Slashdot Mirror
Driverless Cars Need a Lot More Than Software, Ford CTO Says (axios.com)
In an interview, Ken Washington, Ford's Chief Technical Officer, shared company's views on how autonomy will change car design. From an article: The biggest influence will be how the cars are bought, sold and used: "You would design those vehicles differently depending on what business model (is being used). We're working through that business model question right now," he said. The biggest misconceptions about autonomous capabilities is that it's only about software: "People are imagining that the act of doing software for autonomy is all you need to do and then you can just bolt it to the car," he said. "I don't think it's possible to describe what an autonomous vehicle is going to look like," he added.
We are sick and tired of selling value at this price point. We don't easily know where you go in real time, can't divert you to areas we want you to go, or subject you to in vehicle ads, and after only a few years you are off a payment plan. We are going to fix this for you, and likely make it illegal to return to the old model of ownership and privacy rights.
The business model should include protecting people and pedestrians at all cost. A car that protects itself while getting everyone killed probably won't have a great used car value.
So it almost needs a soul when it needs to make life and death decisions, sort of a
Complete holistic reconnaissance intelligence system to intercept necrosis events.
This rush to deploy driverless vehicles is insanity. Especially after the news of the gentleman who was denogginized by an 18 wheeler through no fault of his own. In response to events like that, Musk and other true believers simply think the concept might need a few more tweaks.
> I don't think it's possible to describe what an autonomous vehicle is going to look like Someone should show this guy a Model S. No, it's not 100% automated, but it's as close as anyone. It's hard to imagine it will need to drastically change to get to 100%.
They need hardware too. Duh.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
That lot more than software is hardware.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Ford was warned by their own engineers that the car would explode in rear-end collisions and that it would cost $5 per car to fix it. Ford decided that killing a few customers and settling a few lawsuits was better and cheaper than actually building safe cars.
I do hope they're going to make a better set of choices this time.
If, for example, your sensors can't detect a white truck on a cloudy day, no software is going to be good enough.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
the cut over time is really bad with you must be ready to take over with much less reaction time Then an airline pilot has when the autopilot fails.
feld techs / plumbers / hvac / cable guys / etc.
Keep alot of parts / tools in the car / van and they go site to site throughout the day.
I think what Washington's basically saying is that autonomous vehicles are replacements for taxis and transport/delivery trucks, not personal cars. I wonder if he's thought about personal cars that can do both?
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
This has been discussed for years; it is why the manufacturers invest in Uber/Lyft, it is why Uber is investing in self-driving cars, and it is why higher utilization rates of autonomous cars are expected.
Yes, it means that a car with 50% utilization will be more expensive than one with 5%, it means that the service model changes dramatically, and it means that the ownership model is also likely to be impacted.
Who is really only looking at the first-order issues here? Aside for people complaining about EVs, I doubt many really think that everything will stay exactly as it is today.
"Driverless Fords Need a Lot More Than Software" everybody else says
Apart from Uber and one or two others? Come to that, will Ford, GM, VW et al still exist as separate car giants in 30 years time? They'll all be sub-contracting to the people who will be hiring out individual transport to take you from place to place in a vehicle that you hire by the hour. Very, very few people will own their own cars. Still less drive them - except for those "quaint" early 2000's models - on special tracks to which they will be transported safely (on specially designed flat beds) by - yep, you've guessed it. Dear old Uber. I imagine the wrecks will be returned by different flatbeds :-)
It's a car, manufactured as a consumption item, to wear down and require Ford-exclusive maintenance, and to break down often enough that they get the revenue you want.
And a bunch of other stuff Ford doesn't make or know a thing about, what was their point again?
@burtosis, the Ford guy has a point. Why would you even own an autonomous vehicle? There's no need to have a car sitting in your driveway or garage (no need for a driveway or garage) when you can call it like an Uber, and it shows up in minutes. Autonomous cars will become like cloud services, a utility we subscribe to, personal transportation on demand.
Because I want to own my own car. I want control over the vehicle internal hardware and software, I don't want someone else's dirty vehicle, I want to add the accessories I choose and have easy access to them, I want to take it off road or on long trips where it will wait for me, I want it at my beck and call 24/7, I don't want monthly payments just off the top of my head. In an emergency or other high demand time I want a 100% shot at immediate vehicle access. You feel free living without a vehicle and only a glorified uber, paying far more cost per mile than vehicle ownership for the same number of miles, you and others may prefer this. Corporations like ford definitely want this yesterday. I, and likely many others, never will.
But I question the common perception that self driving cars are going to lead huge drops in car ownership. {...} None of these things is a showstopper, but if I am already spending money to own my car, why wouldn't I spend money to own my self driving car, that already has my stuff in it?
Depends on where you live.
In a dense (european-style) city, owning a car is a complicated matter. There's no free street parking.
You need a place to park it over night (so in addition to rent your own flat, you need to pay rent for a parking spot in the underground garage under you apartment building - if one exists. Otherwise you need to pay a yearly fee just to be able to leave it without limits in your own street)
You need to pay for for parking whenever you go shopping somewhere.
You need to pay a monthly or yearly fee to park it at your working place.
The situation is completely different than in US-style suburbs where everybody has a house with their own garage attached to it, and where every single place has a nearby outdoor free parking.
