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.
.. 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.
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.
You could probably only buy them on Google Play through your GMail account. And the car would only work if you kept Google Play Services installed.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
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
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.
How much would you pay for that driverless car? $100,000 for one which, other than being driverless, had the same characteristics as one you could get for $20,000?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I'll take a driverless car now, if the law changes and allow me to sleep during the drive.
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.
Agreed. I sort of assumed the TFA would have something called 'facts' in it, that people won't buy cars, or that the killer app for Glass just isn't there. But it's just hand-waving opinion-based clickbait. Sigh.
Indeed, if I were in the market for a car and had $30k, I'd buy a driverless car without really any thinking involved.
So, if you had $30K and were in the market for a car, you would buy a driverless car that cost a lot more than $30K? I think what you are really saying is that if there were driverless cars available, you would not buy one, since you are not in the market for a car, and you cannot afford a car....which is more or less what the writer of the article said.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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.
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.
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 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.
Google glass would work wonderful as a HUD in many applications, beyond just Military. Think of a doctor/nurse who could have stats in front of their eyes rather than on a cart behind them. Take it further and have it feed real time blood flow from an active scan, for where they are looking.
What is a Police officer, Bus driver, or other could have a camera showing whats behind the vehicle at all times, even when outside of it? How many times has a cop car been hit on the highway and the officer got lucky to survive? How about a security guard doing rounds of a building, he could get camera feeds or alarms sent to the HUD while out and about.
So the issue is not what they did or their idea, it was marketing it for the wrong places / application
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.
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.
And you'd have to root it if you wanted to choose where to go yourself, rather than Google choosing your destination for you. (But that would still be better than the Apple car, which would only allow you to travel to Apple stores.)
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
I have to agree with this sentiment. As an automation programmer, I integrate new technology into existing systems all the time. No matter how old something is, there is usually an interface or way to make it communicate and work seamlessly with newer components. I'm sick of every goddamn writer saying generalized idiocy to the effect of 'we need more government for everything.' If there are enough 'sensors' on existing roads for humans to make good driving decisions, then there are enough sensors on existing roads for machines to be programmed to make the same decisions.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
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.
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.
car-sharing!?! That's like uberUber.
sounds good to a slashdotter. But I remember seeing lots of VCRs flashing 12:00 constantly in the 80s. I don't think tech for the masses is as ez or intuitive as we like to pretend.
How much would I pay to eliminate a chore that sucks up 15% of my life? A chore that is stressful and wholly unpleasant? I'd pay about 15% of my salary. If the car lasts 7 years, I'd spend about $200,000.
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...
And you'd have to root it if you wanted to choose where to go yourself, rather than Google choosing your destination for you. (But that would still be better than the Apple car, which would only allow you to travel to Apple stores.)
To be fair, in the alternate universe where Apple is actually building a car, almost everyone would be working or shopping at an Apple store anyway.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
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).
I am not in the market for a car >right nowin a city I find work in.
This means over the last 10+ years my shortest commute has been just ~25 minutes, and my longest has been ~55 minutes with an average of ~45 minutes. Twice a day for 250 days a year (give or take) over 10+ years.
That's almost 2000 hours of my life I've spent focused on driving a car.
2000 hours not writing code. 2000 hours not reading. 2000 not speaking with my family. 2000 hours not listening intently to pod casts, in depth analysis, or educational programming. It's almost a full year's worth of labor.
So, throw together some IFs here: IF the self driving car can last for 10 years, and IF my job allows me to work while commuting (or I find other means of revenue generation while commuting), and IF my commute remains consistent at 45 minutes, and IF my commute is fully automated, and IF I were to have an hourly of ~$50, the car could cost up to $100,000 MORE than my desired vehicle and still break even.
That's a whole lot of IFs. Now, if you're rocking out Mechanical Turks at an amazing pace while commuting, you can top out at probably $10/hr, so you're looking at a $20,000 premium over 10 years. If you're a new-ish car only kind of person, Turking only gets you a $10,000 premium over 5 years.
