7 ms·

G.M. Wants to Drive the Future of Cars That Drive Themselves

30 points by my_first_acct 9y ago

atomical 9y ago
I thought google has a head start with self driving cars. Do they? Has GM caught up?
- slantaclaus 9y ago
  They have a lot to prove to investors
- rgbrenner 9y ago
  note, the title is "GM wants to".. There's nothing in the article that others haven't already done.
- pj_mukh 9y ago
  With articles like these, the PR submarine always comes to mind. http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
  - djsumdog 9y ago
    I had not read that Graham post before. Interesting .. Keep in mind the term Public Relations was though to have been coined by Edward Berneys. He's said on camera that the US Government realized propaganda worked well during WW2, but propaganda had become a bad word. So he created the US Department of Public Relations. It's literally a weasel word for propaganda.
  - atomical 9y ago
    Who upvoted this? It has nothing to do with my comment.
    - pj_mukh 9y ago
      I should've been more descriptive. In general, it's hard to know who's "ahead" as neither of them has launched anything. However, Google has spent more capital over a longer time on it. This piece though seems mostly to be PR covered up as journalism (aka the submarine).
- Fricken 9y ago
  GM hasn't caught up, but they're closing the gap quickly, and they're doing it with an aircraft carrier against Google's Frigate.
- joshvm 9y ago
  The headstart that both Tesla and Google have is test data. Tesla has more, because they've collected data from production cars from the get go. Google likely has more mature software (pure speculation), and it has comprehensive mapping data, but it doesn't have 100k customers providing them with useful real-world information. It does, however, have millions of Android users, but that's not the same. I believe all new Tesla vehicles send back autopilot data to the mothership. There's some interesting comparisons. On the one hand you have Google, which is primarily a software company with hardware interests. Then you have GM which is an auto company with software interests. And you have Tesla which positioned itself in the middle, aiming to both build cars and software. As a result, Google has a lot of core software expertise and infrastructure (particularly for machine learning). GM has the production capacity and the ability to roll out features to potentially millions of new vehicles. Google had to buy in automotive people. GM had to buy in software people. Tesla had to buy in both, but they did it from the very beginning with clear goals in mind. From an outsiders' perspective, building a car that can drive by itself isn't terribly difficult nowadays. If you have the cash, you can buy a team that will build it. The challenge is getting from that stage to a car that can reliably drive better than a human in all driving conditions and deal with unexpected events. That will take much more time, and much more data. There are other aspects like getting the sensors down to a price that people can actually afford.
chadwilken 9y ago
I quit buying American cars because they are always a "me too", this seems like another case. Every American made car that I have boughten in the last 10 years has crapped out way before any Japanese car of similar value. The one caveat I have is Tesla, I would gladly buy one of those.
- Judgmentality 9y ago
  I think it will be interesting to see a head-to-head comparison between the Chevy Bolt and the Tesla Model 3. Even though the Model 3 will be more expensive they seem to be comparable, aesthetics aside. https://electrek.co/2017/04/06/tesla-model-3-average-sale-price-data/ https://electrek.co/2017/04/06/tesla-model-3-average-sale-pr...
- jryan49 9y ago
  I was under the impression that Tesla's also have low reliability and even worse, notorious wait times for parts? http://www.consumerreports.org/cars-tesla-reliability-doesnt-match-its-high-performance/ http://www.consumerreports.org/cars-tesla-reliability-doesnt... https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/03/07/repairing-my-tesla-model-s-has-been-an-utter-night.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/03/07/repairing-my-tesla...
  - dkbrk 9y ago
    Tesla appears to be working on improving the speed of repairs: https://electrek.co/2017/03/10/tesla-body-shops-network/ https://electrek.co/2017/03/10/tesla-body-shops-network/ I understand that quality control, including fit and finish, has been steadily improving. An electric car such as the Model S has some intrinsic advantages over ICE cars in reliability in that the drive system is small and relatively uncomplicated. I think there is likely some bias in the perception of Tesla's reliability in that there is a great deal of attention on the company so problems, no matter how small, are more likely to be reported and commented upon than with more established car makers. There are a few specific examples that I'm aware of. For example the Model S pop-out door handle was redesigned and has been steadily replaced, and the Model X doors had no end of problems until they apparently sorted them out.
kolbe 9y ago
That's such a useless article. I, too, want be the leader in driverless cars. And much like GM, I'm not even close to being the one who will do it! Though, in all fairness, GM is a lot further along than I am.
- flyingprogram 9y ago
  But GM isn't that much further along than yourself.
  - billylindeman 9y ago
    I don't understand the negativity for GM/Ford on HN. I'd say with cruise / lyft partnership / sidecar acquisition they're way further along than anyone here seems to give them credit for.
    - neom 9y ago
      It seems that the sentiment for more alternative and "disruptive" ideas or businesses are the most welcomed here. It's a shame that people are missing indicators that the enterprise is < 10 years away from disrupting traditional software startups, software is becoming a commodity.
    - IIlIIllIIlllII 9y ago
      they are trying to buy their way into innovation however they dont have any attractor for that of their own - not a real economic opportunity behind them. just a bunch of leftover money. 'talent acquisition' looks too much like yahoo. companies need an adhesive, typically an enormously strong forcing function caused by economic currents. it can be other things, like a magnetic leader etc. GM has none of that, only gubermint bailout money so while that is going to get somewhere (since they have a lot of it) I would assume they will still be outcompeted by other companies with stronger attractors (econ opportunities, PR, ..) and movers (like mission/aspriations, inspriation, arbiters of quality, ..) and of course there is the negative sentiment about it beeing illegitimate, unearned, perhaps undeserved if epistemology swings that way, because of the above
nebabyte 9y ago
Everyone in the auto+tech industry "Wants to Drive the Future of Cars That Drive Themselves". "Wants to" doesn't win pennants.
djsumdog 9y ago
I really think we're a lot further away from self driving car tech than people think. The fact that every company is building totally closed proprietary systems should also be of great concern. What if Waymo implements a critical safety feature and patents the software/algorithm? Are we going to see Here or GM touting that their algorithms are safer in their adverts? Are we going to have mini-DARPA challenges for each manufacturer, similar to crash safety testing? I also just feels like it's a lot of wasted money. GM killed the Streetcar in America and we've been left with a country without any rail infrastructure. Self driving cars make sense in Europe where they could solve last mile problems, but in the US, it's not going to solve any of the major transportation issues: namely congestion and gridlock. There is no way a fleet of self-driving cars, no matter how advanced, can even hope to match the carrying capacity of a tram or train: http://penguindreams.org/blog/self-driving-cars-will-not-solve-the-transportation-problem/ http://penguindreams.org/blog/self-driving-cars-will-not-sol...
- imron 9y ago
  There is even a reasonable argument to be made that self driving cards will increase traffic and deadlock. For example, imagine driving in to the city for some business meeting and then rather than worry about the hassle of finding a parking spot you just let the car drive about by itself for a couple of hours. Now multiply that by however many hundred (or thousand) people have the same idea.
  - MarkMc 9y ago
    That is easily solved by congestion charging.
    - infogulch 9y ago
      In those words that idea is simple to explain. The logistics of an actual implementation would not be so easy.
    - closeparen 9y ago
      Transportation is one of the few contexts where the US has adopted the socialist system of allocation by waiting list, rather than price. Congestion used to be the one inconvenience rich people couldn't buy themselves out of. I can understand the impulse to keep it that way, though the benefits of congestion pricing probably do outweigh the symbolic problems.

