Slashdot Mirror
Secretive Startup Zoox Is Building a Bidirectional Autonomous Car From the Ground Up (bloomberg.com)
A secretive Australian startup called Zoox (an abbreviation of zooxanthellae, the algae that helps fuel coral reef growth) is working on an autonomous vehicle that is unlike any other. Theirs is all-electric and bidirectional, meaning it can cruise into a parking spot traveling one way and cruise out the other. It can make noises to communicate with pedestrians. It even has displays on the windows for passengers to interact with. Bloomberg sheds some light on this company, reporting on their ambitions to build the safest and most inventive autonomous vehicle on the road: Zoox founders Tim Kentley-Klay and Jesse Levinson say everyone else involved in the race to build a self-driving car is doing it wrong. Both founders sound quite serious as they argue that Zoox is obvious, almost inevitable. The world will eventually move to perfectly engineered robotic vehicles, so why waste time trying to incorporate self-driving technology into yesteryear's cars? Levinson, whose father, Arthur, ran Genentech Inc., chairs Apple Inc., and mentored Steve Jobs, comes from Silicon Valley royalty. Together, they've raised an impressive pile of venture capital: about $800 million to date, including $500 million in early July at a valuation of $3.2 billion. Even with all that cash, Zoox will be lucky to make it to 2020, when it expects to put its first vehicles on the road.
If this company had the actual autonomous driving bit of the problem sorted, it wouldn't matter whether their vision for the product involved climbing into a 20 year old corolla through the sunroof. They don't seem to be offering any new breakthrough with regards to delivering a reliable and affordable self-driving solution.
I always wondered what it would have been like to live through the first dot com bubble. Now I realise that is involves real engineering getting pushed aside to make way for the hype merchants.
It might mean it can only travel in 2 directions: forward and right. To make a left it needs yo make 3 right turns
Yet another startup promising yet another car of the future while producing yet again nothing.
The spot for loudmouth marketeer in the car industry is taken. Musk has solidly cornered that position. And even he has more to show than some frames on wheels.
If you want to produce the car of the future, great. Absolutely. But don't call before it's done. We have had so many stories of so many startups pipe dreaming up what could be, I think it's about time we move on to actually, you know, making something that can be sold. Anything else just ain't interesting anymore.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Not only that, it has the amazing innovation of an oversized button on the steering wheel labeled "get out of the way you f*&king idiot!" to communicate with pedestrians.
Still trying to figure out what problem autonomous driving is trying to solve.
Well at least that's easy: it's the problem of road casualties/deaths, the vast majority of which are caused by driver error of one sort or another.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I have a backup system for that on my cars.....it's a bumper sticker:
"Horn broken.....watch for finger...."
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
These "Silicon Valley royalty" will crash and burn as soon as they realize whiz bang naming and useless technology don't solve the legal and political problems that keep self-driving cars "doing it wrong". From the looks of TFA's photo, they also haven't managed to account for passengers or cargo. Sure, there is probably a subset of car users who have no passengers or cargo and desperately need to avoid backing out of parking spots. But since that subset can also use any other car, there isn't much of a market for this product.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Sadly, the vehicle will only be purchasable with Flooz.
Those of you holding Beenz will take a bath on the exchange rate.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Presumably it not only has Reverse, but also four wheel steering. Doable I should think. ... But not everything that is doable makes sense to do.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
You may think it is a pipe dream, but autonomous driving obviously has extreme value when it finally works well enough.
In trucking about a quarter of the total operating costs are for labor. You would also see slight reductions in fuel and cab costs when no human is involved. About $200 billion goes towards truck drivers pay per year. Some of this labor would transform from truck driving to just truck loading/unloading (and some new software/robotic jobs), but there are still significant savings from going autonomous. That doesn't even account for less total trucks needed because all trucks would be hauling 24x7 (except when loading/unloading/deadheading). It's likely we would only need half as many total semi trucks to haul the same amount of goods once they all go autonomous. There is another around $150 billion of potential savings per year. Remember this is all just in the US.
Then there is personal transportation, and the potential for far less car ownership if there is a fleet of far cheaper autonomous taxis. It's harder to tell how much savings are there, but its likely very significant. Automotive manufacturers worldwide make over $1.5 trillion per year. There are hundreds of billions of dollars of savings there per year.
This all comes down to investor profit and consumer savings. That results in retirement accounts that keep going up, potentially thousands of dollars of savings yearly per household in reduced costs of goods and vehicle expenses, and likely increased wealth inequality if most of the financial gains go to investors (which they almost always do). Then again once you start seeing tens of millions of people out of work not because of recession but because of large scale industry displacement, this could be a catalyst for reversing course on decades of growing wealth inequality.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
I'm so confused. It says "Instead of retro-fitting existing cars with fancy sensors and smart software, they want to make an autonomous vehicle from the ground up." but then they show a Toyota SUV equipped with fancy sensors and smart software driving around. Then they talk about autonomous driving, but the models in the garage have steering wheels. I know I am stupid, but please explain it to me.
