Slashdot Mirror


BMW To Compete With Google To Build Software For Self-Driving Cars (reuters.com)

SmartAboutThings writes: Google is about to get some serious competition in the self-driving car race from none other than BMW, one of the most prominent names in the car industry. Speaking to Reuters, BMW's Head of Research and Development, Klaus Frohlich, said the following while present at the Geneva Motor Show: "For me it is a core competence to have the most intelligent car. Our task is to preserve our business model without surrendering it to an internet player. Otherwise we will end up as the Foxconn for a company like Apple, delivering only the metal bodies for them." BMW believes its competitors in the future will include internet taxi service Uber and sales website TrueCar. As the company is approaching its 100th birthday, the company is now on a quest to build the "ultimate driving machine." The company is preparing for a world in which its customers will be mere passengers, and the cars will do the driving themselves.

124 comments

  1. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    90% of the reason I buy BMWs is because they ar enjoyable to drive. If it drives itself then they are alienating their fan base, who may as well buy from other manufacturers.

    1. Re:Why? by NotInHere · · Score: 2

      Unless regulators require something else, they will make it possible to turn the self driving features off, if their customers demand it. But some people are lazy. I for example prefer to write posts on slashdot over having to focus on urban traffic. So a self driving car is something I look forward to. They just don't want to become foxconn if it turns out that most of the people are lazy, or if regulators suddenly require each car to include safety features that are so strict that only google and apple can provide them.

    2. Re:Why? by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      I love to drive, but if I were offered a chauffeur for the boring daily commute why would I turn that down?

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    3. Re:Why? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      You might if the chauffeur was a braindead idiot with crappy vision.

    4. Re:Why? by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Sorry grandpa this is not for your generation, your out of touch. you probably complain that people use facebook and cell phones. We don't even call them cell phones anymore.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    5. Re:Why? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      True. Thank goodness we'll be getting a chauffeur that can literally see in all directions at the same time using vision, lidar, and radar, who's attention never wavers, and can react to unexpected events about 1000x faster than a human. And oddly enough, you don't really need to be all that intelligent to drive a car... just very specialized.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    6. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. Thank goodness we'll be getting a chauffeur that can literally see in all directions at the same time using vision, lidar, and radar, who's attention never wavers, and can react to unexpected events about 1000x faster than a human.

      And thinks that a bus will yield to them.

    7. Re:Why? by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      Roads are for utility and transportation. Tracks are for fun. Cars are basically weapons and if we can improve the world by replacing human drivers we should NEVER hesitate. If all cars were required in 20 years to be self driving on the road then we can avoid traffic jams, improve safety, decrease harm to the environment by reducing the need for studded tires which damage roads, improve fuel efficiency, etc... humans are just not good enough to drive.

      That said neither are computers for the moment... but they will be.

    8. Re:Why? by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      nah... remember... if you're going to be a car person or a gun person (amazing how those seem to go hand in hand) then you have to make stupid comments about how they'll never be able to make a smart gun that works and that they'll never make a car which can drive itself as well as a human. They'll also never make a chess computer who can beat pretty much any huma...

      All I know is that my perfect world requires that all roads are completely and totally off limits to any car which doesn't self drive. It's too bad it won't happen today.

    9. Re:Why? by just+another+AC · · Score: 2

      If the bus is also driven by a computer it probably will when there is doubt. Only humans act (over)confident when there is uncertainty.

    10. Re:Why? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      It still has the self awareness and understanding of a rock which negates those advantages.

    11. Re:Why? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      You should expand your viewpoint beyond the technology itself and include the 'few' people at the top who will control access to your centralized utopia. There are those of us wise enough to know that such systems have tendencies to trample those who don't quite march in lockstep. This is why they ultimately fail. We also know that resorting to name calling does not make an argument.

    12. Re:Why? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      assuming the machine has been properly maintained, programmed, and designed. A big 'if' in today's technological state of affairs for far simpler devices and software.

    13. Re:Why? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      Once autonomous vehicles are on the road in significant numbers, we'll be able to see what the accident rates are. If they're a couple of orders of magnitude safer than manually-driven vehicles as I suspect they may be, we could see a significant push to remove non-autonomous vehicles from the road simply for safety reasons. But don't kid yourself - this is going to be a decades-long process. Also, the number of commercially available self-driving cars are still zero as of today, so let's not jump the gun there, no pun intended.

      What I think will happen is that you'll eventually need a specialist license to drive vintage / older cars, and it will be a bit tougher to get and keep than it is today. Most people will not bother with it, preferring the convenience of the AI-driven vehicles. And people who drive recklessly or speed too much will lose their manual license much more easily than they do today.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    14. Re:Why? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      You forgot what'll happen when one of those now safer citizens falls off the treadmill and loses access to the transport system (for some artificially linked issue). I'd rather not relinquish control over my mobility until we work the control freakery out of our culture. It demonstrates a level of insecurity far more dangerous than any human controlled vehicle.

      I will never understand the enthusiasm for living under the rule of risk adverse soccer mom mentality.

    15. Re:Why? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      I fail to see how an autonomous vehicle somehow means the surrender of our personal liberty. The government RIGHT NOW can deny you access to a license to drive. What changes when the car can now drive itself? If anything, it seems like autonomous vehicles will allow even greater personal freedom and autonomy, because at some point these systems will be so effective that non-licensed passengers will be able to use these vehicles as well. Besides, for the foreseeable future, people will still be able to drive vehicles manually. If nothing else, vintage or enthusiast cars will probably always be with us.

      Also, I don't think the goal of eliminating a large percentage of 30K needless US deaths per year (with many more maimed or injured) due to traffic accidents is a "soccer mom mentality".

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    16. Re:Why? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Big deal, if you read anything about the incident so did the test driver. Sometimes the other cars (or buses) make dick moves and collisions happen...

