8 ms·

"And that's a damn shame, because given Google's talent, it'll nevertheless be a engineering feat of epic proportion." You know, I have respect for the people

"And that's a damn shame, because given Google's talent, it'll nevertheless be a engineering feat of epic proportion." You know, I have respect for the people Google employs - they are certainly a very talented bunch. But what has Google ever engineered, at least physically, that has set your expectations so high?

courtewing 15y ago
I think the technical infrastructure they've built to support Youtube, Google Search, and the rest of their products is a modern technological marvel, and that was designed 100% in-house as far as I know. I don't think they've developed a physical consumer product that is revolutionary, but I believe they have the talent to do so.
atonse 15y ago
Everything I've heard about the self driving car gets me more excited than Search ever did. But then again I've never seen it.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
jrockway 15y ago
But what has Google ever engineered, at least physically, that has set your expectations so high? Driverless cars.
- danilocampos 15y ago
  Quite so! I'm very excited to head on down to my Google dealership and pick one-- Oh. There's a huge difference between a research project and a shipping product. I'm most excited for this development as well, but I'll be withholding my acclaim until they actually deliver it. So far, all of this stuff is an elaborate Montessori school science project.
  - xxbondsxx 15y ago
    If you've followed the DARPA Grand Challenge since 2004, you'll realize that it's _not_ just a school science project. The Google car is going to be ready for market far before the legal, insurance, and other non-technical issues are sorted out. In other words, they could ship "now" if they weren't doing such a revolutionary product. If you make a trivially incremental improvement on an already-existing product (iPad3) then that's a lot easier
    - 2muchcoffeeman 15y ago
      That still sounds silly. If you have the muscle of Google, wouldn't you get the legal ball rolling first, so that when your car is ready, you can sell immediately? Does a driverless car even count as basic research that they can spin off into a consumer product?
      - lsiebert 15y ago
        Which they did. Nevada now has laws governing autonomously piloted cars, and California is working on it, last I checked. If they can get such vehicles legal and available to the general public in California, it will be legal everywhere else within a year or two at most. California sets or has had the ability to set a lot of standards for the country, from vehicle emissions, textbooks, to now, apparently, driverless cars.
      - moe 15y ago
        I think you're simplifying a little. A driverless car is not just another car. It's not a fancy smartphone. It's a paradigm shift that will reshape society and erase tens of thousands of jobs in a relatively short timeframe. And it's one of the rare cases where you can actually predict and quantify these consequences with relatively good accuracy. I'd assume quite a few parties (read: all of them) will want to have a say in such a rollout, beyond technical peculiarities. For the better or the worse.
        marshray 15y ago
- beatle 15y ago
  Driverless cars. Google Glasses. The CEO's job is to allocate resources to initiatives that will make the company money. NOT to fool around with worthless projects like driver less cars and glasses that are just complete waste of money and resources. Shouldn't they be spending time and money fixing Android and the Android market place?
  - jonknee 15y ago
    The car business is fantastically large. If Google can license its technology to power the next stage of personal transportation, the revenue received will dwarf its 30% vig on selling Angry Birds. Either way, it's not that they are taking money and resources from Android and dedicating them to cars and augmented reality. I don't think more money and more people is what Android needs.
