3 ms·

They have zero pressure to ship. No, that’s not a good thing.

by aantix 7y ago

cialowicz 7y ago
I wouldn't say this results in zero pressure to ship. It might even increase the pressure since now external investors are looking for a return on their investment (eventually). For self-driving tech, where people's lives are at stake, it's critical to get things right by exceeding the safety record of human drivers. Increased pressure to ship doesn't seem like the right strategy for that to happen.
SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
Isn't it? It's not like there's a risk that the entire thing is vaporware; they have some driverless cars on public roads today. It seems like a good thing if they feel they have the luxury to polish up each incremental expansion.
- Barrin92 7y ago
  >they have some driverless cars on public roads today. It seems like a good thing if they feel they have the luxury to polish up each incremental expansion. I think this is a very optimistic description of the state of the art. As far as I'm aware most of their 'driverless' rides have safety drivers in the car who intervene, and the few fully autonomous rides were given to journalists or selected testers on predetermined routes (in areas that are basically tailored to self driving). It's not really about 'polishing off' at this point. Autonomous cars still can't drive reliably in most areas.
  - Traster 7y ago
    The simple fact is that we don't really know the difference between "Can generally self-drive" and "Can reliably self-drive". People have different intuitions for how big that difference is, but no one truly knows- and informed participants in the market vehemently disagree (Musk thinks he can do it with a bit more big data and Waymo haven't really settled on a h/w platform).
adventured 7y ago
It can be a very good thing. Xerox PARC existed with relatively little pressure to ship. They gave us many of the components of the modern tech industry. Their contributions were greater than perhaps any other epicenter for the computer revolution. Xerox didn't benefit massively from the creations at PARC (a tiny fraction of what others did), and I'm entirely ok with that. I do not particularly care about the existence of the Xerox Corporation. Just as I'm ok with Google vaporizing $10 billion on Waymo and failing, if it helps push this technology forward in the process. Worst case scenario, over time Waymo will spin out hundreds of experienced employees that will go on to plant other technology seeds all over the place. Google has $120 billion in cash, $35b in operating income, $160 billion in sales, a monopoly or two, and I do not care if they get punched in the face to the tune of $10 billion in losses on autonomous driving. The only thing that matters is that their expenditures move the ball forward. Maybe some start-up that doesn't exist yet, formed by ex Waymo employees two years from now, will be the company that builds a better Waymo. That'll be great. I'd also rather that $10 billion go into engineer pockets and get deployed into the economy rather than sit in Google's monopoly money vault yielding jack squat interest, de facto being hoarded. Google has little idea what to do with their money, they're a trillion dollar corporation with not much imagination. I'm glad they're burning cash on something interesting.
- Analemma_ 7y ago
  > Xerox PARC existed with relatively little pressure to ship. That's a strange example to back up your thesis, considering that Xerox PARC got its lunch eaten by someone who had the same product but did ship.

They have zero pressure to ship. No, that’s not a good thing.

by aantix 7y ago

They have zero pressure to ship. No, that’s not a good thing.

I wouldn't say this results in zero pressure to ship. It might even increase the pressure since now external investors are looking for a return on their investment (eventually). For self-driving tech, where people's lives are at stake, it's critical to get things right by exceeding the safety record of human drivers. Increased pressure to ship doesn't seem like the right strategy for that to happen.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

Isn't it? It's not like there's a risk that the entire thing is vaporware; they have some driverless cars on public roads today. It seems like a good thing if they feel they have the luxury to polish up each incremental expansion.

Barrin92 7y ago
>they have some driverless cars on public roads today. It seems like a good thing if they feel they have the luxury to polish up each incremental expansion. I think this is a very optimistic description of the state of the art. As far as I'm aware most of their 'driverless' rides have safety drivers in the car who intervene, and the few fully autonomous rides were given to journalists or selected testers on predetermined routes (in areas that are basically tailored to self driving). It's not really about 'polishing off' at this point. Autonomous cars still can't drive reliably in most areas.
- Traster 7y ago
  The simple fact is that we don't really know the difference between "Can generally self-drive" and "Can reliably self-drive". People have different intuitions for how big that difference is, but no one truly knows- and informed participants in the market vehemently disagree (Musk thinks he can do it with a bit more big data and Waymo haven't really settled on a h/w platform).

adventured 7y ago

It can be a very good thing. Xerox PARC existed with relatively little pressure to ship. They gave us many of the components of the modern tech industry. Their contributions were greater than perhaps any other epicenter for the computer revolution. Xerox didn't benefit massively from the creations at PARC (a tiny fraction of what others did), and I'm entirely ok with that. I do not particularly care about the existence of the Xerox Corporation. Just as I'm ok with Google vaporizing $10 billion on Waymo and failing, if it helps push this technology forward in the process. Worst case scenario, over time Waymo will spin out hundreds of experienced employees that will go on to plant other technology seeds all over the place. Google has $120 billion in cash, $35b in operating income, $160 billion in sales, a monopoly or two, and I do not care if they get punched in the face to the tune of $10 billion in losses on autonomous driving. The only thing that matters is that their expenditures move the ball forward. Maybe some start-up that doesn't exist yet, formed by ex Waymo employees two years from now, will be the company that builds a better Waymo. That'll be great. I'd also rather that $10 billion go into engineer pockets and get deployed into the economy rather than sit in Google's monopoly money vault yielding jack squat interest, de facto being hoarded. Google has little idea what to do with their money, they're a trillion dollar corporation with not much imagination. I'm glad they're burning cash on something interesting.

Analemma_ 7y ago
> Xerox PARC existed with relatively little pressure to ship. That's a strange example to back up your thesis, considering that Xerox PARC got its lunch eaten by someone who had the same product but did ship.