4 ms·

Well, given how deep its pockets are and its past propensity to try on big projects, I'd say it was surprising. What's more surprising is that both Apple and G

Well, given how deep its pockets are and its past propensity to try on big projects, I'd say it was surprising. What's more surprising is that both Apple and Google seem to have ended up in this same place.

Loic 10y ago
If Google develop the car, they need to do all the end user support. This is not in the DNA of Google. If they provide the technology to a car manufacturer, they can extract a fair amount of money from them and they do not have to deal with direct end user support. When my car has a problem, I want to talk directly with someone to get it fixed.
- Insanity 10y ago
  > This is not in the DNA of Google. Google has ventured in that area though, just take a look at Pixel, their smartphone. But the scale difference between developing a smartphone and a car is quite a big step. I am not that surprised though, getting into the car market is difficult and unsure. Just doing the technology part seems to make more sense imo.
  - stunthamsterio 10y ago
    I'd say the big difference here is running costs. I've worked with automotive clients (Ford, GM, Renault etc) for a while, and that's a big factor for them, especially in the lease market. Also given that a car is not a 'throw it away and hand the customer a reconditioned unit' item, repairs become far more expensive and time critical. The sheer drag of maintaining a network of repairers, keeping them stocked with (Sometimes huge) spare parts, managing repair times etc is astonishing. I can see why Google and Apple would want to lean on established players instead of going it alone.
  - saurik 10y ago
    Yes: and just take a look at how many people are unhappy with the support they get on their Pixel[1]. The number of people who would be able to tolerate Google's level of hands-off with a car, where the expectation is typically "for the first couple years if anything is even slightly weird you can drive it to your local dealer and someone's job is to try to make you super happy", is going to be much much much lower than the number of people who are currently tolerating it with consumer electronics. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13145400 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13145400
    - lojack 10y ago
      This may be a level of service you expect, but isn't something traditionally handled by the manufacturers.
      - ryanbrunner 10y ago
        It's handled by the ecosystem the manufacturers created though, and the manufacturers play a very prominent role in maintaining that ecosystem.
        fwn 10y ago
        This, however, is something Google could trigger themselves as well. ...probably by cooperating with current producers.
        _r_o_y_ 10y ago
        Yes, but as OP pointed out, it's not in googles DNA to do such a thing.
    - beamer1979 10y ago
      That's the difference between want and need. When my Pixel won't start, I am a little less contactable for a while. When my car won't start, I'm not getting to work.
      - cordite 10y ago
        Both are a significant investment that may contribute to income.
  - aamederen 10y ago
    I would be excited to see acquisitions or serious partnerships from both Google and Apple. By partnerships, I expect something like what Google did with its Nexus devices. For example, a google car, manufactured by and advertised with Volvo, but with its own brand, logo, etc.
spiderfarmer 10y ago
It would be different if they already had an attractive car on the road, but they haven't. Just look at how much time and money it takes for Tesla to create a profitable vehicle for the masses. The R&D costs for autonomous driving are small in comparison. If comma.ai can (sort of) create an autonomous vehicle with just a couple of employees and Tesla can go fully autonomous with a sensor suite that's 5% of the cost of Google's, how much money is there to be made for Apple and Google? Even if the quality of their self-driving setup is 10x better, they will have a hard time selling it.
- RealityVoid 10y ago
  The technology Google uses is about to become way cheaper. I may be wrong, but from what I've read about the development of LIDAR systems, I estimate the prices will drop in the next few years. I think we're at a similar point where we were a couple of years ago with accelerometers and gyros, before MEMS became commonplace. Even if I am wrong and the tech breakthrough will not happen, I think the economies of scale that kick in for the large-spread usage of Google's approach would make it competitive enough. I, personally, believe that Tesla's approach for full autonomy is insufficient.
  - johnward 10y ago
    Tesla approach led to real world usage. I tend to think Google started with the wrong approach.
    - RealityVoid 10y ago
      There are other companies out there having functionality on par with Tesla, on cars, on the road. Google's capabilities are superior in almost every way. Not yet commercial, but if it gets there(very likely), it'll be a bet that pays off. They have a ton of training data and experience in the field. All the more, I think Tesla's functionality will not lead to Level 4 autonomy within the next decade because fo a false-start approach.
- jzwinck 10y ago
eva1984 10y ago
Not that to me. They might just realize a Google branded car is not going to sell well as a BWM.
serg_chernata 10y ago
I think it's smart business. This is very akin to Valve partnering with HTC for VR headset manufacturing. Let someone who knows hardware do hardware and you can focus on R&D and ideation.