    - marshallp 15y ago
      If they were man enough to actually license. I recently say sebastian thrun speaking and he turns investor off. Hand a professor a cheque and he'll hand you a pipe dream. Google needs to be hiring more wall street sharks.
      - jonknee 15y ago
        There are plenty of Wall Street types at Google, the last thing they need is to have them in control of innovation. The scientists won't be in charge of sales or licensing, I think it's great that the MBAs aren't in charge of product development. Maybe Google won't license it, maybe Google will give it away like they do Android. Since I don't see them manufacturing cars, those are about the only options other than canceling the effort.
  - icandoitbetter 15y ago
    Can't tell if you're joking.
    - beatle 15y ago
- dsl 15y ago
  Thanks to a number of wars and billions being pumped into the UAV market, the likes of Raytheon, Thales Optronics, FLIR Systems, ITT, BAE, IAI, and probably a hundred other companies have made self driving cars possible. Not Google. Even when I was working on autonomous vehicles 10+ years ago, the entire setup was basically a "solved problem" minus environmental sensing accurate and reliable enough to be put in the critical path of human life. The state machine for how to behave on paved roads has existed in various forms for a long time. They have however put money and legal weight behind the problem. If Google deserves credit for anything, it would be getting them allowed on public streets.
  - modeless 15y ago
    UAV control has basically nothing to do with self-driving cars. It's a completely different problem. The only piece that's shared is the GPS/IMU, and it's a small piece. And if you think "the state machine for how to behave on paved roads" is the hard part, you're delusional. "Environmental sensing accurate and reliable enough" isn't the problem either. Although fancy lasers and radars can help, we have had cameras, microphones, and accelerometers superior to human eyes, ears, and vestibular system for years now. The missing piece is the software, which is exactly the piece Google is working on.
    - dsl 15y ago
      Sorry for the confusing use of the term. UAV means unmanned autonomous vehicles. UAV in reference to aerial platforms is mostly the result of marketing/media. Even the early Daimler-Benz projects of the 90's had fully functional software stacks that had implemented all the required decision making logic of driving. While it is true that we have cameras and microphones that work better than our own eyes and ears, I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that the sensory processing isn't to human levels yet. The advancements that have been made are in different types of sensing devices that eliminate the need for heavy post-processing of data (image pattern recognition, etc) in software. I do give credit to Google for making it happen, both as an integrator, and in lobbying efforts. But there is a lot of standing on the shoulders of giants, in comparison to pure software fields where they have made huge industry disrupting shifts (like BigTable, GFS, etc).
mtrimpe 15y ago
I wonder if Google will end up going the same route as Philips. I'm from the home-town of Philips, the company that became big selling light-bulbs but then expanded into a myriad of great technical innovations. We were always joking however about how they were able to make the greatest products, but were never able to sell them. There are so many examples of absolutely great products/innovations which were eventually canned or, if they weren't IP protected, were successfully released to market several years later by a competitor. I really hope Google doesn't fall into this trap, because the even the greatest still need to be sold...

