8 ms·

I don't think this is all that surprising to be honest. Google is (by and large) a software development and services company, not a car manufacturer. If they ma

by CM30 10y ago

I don't think this is all that surprising to be honest. Google is (by and large) a software development and services company, not a car manufacturer. If they make their own autonomous vehicles, that means they then have to handle everything from safety testing to customer support and sales in addition to the self driving car technology itself. By working with existing car manufacturers, they can focus on their part of the deal (the technology) and let someone who knows about designing, building and selling cars do the rest of the job.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
baggachipz 10y ago
Yes, perhaps, but the counter to this is that they could "benefit from the closed system of vertical integration" that seems to be all the rage these days. I could envision a scenario where they partner with existing manufacturers for a couple years, then "courageously" break off and produce their own vehicle in order to "control the process".
- jerf 10y ago
  That would be one hell of an ecosystem to bootstrap, even starting with a partnership with an existing company, even for Google. Building "a" car isn't that hard. Building a car that conforms with all regulations, has had all the testing done on it, can be manufactured at any useful scale, and, oh, also is something that people want to buy, is not a problem that should be underestimated. (Yes, props to Tesla. They did it. Well... mostly, at least, but it's at least a reasonable guess they're on a success trajectory. It's still a hard problem.) It would probably be easier for Google to manufacture their own computing hardware from scratch, and as far as I know, they don't do that. Yes, they get it customized because they are a big customer, and they've at least dabbled in phone hardware, but even that wasn't "from scratch". I've got a 2013 Nexus tablet, and it's got all sorts of things in it that aren't from Google. As big as Google may be, they are not infinitely big, and they have the paradoxical problem of being too successful to take on every little business. Large profitable businesses can't economically afford to take on new businesses that are significantly less profitable than their current businesses, because the rational business decision then is to reallocate the resources being given to the unprofitable sub-business and give them to the profitable sub-business to make more profits. [1] The car industry is very hit-driven due to the need to sell enough cars to overcome massive fixed costs, but even at in their most profitable years I'm not sure the car companies came even close to Google's profitability. I'm not taking the time to look that claim up, because I'm sure that even if they did, they never did it year after year after year the way Google has. [1] Obviously I'm simplifying a complex thing here. I understand that's a complicated topic, but details would be an unimportant-to-my-point waste of time for all.
  - iainmerrick 10y ago
    Large profitable businesses can't economically afford to take on new businesses that are significantly less profitable than their current businesses Whoa there, isn't that completely backwards? Who can afford to invest in new businesses if not large, profitable companies? because the rational business decision then is to reallocate the resources being given to the unprofitable sub-business and give them to the profitable sub-business to make more profits. [...] Obviously I'm simplifying a complex thing here. I understand that's a complicated topic, but details would be an unimportant-to-my-point waste of time for all. (Edit to add: I think that apparent paradox is easily resolved by thinking in terms of long-term versus short-term investment.) I agree there are complications, but fundamentally, big profitable companies are the ones which have spare resources to invest. One problem is company culture and skill sets, and the difficulty of ramping up in a new area, but that's why big tech companies try things like internal "startup incubators" with lots of autonomy. Amazon in particular seems really effective at expanding into new areas.
    - jerf 10y ago
      It's not clear to me that Amazon actually has one business line that is both huge and so massively profitable that it prevents them from spreading out. They are huge, but they don't make the profits that Google, Microsoft, or Apple does. I wouldn't be surprised to see AWS get spun out as it continues to grow in the next 3-10 years, because unless the trajectory of that subbusiness changes, it threatens to become the business that is too profitable to put resources anywhere else.
      - iainmerrick 10y ago
