4 ms·

"The annual survey looked at 18 different companies, smeared across 10 different criteria, ranging from strategy, to core tech development, to manufacturing cap

"The annual survey looked at 18 different companies, smeared across 10 different criteria, ranging from strategy, to core tech development, to manufacturing capability and staying power, and a company that’s over 100 years old ended up leading the list." Why does 'manufacturing capability and staying power' correlate to 'potential in the world of autonomous driving'? It doesn't matter if you can pump out a thousand cars an hour if they crash a mile down the road. This should be based on core tech development only..

whalesalad 10y ago
The inverse is also important. If you "invent" the best tech possible but have no way to get it onto the road -- is it the best?
- EStudley 10y ago
  I get that. It just seems like that specific metric could have been over-weighted seeing as how Ford and GM were at the top of the list..
  - Fricken 10y ago
    I think GM deserves to be at the top of the list. Cruise is very quickly closing the gap between themselves and Waymo, and they have a comitted car company to back them up. The jury is still out as to whether Ford can make good headway on their 'secret sauce', which is now in the hands of Argo.ai.
    - Judgmentality 10y ago
      Yeah, Cruise seems to be doing a great job. Argo has a great founding team, but there are still a lot of things that can go wrong. While I'd give Argo the edge in technical competence (I realize that's not a very meaningful statement considering the age of the company), what really matters is building the right product at the right time. You can have a ton of great engineers and still not accomplish much in the market - just look at Waymo and Uber. The way I see it, at least in the US, it's really GM vs Ford (which is Cruise vs Argo). Waymo has a management crisis and lost most of their top talent, and Uber is hemorrhaging talent (and money). Apart from that there are various startups but I don't believe they'll ever get the money necessary to compete with the big players - even Google gave up on that front. Outside the US I'm excited to see what happens with Volvo, which says they'll have 100 stage 4 vehicles delivered to customers by the end of the year.
- briandear 10y ago
  Everyone reading this should watch the film Tucker: A Man and his Dream. Sort of a 1950s Elon Musk.
matthewmacleod 10y ago
That's silly - what's the point in excellent core technology if you are unable to manufacture enough vehicles or bring them to market?
kbenson 10y ago
> This should be based on core tech development only.. What good is the tech if you can't put it into production? There are real design and manufacturing issues to deal with, and a company that doesn't take that into consideration and give it the attention it deserves likely won't do well in the long run.

whalesalad 10y ago

The inverse is also important. If you "invent" the best tech possible but have no way to get it onto the road -- is it the best?

EStudley 10y ago
I get that. It just seems like that specific metric could have been over-weighted seeing as how Ford and GM were at the top of the list..
- Fricken 10y ago
  I think GM deserves to be at the top of the list. Cruise is very quickly closing the gap between themselves and Waymo, and they have a comitted car company to back them up. The jury is still out as to whether Ford can make good headway on their 'secret sauce', which is now in the hands of Argo.ai.
  - Judgmentality 10y ago
    Yeah, Cruise seems to be doing a great job. Argo has a great founding team, but there are still a lot of things that can go wrong. While I'd give Argo the edge in technical competence (I realize that's not a very meaningful statement considering the age of the company), what really matters is building the right product at the right time. You can have a ton of great engineers and still not accomplish much in the market - just look at Waymo and Uber. The way I see it, at least in the US, it's really GM vs Ford (which is Cruise vs Argo). Waymo has a management crisis and lost most of their top talent, and Uber is hemorrhaging talent (and money). Apart from that there are various startups but I don't believe they'll ever get the money necessary to compete with the big players - even Google gave up on that front. Outside the US I'm excited to see what happens with Volvo, which says they'll have 100 stage 4 vehicles delivered to customers by the end of the year.
briandear 10y ago
Everyone reading this should watch the film Tucker: A Man and his Dream. Sort of a 1950s Elon Musk.

matthewmacleod 10y ago

That's silly - what's the point in excellent core technology if you are unable to manufacture enough vehicles or bring them to market?

kbenson 10y ago

> This should be based on core tech development only.. What good is the tech if you can't put it into production? There are real design and manufacturing issues to deal with, and a company that doesn't take that into consideration and give it the attention it deserves likely won't do well in the long run.