Slashdot Mirror
The One Mistake Google Keeps Making
HughPickens.com writes Gene Marks writes in Forbes Magazine that Google has brought us innovations that have literally changed our world yet the company continues to make the same mistake over and over. Google's mistake, which it keeps making, is building great products that no one will soon buy. Take Google Glass — a great idea with great technology that demonstrates the future power of the Internet of Things. There's just one problem: no one is buying Google Glass. And now there are driverless cars. After 700,000 miles of open road testing, Google has introduced its "first real build" of its driverless car and it's pretty amazing. But the mistake is the same as with Glass: it's a product without customers. "It's Google assuming that someday someone will actually buy a driverless car," writes Marks. "Not a hobbyist or an eccentric millionaire. But a customer who actually needs or desires a driverless car. Someone who, given the choice of spending $30K on a car that they fully control and can go anywhere they want at any speed they want – or another, likely more expensive buggy that will only travel on certain routes at slower speeds and with less options." Which car would you buy?
For driverless cars to work, to decrease congestion, increase safety, reduce lawsuits and lower our insurance premiums everyone would have to be driving one. For the driverless car system to truly work as desired, there would need to be more centralized control over our entire transportation system, from the roads and highways to the cars we're allowed to use, the speed we're allowed to travel and the places we're allowed to go. This, in the very country where the majority of the population fights against government regulations, red tape and bureaucracy. "But rest assured – Google knows this. They're not looking for short term profits," concludes Marks. "The dreamers behind Google, like the dreamers at Tesla and Virgin Galactic are people who are looking decades ahead."
For driverless cars to work, to decrease congestion, increase safety, reduce lawsuits and lower our insurance premiums everyone would have to be driving one. For the driverless car system to truly work as desired, there would need to be more centralized control over our entire transportation system, from the roads and highways to the cars we're allowed to use, the speed we're allowed to travel and the places we're allowed to go. This, in the very country where the majority of the population fights against government regulations, red tape and bureaucracy. "But rest assured – Google knows this. They're not looking for short term profits," concludes Marks. "The dreamers behind Google, like the dreamers at Tesla and Virgin Galactic are people who are looking decades ahead."
But those early cell phone innovators got a lot of patents.
Google is probably rolling on driverless car and wearable tech patents.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
If Google Cars were available for purchase, I would buy two. Like, right now. Wouldn't even have to think about it.
.. is assuming everybody is profit-motivated and is actually driven by "bringing something to market." Glass and the driverless car are both examples of Google's desire to simply push the threshold of technology to its limits. It's a product of "why not" thinking, and profit be damned.
As far as I'm concerned, Google has a product they're very successful at. Why not spend some of those dividends out on the fringe? That's how progress happens: sometimes you learn something (I'm sure the driverless car initiative has had lots of implications for Maps' imaging) you didn't expect.
>> Someone who, given the choice of spending $30K on a car that they fully control and can go anywhere they want at any speed they want – or another, likely more expensive buggy that will only travel on certain routes at slower speeds and with less options." Which car would you buy?
The Driverless Car - Any Day of the Week.
I commute. I always have. I've been dreaming of my own private "pod" that someone else drove while I read, created, slept or talked for 30+ plus years now. Bring it.
This is changing technology forever. Literally.
From the blurb:
"the company continues to make the same mistake over and over. Google's mistake, ..."
"But rest assured – Google knows this. They're not looking for short term profits"
So, it's a mistake ... but they know exactly what they're doing and they're not trying to make short term profits, which means it's not a mistake?
... five computers.
Hey! That sounds like my daily commute! Thanks Forbes dude, you've sold me!
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
... used, once enough other people have played the guinea pig.
They believe Google exists to make money. No, Google exists to make cool things. The money is a means to an end.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How this guy writes to Forbes? He is either incredibly naive or stupid to think that Google shound have to stop having ideas just because some of them are not paying off instantly as the new generation of investors demands.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Not sure if it is an option for you, but can you take public transit?
Someone does the driving and you can read/sleep, etc.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
C'mon - /. loves Google, and when talking to a bunch of engineers/IT/software types the last thing you want to lead with is "Your awesome idea isn't sale-able"
My top two guesses are: /. click-bait: watch as we all pile on and argue with the summary!
1) This is
2) This was mass-posted to a bunch of sites by a service. Maybe not the exact same article everywhere, but someone wants people to think that Google isn't all that, and has paid someone else to post stuff promoting that view
What does everyone else think?
I thought it was the creeping feature removal and the preference of design over functionality.
Just look at those huge, uninformative, intrusive and ballbusting new android 5 notifications as opposed to the perfect ones we had before.
Mind you, i'm not totally against material design at all but at this stage i find it... "hillbillysh".
What it comes down to is that google has incredibly profitable aspects of their company that allow them to fund the more futurescape products. Certainly there are patents and other fringe economical benefits to these. But in the end, every technological revolution starts small. Lots of prototypes and mistakes untile the groundwork is layed for others to build on. In the past this has been hobbyists and garage tinkerers. Google is creating this same environment with real money and time thrown to help speed up the whole system. In the end, they are trying to certainly guide the future on their terms but also, they are trying to do the rest of us a freaking service by getting the awesome stuff here sooner. Say what you will about google's motives, but I do feel like they are trying to improve the world while they dominate it.
That's what happens when your company generates more cash than they know what to do with. Instead of saving up for the winter, they blow it developing stupid shit nobody wants (Glass, Inbox, Wave, anyone?).
They should follow the management example of AB Inbev, stick to what brings in the dough.
The driverless car, duh. But only after I'm sure it works properly. My phone GPS doesn't work properly half the time.
"Take Google Glass — a great idea with great technology", no, STUPID idea with great technology, but the idea is stupid, handing over your entire day for life to a company that live buy selling your information, NO THANKS
Down the road those patents will be bringing in money from companies wanting to sell to consumers willing to buy products based on the effort put in by Google now.
I'll take a driverless car now, if the law changes and allow me to sleep during the drive.
700,000 miles isn't enough to prove the cars are viable and safe. There needs to be much more thorough testing over several decades before we can even remotely consider them for widespread use on the road.
Why would I buy one when I can hail one via an online service whenever I need one? I don't actually want a car, I want convenient, affordable, private on-demand transportation.
Uber is the customer for driverless cars, not you and I.
