Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Driverless Startup Zoox Suddenly Removes CEO

Posted by BeauHD on from the out-with-the-old-in-with-the-new dept.

Last month, Bloomberg shed some light on a secretive Australian startup called Zoox that is working on an autonomous vehicle unlike any other. It can reportedly make noises to communicate with pedestrians and drive bidirectionally, meaning it can cruise into a parking spot one way and cruise out the other. Today, it is being reported that their CEO Tim Kentley-Klay is being dismissed from the company after closing a massive financing round in July to the tune of $500 million. From the report: Kentley-Klay tweeted on Wednesday that the firing came "without a warning, cause or right of reply." "Today was Silicon Valley up to its worst tricks," he wrote. Jesse Levinson, the company's other co-founder and current chief technology officer, will be promoted to president, said a person familiar with the decision who asked not to be identified because the discussions are private. The person declined to offer an explanation for the move. Carl Bass, the former CEO of Autodesk and a Zoox board member, was named executive chairman for the company.

In an emotional missive on Twitter, Kentley-Klay criticized the board for their decision. "Rather than working through the issues in an epic startup for the win, the board chose the path of fear," he wrote, charging that the directors were "optimizing for a little money in hand at the expense of profound progress." Before starting Zoox, Kentley-Klay was offered a job with Google's self-driving project, now called Waymo. He turned it down, and has touted Zoox's strategy of building its own vehicles for full autonomy as wiser than the standard approach of retrofitting existing cars that Alphabet Inc.'s Waymo and others are taking. The Zoox board, which includes Levinson, voted to oust Kentley-Klay, said the person familiar with the situation.

13 of 58 comments (clear)

  1. Weird strategy by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    [Kentley-Klay] has touted Zoox's strategy of building its own vehicles for full autonomy as wiser than the standard approach of retrofitting existing cars that Alphabet Inc.'s Waymo and others are taking

    Why is that wiser? The problem with today's autonomous cars isn't getting the (retrofitted) car to do what it needs to do, it is figuring out what it needs to do based on available data from its sensors. That problem doesn't really change if you build a vehicle with autonomy in mind; it'll have to navigate the same roads as retrofitted cars and deal with the same conditions.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    1. Re:Weird strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's wiser because it raises more VC money. You need to say "oh, we're doing something in way X which is different from Google and that's how we plan on competing successfully against them".

    2. Re:Weird strategy by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      That problem doesn't really change if you build a vehicle with autonomy in mind; it'll have to navigate the same roads as retrofitted cars and deal with the same conditions.

      The problem does change. It becomes simpler on one hand and it becomes more complicated on the other.

      By simpler, I mean it no longer needs to be unidirectional. The electric driverless car essentially becomes an electric driverless robot. It can go forward and backward. It can move sideways into parking spaces (all of this, assuming it makes its intentions clear to other drivers/pedestrians). It doesn't need a full windshield with maximum visibility for the human driver. And in China (and at least one of the major investor in Zoox is coming from China), the cities have already decided that they'll make special roads for driverless vehicles, thus simplifying many initial problems during their formative years.

      On the other hand, it becomes more complicated. In San Francisco, the driverless cars tested by GM do not understand hand signals ceding priority given by other drivers. And the other drivers do not understand that they're interacting with a robot (and not the human backup safety driver inside the vehicle). The same goes for pedestrians crossing the streets (who are trying to make eye contact with the backup driver to know that it's safe to cross). Or the frustrated bicyclist that wants the driverless car behind him to pass him, but the car won't because it wants to maintain too large a buffer between the bicyclist and its bumpers.

      And I haven't even brought up passengers. The behavior of the passengers will have to adjust as well. Already, I see too many people trying to catch their Uber/Lyft before the human driver even gets a chance to approach the curb to pick them up. The behavior of passengers will only get worse (before it gets better) when they know it's a robot and not a live human being that could potentially scold them for their potential erratic behavior. In other words, just like a human driver would be able to do, those driverless cars will need to be able to communicate with those passengers both inside the vehicle and outside the vehicle (and not just through the app on their phone).

    3. Re:Weird strategy by hawk · · Score: 2

      A simple electric charge on the door handle until the vehicle stops will quickly solve this passenger behavior . . . :)

      hawk

  2. Please change the title to: by captbollocks · · Score: 4, Funny

    Driverless startup becomes driverless

  3. Eat your own dog food! by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

    Driverless startup eliminates driver.

    Finally a company that puts its money where its mouth is!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Eat your own dog food! by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 2

      When the headline is; "Expired Copy of TurboTax Replaces CEO" then I'll know they are serious about automation.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  4. Re:Why does this matter? by 91degrees · · Score: 2

    Most cars aren't designed to drive the entire journey in reverse.

  5. I know why I'd remove the guy. by OwP_Fabricated · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Rather than working through the issues in an epic startup for the win"

    Anyone who uses a phrase like this unironically probably isn't someone I'd want as CEO.

  6. No wonder... by Type44Q · · Score: 2

    Rather than working through the issues in an epic startup for the win

    No wonder they fired this asshole; he can't even speak properly.

  7. "without a warning, cause or right of reply." by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So is this an internal coup, or did the board just find out about something this guy has done which will cause problems for the company? Either way, there's no meat with these potatoes. Show me this meal again when it's complete.

    As far as bidirectional vehicles go, they only make sense for delivery vehicles. They make zero sense for passenger vehicles, because passengers want to face forward. For deliveries, though, there are a handful of compelling reasons to use them, which I've posted about before. The primary reason is to deal with tight driveways. They don't make sense unless your sensors are very cheap, though, since you need twice as many of them. If Velodyne comes through on their promise of $50 LIDAR then maybe it's feasible.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. Re:Why does this matter? by nospam007 · · Score: 2

    ""Random startup loses its CEO"... who cares?"

    You missed the joke. Driverless company removes the driver from its board.

  9. Re:Why does this matter? by q_e_t · · Score: 2

    Driverless company now ruddlerless, surely?