    17. Re:Why? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      assuming the machine has been properly maintained, programmed, and designed.

      Obviously, everyone knows this... so what's the point of being pessimistic about it? The modern non-self driving car already requires a ton of maintenance, programming, and design. Bad programming in your car could cause any number of problems anyway.

    18. Re:Why? by Alypius · · Score: 2

      There is driving, then there is slamming on your brakes every 15 feet in LA traffic. I would much rather be productive and/or preserve my sanity by letting the car handle that particular level of hell and save the fahrvergnügen for less urban environs.

    19. Re:Why? by Alypius · · Score: 1
      "All I know is that my perfect world requires that all roads are completely and totally off limits to any car besides mine."

      FIFY. (And yes, that is my perfect world too)

    20. Re:Why? by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      100% of other drivers can't wait for BMW drivers to just be passengers.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    21. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cost. A normal car can be had for 1000 bucks or less. A self-driving car will likely cost more, potentially way more.

    22. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, it's enjoyable also to be a passenger

    23. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it is because of marketing. Car commercials always claim how free you will be friving an empty road. This hits the subconscious of everyone. In other words people like driving because they are brainwashed to think so. Same happened with tobacco.

    24. Re:Why? by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      I think there might be roads where you are not allowed to drive manual cars. Starting first with lanes that are for autonomous vehicles. Also I expect tax breaks for autonomous vehicles.

    25. Re:Why? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      I agree totally. Or if I am doing a very long drive and I start getting really tired. It would be nice to simply turn it on auto and rest for a bit before resuming control without having to park. Also, for night driving, I'd probably be happy to let the computer with the radar take over.

      That doesn't mean I want to be a mere passenger in my own car all the time, but it seems to me that there are plenty of good uses for autonomous cars while not completely removing the ability to drive them yourself.

      I don't know why it is always only the people who want to remove self-driving cars from the road entirely, or the people who don't want self-driving cars at all. It would seem to me that the middle course makes a lot more sense in reality.

      I could agree that on certain crowded commuter roads, they may demand that you turn over control to the car for driving, because the shit I have seen that some idiots do in rush hour traffic is truly breathtaking. Also, perhaps they could allow the cars to drive at much higher speeds while on automatic, for roads engineered for those speeds, because the car reaction times are much better on auto.

    26. Re:Why? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Years ago, they invented this thing called the "On/Off" switch. You probably have similar things in your house for controlling lights and such.

      I have a little roadster which is fun to drive--in certain environments. But it's annoying to drive in other environments. I would have no problem with a car that is flexible enough that I can say, "Hey, car, drive me home" and yet, if I was up in the mountains and the road was pretty empty, I could say, "Hey, car, I'll take it from here" and have a fun drive.

      The two are not mutually exclusive.

    27. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get some pretty serious motion sickness, even as a front seat passenger staring at the road (depending on the road and driver). Only when I'm driving am I fairly immune to motion sickness.

      For that reason, I'll stick to driving myself. I wish I could do other things in a car but driving is generally my only salvation.

    28. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with the old folks hating overuse of social media and mobile devices... though I'm approaching 30.

      Why bother meeting with people physically if you're going to be immersed mentally elsewhere the entire time. Save everyone time and stay at home glued to your devices and services. Let me know when you get lonely and realize it's not a true substitute for physical human interaction. Technology has outpaced biology, again, but maybe not in a good way.

  2. Will the blinkers work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if they will manage to program it so that it activates the blinkers before turning or changing lanes.

  3. BMW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The Ultimate Riding Machine" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

    1. Re: BMW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

  4. It wouldn't be a BMW. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As somebody who owns a couple of BMW M cars (including a still fairly new M5), I just ask: why? BMWs are "Driver's Cars" - they exist for the joy of the driver. That's their whole identity. I could see launching something under a different / new brand (like Toyota did very successfully with Lexus and Honda did with Acura) to go into a new market, but their customer base will more or less revolt if they start selling self-driving cars with propeller badges. Yes, I know, one day we will all ride around in self-driving cars but for those of us who manage to actually enjoy our commutes rather than treating them as a utilitarian-at-best / dreaded-at-worst experience... we're not looking forward to it.

    1. Re: It wouldn't be a BMW. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because in 20 years it is illegal to drive in public roads without computer.

  5. What makes them think they can deliver? by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google is about to get some serious competition in the self-driving car race from none other than BMW

    Google has been working on this AI problem since probably 2008 or so and been road-testing self-driving cars since 2011. As far as I know BMW has no development at all on this concept.

    What makes BMW think they have some great insight into the artificial intelligence problem, that will make it possible for them to emerge as a serious autonomous vehicle competitor today, if Google is already 5 years ahead in learning and development of the software, data collection, and STILL does not believe their fully autonomous vehicle can be fully productized until 2020?

    Even Tesla has a head start on BMW.

    Autonomous driving is not a simple solved problem. It's not like you can just slap a clone together and have it out within a year or something....

    Research and development is an extremely long process, there, and as far as I know BMW's R and D is focused on building cars.... they probably don't have people who even know about robotics, let-alone AI for the self-driving problem.

    1. Re: What makes them think they can deliver? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google isn't much of a threat, especially considering their track record. They have failed at most everything they've set out to do. Most of their successes are the result of acquisitions. Google very well may have a dog in the race, but odds are low it will be the winner.

    2. Re:What makes them think they can deliver? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because BMW has been working on them a lot longer in secret, but even from 2011 you could see this:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsnKzK6dX8Q

    3. Re:What makes them think they can deliver? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The German companies do it a bit different than American companies, they pool resources for the common R&D good. It's why they had stuff like CAN bus while Ford and GM were all developing their own unique busses.

