3 ms·
"But for all its expertise in developing search technology and software, Google has zero experience building cars..." The article is fundamentally missing the
by avn2109 13y ago
"But for all its expertise in developing search technology and software, Google has zero experience building cars..."
The article is fundamentally missing the point of autonomous vehicles---namely, that this is a _software_ problem, not a mechanical problem, so car building is an irrelevant skill. Automakers have decades of experience with all sorts of useful things, like machine design, manufacturing, fit and finish, etc. But they suck at software, as evidenced by the hilariously low quality of all* dashboard media/navigation/tech clusters ever. Google, on the other hand, is pretty good at software, and is therefore much better positioned to win in this space. Empiricism verifies this, because the Google autonomous cars work better than the automakers'.
In fairness, the article's claim about the high cost of Google LIDAR is solid.
*Yeah, I know. Tesla's doesn't suck. But they're not a real automaker yet.
- leoedin 13y agoThe LIDAR is expensive because it's not a commodity product. Once you take that LIDAR unit and spread the development costs over millions, embed all the digital electronics into one chip and start churning them out the cost will fall significantly. It might still be 5 figures, but it'll be at the low end.
- ProblemFactory 13y agoGoogle doesn't even need experience in building cars. They can license their technology to UPS and Fedex and make billions. They can license their technology to Uber, ZipCar and taxi companies and make billions. They can license the technology to traditional automakers and make billions. The self-driving car ecosystem might end up very similar to Android. Google makes the software, and others make the hardware. Or they can just buy an automaker if they want to sell their own cars.