Slashdot Mirror


Google, Detroit Split On Autonomous Cars

An anonymous reader writes in with this story explaining the contentious history between Google and Detroit automakers over the future of self-driving cars. In 2012, a small team of Google Inc engineers and business staffers met with several of the world's largest car makers, to discuss partnerships to build self-driving cars. In one meeting, both sides were enthusiastic about the futuristic technology, yet it soon became clear that they would not be working together. The Internet search company and the automaker disagreed on almost every point, from car capabilities and time needed to get it to market to extent of collaboration. It was as if the two were "talking a different language," recalls one person who was present. As Google expands beyond Web search and seeks a foothold in the automotive market, the company's eagerness has begun to reek of arrogance to some in Detroit, who see danger as well as promise in Silicon Valley.

36 of 236 comments (clear)

  1. detroit vs SV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Really? Perhaps the folks from Detroit would perhaps learn something if they didn't act like they knew *EVERYTHING* about making cars. Have you seen the infotainment systems Detroit has stuck in their cars? Seriously? You guys should be listening to Google, Tesla, etc.

    1. Re:detroit vs SV? by alen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      those ugly systems are easy to learn and use while driving so you can keep your eyes on the road
      they aren't there to watch the game or a movie or text while barreling down the highway at 70mph

    2. Re:detroit vs SV? by Iniamyen · · Score: 2

      Do you specifically mean the American marques that have crappy infotainment systems? I've owned both 2007 Toyota and 2011 Subaru infotainment/navigation systems, and as far as the software/UI goes, they were perfectly useable and functional.

    3. Re:detroit vs SV? by NotDrWho · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe Detroit was a little reluctant to put themselves in a position of being wholly dependent on Google for such a critical system, or allowing Google to collect all that location data on all their customers completely unchecked. I can't blame them.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    4. Re:detroit vs SV? by TWX · · Score: 2

      Then perhaps they should make a concerted effort to get such systems up and working themselves, before they're forced through future government regulation to take someone else's system that they don't care for and use it because they lack one.

      Automakers don't do anything unless they are forced to. This is the big difference between them and tech companies; automakers change only when either their products don't sell, or when the law requires changes. We wouldn't have new fuel economy standards, strong emissions standards, and strong safety standards if the automakers weren't compelled to change through outside pressure.

      And I agree, automotive interfaces SUCK. They should NEVER require sight to use them, with the exception of the backup camera, and possibly with the view of the map in certain circumstances. The interface should be entirely tactile and easy to learn or intuitive to use. Taking one's eyes off the road to do a basic thing like turning down the volume on the stereo is ridiculous.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:detroit vs SV? by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Last I heard, Areal Atoms are built in Virginia. But I think the bastards took away their VINs. So you can't license the new ones for street use.

      They don't sell quite as many cars as Tesla, but they make up for by selling much better cars.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:detroit vs SV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The amazingly widespread failure in automotive UI design, one that I've never understood, (some cars don't suffer from it, so it's clearly not a fundamentally intractable problem) is the tendency to force the user to putz around with 'intensity of heat/cold coming out of the vents' rather than just providing a thermostat.

      I don't want my car to be "Turn the little dial with waves on the left, strips of bacon on the right, all the way toward the bacon, then, once you start to feel heat coming out, turn the dial all the way from empty-outline-of-stylized-fan-blades to fully-shaded-stylized-fan-blades, until it starts to get too hot, then twist the fan dial down to empty outlines again and the bacon dial to midway between waves and bacon..." I want it to be the comfortable temperature of my choosing. Let hot, cold, and hysteresis be a machine's problem...

    7. Re:detroit vs SV? by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fact: Detroit knows nothing at all about cars. They cant design them they cant build them. It's a dead town with a dying industry that does not realize that the dirt is being poured in the hole on top of them.

      They cant make anything decent anymore, and even the highest performance car made, the Corvette, is an utter joke to the rest of the world. It's built cheaply and does not impress.

      Why has this happened? Because the big 3 refuse to fire all of their management and start over with people that have real skills and engineering background and experience.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:detroit vs SV? by Zenin · · Score: 2

      There are plenty of cars now with thermostats. And they suck big, fat donkey balls.

      Give me old fashioned fan speed and air temp knobs any day.

      The issue is that the environment instead a car just isn't stable enough for a simple thermostat to be effective. The small size and large number of strong temperature influencing features (windows, hot seats, your body, external air every time a door or window opens) mean that maintaining a single temperature throughout is incredibly impractical. To do so would require a massive amount of over-engineering (far more insulation than a car typically receives and a massively larger heating/cooling system to counter the still large external temperature influences).