      BMW, VW and Benz all have a lot of research into this. I sat in on a grad seminar given by VW engineers back in 2010 on lane change obstacle avoidance. They certainly have the IP already, even if they aren't announcing it state side. They even have ISO standards for how to test obstacle avoidance: ISO 3888-2:2011 defines the dimensions of the test track for a closed-loop, severe lane-change manoeuvre test for subjectively determining the obstacle avoidance performance of a vehicle, one specific part of vehicle dynamics and road-holding ability. It is applicable to passenger cars as defined in ISO 3833 and light commercial vehicles up to a gross vehicle mass of 3,5 t.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      I had a BMW and Benz rental in 2012 that had the auto stop feature that is just now starting to show up in American cars. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...

      If there is any group of car companies that is going to give you autonomous driving with manual over ride it's going to be the German ones. German drivers also have a different mentality towards driving. Driving falls into two categories, either you have to do it and you can automate it or you want to do it and you don't want to automate it. I would say of my driving there's a good 80/20 split. 80% of the time I'd like the car to just get me somewhere but 20% of the time I do want an autobahn experience.

      Just because you don't think BMW hasn't done any research into self driving cars doesn't mean they haven't. It is an incredibly long process and Germans have had an ISO standard for testing it since 2011 as well. The TÜV doesn't mess around when it comes to safety or testing and I trust anything they verify much more than the DOT.

    4. Re: What makes them think they can deliver? by dj245 · · Score: 2

      Using that logic, any company that wanted to design and build an airplane after 1913 was a complete fool and was wasting their time and money.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    5. Re:What makes them think they can deliver? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will just go grab leaders, staff from XYZ company and university and scale it from there.
      Self-driving will become a commodity if every car company invests.

    6. Re:What makes them think they can deliver? by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      if you throw enough money at something you'll probably get results

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    7. Re:What makes them think they can deliver? by igny · · Score: 1

      I agree that Google is a pioneer in developing this technology. I would disagree that it would take years for others to catch up. For one thing, they do not have to repeat all Google's mistakes.

      Having said that, Google is going what in my opinion a government should be doing, that is, finance a research into a technology that has a potential to pay off many years later. I am not saying it is bad, I think it is nice of Google to spend money that they may not be able to get back for years if not ever.

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
    8. Re:What makes them think they can deliver? by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Many of the EU auto makers have been sinking massive amounts of R&D into this, but i did sign NDAs... They are making announcements because they are getting ready to show you something. No automakers wants to be left without some IP/Patent/Whatever to bring to the table and not be left out in the cold. They see the writing on the wall. In 20 years you won't be allowed to drive on public roads. Take it to the race track.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    9. Re:What makes them think they can deliver? by delt0r · · Score: 1

      You jest. But i would be surprised if they did run Linux. I would expect proper certified real time OS that have proper life critical testing as part of their life cycle.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    10. Re:What makes them think they can deliver? by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      In 20 years you won't be allowed to drive on public roads. Take it to the race track.

      Somehow I doubt that. Even if we assume that in 20 years every new car is capable of driving autonomously, the fact will remain that every autonomous car design will have been developed and trained for use in an environment with human drivers present, and therefore will be perfectly capable of sharing the road with human drivers.

      Combine that with the large contingent of car enthusiasts who will give up their steering wheels only when you pry them from their cold dead hands -- consider how the NRA feels about guns, and consider that in the USA at least, cars are more of a cultural icon than guns are.

      You might well pay more in auto insurance if you drive manually, but assuming you have a clean driving record, probably not a whole lot more. Especially if every car around you can and does reliably react within milliseconds to reduce the impact of any bonehead moves you might make.

      I will predict that in 20 years it will be very difficult to sell a new car that isn't capable of driving autonomously.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    11. Re:What makes them think they can deliver? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that Google has solved the problem, BMW only needs to hire the respective engineers/talent that Google has created.

      I applaud BMW for their approach. It will mean more competition and more diversification in cars that can auto drive rather than the disaster that is mobile phones where we are now down to two breeds of phone.

      Don't forget that BMW already has a self parking car that people buy today.

    12. Re:What makes them think they can deliver? by just+another+AC · · Score: 2

      You forget one important difference... We can price (almost) all meatbag drivers off the road because the pieces are already there.

      Want to drive on public roads? You need compulsory 3rd party insurance and pay government special levies. Every year insurance companies and government double the price for human drivers as their comparative risk keeps going up compared to autonomous vehicles that will only keep improving.

      We can also inconvenience them off the road...

      Want to use that new expressway? Sorry autonomous vehicles only because only they can safely follow with only 6 inch gap.

      For the gun analogy, if it cost 100K a year to own a gun, there would be very few NRAA members

    13. Re:What makes them think they can deliver? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will be running google ai or ms ai or tesla ai or maybe some other us company, until maybe 10ish years later they can subsidize up a euro ai consortium.

    14. Re: What makes them think they can deliver? by Dahamma · · Score: 0

      This is moronic. You know nothing about Google...

    15. Re:What makes them think they can deliver? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      If it's anything like the Tesla, they probably run various subsystems on different software, from no OS at all for the low level control systems, to possible simple automotive RTOS (OTEK?) for ECU (not sure if Tesla uses it, but I believe Bosch/BMW does), to Linux for things like infotainment and media consoles...

    16. Re:What makes them think they can deliver? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      And working on it "in secret" means they are WAY behind Google. If you aren't using it in public streets with other cars you aren't going to get it right, and google has put way over 1M miles on public streets already.

      I seem to see one about every other time I drive through Mountain View these days (and honestly they are kind of a menace on 35 MPH streets like Shoreline or El Camino since they won't go more than 25...)

    17. Re:What makes them think they can deliver? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was at a conference in 1995 with European researchers working on self-driving cars. European car manufacturers were interested from then, or even before.

    18. Re:What makes them think they can deliver? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American living in Germany here, also worked for a German OEM auto supplier for 8 years.

