4 ms·
This is a highly under rated take. The reason they didn't do so was industry pressure/competition. The counter point could be that the technology is there, but
by bob_theslob646 6y ago
This is a highly under rated take. The reason they didn't do so was industry pressure/competition.
The counter point could be that the technology is there, but the regulation is not.
Why must everything be retrofitted versus a complete system overhaul? The initial costs may be immense but the return on investment will be far greater.
Just my two cents.
- ironman1478 6y agoPartnering with an existing car company helps a lot. They know how to build vehicles at scale and they also can provide a lot of support when it comes to interfacing with the control systems for the car. Controlling the car (engine, doors, wheels, wipers, lights, etc) is a surprisingly difficult task on its own. It requires a lot of control systems knowledge, a complex test infrastructure, and a lot of specialized talent that's probably hard to get. It could've been seen as too difficult to take on in addition to figuring out how to actually do all the self driving specific tasks (mapping, planning, detection, etc.).
- sumedh 6y ago> They know how to build vehicles at scale The actual car companies also outsource lot of stuff to other manufactures e.g lights, wires etc. I would imagine understanding and maintaining those relations woulds also be a hassle for Google instead its just better a car companies does all that.