30 points by my_first_acct 9y ago

atomical 9y ago

I thought google has a head start with self driving cars. Do they? Has GM caught up?

slantaclaus 9y ago
They have a lot to prove to investors
rgbrenner 9y ago
note, the title is "GM wants to".. There's nothing in the article that others haven't already done.
pj_mukh 9y ago
With articles like these, the PR submarine always comes to mind. http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
- djsumdog 9y ago
  I had not read that Graham post before. Interesting .. Keep in mind the term Public Relations was though to have been coined by Edward Berneys. He's said on camera that the US Government realized propaganda worked well during WW2, but propaganda had become a bad word. So he created the US Department of Public Relations. It's literally a weasel word for propaganda.
- atomical 9y ago
  Who upvoted this? It has nothing to do with my comment.
  - pj_mukh 9y ago
    I should've been more descriptive. In general, it's hard to know who's "ahead" as neither of them has launched anything. However, Google has spent more capital over a longer time on it. This piece though seems mostly to be PR covered up as journalism (aka the submarine).
Fricken 9y ago
GM hasn't caught up, but they're closing the gap quickly, and they're doing it with an aircraft carrier against Google's Frigate.
joshvm 9y ago
The headstart that both Tesla and Google have is test data. Tesla has more, because they've collected data from production cars from the get go. Google likely has more mature software (pure speculation), and it has comprehensive mapping data, but it doesn't have 100k customers providing them with useful real-world information. It does, however, have millions of Android users, but that's not the same. I believe all new Tesla vehicles send back autopilot data to the mothership. There's some interesting comparisons. On the one hand you have Google, which is primarily a software company with hardware interests. Then you have GM which is an auto company with software interests. And you have Tesla which positioned itself in the middle, aiming to both build cars and software. As a result, Google has a lot of core software expertise and infrastructure (particularly for machine learning). GM has the production capacity and the ability to roll out features to potentially millions of new vehicles. Google had to buy in automotive people. GM had to buy in software people. Tesla had to buy in both, but they did it from the very beginning with clear goals in mind. From an outsiders' perspective, building a car that can drive by itself isn't terribly difficult nowadays. If you have the cash, you can buy a team that will build it. The challenge is getting from that stage to a car that can reliably drive better than a human in all driving conditions and deal with unexpected events. That will take much more time, and much more data. There are other aspects like getting the sensors down to a price that people can actually afford.

chadwilken 9y ago

I quit buying American cars because they are always a "me too", this seems like another case. Every American made car that I have boughten in the last 10 years has crapped out way before any Japanese car of similar value. The one caveat I have is Tesla, I would gladly buy one of those.

