9 ms·

Google's self-driving technology is real, but the car itself is vaporware

40 points by prawn 11y ago

kumarm 11y ago
Sounds like an article written about cell phones in 2005 :).
- hkmurakami 11y ago
  Well, such an article would have been largely correct. :)
hkmurakami 11y ago
And thus as a researcher working on the technology, it may make sense now to go join a company that is intent on providing the full stack for automated driving, as James Kuffner has done. http://www.roboticstrends.com/article/googles_james_kuffner_leaves_to_pursue_robotics_and_a.i._at_toyota/ces http://www.roboticstrends.com/article/googles_james_kuffner_...
hb43 11y ago
" For them, the time you spend in your car is a critical node to fill in the remaining blanks. It’s a kill-or-be-killed opportunity to develop or dominate the networks that control automated cars and in-car infotainment." Relevant for the US only ?
- azinman2 11y ago
  There's commute traffic world wide. Bigger issue is what driving environments could support this. Currently you could never do this in India. The car would not be able to handle such a dynamic environment. How humans do is already beyond my comprehension (as an American). China itself might be a better target but already has some level of dynamism to it.
Others 11y ago
This article seems a bit aggressive about its point. Sure, the "Google Car" was super overhyped, and probably will never be a consumer product. However, there is no doubt that Google's software has pushed the idea of a self-driving car forward, and the car will have an impact on the future of the auto industry.
- cLeEOGPw 11y ago
  It certainly proved that self-driving car can be a real thing.
foxhedgehog 11y ago
Sounds like this author sold his Google stock early.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
angryasian 11y ago
this guy sounds extremely butt hurt over a non story. I've never even heard a rumor about google getting into the car manufacturing industry.
capitalsigma 11y ago
> Thanks to the wonderful world of metadata that got Edward Snowden exiled, Google (and Facebook and phone companies and the NSA) already has a great idea of not only what you do online, IMO this shows the author doesn't really know what he's talking about --- the metadata that the NSA collects has literally nothing to do with the tracking data that Google and Facebook collect.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  The NSA are according to the Snowden files extracting data from Google Facebook etc's databases. Both with and without the companies knowledge and cooperation. I.E. They are literally the same thing in some cases.
  - capitalsigma 11y ago
    That's separate from the issue of metadata collection, which is only relevant to phone companies.
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      I would suspect that the NSA put all their data (and metadata is really just data) together.
_pmf_ 11y ago
It's not vaporware if Google never promised anything for consumers; it has been Silicon Valley's drooling mouth-breathing press outlets that perpetuated this crap, feeding the hubris of their audience (consisting of people who think a landing page and a vague idea is a product) who believe they can make better vehicles than established manufacturers.
- jdc 11y ago
  There is truth in what you say, but I find this comment gratuitously negative. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - kzhahou 11y ago
    Why? * Google never promised a product, which is a requirement for vaporware. * The idea that it's a consumer product was promoted by SV channels. * SV audience is uncritical of ideas when it feeds into its own hubris (established players are slow/dumb compared to new entrants).
pbreit 11y ago
Was anyone expecting Google to build the cars?
sandworm101 11y ago
Google doesn't want to build cars. Google wants to be the Microsoft of cars, to relegate the Fords and GMs of the world to hardware-builders akin to IBM. It is a mistake to try. As I've said in a hundred other threads, some basic autodrive functionality has been available for years and every focus group has dismissed it. Speed regulators, automatic enforcement of follow distance, the automatic seatbelt (which only existed to delay the airbag requirement) anti-distraction devices such as entertainment systems that lock down at speed ... all would be trivial to implement but have been summarily rejected by the general market. The concept that Google will somehow implement all of those things at once, and that people will buy in, seems fanciful. I still haven't seen any safety numbers that account for the most dangerous driving hazard. I haven't seen any evidence that drunk people crash less often in an auto-drive car. All on the road so far have had driver overrides, which a drunk would of course be able to use. Nobody has dared to put drunks in charge of these things. So we do not know whether they will reduce drunk driving accidents or not. It might perhaps increase the issue if lots of drunks decide to rely on autodrive cars, creating a greater opportunity for them to wrest control from the robot. And I've yet to see the google cars react to unusual situations such as a person directing traffic or boarding a ferry. Those driver overrides, which allow the drunk to take control, remain necessary.
- dclowd9901 11y ago
  I'm finding it very difficult to dig up actual statistics on what percentage of accidents each year are caused by drunk drivers, most likely because I suspect the percentage is extremely low. The nearest I could find was a statistic that about 7% of all vehicle accidents involved an alcohol impaired operator (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3403100014.html http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3403100014.html). That said, why do you think impaired drivers are the biggest danger on the road? I firmly believe it is simply bad, irresponsible, untrained drivers caused by 1) the ease of obtaining a driver's license, 2) the lack of expense overall in owning and driving a car and 3) the very low standard of acceptable driving that's the most troublesome. It's going to be easy to throw a drunk in an autonomous vehicle and ship them home. It's going to be exponentially more difficult to provide access to autonomous vehicles to the general population.
ck2 11y ago
Self-driving cars are the new jetpack. Sure there are lots of prototypes. None are practical/safe in the real world for the unwashed masses. However will get driving assist out of this. Which will probably kill a great many more people as they start assuming it is a full automated driving mode or attempt to treat it that way. Many of those people killed will be innocent bystanders. Then you'll see claims like we see now where "the car just accelerated" where they accidentally just stepped on the accelerator instead of the brake and blame the car.
facepalm 11y ago
If the evilness of Google consists of creating self-driving, low impact cars just so that people can read ads while driving, I'd say more of that evilness! Also, for all of Google's evilness, it seems to me they never forced people to use their products. On Android, you are not typically forced to use Google search or anything. I thought the concept of the Google car is brilliant and it is nor even competing with Ford or what not. I want a city with lightweight, self-driving cars, not autonomous steel monsters rushing about. I think the self-driving thingies could be even smaller. For example in my city there are bicycle taxis. Those things could be autonomous. They might be much slower than cars, but since they could take more direct routes they could reach the other end of the city just as quickly as the cars on the highway.
amelius 11y ago
I guess they just want the benefits of people driving the car, while pushing all liability to car manufacturers. Somewhat like they do with Android: Google also makes no phones.