So from the consumer side, the premium of the self drive has to get weighed against the value of time. To me, my time is incredibly valuable, I would gladly cough up a nice chunk of change to get a self-drive feature on a car (a $10-20k premium would still be in my price range without resorting to Mechanical Turk on the drive). So I'll wait for prices to come down to that.
From the commercial side though, it could be way better. Imagine being a taxi fleet operator with 2 dozen cars and only 3 drivers that only need to be active in case of vehicular failure or by specific request. Or a freight hauling company that can run trucks 24x7, even when the "driver" is sleeping. Even transit busses and shuttles could be largely driverless.
So you are right, not every consumer is going to buy one, especially not now when supply is short and prices are extremely high. But over the next decade as prices drop, technology improves, and availability increases, we'll see more commercial adoption and a growing consumer market.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
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.
It's easy to make suggestions like that without knowing much about the application you're suggesting. I don't know much about being a cop or bus driver, but I work in medical imaging. It happens that at a recent conference one of the pharma companies had a google glass display at their booth, as a gimmick to get people to stop by. They had an app where you could look at an MRI, test results, etc. and a Google guy to ooze enthusiasm.
The whole thing was funny. The resolution of the glass screen was just sufficient to tell that the grey blob was an MRI of a brain. It was completely useless. Test results are purposely made very simple (patient's value, normal range) and there's no reason to have them floating before your eyes. The difference in distance and focus between the screen and everything behind it was distracting and headache inducing. The google guy had to be enthusiastic, or course, but everybody who was more than a sales drone admitted it was mostly a way to get people to come to the booth. Like the free coffee.
Some of those problems could be fixed. When glass is a contact lens it will have lots of applications. Even as a high res HUD it might find some, perhaps mechanics, possibly surgeons, when they get good enough. Probably not routine medicine (although tablets and smartphones are quite handy there).
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.'"
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.
might as well be huffpost
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?
...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.
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.
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.
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.
(But that would still be better than the Apple car, which would only allow you to travel to Apple stores.)
Don't be like that! Apple takes extra special care to ensure you get on the airport runway too!
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
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__()
In the future everything is Taco Bell.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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
Having worked in IT at many organizations, including 5 years at a Medical company, connected to a University, I had to deal with "beta testing" new ideas for our doctors by the Uni people all the time. While the MRI app clearly would not work, there are many ideas that would and have been tried before. Back then someone tried to use the Apache HUD tech to give a vitals display to the nurse. (Hence my suggestion). Not sure that there is one "killer app" for this tech yet, though similar tech has been used for how long in the Military?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lots of ifs in your post, also assumptions. While I'm not disputing that driving is largely non-productive, setting aside some non-productive time in your schedule is also good. Be it driving (if you enjoy it) or staring at clouds, or walking, basically empty your mind in some way. Humans are not machine whose productivity is linear as a function of the time they can work during the day. It is likely that when your were driving to /from work you had some random thoughts that turned out to be good ideas, be they for work or for home/family. So it is not *entirely* wasted.
Sorry hit send too soon, replying to myself, bad form.
In my case when I had long commute times, I sometimes solved bug in my head that had eluded me all day pounding on the keyboard trying to find out what was happening. When you are forced away from the screen/keyboard and you must think for yourself without any help from documentation or debugger or anything else, your may realise that your assumptions had been wrong from the start and your design was not optimal, for instance.
Now I have a more academic job where sometimes I have to come up with mathematical proofs, or at least things like novel algorithms that are not linked to producing lots of code in an editor. More often than not, they form up by themselves in my head when I'm doing something mindless and apparently unproductive: taking a shower, driving, grocery shopping, etc. Mind you this only happens after a lot of work (on paper or computer or just thinking), but the final step often somehow clicks when not thinking about it.
So unstructured, *boring* time is essential for many tasks. Also having fun. Many people like driving.
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?