      And then why is 76 degrees or whatever "comfortable"? If I'm getting into a car after being under a bright sun and 100 degree heat, nothing short of 50 degree air blowing powerfully on me is going to be comfortable. Yet, that won't be the case three minutes later where I'll want it to ease up. That is...unless I'm doing a bunch of errands and so I'm frequently going back out into that 100 degree heat.

      Car environment systems have completely different problems to deal with and needs to satisfy than building environment systems.

      --
      My /. uid is better then your /. uid
    9. Re:detroit vs SV? by gtall · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That reluctance to change probably has to do with if you intend to sell several million of something, and you produce several million of that something, you'd better be damn sure you will sell several million of said something. Try taking those gambles with the toy systems that Google produces.

    10. Re:detroit vs SV? by Nite_Hawk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have to disagree. We bought a 2012 volt and other than the terrible central console interface absolutely love it. Of all of the cars we've owned over the years (A mix of domestic and imports) it's by far the best. I imagine if we owned a tesla model S we would love that even more, but our Volt cost us roughly what a nicely appointed Camry or similar vehicle would have cost. Chevy did a really good job.

    11. Re:detroit vs SV? by profplump · · Score: 2

      First, the problems you describe exist in build HVAC systems as well. When you enter air conditioning from someplace hot it would often be nice to have a couple of minutes of cold air blasted at you. And there are lots of building spaces with very high throughput both in terms of people and airflow, but we don't just throw our hands up and say "thermostats can never work here".

      Second, it sounds like you're asking for a smarter thermostat than the 20s technology in many homes. That's a perfectly reasonable request, but not nearly as exotic as you make it out to be. Even sub-$50 home thermostats do things like predictive pre-heating/pre-cooling to meet scheduled setpoints, control of multi-stage or multi-element systems (i.e. support for a single air handler with multiple heating or cooling elements, or a multi-speed air handler), and have the ability to override automated regulation with manual inputs when desired. It's all well within the realm of possibility for car, and has been for years, it's just poorly done which was the original complaint.

    12. Re:detroit vs SV? by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Losses due to collisions will be paid for by insurance companies just like now, the money coming from premiums paid ultimately be the car owners. Whether car owners pay directly to the insurance companies, or indirectly via higher prices for the cars is just a detail to be legislated around.

      That sounds worse than it is, given that autonomous vehicles good enough to be approved will have less collisions than ordinary cars.

  2. Ego by Cornwallis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The entire Detroit car scene has never been about transportation. It is a sales vehicle (sorry) for egos. I think Google, much as I dislike them, are looking at cars as transportation. Too mundane for the Detroit crowd... but much more practical.

    1. Re:Ego by TonyJohn · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure what Google's business plan really is. Is it to make cars, or at least make money by supplying software for cars? Most of their other software they give away for free. Or do they want to free us up from driving so that we can make use of online services (and therefore adverts) instead? Or do they want all the data about where we go and when to be able to connect into the rest of our online lives and help advertise to us better? J

      --
      Owl tried to think of something wise to say, but couldn't.
  3. Google should talk with Tesla by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As Google expands beyond Web search and seeks a foothold in the automotive market, the company's eagerness has begun to reek of arrogance to some in Detroit, who see danger as well as promise in Silicon Valley.

    Danger to their present business models, you mean.

    Personally, I think that Tesla would be an excellent company to talk with. Elon Musk speaks their language.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Google should talk with Tesla by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sure the buggy whip manufacturers thought Henry Ford was arrogant, too.

    2. Re:Google should talk with Tesla by SenatorPerry · · Score: 2

      As Google expands beyond Web search and seeks a foothold in the automotive market, the company's eagerness has begun to reek of arrogance to some in Detroit, who see danger as well as promise in Silicon Valley.

      Danger to their present business models, you mean.

      Personally, I think that Tesla would be an excellent company to talk with. Elon Musk speaks their language.

      I think the problem is that Google missed their opportunity to buy GM outright during the crash. My impression is that the only way to drag GM to the future is through eliminating the people that would say "Yahoo does well enough, why do we need a new search engine?". The second question to ask is whether the people that worked for GM for 25 years would be willing to work for Google-GM. My guess is that the answer is yes...

    3. Re:Google should talk with Tesla by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      It is not arrogance if you can do it. Ford was arrogant in the same way that he was successful, he had every right to be. Buggy Whip Makers were arrogant, the people looking for government protections for their failing industries are arrogant. They think they have a RIGHT to entrenched markets when new technology appears.

      But rather than learning from history, we are doomed to repeat it.

      My guess, Tesla will work with Google, as will companies like Elio. And taxi drivers will be pissed and demand protection ....