        But Amazon has explicitly chosen to keep its margins tight, and aggressively invest for expansion. In a sense they choose not to make huge profits. They're famous for it! I still don't buy your general point. It's true that some large companies have run into trouble because they were afraid of damaging their core product. But that's a risk everyone's aware of now -- the whole "innovator's dilemma" thing. What's an example of a large successful company that was thereby prevented from spreading out? I don't mean companies that failed due to complacency, or overly rigid business practices, but where their size actually worked against them. (Hmm, possibly we really mean the same thing, we're just describing it in different ways...)
- chrisdbaldwin 10y ago
  Google will want ad revenue from the captive audience in the self driving car. Control the self driving car ecosystem in the long term and avoid the cost of manufacturing and compliance in the short. I like the assumption that they will "come back" into the space, because it's a great play.
valueprop 10y ago
Just like the did with smartphones. Maybe that's why most Android phones aren't that good.
- knieveltech 10y ago
  Galaxy series phones are fantastic.
  - jdlyga 10y ago
    at exploding
    - dr_zoidberg 10y ago
      The Galanxy Note 7 was the one with the problem, the flagship phablet, not the flagship phone.
    - knieveltech 10y ago
      Fascinating. Neither of my Edge 7s have blown up yet. Should I request a refund?
- tyleraldrich 10y ago
  > Maybe that's why most Android phones aren't that good. I'm assuming you're talking about the phones themselves and not Android as an OS, but your statement is pretty sketchy. I'm no expert, but most Android phones that I'm aware of in the same price range as the iPhone are up-to-par or have superior hardware. Many carriers sell cheap Android phones as well, that are "not as good" because iPhones are expensive. So yeah, 90% of Android phones may be "not as good" as an iPhone, but Apple isn't selling new devices to the under-$500 market, and of course the cheaper phones aren't as good.
SilasX 10y ago
I have the same response to people who claim Tesla will take over ridehsaring once they have a self-driving car (as opposed to just selling to existing ones that have already built a customer base and worked out the domain specific problems).
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Because clearly Uber would succeed over a manufacturer who actually makes self driving car. Aren't there already almost 8-10 ridesharing options available in Austin after Uber and Lyft vacated? Uber and Lyft are the WebVan of this decade.
  - SilasX 10y ago
    Just like GM prefers to run taxi services rather than just focus on making cars and selling them to th highest bidders (including taxi companies)?
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      Uber profit margin: 0. GM/Ford Profit Margin: 9-12% Tesla Profit Margin: 22.8% Go where the margin is.
      - SilasX 10y ago
        Which, by those very figures, would be in selling cars to ridesharing services, not competing with them.
        toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Why would Musk and Tesla sell cars to ridesharing services when they can collect a piece of the revenue that they share with Tesla owners who participate on the Tesla Network rideshare service? Why should Tesla allow Uber or Lyft to profit off of its extensive autopilot work? They shouldn't, and they won't.
pakl 10y ago
Working on self-driving cars, much like working on advanced robots, requires tight integration between the software, sensors, and motors. These aspects cannot really be developed independently, especially if you want to end up with an optimized system that could be a product. Safety is a part of this, too. Google has ~10 years of experience in self-driving cars. They also have acquired many robotics companies. Surely, they know this. [edit: reorder]
- dmix 10y ago
  But the reality of the product/market is that it will be a transitionary stage between assisted self-driving cars -> full robotic cars. There have been a number of complex highly technical products that have components developed independently and integrated at the end (fighter jets, space shuttles, etc). It's possible Google will want to acquire one of the car companies to full do vertical integration. But that is not entirely necessary right now. And given the whole complex regulatory and distribution constraints in the marketplace for automobiles it's good to have a partnership with a car company who has years of experience dealing with those issues.
- ProAm 10y ago
  > Google has ~10 years of experience in self-driving cars. They also have acquired many robotics companies. Surely, they know this. Really I think Google loses steam very easily when key people leave the team. I don't believe they have the mgmt infrastructure to keep the ball rolling when people get bored, run into hurdles, etc....
