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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.)
I cringe whenever someone says "this is awesome but unmarketable." Part of this was from my days working for Windows Magazine when marketing called a meeting and told us "You guys have a great product. We love your writing. We just can't figure out how to sell it so we're shutting you down."
Google being driven by the engineers thinking "here's something cool" is much preferable to Google being driven by marketing saying "this is what we can sell."
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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
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.
"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.'"
... 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?
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__()