What about 1) traffic caused by bad drivers 2) hours of our lives wasted every day by having to focus on roads while we commute.
"About $200 billion goes towards truck drivers pay per year."
Thats bad. That money should go to the executives and the 1%.
"This all comes down to investor profit and consumer savings."
Right, consumer savings. Sure.
You Can't Go Home Again?
Well, think again!
With the NEW Zoox 2000, you can!
Our patented new Zoox-tronic technology GUARANTEES that one-way trips are now a thing of the PAST!
You Go girl! ...and back again!
Zoox..
Zoox..
Zoox..
2000!
It-gets-you-where-you-want ..and back-a-gain!
"Still trying to figure out what problem autonomous driving is trying to solve."
1. The problem of how to put bus drivers, taxi drivers, delivery drivers, etc out of work.
2. The problem of family members having to provide transportation for kids, the handicapped, the elderly.
3. The problem of kids getting exercise by walking or riding bicycles instead or riding in a powered vehicle like God intended.
And many other similar problems
Seriously -- once the bugs are worked out in a few decades, autonomous vehicles will hopefully provide cheaper delivery of goods, greater overall mobility, and a substantially reduced body count.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Yeah. That isn't how the real world works. How much "savings" have you received lately? Did you get some savings on that $1000 iPhone made in China for $200? Sure you did.
"yet they don't understand basics like suspension and alignment."
Probably won't go far or fast enough for its handling to be an issue.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Bidirectional vehicles make good sense for deliveries, I've posted about that here before. But do they make any sense for transporting passengers? I don't think that they do. The majority of people want to be seated facing forwards. Even though I don't generally get carsick, so do I. I just prefer to see where I'm going.
An automated delivery vehicle ought to have roll-up doors on all sides (so you don't have to step into it to get things out of it) and move bidirectionally, so that it never has to even think about how it will turn around. It just doesn't! This solves whole classes of problem. But I don't think it makes enough sense if you're transporting passengers.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Some of this labor would transform from truck driving to just truck loading/unloading
So the loader/unloader just goes along for the ride between deliveries? Might as well have him drive. For longer ranges where the labor is only needed at the end points, we already have these. They are called trains.
Then there is personal transportation, and the potential for far less car ownership if there is a fleet of far cheaper autonomous taxis.
Share a vehicle with a urine-soaked hobo.
It's harder to tell how much savings are there, but its likely very significant.
But it's my money. And I like spending it on cars among other things. Some might be way over the top when it comes to 'personal transportation' like my Porsche, but it's my money and savings isn't an issue. Plus, think of all the auto workers I'm supporting.
this could be a catalyst for reversing course on decades of growing wealth inequality.
Nope. If I save money by using autonomous vehicles, you're not getting any of it. I'm buying a yacht.
Have gnu, will travel.
It just means that you're a Backdoor Man.
Bidirectional is neat and all but it's going to add significant cost and weight to the car and you only gain marginally in tight city traffic where reversing the car may be difficult and having that "crab mode" could help a bit.
So the loader/unloader just goes along for the ride between deliveries? Might as well have him drive.
Nope. Trucks drive themselves between truck stops or freight depots, where they are united with drivers. For the foreseeable future, these drivers will handling driving in and out of town as well as parking and unloading. Eventually, they will be replaced with people who only unload the trucks; those people will eventually be replaced by robotic pallet jacks.
For longer ranges where the labor is only needed at the end points, we already have these. They are called trains.
Trains only go to a small subset of the places where cargo goes, because of a multi-pronged attack involving automobile companies, oil companies, and the federal government itself. Thanks to their influence, instead of a robust public transportation network, we got the interstate highway network and a shortage of non-car (or bus) transportation options for both passengers and cargo. I support installing more rail, and think it makes more sense than dicking around with smart roads, but it's a non-starter at this point. Securing right-of-way to build rail would be essentially impossible.
Plus, think of all the auto workers I'm supporting.
Those auto workers are also going to be replaced by robots soon. Not as soon as Musk thought :) but soon.
If I save money by using autonomous vehicles, you're not getting any of it. I'm buying a yacht.
It's not all about you. It's about the less fortunate working people who won't have to spend a large portion of their income on a car, because they won't need it any more.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So basically, a rich kid from "Silicon Valley royalty" and his buddy got $800 million dollars to build a "perfectly engineered robotic vehicle", yet they don't understand basics like suspension and alignment. Good luck getting stable handling when your caster angle is tilted the wrong way in backwards mode.