      You description of German driving habits is fairly accurate but to say you trust the TÜV in light of recent events is somewhat naive. It wasn't the Germans that brought the emissions scandal to light despite there being millions more effected vehicles here. Vehicles that were inspected by TÜV and Co.

      In fact they were / are threatened with losing their accreditation.
      http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article150302218/TUeV-Dekra-amp-Co-droht-der-Verlust-ihrer-Zulassung.html

      That and the TÜVs expertise in Software leaves much to be desired (moving metal contraptions is more their specialty)

      Sorry, but to think BMW or the Germans in general bring something special to the table is naive in my opinion. To use the German saying "Die kochen auch nur mit Wasser!" or indirectly translated "They also just put their pants on one leg at a time!"

      Ami in Deutchland

    19. Re: What makes them think they can deliver? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an end user, I can say with certainty their software sucks.

    20. Re:What makes them think they can deliver? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Google is about to get some serious competition in the self-driving car race from none other than BMW

      Google has been working on this AI problem since probably 2008 or so and been road-testing self-driving cars since 2011. As far as I know BMW has no development at all on this concept.

      BMW along with several other manufactorers like Mercedes and Volvo, have been working on this A LOT longer than Google, and already have cars on the road. Several high-end cars have had self-driving features for years, just waiting for it to be legal to activate on high ways.

    21. Re:What makes them think they can deliver? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google is about to get some serious competition in the self-driving car race from none other than BMW

      Google has been working on this AI problem since probably 2008 or so and been road-testing self-driving cars since 2011. As far as I know BMW has no development at all on this concept.

      Google started out without any experience in the field at a time when every car manufacturer already had adaptive cruise control, lane followers and park assist.
      BMW isn't starting from scratch. A lot of the tools that are needed for autonomous driving has already been in place for a while.

    22. Re:What makes them think they can deliver? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a classic case of management thinking they can just wish things into existence... unfortunately for them, in this case, unless those little people (scientists and engineers) get the damn thing working, none of it will happen.

      The good news though is that once any company gets it working (quite likely Google), all the other manufacturers will just license/copy the breakthrough.

    23. Re: What makes them think they can deliver? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's 'cause they're staffed with smart people. Smart people like to solve problems. Technical problems. Intellectually challenging problems. Problems that improve the world. Not meddle with stupid front-facing aspects (UI issues, usability testing, etc.) of software... it's just not intellectually stimulating enough.

      As a user, you see crappy software... not realizing that the guts of that software have some genuine top-notch research behind them by a team of PhDs

    24. Re:What makes them think they can deliver? by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 2

      No, DARPA was the pioneer.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    25. Re:What makes them think they can deliver? by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Every year insurance companies and government double the price for human drivers as their comparative risk keeps going up compared to autonomous vehicles that will only keep improving.

      I don't follow. Why would the presence of safer autonomous vehicles make the cost of traditional auto insurance rise?

      I can see why having a safer vehicle would make insuring that safer vehicle cheaper -- I don't see why it would make insuring other vehicles more expensive, since they would not be any less safe than they were previously.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    26. Re:What makes them think they can deliver? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I don't follow. Why would the presence of safer autonomous vehicles make the cost of traditional auto insurance rise?

      Because automobile insurance is a scam. It's legally mandated, yet they don't have to give you any justification for their pricing: the formulas they use to determine your premiums are trade secrets. You should never have to guess where money is going when you purchase a legally mandated product or service.

      Old people will lobby and/or vote with their feet in order to get the cost of autonomous vehicle insurance down to a minimum. Young people who can't afford autonomous vehicles and people who want to drive for themselves will take it in the shorts as the insurance companies do their best to maintain their predatory profits, and raise premiums on other drivers to compensate.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re:What makes them think they can deliver? by nicklott · · Score: 1

      Google has been working on this AI problem since probably 2008 or so and been road-testing self-driving cars since 2011. As far as I know BMW has no development at all on this concept.

      BMW has been making cars since 1916. How long has Google been making them? How hard is it for established manufacturers to get the tens of thousands of parts in a road car 100% correct at design time? Google is not infallible. If they do indeed decide to mass manufacture their own cars (which I doubt) it will take years and billions of miles to iron out all the issues. Engineering isn't software.

      Say you're BMW's favourite kind of customer: you buy new, all the gimmicks, change your car for another BMW every 4-5 years and have been doing so for 20 years. Are you going to start buying Google's plastic toy car that's only been in production for 2 years instead? You might buy one to go with your BMW, especially if you live in a city, but you're still going to buy the BMW.

      Research and development is an extremely long process, there, and as far as I know BMW's R and D is focused on building cars.... they probably don't have people who even know about robotics, let-alone AI for the self-driving problem.

      Presumably they'll do what Google, Apple, FB and the rest of the tech-cartels do when they want to muscle in on something: buy it in.

      Actually, having said that, I very much doubt BMW will be competing with Google for car sales anyway, because I very much doubt Google will be retailing their cars. They will either operate the fleet themselves or sell them to other fleet operators or just sell the software.

    28. Re:What makes them think they can deliver? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Presumably they'll do what Google, Apple, FB and the rest of the tech-cartels do when they want to muscle in on something: buy it in.

      The autonomous technology does not exist, and you cannot just buy it. Also, hiring more developers than Google does not get you a higher quality AI technology faster. You cannot also get a viable autonomous vehicle AI technology just by developing a bunch of independent pieces by different developers such as "obstacle avoidance" and trying to string them together randomly to make it seem like an intelligence.

      The "just Buy an AI" to get it faster does not work for the same reason that if you are unhappy having to wait 9 months to get a new baby: you can't just go get 9 women pregnant and have a baby in 1 month.

      Developing the first AI system to do something requires extensive help from employees with a very high level of knowledge and skill in some areas that is quite scarce in the industry, essentially... P.h. D. level of ability computer scientists who have the AI foundation to build the machine learning and mapping systems.