Disruptive technology always starts out inferior if measured using traditional metrics in that area.
Why would someone want an oily, messy car that breaks down when you can have a carriage pulled
by a nice, reliable horse? The driverless car will probably first hit early adopters and niches.
One niche I expect to see it first is the RV market. Even if it could only drive interstates, that would
be a major selling point for an RV. Once all the kinks are worked out and it takes off, it's too late
for established players to play catch up at that point and anyone who was waiting on the sidelines is
going to be left in the dust.
So... This guy things that you can keep a company going just copying the other guy forever?
Funny thing is, when HUDs or driveable cars become popular, google will have the market cornered, good products that have been tested, and engineers that are experienced with the tech.
It's not enough to wait and see what the new thing is, then move into it. You have to invent the new thing. Then you ARE it. Everyone else is catching up to YOU.
You won't, and can't, get it right all the time. The alternative is to just play catch up all the time.
Gene Marks is an idiot...
Wrong.
Down the road, government steps in screaming MONOPOLY and breaks Google up into smaller companies, separating its money-making ad business and leaving the rest of the company to starve.
..Would buy a driver-less car. I had to give up my license a few years back because of lack of peripheral vision and would jump at the chance of having a car that would get me on the road legally again. There must be millions of people over the world who don't qualify for a license on physical ability.
Then there's my neighbour's wife who can drive but isn't confident on new routes or busy roads, I imagine she'd welcome a car that could drive itself.
Then they're people who rather not waste their commute time each day doing nothing but staring at a road, but could instead read a book or do some work on a laptop.
Or drinkers..
... central control ...
So, all we have to do is let the federal government decide where we live, work, and go, and everything will be perfect? Right.
First, the author of the article. Only an idiot would think normal consumers would actually buy this car. It's going to be pay-by-ride, almost like a taxi but without a driver.
Second, HughPickens, who thinks people actually like what he has to say - and repeats the idiot author - which makes him just as much of an idiot.
Please, for the love of $DEITY, go away
Google takes the long view.
They do not seem to worry about neato flashy quick-to-market stuff.
They seem to take the long view. It is a good sign. And likely a good long-term investment, and I do not just mean stock price.
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
The other comments have mentioned that this is click-bait, and since it doesn't even mention Google X, it's not worth the electrons it's printed on.
But since some /.ers might have fun reading about Google X, I figured I'd post the Wikipedia article.
*blinking cursor*
Google is doing research and development (R&D) into technologies that don't have established markets yet. Wall Street, however, has a short-term focus on generating profits at the expense of a long-term R&D program. Most corporations no longer have R&D budgets to build out the future.
For the driverless car system to truly work as desired, there would need to be more centralized control over our entire transportation system, from the roads and highways to the cars we're allowed to use, the speed we're allowed to travel and the places we're allowed to go
In what universe is this true? While central control may turn out to optimize driving in a helpful manner there are myriad benefits to driverless cars that have nothing to do with transportation systems as a whole.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
From the summary:
Bullshit. Just having the cameras showing that it was the other guy's fault when he hit you should be enough to reduce your premiums. And reduce lawsuits as the insurance companies learn how much video is available.
Congestion will depend upon the specific situation. But since you won't have to focus on it, will it matter as much? And I would expect that the car would call home for the most expeditious route available to it. Accident 1 mile ahead, get off highway at this exit, take these streets, get back on highway after accident ... automatically.
Think about today's car and all the engineering that goes into keeping a person safe from a 200kg engine sitting about 1/2 a meter away from passengers, assuming direct drive electric motors at the wheels, smaller footprint. I think it may be on par or $$ than todays gas guzzling carbon spewing dinosaurs.
If my commute goes from 30 mins to hour why would I care, I can spend that time replying to email, video conferencing, etc etc, I have now integrated my commute into my time spent on the job, I have actually shortened my workday by including my commute (did you think about that ?)
Driverless vehicles would in a few years become a commodity that you simply schedule as a service, not outright own ....
Headline: Google is making a mistake
Paragraph 1: Google is making a mistake
Paragraph 2: Google is not making a big mistake
Paragraph 3: Google can make mistakes
Paragraph 4: Google isn't making a mistake
Page 2; 1 Sentence: Don't make mistakes yourself!
They just need to find a way to run a charge wire from the ear down to the arm/back/fannypack where a larger battery can be stored. Added bonus, if the glass itself is kept charged you can hotswap the big battery whenever you need, meaning 24/7 usage with day-long runtime is possible.
The fact that they haven't even attempted to push the idea publicly is sad. You could basically take it one step further than the currently available charge packs and make it a 'battery of things' to handle charging for all your personal area networking needs.
They're not flying under the radar now.
I have no doubt that driverless cars and google glass-like tech will be commonplace some day. But by not flying under the radar anyone who thinks they have a better way knows exactly how high (or low) the bar is to come out with something better.
And I don't begrudge the fact that in the mean time they are pushing the envelope. That's a good thing all by itself. Well, 'til the money runs out. Don't kid yourself. Microsoft flew high for a long time, but they stumbled. Google will too – some day.
They keep posting bullshit by HughPickens.com, and that other guy, what's his name?
This article is a load of crap. The reasons are too obvious to waste time enumerating here.
How about... engineer the thing so it does not require more of that "centralised control" thing? How about truly peer-to-peer control for cars? Because, to me centralised control smells of a cop-out, a failure of engineering. Yes, notoriously anti-authoritarian developer people keep on coming up with hierarchies in things they make, but really now, you can not always bank having built the system. Other people need to use it too and among them will be anti-authoritarian types like yourself. So... anytime someone even mentions a centralisation idea, go back to the drawing board, eh.
There's a huge market due to Ferguson, so roll with it, make them usable for LE purposes. I don't really approve of it, privacy-wise, but it would both increase uptake to the point where new models would be viable, as well as helping to solve the whole 'Police need body cameras' crap, while actually making them useful (push apbs, suspect drawings/photos/etc to the glass, which can discreetly update the officer without it being visible to bystanders.)
It's a win all around, except for privacy, which quit frankly if they'd just get rid of decency laws so we could all strut around nude, wouldn't really be a problem anymore! Might also help with the obesity epidemic. If everybody is seeing firsthand what it's doing to people, they might start thinking twice about their own dietary consumption.
Google glass may be a failure because it may never be socially acceptable.
