data (and are above bias and feeding into their own BS, because they are "data-driven"), but that at the end of the day are just going based on whim/gut, one which is more self-centered and out of touch than "in tune with" and reflective of the world at large (or where it's going).

I suppose if you spin around in your own shht enough, and surround yourself with more of-- yourself-- then eventually, you'll fall into line believing your own BS and that you must be right.

I remember when I was at Google for a short time in 2010. The place was a source of endless annoyance and irritation. The field was wide open, and it was all there for the taking, but then they just consistently and continually kept making the dumbest decisions. And they'd defend those decisions as though they were God almighty and immune to being wrong. It was the greatest consistent stream of stupidity I had ever seen. And by the looks of it, nothing has really changed. It's just been shht, then more shht, then more BS trying to explain away the shht, as though shht isn't what it is.

It's not that they "fail often due to releasing more and sooner" or "see something beyond the field of view of many;" it's that they just plain failed and it was most likely due to stupidity/credentials (you heard what I said) being heard over repeated statements of what made more sense (or of what would be more likely to go somewhere). Also, that failure that looks like a half-assed piece of crap likely was likely 2 years (or more) in the making, rather than the 6-8 weeks it seems went into it.

It's just shht every time, and as soon as you step into realizing it, you'll see that it's always just more shht from them. Their only successes (even in their "main" business) have come from the competition "falling off" (F'ing themselves over), rather than from them releasing things that are worthwhile or better.

The place was extremely infuriating to me, and I couldn't wait to leave. I was in silent shock the majority of the time I was there, and it seems that even though 6+ years have gone by, not much has changed!

I'll say it outright and in plain English: the "almighty" Google-- the almighty enterprise of innovation-- the almighty force for pushing the web/world forward-- is completely full of shht! They couldn't put out an innovative (or even just quality) product to save their lives! If anything surfaces from them that's not more garbage, then it was likely from an acquisition. And even then, it seems they are F'ing even those avenues up more frequently as time goes by.

Google Photos: acquisition!

Google DeepMind: acquisition!

Google ATAP: acquisition!

Etc.

They've got nothing.

Yes you're right. How confusing!