      Also, even if you had four times as many contributors as Google does not mean you can halve the development time.

      BMW has been making cars since 1916. How long has Google been making them?

      Making a car does not require or entail any original research. All the information necessary to make a car has been published and is publicly available for more than 100 years, and 50 years extra experience on a commodity technology such as the Internal Combustion Engine doesn't give you any real advantages over a 24 month timeframe. There are tools that automate much of the development process, and Google has already prototyped vehicles ---- they certainly could be mass producing them for the public, If the self-driving function were ready for primetime.

      How hard is it for established manufacturers to get the tens of thousands of parts in a road car 100% correct at design time?

      To optimize for an autonomous vehicle; the manufacturers essentially have to start all over with a fundamentally new design. It's no easier to get all the pieces right, just because their company has designed good products in the past. The differences are big enough, that their prior work does not consist of reusable pieces. It doesn't help them tackle the self-driving part.

      The "Car Part" is just a commodity, and Google could partner with/outsource that to any vehicle manufacturer and have it done in less than a year, if they wanted.

    29. Re: What makes them think they can deliver? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Except you are *not* the end user. You are the product. Their ad affiliates are the end user, and they *love* their software.

    30. Re:What makes them think they can deliver? by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Because automobile insurance is a scam.

      That's not a convincing argument -- even if we assume for the sake of argument that every insurance company is greedy and unscrupulous, competition between insurance companies keeps a cap on insurance prices.

      I don't see how the introduction of autonomous cars would change that dynamic.

      Old people will lobby and/or vote with their feet in order to get the cost of autonomous vehicle insurance down to a minimum.

      Pure speculation.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    31. Re:What makes them think they can deliver? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Pure speculation.

      Welcome to Slashdot! You must be new here.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    32. Re:What makes them think they can deliver? by juniorkindergarten · · Score: 1

      Insurance may be a scam, but its wonderfully capitalistic. They look at the payouts that they have to do, first brought forth by blood sucking lawyers, then payouts for body shops/write offs and then tack on a nice healthy profit. If either payout increases, then rates go up. If payouts decrease then prices stay the same. Simple. Lloyds of London expects a 30% profit. No secret.

      --
      "Every security scheme that is based on secrets eventually fails." - Steve Jobs
    33. Re:What makes them think they can deliver? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Benz, started developing autonomous cars in the 1960's and have showed prototypes since the late 70's

  6. I gotta wonder why by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
    Full disclaimer:

    I enjoy driving.

    Its a little difficult to imagine just being a passenger in my own car. In fact, if as so many slash dotters allude to the nirvana like state of incredible safety brought about by our autonomous auto overlords, and auto accidents will be reduced to zero or near enough to it, wouldn't it make much more sense to not have any private automobiles? autonomous mass transit, and not much else.

    I mean it will smell like vomit and piss and bad body odor, but hey, it'll be perfectly safe.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:I gotta wonder why by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      Unless you have rack-and-pinion steering and a cable that goes to a fuel valve, you *already* are a passenger...

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    2. Re:I gotta wonder why by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Unless you have rack-and-pinion steering and a cable that goes to a fuel valve, you *already* are a passenger...

      So Ican sit in the passenger seat and all cars today that meet your requirements will take me wherever I want to go? Who knew?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:I gotta wonder why by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      We have 2 cars, like many people, and one is a nice comfortable, boring car that holds a lot of stuff, and is very useful. The other is a toy, an old VW Beetle, converted to electric, that's faster than snot, that we use on sunny days, just for fun. If I had a self driving car, I'd replace that boring thing, and still have my toy.

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    4. Re:I gotta wonder why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha so my stupid old 2001 mustang is now desirable. Too bad it was replaced with m235x

    5. Re:I gotta wonder why by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      You're the program in the machine, where as before you were the program and the actuator. Now the car does the steering and braking for you - at your command through a mechanical/digital interface.

      If you try being a passenger in one without a driver, you're going to break yourself. Don't do that. Let the self driving cars do that for you when they gain sapience.

    6. Re:I gotta wonder why by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Sometimes it doesn't pay to be "clever".

      Passenger: A person who travels in a conveyance, such as a car or train, without participating in its operation.

      Driver != passenger by most definitions, sorry.

    7. Re:I gotta wonder why by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Unless you have rack-and-pinion steering and a cable that goes to a fuel valve, you *already* are a passenger...

      My W126 300SD has more steering feel than my D2 A8 in spite of having recirculating ball steering while the A8 has rack and pinion, both with hydraulic power assist. You're talking a load of dingo's kidneys.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:I gotta wonder why by Alypius · · Score: 1

      I enjoy driving as well (even if it's my 2013 fly-by-wire Honda Accord), but I like the cruising/slaloming along Route 101 kind of driving, not the sudden start/stop of I-5 through LA or Seattle.

    9. Re:I gotta wonder why by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      To me, it depends on how many do what as to whether it "makes more sense."

      "Makes more sense" is a personal thing. For example, I hate enclosed vehicles. I have owned one of them in my entire life and I hated driving it. I love convertibles and I won't buy a non-convertible. It's off the table, period. Yes, this means I might pay more for a vehicle that I want to be in. I could buy an enclosed econobox car that gets better gas mileage, can't accelerate worth a damn, and is uncomfortable to ride in for cheaper. But, to me, it's worth it.

      If it is worth it for you to own your own vehicle and not have to deal with the smells of vomit, piss, and bad body odor that you might have to deal with from an autonomous vehicle transportation service, you go for it.

      See, everybody seems to want to make this jump. "Oh, da gubmint won't let us own our own vehicles anymore! We'll have to join this socialist collective where da gubmint will watch everywhere we go!" I don't see that happening. What I see is that the proverbial "invisible hand of the market" will probably decide. Where these vehicles make sense, people will choose them. Where "autonomous vehicle transportation services" makes sense, people will choose them. Where public transit makes sense, people will choose it.