But in 10 years, every new car sold in the US, including the lowest-end Fiesta, will have options for some degree of automated driving. At the very least, there will be a driverless highway mode.
This is happening. And it's happening quickly.
Old people fall. Young people spring. Rich people summer and winter.
I didn't read the article, as that is against the rules, but this looks like bait to me.
> This, in the very country where the majority of the population fights against government regulations, red tape and bureaucracy.
Yeah, because Google is well known for its products, which have always been, and will always be, marketed exclusively in the US. I'm sure Google would be OK with selling to the other 6.5 billion people first.
(Oh, and the reason "no one is buying Google Glass" is mentioned in the very article linked to with these very words: It's not on sale yet.)
But rest assured – Google knows this. They’re not looking for short term profits. They’re not even looking for profits in the next few years. The dreamers behind Google, like the dreamers at Tesla and Virgin Galactic are people who are looking decades ahead.
The original Forbes article states this in the end, the poster either didn't bother to read that far or just didn't think this was relevant. Most of the article does crap on Google for this stuff, but at the end the guy realizes that this is a long term goal which Google is trying to get ahead on. So this was most likely written as click bait that bad mouths Google, but the actual author knows that Google is playing a long term game here.
Welcome to current journalism, lets bad mouth something we think is intelligent, to get people to click on a link. But at the very end we will write up a few sentences saying why this will probably pay off in the long run.
Didn't Disney do this in the 1960's? They had the home of the future, the city of the future, blah blah of the future, and so on. He used his cartoon profits to fund all of this. Is Disney the futuristic tech company giant? Is Google doing anything different?
I think it is nearly identical, with the exception that some of Google's stuff can be bought (Google glass)
In my opinion car sharing is the killer application for driverless cars. With such cars you would no longer go/cycle or use public transport to get to the nearest station or the one which has a larger car for transporting purposes. This will improve the acceptance of car sharing a lot, at least in european cities where you dont really need an own car every day.
For Google glass they need the killer application to go with it. Police would benefit. Have face recognition and perhaps blind spot cameras for them.
For the Google car, put them in seniors villages. Replace the golf carts and let them get around a bit more.
Then they can add military bases. People who usually have drivers, just have a car.
We have ever increasing armies of people who should not drive any longer, namely, the partly-disabled elderly.
Do they want to be dependent upon deliveries of food and drivers to go anywhere? Self-driving cars give this demographic independence, and it is a demographic that is growing. And it is a demographic that has THE MOST MONEY. (Yes, old people are the richest demographic in the USA now.)
Would YOU rather get a $60k car and be independent or not be able to go anywhere without a benefactor?
--PeterM
The government doesn't get to just scream 'monopoly'. Google doesnt have a monopoly, at least not anywhere the historic ones of Standard Oil, ATT, and Microsoft.
Good-bye
If the car is really driverless, then there are people who might buy them (subject to laws of course)
Steven Hawking might enjoy the freedom of a driverless car, or any other person with some disability, legally blind and able to get to work with one.
What about people with driving bans could they have one?
Would anyone be interested in one for a night out and not to worry about drink driving. There's a thought.
Back in the 40's and earlier there was a low tech equivalent the Horse and Cart the horse knew his job and would go about his rounds, and even stop at the pub as a matter of course. The driver had very little to do with the driving.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
An anime I watched recently had replaced buses with driverless vehicles. I think this idea could work. A bunch of 2 and 4 seat driverless vehicles with mapped out transit points. You give it an address and the vehicle takes you there and then goes on to the closest transit point. You would need a central control which would be able to tell how many vehicles were at a transit point so that it could move a vehicle from an overpopulated transit point there if one was not present. Combine this with electric vehicles and you have a winner.
Google's drone projects are going to use some of the technology in its self-driving cars.
I have a 45 minute drive, interstate 90% of the way. I would love to by the driver less car.
From the summary:
For the driverless car system to truly work as desired, there would need to be more centralized control over our entire transportation system, from the roads and highways to the cars we're allowed to use, the speed we're allowed to travel and the places we're allowed to go.
This is a red herring. The submitter is proposing an extreme solution to a non-problem. Driverless technology has already adapted to the current system, and Google has already proven that it can work within the current system. Google's cars know what the speed limit is, they know where they're "allowed to go" (what is this, kindergarden?), and they don't require a borg-like homogeneity. And the technology isn't even mature yet! Clearly, there is no need to overhaul the current system. Incremental changes, as necessary, will do just fine -- just like they always have. But wait...
in the very country where the majority of the population fights against government regulations, red tape and bureaucracy
Aha. Here the submitter finally reveals his agenda. He's an authoritarian who favors top-down, centralized political control. Judging by his desire to head down this tangent, he was focused more on spreading his ideals than discussing actual driverless technology -- before he even sat down to write the summary.
But those things always come after the product is invented, not before.
People that would love to buy a driverless car for 60 thousand right RIGHT THIS MINUTE, include:
1) Any wealthy person whose kid got into an accident that they swear they were not drinking.
2) Any one whose parents are 70+ and doesn't see quite as well as they used to, but they still are active and need a car to get around.
3) Every single person that owns a taxi service that they have to pay a driver 30K a year and is seeing Uber etc. still their business.
4) Every single city that has bus drivers or garbage trucks,
Granted, their may also be union concerns when it comes to bus drivers/garbage truck drivers.
But the market is there, it already exists. It is up to us humans to solve the purely social problems caused by the legal system, the insurance industry, and unions.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Google is cemented in the industry, they are not going anywhere. They make profits, but they have a problem. They are not Bell, or MS, they arrived too late to have a monopoly on really anything. So they built a driverless car, and Google Glass, and in 10-20 years they still have the patent and will control the patent and technology. They do not want to come late to the game like with mobile phones and have to spend billions of dollars renting licences or buying patent portfolios.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Believe me, Google (like any other corporation) exists to make money. And make it they have.
Google also believes they can make the MOST money by focusing on the two ends: the bleeding edge AND the long tail. Search and advertising is their long tail, where they dominate the market. 8-10 years ago? Android was at their bleeding edge, and now it's part of the long tail: one more way to get eyeballs for Search and Advertising.
Where will Driverless Car lead? I can see a fleet of self-driving cars acting as a taxi service. Get in a Google Car and tell it "I want decent Thai" and it whisks you to a sponsored location. Driverless Car is more an Über killer than anything else.