Since you seem to think that you know all about it, maybe you could tell us what happens when you've got negative caster in the rear. I'm not an expert any more than I suspect you actually are, but from what I've read it won't cause any problems that can't be completely solved with torque vectoring.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
take this improvised +1 informative
A secretive Australian startup called Zoox (an abbreviation of zooxanthellae, the algae that helps fuel coral reef growth) is working on an autonomous vehicle that is unlike any other.
So a "secretive" company nobody has ever heard, located in a location not renowned for technology or automobiles, of is allegedly working on a vehicle with features nobody asked for, using technology that isn't ready for public consumption in a market against much better funded and experienced competition? Do I have that right?
I smell someone fishing for gullible investors.
Bidirectional vehicles make good sense for deliveries, I've posted about that here before.
Not unless you change an awful lot of existing infrastructure which was designed for vehicles that don't generally back up. Sure there are cases where it makes sense but a lot more where it doesn't. It's an utterly useless feature on the roads and arguably an unnecessary one when driving up to a loading dock though certainly more useful there. And if you design infrastructure to deal with mostly-forward driving vehicles then it renders the issue moot. Given that virtually all vehicles are going to be designed to not be bi-directional for the foreseeable future the infrastructure is going to be designed with that as the dominant paradigm.
Basically the question to ask is whether this bi-directional capability solves any economically significant problem. I'm not convinced that the economic benefit would be larger than the added cost of making vehicles work in two directions (more sensors, more complicated drive train, etc) and the infrastructure upgrades required.
Yeah. That isn't how the real world works. How much "savings" have you received lately?
Metric buttloads. An equivalent TV to the one I purchased 3 years ago can now be had for less than half the price. The average car costs less today (when adjusted for inflation) than the average car did in 1999, despite having far more features, more power, and much better fuel economy. A decent computer costs half as much today as it did in 1999, even when not adjusted for inflation, and again with far better performance. Air travel is cheaper than ever. Gasoline prices (ignoring increased taxes, and adjusting for inflation) have held surprisingly steady despite growing demand and the depletion of easy-to-access sources. Most consumer goods have dropped in price, and the price of home delivery is now so low that it's "free" (ie. bundled into the price of the goods, which are still somehow cheaper or as cheap as buying them in a physical store).
Just about the only thing that has gotten significantly more expensive over time is housing, and this is an issue of supply and demand (ie. not really amiable to cost savings via increased efficiency).
But yeah, aside from all that, you're right, savings NEVER get passed on to the consumer ...
About 10% of all accidents occur while at least one vehicle is reversing, and they result in about 2,400 children being run over every year (in the USA). If you actually could entirely eliminate the need to back up it would have a decent impact on total damage, deaths, and injuries.
I mean I get how they could be marginally useful for navigating in tight quarters like crowded parking lots. But when on the road, all I can think of is this video.
..about a startup with a custom designed headquarters and a $16,000 refrigerator
A real engineering startup would have good tools, but an ugly, old building and a Costco refrigerator
This dude is a wannabe Steve Jobs
The world will eventually move to perfectly engineered robotic vehicles
Bullshit, bullshit, BULLSHIT. I make a prediction:
People will NEVER fully accept so-called 'self driving cars' that they cannot directly control themselves with conventional controls
..and I'll stand by that with my last breath, and fuck you if you don't like my opinion, fanbois.
In both regular and mirror-text on your front bumper?
It's about the less fortunate working people who won't have to spend a large portion of their income on a car, because they won't need it any more.
Live on a bus or subway route.
Or call a cab (if you are wealthy). Cabs might be replaced by autonomous vehicles. But it won't make them cheaper. Not so the poor folks would notice. Most of a cab's cost isn't the driver or fuel. It's the medallion. Fix that situation first. But be prepared to fish a lot of bodies out of the bay before you are done.
Have gnu, will travel.
"it has reverse???! Truly we are privileged to live in these amazing times"
My car has that too. But if I do that, it's not very fast and after a few miles my neck hurts.
"It even has displays on the windows for passengers to interact with."
So the kids can select 'Wash me' from a menu instead of writing it with the finger in the dust?
Of course they are going to start from the ground up. It's much easier to start from the tires than hanging things off of the roof.
It only drives forward, and the only user control is a loud horn.
GET OUT OF THE WAY!
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Medallions are expensive in NY, but in most of the world the driver is the largest expense.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Even if what you say were 100% true it would be entirely irrelevant since the claim I was addressing was that reduced costs don't get passed on to the consumer. How exactly those reductions are achieved is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they're being passed on.