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    20% time and individual project ownership at Google X have helped to make Google a famous employer, but I do get the sense that the drawbacks are becoming more visible as the company grows and people move on. Some of this is undoubtedly belt-tightening, but it's a lot easier to ax a specific project when it had a few fervent advocates who are no longer around. I'd be surprised if this wasn't a factor in the high project churn Google is known for.
jandrese 10y ago
I suspect Google got cold feet when they started considering the liability issues once this goes mainstream. Even their millions of miles road tests were done at low speeds near their campus.
- stocktech 10y ago
  They're focused on moonshots. They would have managed the liability like any other company for the prospect of transforming transportation as we know it.
- greglindahl 10y ago
  A lot of Google's testing was done on US 101 and other interstates at highway speeds, insomuch as there wasn't a traffic jam at the time.
  - woodpanel 10y ago
    Highspeed testing is important. Also the complexity of the traffic is. Some say that the high speed of the German Autobahn is what made German premium cars so technically advanced. As soon as you get faster than 130-150 km/h most cars will let you know they weren't built for this. BMW, Daimler or Audi make 230 km/h ++ feel safe and sound (which I often think they shouldn't). A Tesla for example can't perform autonomous driving here as easily because the variances in speed require sensors that detect cars in further distance, quicker and in more detail.
    - 0xfeba 10y ago
      A quite ride at speed only really means it's a luxury car. Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Ford, et. al have had plenty of experience making cars that can go fast, and they also make luxury cars. In any passenger car, getting in a wreck at 100 km/h or above is more than likely a fatal event. "5 Star" safety ratings and the EU equivalent are only for 30~55 km/h crashes. Granted, even highway crashes involve some braking before impact, but the faster you go the more difficult it is to slow down enough to a 'safe' speed before impact. Besides, the sensors on cars are more than capable of driving at 150 KM/H. While they cannot "see" as far as a human, they require much less time to process what they do see.
mtgx 10y ago
The problem is few car companies want to partner with Google because Google asks to collect too much data from all of their customers - not that I blame the car makers.
- chc 10y ago
  Do you work in the car industry? This seems like a very inside thing to both know and casually drop on Hacker News.
- detaro 10y ago
  car companies don't particularly seem to mind data collection if you look at newer "connected" features.
ChuckMcM 10y ago
I agree this move isn't surprising, but disagree with the assertion that Google is a software development and services company. Google is first and foremost an Internet Search Advertising company, so far it has been the thing keeping the lights on. I expect that if it had felt it could make the transition into self driving car company it would have. But it helps to remember a little bit of history here. Google was, for the most part, the very first company of significant size to invest in self driving cars. They did that at the behest of Sebastian Thrun who was working there. It made some big headlines and it certainly added to Google's "glow" as a place where the future was happening. And then it ran into the sludge that is Google's inability to actually make "products" that aren't a web page. And as it did people started slipping away, first Sebastian, then Chris, then a big exit to what was Otto, Etc. While Google was sitting in that quagmire of their inability to execute on a product vision, Tesla came in, announced auto pilot, deployed autopilot, updated it to do many of the things Google could actually do, announced self drive, deployed the hardware for self drive. Basically all executing on a product strategy while Google argued internally about whether or not their "car" should have a steering wheel or not. What I've read in the news so far it sounds like Google is spinning off what is left of that group as Waymo (that seems like it is a sort of PIP for groups at Google) and trying to sell it off to someone. I left in 2010 and the self driving car group was about a year old (and I tried to join it but they turned me down :-() Here it is 2016 so 7 years of development. A number of actual vehicles were produced, a number of cars were modified, I'm guessing there were about 150 people in the group at its peak. Just doing back of the envelope conversations for that group I'm guessing Google invested at least $300M in the effort. And now its scrap. I appreciate that it is a really hard problem, and I appreciate that it was pretty far off Google's expertise spectrum. I also appreciate that they take "big bets" even when they fail. But given where Tesla is, and where they are, I worry that even if one of their big bets is a "winner", Google won't be able to execute on it. Just like Xerox couldn't execute on the personal computer and GM on electric cars. Once you get to be too big to win, what do you do?