I like driving as well as the next guy, and for the short term I have no intention of buying a driverless car. I'm also in my mid 50s. Based on my family, I'll still be alive and kicking in 20-30 years, but that doesn't mean my eyesight and reflexes will still be up to driving in heavy traffic. Maybe the Goog-car will be ready for primetime in 2034, and by that time, I'll be in the market for it.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Worked for the iPhone. It was the coolest, slickest, neatest, most awesome broken PC that I ever saw. In most ways, the handheld market is still full of shitty products (really, I can't think of even one of them, that is still 10% as nice as an even mediocre workstation), but we all learned to adjust our expectations and accept them for the super-portable tradeoff that they are. "Shit" can be "good enough." If Apple and Samsung can pound that into our heads, then Google theoretically can too.
The place where driverless vehicles is going to have an impact is not private cars. It is the trucking industry. The carriageways provide a relatively controlled roadway, ideal for driverless vehicles. If a team of "key drivers" can be put in the lead lorry of a road train of four or five lorries then the cost of trucing can be significantly reduced. the only real cost to society is the elimination of hundreds of thousands of well paid blur-collar jobs.
Truck drivers get over $40k a year, and they don't drive 24/7.
I'd bet a trucking company would pay a lot for a driver-less truck, even if it could only travel a few routes.
Fortunately for Google, you can do just about anything you want with your patents, no matter how destructive your decisions, so long as you keep screaming intellectual property at the top of your lungs until they leave you alone.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Google (and Microsoft, and Qualcomm, and IBM, and ...) are trying to recreate the technological and commercial success that came out of places like Bell Labs. One of the big lessons learned is that you need to have some open ended development projects to allow for discovery and invention. You can't have profit-driving innovation without the profit-less starting point of invention. Someone else may make more money off of your invention, but you have to chose either the risks of stagnation or the risks of competition.
Google's big mistake here is not working on projects without an obvious commercial payoff. Their big mistake is trying to incubate these blue sky R&D projects in the cultural and managerial environment of their profit making businesses. Everything looks and feels like a vanity project rather than serious forward looking R&D. It's a good idea to geographically separate your board and upper management from your "outside-the-box" R&D lab by a few thousand miles.
As long as they are making enouph money, to keep the shareholders happy, they can explore whatever thie vision and intellect feel need to acompish. If, or when, the times come that this is not enough, then either they can make the company private, when the price fall low enough, or they change the visonaries with more dry, business/money oriented people. In one way, as a privite one, the Google culture will endure, in the other one will gradually die.
I'd buy a $30K self-driving car today even if it were limited to major streets if it could take care of the stop and go driving on my way to work. Even if it could only handle the freeway portion of my commute, it would give me back about an hour a day of time I could use to read, work, talk on the phone, watch TV, or even sleep.
I don't need a self-driving car that can handle every road condition with ease, one that can only handle my commute (or most of it) in self-driving mode would be enough to get me to buy it.
Is a mistake.
Google is in the unique position to invest millions of dollars on technologies, concepts, and idea, that will never make it to the marketplace in today's world. This is their genius, their muse, their freedom. If that is a mistake, I hope they continue to make mistakes for a long time to come.
I was with the article until the part about driverless cars, where they go on and on about needing this and that and the other thing, all centralized.
THAT would be something no-one wants, and we will never have. But Google's driverless car is very different; it's being worked on to co-exist just fine with other drivers, traffic, even pedestrians and cyclists.
Even if only a handful were actually sold, they would still be really useful. Many people (myself included) would love to be able to work while we are heading into an office or client.
I myself love to drive and will always have a car I can manually control. But for day to day use I would if it were possible buy a driverless car just to be more productive...
One last thought of a scenario where the driverless car would shine - just getting to a mass transit station to head into work. The car could bring you to a station, then go home all by itself so you wouldn't have to pay to park or worry about the car being broken into. Then when you were coming back home you could call it back to the station to pick you up, or even just to the office if you ended up having to stay late at work... the convenience is huge.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I guess that explains why the paid so much for Nest. I'm still not sure what means that is to what end, but they spent a cool $3.2 billion for it...
I mean, you go out and buy state legislators and governors and US congressmen - it ain't expensive on the scale of google
And you get laws passed that favor your product
I mean, hasn't it been that way since the founding of our republic
Guy I never heard of thinks he can tell the company that's worth more than all the organs of every single human being in his home city how their business process sucks. Thanks, guy I never heard of! I'm sure company that's worth more than all the organs in your home city will take that to heart and start doing what you think they should be doing immediately!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
surely you remember alta vista and the pathetic northern light (the internet in folders, extra clicks that you don't need)
and why does google get such praise ?
the gmail interface is screwed up ; their flagship - the search engine - is horrible (you think google is a good search engine ? are you not understanding that in the absence of competition it is hard to understadn what a good SE looks like)
"The long tail" refers to the small, extreme fringe. You could say Apple has the long tail in PCs (the high end luxury market) while The wintels hold the middle.
Google is certainly the middle of search. The long tail is represented by the various gimmick search engines. Android is also very much the middle. The long tail might be things like Firefox OS and the open handset projects, appealing to the radical open source fringe.
I think you're almost to the actual point -- they never finish what they start. You can be ahead of the curve, it just means your at the slow part of the ramp, but that doesn't mean you stop. It's a bit different, but if you think they're ahead of the curve (and I'm not sure I agree they are), they kill products because they haven't received a lot of market penetration. If with things like a lot of the software platorms they actual did more than (what I call) middle-third engineering, and did the last-third, perhaps it'd catch on more. Google Glass' issue wasn't it was so far ahead, it's just never been "correctly adjusted" to catch on yet. Despite the cool-factor there's no killer app for it. Apple does this, too, a bit far out, but they get buy in through partners and one or more killer apps for it, *including* third parties. The last bit is key, and they learned the hard way, but it's there now, even with unbelievably difficult industries like Apple Pay (which IM[Never]HO is much easier than the Record Labels must have been; bring on the Apple Pay lawsuits, too -- but as more evidence there wont be, at least not all that substantial).
What they need to do is to continue developing the mistake and when ready release a beta branded as 'Google Mistake'. Then quietly announce a few months later that 'Google Mistake' is being shelved indefinitely. Isn't that what they usually do?
http://www.acetonestudio.com
...For driverless cars to work, to decrease congestion, increase safety, reduce lawsuits and lower our insurance premiums everyone would have to be driving one....
