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.

16 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 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'
    2. 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.

  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.

  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 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.
    3. 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'
  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 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.
    3. Re:Detroit calls Google arrogant? by wiggles · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      Typical Euro-socialist garbage. :)

  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?

  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.