40 points by prawn 11y ago

kumarm 11y ago

Sounds like an article written about cell phones in 2005 :).

hkmurakami 11y ago
Well, such an article would have been largely correct. :)

hkmurakami 11y ago

And thus as a researcher working on the technology, it may make sense now to go join a company that is intent on providing the full stack for automated driving, as James Kuffner has done. http://www.roboticstrends.com/article/googles_james_kuffner_leaves_to_pursue_robotics_and_a.i._at_toyota/ces http://www.roboticstrends.com/article/googles_james_kuffner_...

hb43 11y ago

" For them, the time you spend in your car is a critical node to fill in the remaining blanks. It’s a kill-or-be-killed opportunity to develop or dominate the networks that control automated cars and in-car infotainment." Relevant for the US only ?

azinman2 11y ago
There's commute traffic world wide. Bigger issue is what driving environments could support this. Currently you could never do this in India. The car would not be able to handle such a dynamic environment. How humans do is already beyond my comprehension (as an American). China itself might be a better target but already has some level of dynamism to it.

Others 11y ago

This article seems a bit aggressive about its point. Sure, the "Google Car" was super overhyped, and probably will never be a consumer product. However, there is no doubt that Google's software has pushed the idea of a self-driving car forward, and the car will have an impact on the future of the auto industry.

cLeEOGPw 11y ago
It certainly proved that self-driving car can be a real thing.

foxhedgehog 11y ago

Sounds like this author sold his Google stock early.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

angryasian 11y ago

this guy sounds extremely butt hurt over a non story. I've never even heard a rumor about google getting into the car manufacturing industry.

capitalsigma 11y ago

> Thanks to the wonderful world of metadata that got Edward Snowden exiled, Google (and Facebook and phone companies and the NSA) already has a great idea of not only what you do online, IMO this shows the author doesn't really know what he's talking about --- the metadata that the NSA collects has literally nothing to do with the tracking data that Google and Facebook collect.