For driverless cars to work, they would have to work under more than just ideal conditions. They would have to be able to, for example, navigate around potholes in the road and other stealthy road hazards that the current crop of driverless cars tend to overlook.
.
Have a driverless car navigate a New England winter, stop showing them running in sunny California and the western deserts.
"GoogleÃ(TM)s mistake, which it keeps making, is building great products that no one will soon buy." This indicates that Forbes fundamentally misunderstands Google.
Forbs is a business mag. The are used to businesses with a short term view. Google takes a long term view and is much less risk averse than the businesses that Forbes is used to covering. They are trying view Google from the wrong perspective.
Only an idiot would think normal consumers would actually buy this car.
Then you are calling me an idiot? An idiot that does not want to sit in traffic, day in, day out, with nothing to but sit there and steer a car over the same road. Wasting away years of your life driving to and from work.
Yes, only an idiot would prefer to have their own automated chauffeur drive them to work while they can relax. A chauffeur that can be attentive 100% of the time, not speeding and driving cautiously enough that I can enjoy a book, a movie or do something else. Only an idiot would like to have private 1 or 2 extra hours a day?
If such people are idiots, then please, call me an idiot. An idiot that would buy a self-driving car yesterday.
A car that gets me going wherever I want while I can do other things in the meanwhile (eg, browse the internet, read a book, sleep) is far more appealing to me. I suspect it would be far more appealing to a lot of people as well for these reasons.
also, I live in Florida and the old people on the road are terrifying, and they are definitely in the market for something like this
Think people are just going to go search for a way to buy it? No. I haven't seen it on a store shelf anywhere, therefore it isn't for sale. I haven't seen an ad for it online therefore it isn't for sale. The reason google glass isn't selling is that IT ISN'T FOR SALE.
They forgot the best example. Nobody wanted to "buy" Google Plus and it's free. So then they pulled a "Microsoft" and tried to shove it down everyone's throat by force like Vista license sales and that failed just as miserably.
Google should live by its own motto - "Don't be Evil".
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
"It's Google assuming that someday someone will actually buy a driverless car," writes Marks. "Not a hobbyist or an eccentric millionaire. But a customer who actually needs or desires a driverless car. Someone who, given the choice of spending $30K on a car that they fully control and can go anywhere they want at any speed they want â" or another, likely more expensive buggy that will only travel on certain routes at slower speeds and with less options."
Hilarity: California has told Google that the car needs controls, so guess what? The car still has controls. And for the foreseeable future, it's going to need to continue to have them. That means that the car will continue to go wherever you want. But all you need to know to prove that people will buy a limited vehicle is that 4x2 trucks are still sold. They can't go everywhere 4x4 trucks can go, but people still buy them. Why would anyone ever do that? I sure wouldn't. So nobody would, right? Snicker snort et cetera.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Not sure what they are smoking... I'd buy one today. The technology will create huge opportunities for people with disabilities who currently have to rely on others to get around.
Firstly the summery is ridiculous for a number of reasons. One being to compare them to the same losers who look only to the next quarter and what profits they can rape. This is great for short term success and CEO bonuses, but long term is ultimately self defeating. Second, is judging Google, which is one of the biggest, most successful companies in the WORLD, and chastising them about their "mistakes".
Here is a perfect, real example. Take "YouTube". Google bought it for a BILLION dollars. This was before all the crazy valuations, and buying spree of things barely being able to be called companies or technologies. Critics at the time, laughed and derided Google for its foolish decision. They said they would never ever make their money back. Would anyone care to valuate YouTube today? I would bet it is worth MANY times that now (you can argue if that is really realistic or not). Not only that, but it is THE dominate force, and is well on its way to making money. Has it paid for itself in cash profits yet? Likely not. However I am not so sure that it won't soon. If you recall (for those that were around), there used to be tons of search engines, and then meta search engines on top of that. Sure MS is trying to get Bing out there, and Yahoo is still sort of hanging around somehow, however Google is a VERB now, it is that ubiquitous. YouTube is pretty much also now. Gmail is for many. Google Maps is as well (Mapquest anyone?).
Google knows to play the long game, you only new a few dominate winners. They can throw away the losers, and perhaps leverage them later if you can. They can do this easily now because of vast reserves of cash, and steady annual profit. They have so many things going on, that it only takes a few to totally dominate (mostly bc no one else is doing it, or even close to doing it), to be hugely successful.
Anyway I think Google is doing just fine.
I think Noah is half right. In addition to recruiting and retaining talent, the driverless car requires technology for making real measurements and making decisions based on those measurements. That is the key technology that the last 50 years of exponential growth in computing power has enabled, but which has not been developed and exploited. I think the leadership at google has a better understanding of the possibilities than most others.
might as well be huffpost
1. $ - cops like it
2. MADD - they're bad at math & not driven (pardon pun) by logic
The mistake they make is allowing HTC, Samsung, and carriers like AT&T O2 and Verizon to utterly vandalize Android.
Android in it's pure form is a wonderful thing. But the handset makers and then the Carriers bend it over, have their way with it then vandalize it, ruining the whole Android experience.
Google needs to tell them all to STOP IT.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
... it can pull a trailer, and back it into a driveway... or back it into the water. (think launching a boat) ... it can determine when a road is flooded, and choose NOT to enter the water. ... it can "feel" how much mass it is moving (think towing a large mass and needing to increase stopping distance/safety margin) ... it can anticipate snow conditions and make judgements about routes, grades, and plow frequencies (pull over and wait for a plow) ... it can make the decision to use the oncoming lane, because the travel lane is blocked, even if there are no signs/indicators that divert traffic. ... it can drive down a dirt road. ... it can make the decision to put it in the ditch because that was the best option (think pedestrian incursion, animal incursion, etc)
To me, driving is so much more than getting from a to b... we climb in our cars to escape the environment outside (especially in the winter), but driving is about understanding the environment outside, and making choices accordingly. I fully believe that driverless cars will eventually overcome all of these obstacles, but I'll likely be one of the last to buy, because my requirements are the highest. I don't need a car for commuting... I need a car for all the other things I do.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
Forbes Magazine is apparently completely dumbfounded by any corporate decision that doesn't singularly aim to boost the numbers on the next quarterly statement. Long term investment is a mystery to them. Google has the resources to gamble on a multitude of technologies that may become huge in a decade or two, kudos to them for developing with a grander vision in mind.