Loic 10y ago

If Google develop the car, they need to do all the end user support. This is not in the DNA of Google. If they provide the technology to a car manufacturer, they can extract a fair amount of money from them and they do not have to deal with direct end user support. When my car has a problem, I want to talk directly with someone to get it fixed.

Insanity 10y ago
> This is not in the DNA of Google. Google has ventured in that area though, just take a look at Pixel, their smartphone. But the scale difference between developing a smartphone and a car is quite a big step. I am not that surprised though, getting into the car market is difficult and unsure. Just doing the technology part seems to make more sense imo.
- stunthamsterio 10y ago
  I'd say the big difference here is running costs. I've worked with automotive clients (Ford, GM, Renault etc) for a while, and that's a big factor for them, especially in the lease market. Also given that a car is not a 'throw it away and hand the customer a reconditioned unit' item, repairs become far more expensive and time critical. The sheer drag of maintaining a network of repairers, keeping them stocked with (Sometimes huge) spare parts, managing repair times etc is astonishing. I can see why Google and Apple would want to lean on established players instead of going it alone.
- saurik 10y ago
  Yes: and just take a look at how many people are unhappy with the support they get on their Pixel[1]. The number of people who would be able to tolerate Google's level of hands-off with a car, where the expectation is typically "for the first couple years if anything is even slightly weird you can drive it to your local dealer and someone's job is to try to make you super happy", is going to be much much much lower than the number of people who are currently tolerating it with consumer electronics. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13145400 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13145400
  - lojack 10y ago
    This may be a level of service you expect, but isn't something traditionally handled by the manufacturers.
    - ryanbrunner 10y ago
      It's handled by the ecosystem the manufacturers created though, and the manufacturers play a very prominent role in maintaining that ecosystem.
      - fwn 10y ago
        This, however, is something Google could trigger themselves as well. ...probably by cooperating with current producers.
        _r_o_y_ 10y ago
        Yes, but as OP pointed out, it's not in googles DNA to do such a thing.
  - beamer1979 10y ago
    That's the difference between want and need. When my Pixel won't start, I am a little less contactable for a while. When my car won't start, I'm not getting to work.
    - cordite 10y ago
      Both are a significant investment that may contribute to income.
- aamederen 10y ago
  I would be excited to see acquisitions or serious partnerships from both Google and Apple. By partnerships, I expect something like what Google did with its Nexus devices. For example, a google car, manufactured by and advertised with Volvo, but with its own brand, logo, etc.

spiderfarmer 10y ago

It would be different if they already had an attractive car on the road, but they haven't. Just look at how much time and money it takes for Tesla to create a profitable vehicle for the masses. The R&D costs for autonomous driving are small in comparison. If comma.ai can (sort of) create an autonomous vehicle with just a couple of employees and Tesla can go fully autonomous with a sensor suite that's 5% of the cost of Google's, how much money is there to be made for Apple and Google? Even if the quality of their self-driving setup is 10x better, they will have a hard time selling it.

RealityVoid 10y ago
The technology Google uses is about to become way cheaper. I may be wrong, but from what I've read about the development of LIDAR systems, I estimate the prices will drop in the next few years. I think we're at a similar point where we were a couple of years ago with accelerometers and gyros, before MEMS became commonplace. Even if I am wrong and the tech breakthrough will not happen, I think the economies of scale that kick in for the large-spread usage of Google's approach would make it competitive enough. I, personally, believe that Tesla's approach for full autonomy is insufficient.
- johnward 10y ago
  Tesla approach led to real world usage. I tend to think Google started with the wrong approach.
  - RealityVoid 10y ago
    There are other companies out there having functionality on par with Tesla, on cars, on the road. Google's capabilities are superior in almost every way. Not yet commercial, but if it gets there(very likely), it'll be a bet that pays off. They have a ton of training data and experience in the field. All the more, I think Tesla's functionality will not lead to Level 4 autonomy within the next decade because fo a false-start approach.
jzwinck 10y ago

eva1984 10y ago

Not that to me. They might just realize a Google branded car is not going to sell well as a BWM.

serg_chernata 10y ago

I think it's smart business. This is very akin to Valve partnering with HTC for VR headset manufacturing. Let someone who knows hardware do hardware and you can focus on R&D and ideation.