Yeah, absolutely, huge credit to Google if they do put a self-driving car on the customer market. I was just responding to parent's question about the last truly exciting thing that was being tested in the real marketplace, which I felt trivialized existing technology and somewhat implied only Google is working on new automobile technology these days.
Oddly I'd trust Google more with a self-driving car than say Uber or Tesla. Kind of glad they're making progress and expanding. The industry as a whole seems reckless to me tho.
I think with something like this, if it isn't Google then it will be one of the large car manufacturers first.
I just don't see a random company popping out of nowhere and bringing something like this to the market as the costs involved in the production are going to be huge.
Absolutely. Google must realize that its supremacy in search/ads will eventually come to an end, so they're making a really smart, long-term investment here.
Self-driving cars would be awesomely useful, and Google has exactly the right resources (top AI engineers) to make this happen.
One day, we'll all likely have cars with AI powered by Google.
That's what I've been wondering. I know VW, Daimler AG, Toyota, Volvo, BMW, and others have making pretty good strides in self driving tech, but it seems most American car companies are pretty far behind already. I wonder if Google intends to license the tech out to the companies who can't or won't do it themselves, or if they decide to pull a Motorola and enter the manufacturing market at some point in the future.
In the article there is this idea that Google will get auto makers to actually make cars that use Google technology - a bit like the 'Android' model in a way, co-opt everyone except 'Apple' and 'Microsoft'.
This contrasts with the Elon Musk attitude where the auto makers can be consigned to the dustbin of history - there isn't going to be some hideous GM/Chrysler/Ford effort 'powered by Tesla technologies' because at heart Elon Musk really does not want to do business with them.
As I understand it there are many companies working on the self driving car with all of Google's rivals going for an iterative approach, e.g. a car that can stay in lane, park, not go over the speed limit or hit the car in front. However, this is not 'driving', i.e. in a city with lots of pedestrians around. Only Google are going for the everything always automated being the product, the rivals are going for just the 'easy' bits with a view to adding the features later. The problem with this later approach is that people expect the car to do all of the driving, they get their phones and laptops out, hence, when they have to take the wheel they are not exactly prepared for it. So the Google approach is better.
If I was CEO of Hyundai (or any other manufacturer) I would just wait for Google to launch 'Android for cars' and go with that rather than do the Volvo/BMW/Mercedes iterative approach.
I agree with you to a point, but Google's target is much more moon-shot. Door-to-door complete self-driving in all circumstances, not just highway under careful conditions.
And by all indications they are succeeding - the roadblock is regulations and turning it into a consumer product. The tech is there.
Is the premise here that Google could already have market ready self-driving car tech that they could be selling but they're going slower to make people comfortable? This is the first time I've heard such an argument. It's very interesting if true. Are there any data points to back that up?
Google is not the only player in the self-driving car market (or soon to be market), though.
There's Tesla, GM (with the Cruise acquisition)...heck even @geohot's startup comma.ai is also tackling the same challenges.
I highly doubt that will be enough to replace the market leader position they have with ads. And believe me, ads are going to die out quicker than a coked out wannabe actor in LA.
Well the examples you are citing are PR reports or some assisted driving technologies. While some car companies might be working hard on their projects, as of right now, only Google has shown a working prototype performing on street traffic, and their technology is simply not an incremental step from anything else out there, as he claimed. That was the point I was trying to refute, I was not saying that nobody else is working on it but Google.
Your comment is irrelevant. My point is that Google is "trying to foray into other ventures" (my exact words). I never claimed self-driving cars are available to consumers right now.
So google's falling behind in self-driving car development because other companies have scaled back their expectations and are now focusing on vehicles that can't actually drive themselves?
We seriously need new words to seperate "self-driving car" from "vehicle with driving assist systems". Something the marketers can't fuck up by diluting it. I suggest "Fully autonomous vehicle".
This is like saying ITER has been overtaken in fusion power development because Dubai just installed a large solar collector plant that generates quite a lot of power. It's a ridiculous comparison and shifting of the goalposts.
I don't see what Google's role is going to be, aside from pushing forward legislation for unknown reasons. The auto manufacturers don't need them for the technology and research... they've all had access to that for just as long. We'd have self-driving cars today if the public (and regulators) were ready for it.
But they're not and aren't going to be overnight; what makes more sense is to gradually introduce the features a little at a time so that the move to complete autonomy is a small step instead of a leap. First, automatic parking. Then, collision detection warnings. Next, lane assist that steers you back into the lane when you drift. In the next few years, you'll start seeing "smart cruise control" that will drive for you on well-marked roads in mapped areas.
reply