Google Glass never went retail... It's still very much in beta as stated by the company itself. Why is this guy trying to criticize it like it was retail then?
Same thing with the driverless cars...those aren't even close to becoming "retail" right now so they can't be compared or criticized as such....I mean unless you're trying real hard to look psuedointellectual....
...but Google is built on AD REVENUE.
They are an idea company and create all sorts of projects that they can't monetize right this second. So business analysts predict cataclysm and say Google is doomed. They are MBAs from a different era and cannot wrap their minds around the fact that Google's objective isn't to monetize every single thing they come up with -- they use their income to fund incredible, forward looking stuff. /Not a google worshipper, by the way, but I "get" what they're doing.
anecdotal but at the mall nearest my house (Perimiter in suburban Atlanta) the Apple store has BY FAR the most customers/sq ft! plenty of vacancies in mall overall & the m$ store always has a employee/customer ration in excess of 1. if you just looked at that Apple store you'd have no idea there's been any economic disruption in the last 15 yrs...
Once upon a time there was a continuum of clean jobs paying from minimum wage to family wages that required only a high school diploma. Then Wall Street decided that such a continuum was too much "trickle down".
Now, there are two types of "clean jobs". Ones that pay from minimum wage to no more than 150% above, i.e. WalMarts and burger flippers. The others require a college degree. The rest are dirty jobs. These cause occupationally related debilitating chronic conditions topping those conditions extant at retirement age. Wall Street's specific intent for dirty job workers that one drops dead as soon after retirement.
Solution: Restructure Social Security
*Lose the wage cap
*Rescale the expatriation tax to discourage expatriation. Expand and enforce the Reed Amendment. Expatriation for ANY reason means permanent bar on re-entry and placement on the terror watch list. Think twice before trying to exercise the so-called VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS.
*Have a college degree? Not eligible. The whole point of a college degree is to earn the money sufficient for one's OWN retirement.
*Have a business at any time in your life? Not eligible. The whole point of having a business is to earn the money sufficient for one's OWN retirement.
*Have investments totaling over $200,000? Not eligible. The whole point of a having investments is to earn the money sufficient for one's OWN retirement.
*Born after 1970? Not eligible. The whole point of being born after 1970 is that these people found themselves benefiting from the new economy so as to earn the money sufficient for one's OWN retirement.
*Apply civil forfeiture to businesses that hire illegal aliens. Hiring illegals is trickle down to people who DO NOT BELONG HERE.
*Unlawfully present? [FINGER] Your backside needs to be booted suborbitally to your nation-state of origin.
Rand is just as doctrinaire as Stalin, but she lets you have sex and toys. Sex and toys are what life is all about, RIGHT?
If you take a chance at making a cutting age product, technology or culture may not be ready for it. Or another company, even a startup, may take your idea and manage to make a much more successful product. But if you stick to your guns, you are 100% guaranteed to slowly fade to irrelevance. Would you rather your company end up like Yahoo or IBM in 30 years? The later at least had courage to go big on Linux even though it was in direct competition in its mainframe business. They achieved a measure of success there, even as other, more radical, research projects went nowhere. But if they were not at least exploring where the future is going, they would surely be goners by now.
Years ago, there wasn't a consumer case for 30 megabyte hard drives. Too expensive. But there was a business case and prices came down.
The problem with cars is that they currently need a driver. Without it, they spend the majority of their time parked. In other words, there is a public transport case to be made for self-driving cars. Once one looks at the business case, it turns out that even if only pre-mapped routes can be driven, that might not be an issue for buses. Soon after, I predict taxi drivers will be up in arms about self driving cars soon. After that, as prices come down, fewer drunk driving incidents and no more "designated driver" issues. Besides that, part of the technology is likely portable across other means of transport. I'm not sure why trains, subway, trams aren't self-driving yet. Too simple a problem to solve, perhaps?
I would love to have a head mounted display. What's not to like about it? Augmented reality, great!
But ... from a company whose business model relies on harvesting any and all information about anyone and everyone? Would I want a device that can, by its very nature, record everything I see, everyone I interact with, every place I go, made by a company that has a business model that is based on collecting all this? No thanks.
Google's problem is not that they're ahead of the curve and that they're so bleeding edge that nobody wants their gadgets. Their problem is that they're Google.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Sorry, no mod points today to do it myself.
Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
Unfortunately, I have two problems with the whole thing. I can't even afford a normal car right now and I don't think I could ever trust it. I know enough about programming to know that there are a million bugs in the software that will never be worked out. Heck, even Nasa isn't immune... if they're not immune, then some car company that only cares about the bottom line instead of the occupants will never be bug free.
If I had the money and I could guarantee that my family was safe. I'd buy one. I hate driving. I get lost in thought, I get confused and sleepy at night. I don't drink or do drugs so I'm sure if I get into an accident it's driver error. (mine or someone elses) and that's what this would avoid.
10 years from now I might have the money and they might have a working product.. at least some semblance of testing. I'll reconsider then.
As for google glass... a mistake.. maybe.. but who else can afford to make mistakes like that, apple? they don't seem to be pushing any boundaries these days.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
1. Responding to concerns over patents, there will be plenty of future patents to make money off of with various improvements to the current design.
2. A centralized control over driverless cars is a possibility and would be sufficient to achieve many of the great promises, but it is not necessary. Complex adaptive systems can pretty reliably solve problems through distributed decision making. I expect this to be a big component of point 1. A central information resource could help, but the cars don't need to tell the system anything about who they are to improve traffic and reduce accidents so long as the cars follow some accepted protocols. It is likely that regulations will require having a software system that passes inspection and hacking the system could be a major crime, but if there are people who don't want to be tracked then there will be a system that passes inspection that has built-in privacy. This assumes government doesn't require the information and there is actually competition in the market - but I'm just arguing that the author's assumptions are by no means certain.
3. Others have made this point, but the author's premise with regards to who would want to buy the car is so utterly flawed. The elderly who can no longer drive, the sightless, driving commuters, taxi companies, all of these would have reasons to at least consider a driverless car over the alternative. Then add in the issue of no longer having to worry about parking near where you are going, and many more people might want to consider a driverless car.