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:Google should talk with Tesla by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I expect it is an issue of conflicting arrogance from Google and Detroit.
      Tech companies do things fast, if it doesn't work, well it was worth a shot now for the next project.
      Car companies need to make sure the car lasts for years, a ton a regulations are on them to make sure the car runs and is safe. Every glitch can mean you have to go to a congressional hearing.
      Recalls cost a lot of money and it isn't just a software patch. In general things in Detroit are much harder then Google probably expects.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:Google should talk with Tesla by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Informative

      GMs pension liabilities are huge. The company as currently constructed is, more or less, a non-profit structured to pay pensions.

      If you had Google type capital and wanted to enter the car market you would be insane to buy GM. Start from scratch, leave the deadwood behind. Honda B-engine VTEC should be out of patent protection. Just copy it (with racy parts) and bolt it up mid engine, modern trans and carbon fiber body. Woot. You won't be the first to found a company on a straight copy of Honda engine (Hyundai), but you could be the first to do it right.

      Quick Google: GM has about 114 billion in unfunded pension liabilities (104 billion white collar, 10 billion union which is relatively well funded). http://online.wsj.com/news/art...

      GM has a market cap of 58.73 billion. A number which no-doubt reflects the future expenses (not so much, it reflects recent performance, velocity, advertising to investors etc).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:Google should talk with Tesla by afidel · · Score: 2

      You seem to be ignoring the fact that Google has already done well over 1m miles of real world testing with their system without any problems caused by their recognition.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    7. Re:Google should talk with Tesla by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

      Vancouver's train for public transport is fully automated.

  4. Detroit calls Google arrogant? by disposable60 · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is the Detroit that didn't take Japanese brands seriously until it almost killed them.
    The Detroit that needed 30+ years to bring a small, efficient, powerful engine to the US.because they knew best what American wanted (big V8s for drag racing).
    The Detroit that hides the fact that Mitsubishi (Chrysler), Toyota (GM) and Mazda (Ford) built their small cars for 20-some years.
    But Google is arrogant.
    Right.

    --
    You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
    1. Re:Detroit calls Google arrogant? by Shatrat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Is this a republicans vs democrats thread in disguise? Just because one side of the discussion is arrogant doesn't mean the other is not. Google has a long history of failed projects because they're not afraid to over promise and blindly charge into a project. I think the ignition recall is a good illustration that the automotive industry doesn't have that luxury. My Google TV appliance, which is now an abandoned project, isn't going to kill me. An abandoned self driving car project might, even if it's not my car.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:Detroit calls Google arrogant? by Drethon · · Score: 2

      Anything that costs the share holders their daily profit is highly "arrogant".

    3. Re:Detroit calls Google arrogant? by swillden · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is the Detroit that didn't take Japanese brands seriously until it almost killed them.
      The Detroit that needed 30+ years to bring a small, efficient, powerful engine to the US.because they knew best what American wanted (big V8s for drag racing).
      The Detroit that hides the fact that Mitsubishi (Chrysler), Toyota (GM) and Mazda (Ford) built their small cars for 20-some years.
      But Google is arrogant.
      Right.

      Actually, Google is arrogant. The company culture deliberately and intentionally breeds a brand of arrogance, always encouraging its people to look for revolutionary rather than incremental changes, to bring 10X or 100X improvements, and works to convince them that they can succeed. Everyone is fully cognizant of the fact that if you swing for the fences you'll miss most of the time, but they figure that's okay because the successes will make up for it. And, of course, the Google-X crew is the elite of Google, people who have previously had fantastic success, built products used on a daily basis by hundreds of millions of people. So have Detroit automakers, of course, but they've built up slowly over the course of a century, while Google is still shy of its 17th birthday.

      For that matter, although we've talked about it enough for the last two or three years to make it seem less insane, there's a good argument that even attempting to solve a problem as hard as a fully automated car requires tremendous arrogance. Except that they actually seem to be succeeding, which I guess changes it from arrogance to confidence.

      So, I'd say it's kind of a given that when the old-breed, "we've been doing this for generations" brand of arrogance meets the upstart "we've literally changed the world in a little over a decade" brand of arrogance, sparks are going to fly. And the fact that the upstarts have working technology to do what the old breed still isn't sure is possible isn't going to help one bit.

      From a cultural perspective, Tesla seems like a much easier fit. That said, if Google and Detroit can find a way to work together, the disparity of backgrounds and cultures should actually make the results much better. But that's a big, big "if".

      (Disclaimer: I work for Google, but on phones, not cars, and I definitely don't speak for Google.)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:Detroit calls Google arrogant? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Reading the article, I don't think it's a matter of arrogance, it's a matter of differing levels of safety concerns.

      Remember that the CEO of GM just had to appear before congress and have a recall over a small little ignition switches that caused 31 crashes over a decade. They have been on the losing side of lawsuits, and want to be careful.