by CM30 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

baggachipz 10y ago

Yes, perhaps, but the counter to this is that they could "benefit from the closed system of vertical integration" that seems to be all the rage these days. I could envision a scenario where they partner with existing manufacturers for a couple years, then "courageously" break off and produce their own vehicle in order to "control the process".

jerf 10y ago
That would be one hell of an ecosystem to bootstrap, even starting with a partnership with an existing company, even for Google. Building "a" car isn't that hard. Building a car that conforms with all regulations, has had all the testing done on it, can be manufactured at any useful scale, and, oh, also is something that people want to buy, is not a problem that should be underestimated. (Yes, props to Tesla. They did it. Well... mostly, at least, but it's at least a reasonable guess they're on a success trajectory. It's still a hard problem.) It would probably be easier for Google to manufacture their own computing hardware from scratch, and as far as I know, they don't do that. Yes, they get it customized because they are a big customer, and they've at least dabbled in phone hardware, but even that wasn't "from scratch". I've got a 2013 Nexus tablet, and it's got all sorts of things in it that aren't from Google. As big as Google may be, they are not infinitely big, and they have the paradoxical problem of being too successful to take on every little business. Large profitable businesses can't economically afford to take on new businesses that are significantly less profitable than their current businesses, because the rational business decision then is to reallocate the resources being given to the unprofitable sub-business and give them to the profitable sub-business to make more profits. [1] The car industry is very hit-driven due to the need to sell enough cars to overcome massive fixed costs, but even at in their most profitable years I'm not sure the car companies came even close to Google's profitability. I'm not taking the time to look that claim up, because I'm sure that even if they did, they never did it year after year after year the way Google has. [1] Obviously I'm simplifying a complex thing here. I understand that's a complicated topic, but details would be an unimportant-to-my-point waste of time for all.
- iainmerrick 10y ago
  Large profitable businesses can't economically afford to take on new businesses that are significantly less profitable than their current businesses Whoa there, isn't that completely backwards? Who can afford to invest in new businesses if not large, profitable companies? because the rational business decision then is to reallocate the resources being given to the unprofitable sub-business and give them to the profitable sub-business to make more profits. [...] Obviously I'm simplifying a complex thing here. I understand that's a complicated topic, but details would be an unimportant-to-my-point waste of time for all. (Edit to add: I think that apparent paradox is easily resolved by thinking in terms of long-term versus short-term investment.) I agree there are complications, but fundamentally, big profitable companies are the ones which have spare resources to invest. One problem is company culture and skill sets, and the difficulty of ramping up in a new area, but that's why big tech companies try things like internal "startup incubators" with lots of autonomy. Amazon in particular seems really effective at expanding into new areas.
  - jerf 10y ago
    It's not clear to me that Amazon actually has one business line that is both huge and so massively profitable that it prevents them from spreading out. They are huge, but they don't make the profits that Google, Microsoft, or Apple does. I wouldn't be surprised to see AWS get spun out as it continues to grow in the next 3-10 years, because unless the trajectory of that subbusiness changes, it threatens to become the business that is too profitable to put resources anywhere else.
    - iainmerrick 10y ago
      But Amazon has explicitly chosen to keep its margins tight, and aggressively invest for expansion. In a sense they choose not to make huge profits. They're famous for it! I still don't buy your general point. It's true that some large companies have run into trouble because they were afraid of damaging their core product. But that's a risk everyone's aware of now -- the whole "innovator's dilemma" thing. What's an example of a large successful company that was thereby prevented from spreading out? I don't mean companies that failed due to complacency, or overly rigid business practices, but where their size actually worked against them. (Hmm, possibly we really mean the same thing, we're just describing it in different ways...)
chrisdbaldwin 10y ago
Google will want ad revenue from the captive audience in the self driving car. Control the self driving car ecosystem in the long term and avoid the cost of manufacturing and compliance in the short. I like the assumption that they will "come back" into the space, because it's a great play.

valueprop 10y ago

Just like the did with smartphones. Maybe that's why most Android phones aren't that good.

knieveltech 10y ago
Galaxy series phones are fantastic.
- jdlyga 10y ago
  at exploding
  - dr_zoidberg 10y ago
    The Galanxy Note 7 was the one with the problem, the flagship phablet, not the flagship phone.
  - knieveltech 10y ago
    Fascinating. Neither of my Edge 7s have blown up yet. Should I request a refund?
tyleraldrich 10y ago
> Maybe that's why most Android phones aren't that good. I'm assuming you're talking about the phones themselves and not Android as an OS, but your statement is pretty sketchy. I'm no expert, but most Android phones that I'm aware of in the same price range as the iPhone are up-to-par or have superior hardware. Many carriers sell cheap Android phones as well, that are "not as good" because iPhones are expensive. So yeah, 90% of Android phones may be "not as good" as an iPhone, but Apple isn't selling new devices to the under-$500 market, and of course the cheaper phones aren't as good.

SilasX 10y ago

I have the same response to people who claim Tesla will take over ridehsaring once they have a self-driving car (as opposed to just selling to existing ones that have already built a customer base and worked out the domain specific problems).

toomuchtodo 10y ago
Because clearly Uber would succeed over a manufacturer who actually makes self driving car. Aren't there already almost 8-10 ridesharing options available in Austin after Uber and Lyft vacated? Uber and Lyft are the WebVan of this decade.
- SilasX 10y ago
  Just like GM prefers to run taxi services rather than just focus on making cars and selling them to th highest bidders (including taxi companies)?
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    Uber profit margin: 0. GM/Ford Profit Margin: 9-12% Tesla Profit Margin: 22.8% Go where the margin is.
    - SilasX 10y ago
      Which, by those very figures, would be in selling cars to ridesharing services, not competing with them.
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Why would Musk and Tesla sell cars to ridesharing services when they can collect a piece of the revenue that they share with Tesla owners who participate on the Tesla Network rideshare service? Why should Tesla allow Uber or Lyft to profit off of its extensive autopilot work? They shouldn't, and they won't.