...is that they introduce products with great potential but do little to follow up on them. If anything they make them worse over time. The only exceptions to this would seem to be search and android.
Another point that lots of people, especially in the US, seem to miss is that these cars are (mostly) not meant to be sold. The main use case is that people will just call one when needed. If done on a large scale there will be a much larger number of cars available than current taxis, so one will almost always be nearby.
Transportation is not a product, it's a service.
Much cheaper and requires far less parking space. Also you don't need to bother ever again with repairs and model upgrades. Remember: private cars spend >90% of their time parked. Waste of time and space.
No wonder Google is making its own cars. Conventional car makers are probably scared shitless of this future and would do anything to keep the public in the old world.
There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
If Uber can work, the GAT can work even better, and while you ride Google will feed you as much advertising funded content as you want for no extra cost.
d@3-e.net
I am neither a hobbyist, or eccentric millionaire, and I want both of these things. I would use my Google Glass in my self-driving Google car, while talking to someone on my Google Nexus phone, and casting a movie to my Google Nexus 7 to ease the boredom. Google that.
To this day, Google has done NOTHING that is not a copycat of what others have done. Except for search and data collection, they haven't even improve on tech that is already there. In fact, most of the products provided by them would be considered mediocre if anybody but Google would had release them.
This reads like the bible for the short-term investor. As an (admittedly small time) investor, I want to put money into a company that makes solid profits with its current goods/services while pushing the envelope for the future. Be on the bleeding edge. Push boundaries. Create new markets. Fail often, kill your failures, and learn. Don't stagnate in your current market; waiting to be dethroned by competition.
Something like a driverless car could revolutionize transportation and all of the industries which rely upon it. Being on the forefront of that could spell enormous profits (not to mention entirely new industries).
Sadly, it seems the current investor is only interested in what a company has done this quarter. That results in companies that are so bent on shaving costs on their current products/services that they completely miss the thing that makes them obsolete. This is one of the reasons Buffett always argued against splitting Berkshire stock. He wasn't interested in collecting investors who couldn't commit to the long-term. Interestingly, Berkshire started as a textile manufacturer. That isn't to say they are on the bleeding edge, but they do represent a company that is willing to look for and invest in something new and different.
Like the majority of drivers, he believes everyone has a car if they can afford one.
I am in the majority of people in that I can't drive a car because I don't have a licence. My eyesight allows me to do everything everyone else can, but I can't pass a test.
I am part of a significant minority in that I can easily afford a taxi to take me everywhere I want to go. A driverless car would probably be cheaper, since I would then not be covering a salary, but in any case would be more convenient.
Google doesn't need to 'create' a market. I believe I am one of many tens of thousands of people who really cannot wait for driverless cars to become a reality, and am in the queue, awaiting a vehicle to take me to and from work, as soon as such a vehicle is available.
For the driverless car system to truly work as desired, there would need to be more centralized control over our entire transportation system, from the roads and highways to the cars we're allowed to use, the speed we're allowed to travel and the places we're allowed to go.
And clearly this is what Google and its principle executives want, among other things. In fact they are creaming in their pants over the prospect of having this kind of control.
They're playing the long con.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
or another, likely more expensive buggy
I see what you did there.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Google Glass will get your ass kicked, and no one is "buying" a driverless car, the cars would be deployed like taxis, there for you to use but not belonging to you.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
it isnt a mistake... it is called investing. they can afford to throw tons of ideas out and hope one sticks. this is how the world works when you have billions of dollars of cash lying around.
This is kind of missing the point. The point of driverless cars is automating and distributing the hardware. If driverless cars become reality, rental companies (or even Uber) will rent them out when you need them. So, fewer people will actually even need to own a car. Everyone can share cars, more easily.
> it's a product without customers
WRONG! I'm legally blind and I can't wait to be able to get into a driverless car with my seeing eye dog and cruise to the store at 25 mph instead of spending 3 hours walking there! Just $30k?! Shuddup and take my money!
There are millions of old people who can be put into them when they can't see the DMV eye test anymore, too.
I'd have the one which doesn't require me to see well enough to drive.
I don't see very well. I am visually impaired and thus am not able to drive.
I'm not convinced that Google's tech is quite there yet, but a driverless car is something that I would ceratinly look into in the future.
The TFA is shortsighted, indeed.
And not to forget: Trucks!
The trucking corporations can save a lot of money if they wouldn't need to stop every few hours because the driver has to pause or sleep. Even if someone is still on board to drive the small streets and for loading, he would be able to rest while the truck goes down the interstate, and be fresh when he is really needed again.
Could even work for the bigger corps to have a pool of people waiting at a reststop, take over an arriving truck, drive it into the neighbourhood, unload, reload, drive back to the nearest reststop and send it on its way to the next city - and directly afterwards take over the next arriving.
Right now testing and developing the details is just way easier with smaller personal cars than big 40t machines.
c'ya haegar
Driverless cars open up huge possibilities. Think of long distance trips, ...
I don't believe it. Where's the evidence of driverless cars cars that can replace cars driven by human drivers in all weather conditions, in heavy city traffic (rush hour in any big city), with a mudslide, a temporary detour, thunderstorms, reckless drivers, flood waters, drifting snow, a wreck up ahead, temporary lane restrictions, etc., and all the other unexpected events that human drivers deal with every time we get behind the wheel? I have seen pictures of the "driverless" car and articles written by credulous reporters. I looked at the official driverless car site on google+. I'm not impressed.
Where is the evidence? How about a map of the streets and roads the car has actually covered? How about turning it loose in Brooklyn at rush hour and seeing if it can make it to the Newark Airport?
"Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens." - Schiller
..."given the choice of spending $30K on a car that they fully control and can go anywhere they want at any speed they want – or another, likely more expensive buggy that will only travel on certain routes at slower speeds and with less options." Which car would you buy?
Today, I spend an hour a day driving to and from work. Being able to work on a laptop and mobile phone as the car drives itself would allow me to punch in and out in my driveway. To me, it is not a question of "which car?", it is a question of if I want the extra hour back in my life or to be paid for working it.