      Google doesn't really worry about all that......they figure as long as it's safer than a human driving, then they are happy. That's something like 400,000 deaths in a decade. So there's several orders of magnitude difference in what these groups are thinking in terms of safety. That seems to be the main problem.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Detroit calls Google arrogant? by wiggles · · Score: 4, Funny

      > Look outside! Life is beautiful and full of wonder!

      Typical Euro-socialist garbage. :)

    6. Re:Detroit calls Google arrogant? by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      While I think it makes an interesting ethical debate, I find it rather sickening that our legal system would probably come down on the side of having a pile of 40k bodies each year vs just automating things at the risk of a few people ending up dead.

      It is just the trolley problem in another guise, except instead of one person on one track and 10 on the other, it is probably a few on one track and 40k on the other. Heaven help the guy who wants to flip the switch.

  5. Find a different partner? by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe Google should be working with a company like Tesla instead. It seems like Google would need to find a partner that a background in manufacturing cars, but was a little more innovative and forward-thinking than the big guys in Detroit have historically been.

    Along with everything else, my guess is that if this technology really becomes commonplace, it will be disruptive and it will likely result in fewer people actually owning cars. In cases like this, sometimes getting businesses with entrenched interests onboard is not only difficult, but counter productive.

  6. The obvious question: by Kokuyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why don't Google and Tesla cooperate? Both are very innovative companies that have, more or less, similar attitudes, I think.

    Also, wouldn't an all electric car fit the futuristic idea of a self-driving vehicle much better than a gas guzzler?

    1. Re:The obvious question: by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Similar attitudes? I dunno, Tesla seems to be building luxury EVs and google want's to turn your car into a self driving spam box since you can focus your attention on ads during your commute time.

      That's probably going to be fine for mass marketed cheap crap, but probably not if you are trying to sell 80k+ luxury cars.

      The Ford Model T cost $850 in 1909. The average hourly wage in 1909 was 22 cents per hour. That is a luxury price for a car. 5 years later as demand rose and production capacity expanded the price cut in half. The successor to the Model T was the Model A which, almost 20 years later, cost $500. Building luxury cars gets you a brand name, it brings in capital, and it lets you develop and expand production capacity. As your costs go down you can lower prices and expand into more economically priced models.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  7. No different than any other industry by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you go back and listen to executives from the music or film industries talk about when they started to get approached by folks from Apple, Amazon, or others from the digital era, you'll hear similar stories. There was a lot of distrust between the sides, and what was needed was someone who could bridge the gap, speak both their languages, and help each side appreciate the problems of the other. People in many other industries think that technology is magical and that anything is possible, so they won't accept excuses or explanations to the contrary. People in Silicon Valley have a tendency to think that everything else is trivial, and fail to recognize the value in doing things in a different way...kinda like physicists.

    This isn't about arrogance or bad attitudes. This is simply about two companies from different worlds, trying to get on the same page, and it's no surprise that they'd have these sorts of difficulties. They'll eventually start talking to each other, it's just a matter of when and under what conditions.

  8. largely expected, for good reason by nimbius · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Google made a radical change in that it never consulted any automaker during its initial trials with Lexus, Toyoya and Audi vehicles but simply chose to retrofit and augment the existing vehicles with their own technology. It also never sourced an american vehicle in its tests, which may be why among other reasons like competing technologies american automakers didnt take kindly to the event.

    to make this a production system, something people can buy in meatspace, google needs a manufacturing partner with automotive chops and recognition from the federal government. safety systems, traction and handling, transmission and engine control systems are all critical components of the vehicle that would take google another 10-12 years to design if they went and did it on their own (just ask tesla.) the ability to strap light radar,software and a 64 laser vision system to the top of a golf cart or existing car is all they have.

    Test tracks are one thing, but US and foreign auto makers pace their vehicles through some of the most rigorous and grueling testing imaginable. Lexus uses a multi-million dollar driver simulator to engineer vehicles around a person, and GM owns what amounts to an entire test city for their vehicles. for google thats an incredible asset to be granted access to. Having a team of automotive engineers with a century of experience among them to stand by and say, "that might work in a city, but on a rural route you'll kill your passengers" is what i suspect google really wants. Access to proprietary crash data and performance analytics would let google use any auto manufacturer who consented to the partnership as a step ladder to skip all the monstrously difficult work of designing and manufacturing a car, and what i believe most auto manufacturers are concerned about is seeing the lions share of their efforts go unrewarded, not to mention the decades of autonomics work they themselves pioneered being purloined by a tech giant.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:largely expected, for good reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Actual Roads" in one of the tamest environments in the world, weather-wise. Show me their autonomous car driving in a north-east winter storm. Automakers test their cars in these conditions, but Google is not. Until they do, the Google autonomous car is just another Silicon Valley pipe dream.