pakl 10y ago

Working on self-driving cars, much like working on advanced robots, requires tight integration between the software, sensors, and motors. These aspects cannot really be developed independently, especially if you want to end up with an optimized system that could be a product. Safety is a part of this, too. Google has ~10 years of experience in self-driving cars. They also have acquired many robotics companies. Surely, they know this. [edit: reorder]

dmix 10y ago
But the reality of the product/market is that it will be a transitionary stage between assisted self-driving cars -> full robotic cars. There have been a number of complex highly technical products that have components developed independently and integrated at the end (fighter jets, space shuttles, etc). It's possible Google will want to acquire one of the car companies to full do vertical integration. But that is not entirely necessary right now. And given the whole complex regulatory and distribution constraints in the marketplace for automobiles it's good to have a partnership with a car company who has years of experience dealing with those issues.
ProAm 10y ago
> Google has ~10 years of experience in self-driving cars. They also have acquired many robotics companies. Surely, they know this. Really I think Google loses steam very easily when key people leave the team. I don't believe they have the mgmt infrastructure to keep the ball rolling when people get bored, run into hurdles, etc....
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  20% time and individual project ownership at Google X have helped to make Google a famous employer, but I do get the sense that the drawbacks are becoming more visible as the company grows and people move on. Some of this is undoubtedly belt-tightening, but it's a lot easier to ax a specific project when it had a few fervent advocates who are no longer around. I'd be surprised if this wasn't a factor in the high project churn Google is known for.

jandrese 10y ago

I suspect Google got cold feet when they started considering the liability issues once this goes mainstream. Even their millions of miles road tests were done at low speeds near their campus.

stocktech 10y ago
They're focused on moonshots. They would have managed the liability like any other company for the prospect of transforming transportation as we know it.
greglindahl 10y ago
A lot of Google's testing was done on US 101 and other interstates at highway speeds, insomuch as there wasn't a traffic jam at the time.
- woodpanel 10y ago
  Highspeed testing is important. Also the complexity of the traffic is. Some say that the high speed of the German Autobahn is what made German premium cars so technically advanced. As soon as you get faster than 130-150 km/h most cars will let you know they weren't built for this. BMW, Daimler or Audi make 230 km/h ++ feel safe and sound (which I often think they shouldn't). A Tesla for example can't perform autonomous driving here as easily because the variances in speed require sensors that detect cars in further distance, quicker and in more detail.
  - 0xfeba 10y ago
    A quite ride at speed only really means it's a luxury car. Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Ford, et. al have had plenty of experience making cars that can go fast, and they also make luxury cars. In any passenger car, getting in a wreck at 100 km/h or above is more than likely a fatal event. "5 Star" safety ratings and the EU equivalent are only for 30~55 km/h crashes. Granted, even highway crashes involve some braking before impact, but the faster you go the more difficult it is to slow down enough to a 'safe' speed before impact. Besides, the sensors on cars are more than capable of driving at 150 KM/H. While they cannot "see" as far as a human, they require much less time to process what they do see.

mtgx 10y ago

The problem is few car companies want to partner with Google because Google asks to collect too much data from all of their customers - not that I blame the car makers.

chc 10y ago
Do you work in the car industry? This seems like a very inside thing to both know and casually drop on Hacker News.
detaro 10y ago
car companies don't particularly seem to mind data collection if you look at newer "connected" features.

ChuckMcM 10y ago

I agree this move isn't surprising, but disagree with the assertion that Google is a software development and services company. Google is first and foremost an Internet Search Advertising company, so far it has been the thing keeping the lights on. I expect that if it had felt it could make the transition into self driving car company it would have. But it helps to remember a little bit of history here. Google was, for the most part, the very first company of significant size to invest in self driving cars. They did that at the behest of Sebastian Thrun who was working there. It made some big headlines and it certainly added to Google's "glow" as a place where the future was happening. And then it ran into the sludge that is Google's inability to actually make "products" that aren't a web page. And as it did people started slipping away, first Sebastian, then Chris, then a big exit to what was Otto, Etc. While Google was sitting in that quagmire of their inability to execute on a product vision, Tesla came in, announced auto pilot, deployed autopilot, updated it to do many of the things Google could actually do, announced self drive, deployed the hardware for self drive. Basically all executing on a product strategy while Google argued internally about whether or not their "car" should have a steering wheel or not. What I've read in the news so far it sounds like Google is spinning off what is left of that group as Waymo (that seems like it is a sort of PIP for groups at Google) and trying to sell it off to someone. I left in 2010 and the self driving car group was about a year old (and I tried to join it but they turned me down :-() Here it is 2016 so 7 years of development. A number of actual vehicles were produced, a number of cars were modified, I'm guessing there were about 150 people in the group at its peak. Just doing back of the envelope conversations for that group I'm guessing Google invested at least $300M in the effort. And now its scrap. I appreciate that it is a really hard problem, and I appreciate that it was pretty far off Google's expertise spectrum. I also appreciate that they take "big bets" even when they fail. But given where Tesla is, and where they are, I worry that even if one of their big bets is a "winner", Google won't be able to execute on it. Just like Xerox couldn't execute on the personal computer and GM on electric cars. Once you get to be too big to win, what do you do?