Judgmentality 9y ago
I think it will be interesting to see a head-to-head comparison between the Chevy Bolt and the Tesla Model 3. Even though the Model 3 will be more expensive they seem to be comparable, aesthetics aside. https://electrek.co/2017/04/06/tesla-model-3-average-sale-price-data/ https://electrek.co/2017/04/06/tesla-model-3-average-sale-pr...
jryan49 9y ago
I was under the impression that Tesla's also have low reliability and even worse, notorious wait times for parts? http://www.consumerreports.org/cars-tesla-reliability-doesnt-match-its-high-performance/ http://www.consumerreports.org/cars-tesla-reliability-doesnt... https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/03/07/repairing-my-tesla-model-s-has-been-an-utter-night.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/03/07/repairing-my-tesla...
- dkbrk 9y ago
  Tesla appears to be working on improving the speed of repairs: https://electrek.co/2017/03/10/tesla-body-shops-network/ https://electrek.co/2017/03/10/tesla-body-shops-network/ I understand that quality control, including fit and finish, has been steadily improving. An electric car such as the Model S has some intrinsic advantages over ICE cars in reliability in that the drive system is small and relatively uncomplicated. I think there is likely some bias in the perception of Tesla's reliability in that there is a great deal of attention on the company so problems, no matter how small, are more likely to be reported and commented upon than with more established car makers. There are a few specific examples that I'm aware of. For example the Model S pop-out door handle was redesigned and has been steadily replaced, and the Model X doors had no end of problems until they apparently sorted them out.

kolbe 9y ago

That's such a useless article. I, too, want be the leader in driverless cars. And much like GM, I'm not even close to being the one who will do it! Though, in all fairness, GM is a lot further along than I am.

flyingprogram 9y ago
But GM isn't that much further along than yourself.
- billylindeman 9y ago
  I don't understand the negativity for GM/Ford on HN. I'd say with cruise / lyft partnership / sidecar acquisition they're way further along than anyone here seems to give them credit for.
  - neom 9y ago
    It seems that the sentiment for more alternative and "disruptive" ideas or businesses are the most welcomed here. It's a shame that people are missing indicators that the enterprise is < 10 years away from disrupting traditional software startups, software is becoming a commodity.
  - IIlIIllIIlllII 9y ago
    they are trying to buy their way into innovation however they dont have any attractor for that of their own - not a real economic opportunity behind them. just a bunch of leftover money. 'talent acquisition' looks too much like yahoo. companies need an adhesive, typically an enormously strong forcing function caused by economic currents. it can be other things, like a magnetic leader etc. GM has none of that, only gubermint bailout money so while that is going to get somewhere (since they have a lot of it) I would assume they will still be outcompeted by other companies with stronger attractors (econ opportunities, PR, ..) and movers (like mission/aspriations, inspriation, arbiters of quality, ..) and of course there is the negative sentiment about it beeing illegitimate, unearned, perhaps undeserved if epistemology swings that way, because of the above

nebabyte 9y ago

Everyone in the auto+tech industry "Wants to Drive the Future of Cars That Drive Themselves". "Wants to" doesn't win pennants.

djsumdog 9y ago

I really think we're a lot further away from self driving car tech than people think. The fact that every company is building totally closed proprietary systems should also be of great concern. What if Waymo implements a critical safety feature and patents the software/algorithm? Are we going to see Here or GM touting that their algorithms are safer in their adverts? Are we going to have mini-DARPA challenges for each manufacturer, similar to crash safety testing? I also just feels like it's a lot of wasted money. GM killed the Streetcar in America and we've been left with a country without any rail infrastructure. Self driving cars make sense in Europe where they could solve last mile problems, but in the US, it's not going to solve any of the major transportation issues: namely congestion and gridlock. There is no way a fleet of self-driving cars, no matter how advanced, can even hope to match the carrying capacity of a tram or train: http://penguindreams.org/blog/self-driving-cars-will-not-solve-the-transportation-problem/ http://penguindreams.org/blog/self-driving-cars-will-not-sol...

imron 9y ago
There is even a reasonable argument to be made that self driving cards will increase traffic and deadlock. For example, imagine driving in to the city for some business meeting and then rather than worry about the hassle of finding a parking spot you just let the car drive about by itself for a couple of hours. Now multiply that by however many hundred (or thousand) people have the same idea.
- MarkMc 9y ago
  That is easily solved by congestion charging.
  - infogulch 9y ago
    In those words that idea is simple to explain. The logistics of an actual implementation would not be so easy.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    Transportation is one of the few contexts where the US has adopted the socialist system of allocation by waiting list, rather than price. Congestion used to be the one inconvenience rich people couldn't buy themselves out of. I can understand the impulse to keep it that way, though the benefits of congestion pricing probably do outweigh the symbolic problems.