      What's scary, of course, is that you might discover that your preferences are a minority and that might affect the market. Suppose the vast majority of people decide they prefer to be driven around by a machine while texting their friends rather than having to spend 20 minutes "off-line" while driving a car. So companies decide there isn't enough of a market for people who prefer to drive themselves and stop selling cars which you can drive or they make fewer "drivable" cars and, therefore, have to charge more in order to recoup their costs, pricing you out of the market.

    10. Re:I gotta wonder why by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      To me, it depends on how many do what as to whether it "makes more sense."

      "Makes more sense" is a personal thing. For example, I hate enclosed vehicles. I have owned one of them in my entire life and I hated driving it. I love convertibles and I won't buy a non-convertible.

      Like myself and motorcycles. A motorcycle is more like flying than flying an airplane. The unobstructed view, the wind. Only thing missing is the altitude.

      Dangerous? I suppose. I don't care though. It's that much fun.

      See, everybody seems to want to make this jump. "Oh, da gubmint won't let us own our own vehicles anymore! We'll have to join this socialist collective where da gubmint will watch everywhere we go!"

      I'm certainly not doing that. I do suspect that insurance rates might be interesting, relegating archaic vehicles to the very wealthy.

      Then again, I would love to see a collectivist hive try to tell motorcycle drivers they are part of the past.

      Suppose the vast majority of people decide they prefer to be driven around by a machine while texting their friends rather than having to spend 20 minutes "off-line" while driving a car. So companies decide there isn't enough of a market for people who prefer to drive themselves and stop selling cars which you can drive or they make fewer "drivable" cars and, therefore, have to charge more in order to recoup their costs, pricing you out of the market.

      Well, hopefully the dimbulbs who are so addicted to TWD and the little smartphones will lose that addiction and find other annoying habits. But yes, if we are stuck with pre-automated vehicles, it would be a shame.

      But the bright side of this whole thing is that fully autonomous vehicles are to me a shade of diminishing returns people might not like to get to.

      Many of the safety features are ready to implement now. Lane assist, emergency braking, anti-tailgating radar, IR view. Panoramic rear view. All these things allow the driver control of the vehicle while keeping them from doing stupid things.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  7. They probably can't deliver by ErikTheRed · · Score: 3, Informative

    I say this as somebody who owns and loves BMWs... they suck ass at software. They can't even get things like their console information / entertainment system to be reasonably bug-free, so how the hell do they think they can actually do difficult and important stuff?

    --

    Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
    1. Re:They probably can't deliver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My biggest beef with BMWs is that if you disconnect or replace the battery, the car has to be towed to a dealership to get the battery "registered". No registration, engine will refuse to start. The dealer claims it is to protect the circuitry from overvoltage as non-approved 12 volt batteries can be dangerous.

    2. Re:They probably can't deliver by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2

      I say this as somebody who owns and loves BMWs... they suck ass at software.

      They suck at console/entertainment software (e.g., idrive).

      .
      BMW does quite well with car control software (e.g., the all-wheel drive anti-slip software).

    3. Re:They probably can't deliver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't blame BMW, the infotainment is sourced to Harman

    4. Re:They probably can't deliver by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      BMW does quite well with car control software (e.g., the all-wheel drive anti-slip software).

      They don't do that without help. They don't make the hardware that handles that stuff — just like Audi and Daimler, they buy all of that stuff from Bosch. They also don't write the software, they only make customizations to it and even that is assisted by Bosch engineers. Or in the case of transmissions, ZF engineers. Nearly all German cars are based around a ZF transmission. Then again, it often seems like practically all cars worldwide are using a ZF transmission now — they make the 8- and 9-speed automatics that everyone and their mom is putting into a car now. Automakers are still making their own small manual transmissions in some cases, but almost nobody seems to be making their own automatic that isn't a CVT. A handful of automakers do that. Honda famously makes their own automatic transmissions, which infamously suck. Ford, too. Transmission shop owners love Ford to little bitty pieces. GM seems to be using the ZF8 and ZF9 now...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:They probably can't deliver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In VW cars console cigarette lighter is hot wired to the battery and commonly used for:
      1) Solar panel that can be placed behind the windshield to maintain battery when vehicle is parked for many days or weeks
      2) Small 12VDC backup battery to be plugged in for the main battery swap to avoid loss of data about engine and accessories

  8. Naw, BMW will add some more cool features... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    BMW will add some cool features that the GCars won't have:

    1: A weighting for their e-cars to slide into narrow gaps between cars in traffic, then panic stop.
    2: No turn signals.
    3: Auto detection of parking line spaces, and automatic parking to take up as many as possible.
    4: A middle finger sign that pops out, when a lane change is successfully executed.
    5: e-Ink on the sides of the vehicle to mimic being keyed by unhappy people after #1-4 are done.

    1. Re: Naw, BMW will add some more cool features... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is interesting to think competing smart cars might one day fuck with other smart cars.

    2. Re:Naw, BMW will add some more cool features... by Alypius · · Score: 1

      They'll have a special I-5 LA edition for those features.

  9. gay "hackers" are easy to get bc are trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    enough said. just find the fag bar. where they dont drink, only talk without govs in their assets.

  10. I am driving a 20-year-old car by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    you insensitive clod!

    1. Re:I am driving a 20-year-old car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am driving an 18 year old BMW and I still love it.

    2. Re:I am driving a 20-year-old car by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Ditto. In fact, until just recently I was driving a 35-year-old car. Still am, when I need to pick up parts for my 20-year-old car (actually only 19, but close enough.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. Here Maps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Look at Here Maps (maps.here.com) , and there offline app navigation. Really you'd think nobody could compete with Google maps, and yet Here is far superior.
    Less worthless bells and whistles and noise and more the "where is X" fundamentals of maps.