I'll buy a driver less car as long as it's a feature and not a limitation. I will never buy a car that i can't take manual control of and drive across a field off road, launch a boat from a makeshift dock, or do the multitude of other things i do with a car beyond just driving to and from work. I don't want a car that can be hijacked with no way to shut it down and make it do what i want or need it do. That is a liability and not an asset. If i decide i need to jump lanes and drive on the wrong side of the highway to escape a flood i need the car to do it and not balk or prevent me. GPS is unreliable for driving as even though the systems are accurate the people programming and populating the database of information are not. Anyone who has spent any time driving all over cration knows that GPS driving instructions are wrong a lot of the time. Highways and roads change frequently and sometimes it isn't exactly clear how to navigate them. Sometimes i need to drive an area that has no roads. I don't like the idea of people being able to hijack my car with no way for me to cut the compromised systems and make the car do what i need it to do. As long as driver less is a feature i can turn on and off when i need or don't need I'll remain interested. Once it becomes a system for taking control and freedom away from people though i have no interest. If this requires modifying existing driver less cars with my own hardware then i'll go that route if im forced.
A lot of people would rather own than rent even when renting is a lot cheaper. They want their own car which they become personally attached to, not a cheaper form of a taxi. And when it comes to travel, it's psychologically much easier to get in the car and go for a drive when you don't have to pay for it directly. Having to think about the cost every time you drive somewhere, instead of just every time you fill up the tank, causes some stress and will make people prefer the psychologically easier more expensive option.
This space intentionally left blank
The limited-capability driverless cars that Google is currently testing mostly won't be for individuals to buy. They will be an alternative to urban taxi service. Eventually we will also have driverless capability in more capable cars as an option; you will either be able to drive the car yourself or turn over control to the AI, as you wish.
Google built an ad and PR platform that caters to early adopters with significant disposable income and when it doesn't show up at Walmart the next year this dude calls them stupid.
Oh, and the demand for a driverless car? How about one ofthe fastest growing demographics in the world - old people.
If you'received ever in the mood to sample willful ignorance talk to a journalist.
Every rule has more than one consequence.
Companies can't help but make the same mistake over and over again trying to make money quickly from inventions and fail to make last innovative creations. So we are in a cycle that enhance already made technology something that Apple is good at and perfected but never created any game changing innovation.
You all miss the point of a driverless car. Long commutes. Idle, captive audiences. The driverless car represents a permanent increase in viewer engagement. A more Internet focused public, driving Google ad revenue, is all the driverless car is about.
From the article " This, in the very country where the majority of the population fights against government regulations, red tape and bureaucracy.".
So how do you explain in no particular order - TSA , Medicaid , Medicare ,Police and of course your legal system. I am afraid Americans like to believe they retain the pioneer spirit and the there are no rules ethos from two centuries ago but the fact is you say you hate bureaucracy and then embrace it so long as its packaged properly.
Wanted : A Signature.
They are probably drooling over the idea of eliminating the majority of their driver workforce. Imagine a semi-truck that can run 24/7 without ever tiring, with extremely low accident rates, and all the other benefits of a machine. Eventually this will extend to taxis and lastly, your typical driver.
You support the Google hegemony. You are a fucking traitor, a cunt casket and a butt fucking hepatitis infected faggot asshole prick motherfucker. Suck on HIV blood pig fuck. That means felching bloody cum shit from an asshole pigfuck. You low life prick fucking asshole and you called for CENORSHIP here you fuck pig.
Explaining isn't supporting. You're a very strange, very very angry young man. Channel that into something productive.
Yes, but most driving is exactly getting from a to b. Daily commute. Heading to the grocery store. Moving kids to/from school and activities. Even heading to a restaurant or other entertainment. Most of the things you list are "occasional" at best and some, like a flooded road, are almost never encountered by the vast majority of drivers.
No, the driverless car is not a perfect replacement for a skilled and experienced driver. That doesn't mean it isn't useful, or better than 90% of drivers for 90% of their needs.
Here is a link for you: Perfect Solution Fallacy
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
You are a fuck. You are a traitor fuck. I know you in real life too. youll never know how or who I am. I might kill myself. Or I might kill YOU before I kill myself depending on what the FUCK you say next, ass-shit.
Why would Google want to sell cars?
There is no real logic behind the idea of selling a car.
This opens them up to hackers messing with their own cars and doing weird stuff, making it legally complicated.
If they rent the cars, like a cheap taxi service?
Then they have full control.
I actually really like this idea to be the norm, not having to own cars would solve a lot of problems, especially bloody parking.
... it can pull a trailer, and back it into a driveway... or back it into the water. (think launching a boat) ...
Way fewer people own a boat than a car... and most cars can't do this.
it can determine when a road is flooded, and choose NOT to enter the water. ...
Easy.
it can "feel" how much mass it is moving (think towing a large mass and needing to increase stopping distance/safety margin) ...
Currently better at this than a human.
it can anticipate snow conditions and make judgements about routes, grades, and plow frequencies (pull over and wait for a plow) ...
Again, it has more access to this kind of data than a human.
it can make the decision to use the oncoming lane, because the travel lane is blocked, even if there are no signs/indicators that divert traffic. ...
Pretty rare need--can't even think of the last time I needed to do this.
it can drive down a dirt road.
Why is this hard?
What makes you think it can't do this? However, these kinds of situations are actually very rare, and usually the result of too aggressive driving that puts you into the kind of position that you're forced to make such a choice.
To me, driving is so much more than getting from a to b... we climb in our cars to escape the environment outside (especially in the winter), but driving is about understanding the environment outside, and making choices accordingly. I fully believe that driverless cars will eventually overcome all of these obstacles, but I'll likely be one of the last to buy, because my requirements are the highest. I don't need a car for commuting... I need a car for all the other things I do.
Yeah, you probably won't buy one, but I'll bet you'll end up using one (e.g. in lieu of a taxi) long before you get rid of your 4x4 truck(?).
We don't understand that Google knows what we need and if we just allow them to control our infrastructure and environment, we'll thank them! NOT!!
How many people were affected by the GM ignition switch failure? I call B.S. It doesn't matter how rare an issue it is, all self driving cars MUST be able to determine when a road is flooded, and all self driving cars must be capable of determining if the road is too slippery to ascend/descend a certain grade. Maybe most people don't tow, so I'll accept that as *my* use case, but the rest are all concerns that EVERY driver must be capable of understanding and subsequently making a choice about, even if infrequently.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
...because it's way too damned expensive for what it is, and doesn't work with corrective glasses!