courtewing 15y ago

I think the technical infrastructure they've built to support Youtube, Google Search, and the rest of their products is a modern technological marvel, and that was designed 100% in-house as far as I know. I don't think they've developed a physical consumer product that is revolutionary, but I believe they have the talent to do so.

atonse 15y ago

Everything I've heard about the self driving car gets me more excited than Search ever did. But then again I've never seen it.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

jrockway 15y ago

But what has Google ever engineered, at least physically, that has set your expectations so high? Driverless cars.

danilocampos 15y ago
Quite so! I'm very excited to head on down to my Google dealership and pick one-- Oh. There's a huge difference between a research project and a shipping product. I'm most excited for this development as well, but I'll be withholding my acclaim until they actually deliver it. So far, all of this stuff is an elaborate Montessori school science project.
- xxbondsxx 15y ago
  If you've followed the DARPA Grand Challenge since 2004, you'll realize that it's _not_ just a school science project. The Google car is going to be ready for market far before the legal, insurance, and other non-technical issues are sorted out. In other words, they could ship "now" if they weren't doing such a revolutionary product. If you make a trivially incremental improvement on an already-existing product (iPad3) then that's a lot easier
  - 2muchcoffeeman 15y ago
    That still sounds silly. If you have the muscle of Google, wouldn't you get the legal ball rolling first, so that when your car is ready, you can sell immediately? Does a driverless car even count as basic research that they can spin off into a consumer product?
    - lsiebert 15y ago
      Which they did. Nevada now has laws governing autonomously piloted cars, and California is working on it, last I checked. If they can get such vehicles legal and available to the general public in California, it will be legal everywhere else within a year or two at most. California sets or has had the ability to set a lot of standards for the country, from vehicle emissions, textbooks, to now, apparently, driverless cars.
    - moe 15y ago
      I think you're simplifying a little. A driverless car is not just another car. It's not a fancy smartphone. It's a paradigm shift that will reshape society and erase tens of thousands of jobs in a relatively short timeframe. And it's one of the rare cases where you can actually predict and quantify these consequences with relatively good accuracy. I'd assume quite a few parties (read: all of them) will want to have a say in such a rollout, beyond technical peculiarities. For the better or the worse.
      - marshray 15y ago
beatle 15y ago
Driverless cars. Google Glasses. The CEO's job is to allocate resources to initiatives that will make the company money. NOT to fool around with worthless projects like driver less cars and glasses that are just complete waste of money and resources. Shouldn't they be spending time and money fixing Android and the Android market place?
- jonknee 15y ago
  The car business is fantastically large. If Google can license its technology to power the next stage of personal transportation, the revenue received will dwarf its 30% vig on selling Angry Birds. Either way, it's not that they are taking money and resources from Android and dedicating them to cars and augmented reality. I don't think more money and more people is what Android needs.
  - marshallp 15y ago
    If they were man enough to actually license. I recently say sebastian thrun speaking and he turns investor off. Hand a professor a cheque and he'll hand you a pipe dream. Google needs to be hiring more wall street sharks.
    - jonknee 15y ago
      There are plenty of Wall Street types at Google, the last thing they need is to have them in control of innovation. The scientists won't be in charge of sales or licensing, I think it's great that the MBAs aren't in charge of product development. Maybe Google won't license it, maybe Google will give it away like they do Android. Since I don't see them manufacturing cars, those are about the only options other than canceling the effort.
- icandoitbetter 15y ago
  Can't tell if you're joking.
  - beatle 15y ago
dsl 15y ago
Thanks to a number of wars and billions being pumped into the UAV market, the likes of Raytheon, Thales Optronics, FLIR Systems, ITT, BAE, IAI, and probably a hundred other companies have made self driving cars possible. Not Google. Even when I was working on autonomous vehicles 10+ years ago, the entire setup was basically a "solved problem" minus environmental sensing accurate and reliable enough to be put in the critical path of human life. The state machine for how to behave on paved roads has existed in various forms for a long time. They have however put money and legal weight behind the problem. If Google deserves credit for anything, it would be getting them allowed on public streets.
- modeless 15y ago
  UAV control has basically nothing to do with self-driving cars. It's a completely different problem. The only piece that's shared is the GPS/IMU, and it's a small piece. And if you think "the state machine for how to behave on paved roads" is the hard part, you're delusional. "Environmental sensing accurate and reliable enough" isn't the problem either. Although fancy lasers and radars can help, we have had cameras, microphones, and accelerometers superior to human eyes, ears, and vestibular system for years now. The missing piece is the software, which is exactly the piece Google is working on.
  - dsl 15y ago
    Sorry for the confusing use of the term. UAV means unmanned autonomous vehicles. UAV in reference to aerial platforms is mostly the result of marketing/media. Even the early Daimler-Benz projects of the 90's had fully functional software stacks that had implemented all the required decision making logic of driving. While it is true that we have cameras and microphones that work better than our own eyes and ears, I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that the sensory processing isn't to human levels yet. The advancements that have been made are in different types of sensing devices that eliminate the need for heavy post-processing of data (image pattern recognition, etc) in software. I do give credit to Google for making it happen, both as an integrator, and in lobbying efforts. But there is a lot of standing on the shoulders of giants, in comparison to pure software fields where they have made huge industry disrupting shifts (like BigTable, GFS, etc).

mtrimpe 15y ago

I wonder if Google will end up going the same route as Philips. I'm from the home-town of Philips, the company that became big selling light-bulbs but then expanded into a myriad of great technical innovations. We were always joking however about how they were able to make the greatest products, but were never able to sell them. There are so many examples of absolutely great products/innovations which were eventually canned or, if they weren't IP protected, were successfully released to market several years later by a competitor. I really hope Google doesn't fall into this trap, because the even the greatest still need to be sold...