    BMW has shown self driving prototypes since 2011, European cars already have features like lane follow, auto park, sign recognition, collision avoidance and so on, so they're already rolling out key components in existing cars.

    My expectation from BMW is that it will make cars that drive from A to B with cameras watching the roads.
    My expectation from Google is that they will make cars that drive from A to Sponsored C to Sponsored D to B with cameras watching me.

    If you think that's a joke, look at what their glorified Android radio does (it requires all the internal engine data and position, be sent to Google server), so if you're driving a car with a Google android 'radio/navigation' its tracking you and every detail of your driving even when its off.

  12. Drive spaceships instead of BMW's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a shameless offtopic plug to kickstart Overload - a reboot of descent by the original team. It is going to be sick in VR... literally you will throw up breakfast, lunch and last nights dinner.

  13. Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BMW drivers are insufferable enough now.

    1. Re:Great. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      BMW drivers are insufferable enough now.

      Yes, I was also wondering if BMW self-driving cars would also drive like assholes.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To create a software that matches your average BMW driver they would have to get help from Microsofts Windows 10 update notification team.

    3. Re:Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      BMW drivers are insufferable enough now.

      Yes, I was also wondering if BMW self-driving cars would also drive like assholes.

      Actually, as an avid cyclist, I can tell you there are worse cars for harboring asshole drivers.

      First: the entitled soccer mom in an SUV. Asshole + ditz is worse than just asshole.

      Second, the Volkswagen Jetta. Think of a person who feels that he's entitled to own a BMW. But he can't hold a good enough job to pay for one. He's stuck in the "BMW-for-the-the-poor": the Jetta. So he's a stunted BMW driver that's always pissed off whenever he has to drive his baby wanna-be bimmer. Pissed-off asshole who knows he can't measure up is worse than any asshole happy he can show off his BMW.

      And then there's the Prius. By FAR the worst. God only knows why the Prius has such a high percentage of asshole drivers. Maybe because their SMUG over driving a car that gets an entire 15% better gas mileage than a normal car (WOO HOO! for low standards!) is challenged by bicycles?

    4. Re:Great. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, as an avid cyclist, I can tell you there are worse cars for harboring asshole drivers.

      And as an avid driver, I can tell you that avid cyclists are the biggest assholes on the road, by far. It's not even close.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re: Great. by Facekhan · · Score: 1

      As a BMW 3 series driver from Maryland, my sincere hope is that BMW makes their cars drive just like us :)

    6. Re:Great. by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      I Drive a BMW!

      Oh, wait....

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
  14. time to put the BMW mystique to rest . . . by swell · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "...delivering only the metal bodies for them."

    No, they won't even be doing that- Google & Uber will not want their metal body or their programming expertise. The mystique of the quality German car quickly evaporates when you own one or crunch the numbers on the cost of purchase, maintenance, parts and accessories.

    I'm on my third BMW motorcycle; each new purchase 20+ years after the previous. During that time I've owned a couple dozen other motorcycles. Like the Harley, BMW motorcycles have made only minor changes over the last 100 years, and like the Harley they still can't get it right. Meanwhile the Japanese can snap their fingers and come up with a totally new design that is almost flawless and it's relatively affordable.

    It's not just motorcycles; Consumer Reports can't find a single excellent car in the 2015 BMW lineup. It's sad, I'd love to own a vehicle that actually lived up to such a reputation but they don't seem to come from Europe or America.

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
    1. Re:time to put the BMW mystique to rest . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my experience German cars are the shittiest of cars.

    2. Re:time to put the BMW mystique to rest . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      German cars tend to handle well and have that air of European aristocracy about them, and some people care about that. Otherwise, they are expensive, not particularly reliable, and not very convenient.

    3. Re:time to put the BMW mystique to rest . . . by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "...delivering only the metal bodies for them."

      No, they won't even be doing that- Google & Uber will not want their metal body or their programming expertise.

      Do you have any idea what it costs to stamp out auto body? Do you have any idea what it costs to make a "cheap" carbon fiber car? BMW is literally the only corporation on the planet which currently has the tooling to do that, which they developed for the i3. Nothing prevents other automakers from doing similar things, although BMW probably has a shitpile of related patents which may in fact impede such efforts.

      Further, the body in white is the best part of a German car. Outside of Germany, only Cadillac (!) is currently making cars with a modern body design, like Honda pioneered in 1991 with the NSX and like Audi brought to luxo-barges in 1994 with the A8. Or, for that matter, like Ford brought to pickups in 2015 with the almost-all-Aluminum F150. (The chassis remains steel for obvious reasons, as does the firewall and probably the toe area in the bargain, I haven't looked at a diagram recently.) Ford is supposedly gearing up to produce Aluminum cars as well, but the next vehicles to move over to the lighter metal will be the Super Duty pickup, Expedition, and the Lincoln Navigator. They are made out of lots of metal, so they will enjoy the greatest weight savings of all the vehicles in the lineup.

      TL;DR: If they did want anything from German automakers, it would be the body. VW is a more likely potential source, though, than BMW. BMW is more hesitant to partner and VW more desperately needs good PR right now.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:time to put the BMW mystique to rest . . . by nicklott · · Score: 1

      The mystique of the quality German car quickly evaporates when you own one or crunch the numbers on the cost of purchase, maintenance, parts and accessories

      I guess all those millions of BMWs I see on the road must be a figment of my imagination then.

  15. I smell a bubble by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Isn't Apple, Kia, and Samsung also getting into this biz, along with some no-names? It's premature to assume it will expand fast. It's a very new, untested, and immature market. We had the Dot Com bubble, maybe this is the Dot Car bubble.

    These co's should perhaps split the load via co-ownership to divide the risk, yet be enough in the game to take advantage of a SDC boom if one actually happens.