(Also, because the car doesn't spend most of its time next to you but parked in some other space, you tend NOT to leave all your apartment's worth of stuff inside. What if somebody breaks the cars window to steal something from inside it ? Remember the car isn't in safely in different part of your house, it may be in a street down somewhere across your workplace or apartment building)
Car-sharing models at least completely remove the need to think where to leave the car.
Depending on sharing models, either they have dedicated station where you park them, or you can leave them for *free* on any street parking spot, ready to be taken by the next customer.
What about child seats? Will parents have to provide their own car seats, or count on calling a car that has one or more available?
As a matter of fact, car-sharing go the first route (some car have standardized attachment points), taxis go the second one (you can basically order one with any implements you could want. But taxis just tend to be more expensive in big cities - in some countries more than in others).
but how do I call for a car that has a bike rack that fits a recumbent bike?
Just a question : why don't you actually, ... you know...*bike* on your bike ?
Maybe it's my bias of living in cities which are mostly bikeable everywhere.
One generally uses the bike *to* bike.
If you need to travel to somewhere else, you *bike* to the train station, load the bike into the train (if you can store it inside a bag - even more easy with a foldable one - it's considered "luggage" and you don't need to pay a fare for it) and then further bike once arrived at the destination's train station.
If you really want to travel to somewhere with a car (e.g.: for your vacations) you rent a car equipped with the necessary rack.
Same for skis: If you're not taking the train (winter-time, equipped with free ski storage space), you either bring your own magnetic "stick-it-on-the-roof" ski rack (Car-sharing) or rent a car with the proper equipment (car rentals).
Beside, to decrease fuel usage (due to air drag resistance), most people here around tend to mount/unmount racks on a need basis even on the roofs of their own cars.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Because I want to own my own car. I want control over the vehicle internal hardware and software, I don't want someone else's dirty vehicle, I want to add the accessories I choose and have easy access to them, I want to take it off road or on long trips where it will wait for me, I want it at my beck and call 24/7, I don't want monthly payments just off the top of my head. In an emergency or other high demand time I want a 100% shot at immediate vehicle access. You feel free living without a vehicle and only a glorified uber, paying far more cost per mile than vehicle ownership for the same number of miles, you and others may prefer this. Corporations like ford definitely want this yesterday. I, and likely many others, never will.
Fully autonomous won't happen tomorrow. Maybe it won't happen for 50 years but eventually it will & guys like you will be as rare & peculiar as cowboys in condos.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Will self-driving cars have to be wirelessly on-line all the time in order to function, or are all of the necessary map and computational/inferential capabilities going to be onboard? Cuz if they're not I'd hate to see what happens when traffic goes through, say, a thunderstorm which disrupts satellite networking...
Or will it be impossible to go off-road, or even off main roads?
I'd wager 100 USD right now that corporations will do thier best to prevent ownership because forcing people's or to the pay per use model with ads is far more profitable. Just like with laptops, soon you won't be allowed to have ownership rights and shortly after it will be illegal. Windows 10 bullshit was unimaginable just 25 years ago. These companies are furious that people got a taste of ownership. Agreed that fully autonomous may take 50 years, but there will always be a large amount of people who want to own instead of rent.
Anyone else hear "business model" and think "how can we screw the customer for every penny"?
I've only ever heard the phrase used in terms of things like rentals, recurring licencing, "cheap printers, expensive proprietary ink", etc.
If you have to have a business model beyond "make product, sell product", I'm not sure I want it.
Things like this are generational change. I was reading the other week that fewer young people are even bothering to get a driving license these days. And that's before autonomous vehicles are even available.
It's like stick shift in the American market. Old timers always swore there were going to stick to them. After all, autos were expensive, inefficient, and not as fast. But these days, younger drivers don't even know how to drive a stick shift. They learned to drive in an auto and it's been autos ever since.
So whilst you and many others will want to keep on owning your own car, as your generation dies off, you will not be replaced with a car owning generation.
Cost per mile will undoubtably be greater for a non-owned fleet vehicle. But without the fixed costs. No purchase cost, insurance, road tax, servicing, repairs. And for the next generation, no time or money spent learning to drive.
We should consider what to do with ale the people that will lose their jobs when driverless cars get popular. Just in Europe it's hundreds of thousands of people Not all of them will be able to adapt themselves to new reality. I know that there won't be as many deaths and injuries by the traffic accidents, but thousands people with depression may be equally bad. There is more to this topic then just cost of a car and use of it
I'd wager right now that there will be little point to owning a car. They will be waiting for you 24/7 at ridiculously low rates anywhere you go. Why spend that crazy amount of money just to have your own box to sit in? And you'll have to store it somewhere while you're not using it. Garages will be slowly converted into more useful rooms. And you certainly won't be permitted to operate it - that's lunacy. Ownership makes no sense.
I suspect self-driving cars will look a lot like the back end of an RV with plush seats around a table and a huge place to stow your gear. Look for this especially as self-driving trucks become common sooner than cars do
Of course people will still own cars, just like people own multiple houses that spend most of their time empty. However, most people wont own their own car when it means paying 20x to get around since owning your own car means it will not be used 95% of the time.
The thing to keep in mind is, currently, using your car as a mobile storage unit vs purely for transportation has no cost differential. However, if the mobile storage unit suddenly costs you 20x more than the pure transportation option, most people probably will find cheaper alternatives (like keeping your clubs at a locker at the course or something).
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!