JupiterMoon 11y ago
The NSA are according to the Snowden files extracting data from Google Facebook etc's databases. Both with and without the companies knowledge and cooperation. I.E. They are literally the same thing in some cases.
- capitalsigma 11y ago
  That's separate from the issue of metadata collection, which is only relevant to phone companies.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    I would suspect that the NSA put all their data (and metadata is really just data) together.

_pmf_ 11y ago

It's not vaporware if Google never promised anything for consumers; it has been Silicon Valley's drooling mouth-breathing press outlets that perpetuated this crap, feeding the hubris of their audience (consisting of people who think a landing page and a vague idea is a product) who believe they can make better vehicles than established manufacturers.

jdc 11y ago
There is truth in what you say, but I find this comment gratuitously negative. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- kzhahou 11y ago
  Why? * Google never promised a product, which is a requirement for vaporware. * The idea that it's a consumer product was promoted by SV channels. * SV audience is uncritical of ideas when it feeds into its own hubris (established players are slow/dumb compared to new entrants).

pbreit 11y ago

Was anyone expecting Google to build the cars?

sandworm101 11y ago

Google doesn't want to build cars. Google wants to be the Microsoft of cars, to relegate the Fords and GMs of the world to hardware-builders akin to IBM. It is a mistake to try. As I've said in a hundred other threads, some basic autodrive functionality has been available for years and every focus group has dismissed it. Speed regulators, automatic enforcement of follow distance, the automatic seatbelt (which only existed to delay the airbag requirement) anti-distraction devices such as entertainment systems that lock down at speed ... all would be trivial to implement but have been summarily rejected by the general market. The concept that Google will somehow implement all of those things at once, and that people will buy in, seems fanciful. I still haven't seen any safety numbers that account for the most dangerous driving hazard. I haven't seen any evidence that drunk people crash less often in an auto-drive car. All on the road so far have had driver overrides, which a drunk would of course be able to use. Nobody has dared to put drunks in charge of these things. So we do not know whether they will reduce drunk driving accidents or not. It might perhaps increase the issue if lots of drunks decide to rely on autodrive cars, creating a greater opportunity for them to wrest control from the robot. And I've yet to see the google cars react to unusual situations such as a person directing traffic or boarding a ferry. Those driver overrides, which allow the drunk to take control, remain necessary.

dclowd9901 11y ago
I'm finding it very difficult to dig up actual statistics on what percentage of accidents each year are caused by drunk drivers, most likely because I suspect the percentage is extremely low. The nearest I could find was a statistic that about 7% of all vehicle accidents involved an alcohol impaired operator (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3403100014.html http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3403100014.html). That said, why do you think impaired drivers are the biggest danger on the road? I firmly believe it is simply bad, irresponsible, untrained drivers caused by 1) the ease of obtaining a driver's license, 2) the lack of expense overall in owning and driving a car and 3) the very low standard of acceptable driving that's the most troublesome. It's going to be easy to throw a drunk in an autonomous vehicle and ship them home. It's going to be exponentially more difficult to provide access to autonomous vehicles to the general population.

ck2 11y ago

Self-driving cars are the new jetpack. Sure there are lots of prototypes. None are practical/safe in the real world for the unwashed masses. However will get driving assist out of this. Which will probably kill a great many more people as they start assuming it is a full automated driving mode or attempt to treat it that way. Many of those people killed will be innocent bystanders. Then you'll see claims like we see now where "the car just accelerated" where they accidentally just stepped on the accelerator instead of the brake and blame the car.

facepalm 11y ago

If the evilness of Google consists of creating self-driving, low impact cars just so that people can read ads while driving, I'd say more of that evilness! Also, for all of Google's evilness, it seems to me they never forced people to use their products. On Android, you are not typically forced to use Google search or anything. I thought the concept of the Google car is brilliant and it is nor even competing with Ford or what not. I want a city with lightweight, self-driving cars, not autonomous steel monsters rushing about. I think the self-driving thingies could be even smaller. For example in my city there are bicycle taxis. Those things could be autonomous. They might be much slower than cars, but since they could take more direct routes they could reach the other end of the city just as quickly as the cars on the highway.

amelius 11y ago

I guess they just want the benefits of people driving the car, while pushing all liability to car manufacturers. Somewhat like they do with Android: Google also makes no phones.