  16. Re:GNAA - GAY NIGGERS LOVE BMW! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

    Trump 2016

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  17. BMW WMB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BMW - The Ultimate Just Riding In a Car Being a Douche Machine!

  18. Lotsa luck there. by Sosetta · · Score: 1

    Google has some fucking amazingly talented engineers with a love for software and physics and engineering working on this problem. They have people who consider it theirs life's goal to reduce traffic accidents.

    They aren't working to stay ahead of the competition. They are working to build the best self-driving software possible. They are so far ahead of everyone else that it's just silly, and they're still working constantly to get to this goal faster.

    Why would you want to invest in that, BMW? Just wait until it's done, and license the software. it'll be VASTLY cheaper and more efficient than what you're planning.

  19. Cheat intelligence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will they be buying technology from VW in order for the cars to cheat intelligence?

    Because I *know* this advanced technology exists: some of my bosses are using it all the time!

  20. why no link to the 'via' source? :( by SmartAboutThings · · Score: 1

    sigh, I thought that at /. it's all about diversity on the front page, it's sad that you guys didn't give the link to http://sdcarnews.com/bmw-looks... (

  21. Re:GNAA - GAY NIGGERS LOVE BMW! by Alypius · · Score: 1

    And to think that I never associated BMW with the GNAA until this post. Oh, wait, I still don't.

  22. So it's BMW's programmers verses Google's by jools33 · · Score: 2

    So its BMW's programming team verses Google's, I know where I'm placing my money...

    1. Re:So it's BMW's programmers verses Google's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think that issue as a programming problem, your opinion is not really valuable. The programming is an insignificant part in reaching the goal of an autonomous car. It's all about Maths e.g. probability, statistics, machine learning, signal processing and models.

    2. Re:So it's BMW's programmers verses Google's by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Google has some of the world's TOP mathematicians on staff, I know, I have worked with some of them. (I don't work for google, but I work for a company that regularly has business with them.)

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  23. Stick to what you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So BMW is now planning to become one of the biggest software companies in the world? I have an idea, why not stick to making and designing cars? The Foxconn / Apple analogy is flawed. Currently BMW is Foxconn and Apple combined. It seems they want to be Foxconn, Apple and Google. Stupid.

  24. I can't wait by golgotha007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    for driverless cars to become popular. I'll be able to take advantage of their dialed-up safety protocols and be able to cut my way through traffic faster with less risk.

  25. They should when a chevy SS camaro by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

    BMW has lost its driver's car mojo, so maybe they need to move to something else. When a Camaro SS creams an M4 (latest motortrend comparison review) they are doing something very wrong. I've heard for a couple of years now BMW steering has gone numb. Now the exhaust note sounds like a blender and a sloppy clutch/shifter. Seriously.

  26. failure is not an option. 1911 smartphone (death by raymorris · · Score: 2

    > or a gun person (amazing how those seem to go hand in hand) then you have to make stupid comments about how they'll never be able to make a smart gun that works

    Your ignorance of the topic is glaring. I'm making this post via my smart phone. Often, as I post on Slashdot, my smart phone suddenly hides the keyboard, so that as I begin to press the "h" or "j" keys, they vanish and the press instead goes to the Submit button which was underneath. I end up posting half a post because the smarts in my smart phone decided it was time to remove the keyboard from my screen.

    Sometimes, my smart phone phone randomly locks up for a few seconds, which is no big deal because it only lasts maybe ten seconds before it starts working again. That kind of thing happens with smart devices.

    In 2011, the model 1911 (introduced in the year 1911) was still the world's most popular handgun because it's been proven reliable (partially because it has only about foir moving parts that are critical). When your smart gun locks up for ten seconds, that's enough time for the bad to put ten bullets in you.
    In a gun fight, a snafu with your hardware means you are dead. We carry the hundred-year-old 1911 model because reliability means life. A bug, an imperfection, an "undocumented feature" with your handgun means your kids no longer have dad, so that's why we're not interested in nifty new designs with cool new features.

    The upgrade cycle on handgun designs for serious users is about once every hundred years for this reason. After 30 years of torture-testing the Glock design, including testing it after burying it in sand, in swamp, etc., we've started to trust that it's reliable, and it's taking it's place as the handgun design for this century. We pay $650 for a Glock rather than $250 for a very similar Kel-Tec model because we trust the Glock's reliability just a little bit more. In defense guns, reliability is life, so we'll absolutely pay more than twice as much to get something 2% more reliable.

    Go bury your smart gun in wet sand, in a swamp, drop it down the stairs, then test it. Keep doing this for 30 or 40 years and you'll meet the testing standards we've always required of any new design.

  27. I'll buy a Browning smart gun by raymorris · · Score: 2

    To illustrate a bit further for those who don't "get it", virtually every gun made today, from pistols to machine guns, is a John Moses Browning design. People have tweaked things here and there, adjusted the size and shape, but they mechanisms for all types of guns are John Browning's designs. Second place is Gaston Glock, for figuring out which plastic could be used to make a frame for a Browning breach-lock design.

    Basically, John Browning is the one guy we trust with our lives. We trust his designs. When he designs a smart gun, I'll buy one. That really is holding "smart" guns to the same standard we hold traditional guns - we trust their design only if John Browning signs off on the design. Of course he's been dead since 1926, so that's unlikely.

    Actually any "smart" gun would almost have to be the opposite of Browning's genius - he's THE gun designer because he was a master of simplicity, of having the fewest possible moving parts. Simplicity, few parts to go wrong, is what makes his designs so reliable. That's the opposite of "smart".

        Your smart thermostat is so complex and therefore difficult to FULLY understand that it can't be made secure or reliable; they get hacked and crash. That may be okay for a thermostat.

  28. This could be good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the ADA programming language, and fourth-generation 'RAD' application development tools.