
Silicon Valley Stumbles in World Beyond Software - redcastle
http://www.wsj.com/articles/silicon-valley-stumbles-in-world-beyond-software-1481042474
======
solatic
Specifically about Google's Project X delivery drone project:

The first guy to head the project was one Nicholas Roy, an MIT Robotics
professor whose professional claim to the position seems to be mentoring a
pair of students who succeeded in building a drone that flew around a parking
garage - predetermined layout, no weather. Completely out of his depth, he
failed.

After he failed, Google hired Dave Vos, another guy who spent some time in an
MIT graduate office - this time one in an aerospace specialty - who spent the
last couple of decades in tech management positions. At least he had the
experience to come in and say, hey, maybe we need some wind tunnels, maybe we
need some professional tooling that's taken for granted in most aerospace
companies, because trying to build an aircraft without that tooling is like
trying to run a web-facing application off developer workstations instead of
setting up a proper production architecture. And he, too, failed.

The real problem that Google (and probably Amazon too) faces is that they need
to synergize two very different engineering teams to make delivery drones
work. You need aerospace folks to build reliable aircraft, you need AI folks
to give those aircraft targets to aim at, and you need them to sit on the same
floor in the same building. The aerospace folks aren't going to move to the
Valley because there's no aerospace hub in SV, and SV isn't a good place to
start one because the necessary land - you know, the wide open spaces you need
for runways and hangars - is a pipedream in SV. And the AI folks, you know,
the ones the Big Four are paying close to a million dollars in salary and
begging not to leave for a competitor - are never going to leave SV to work on
delivery drones.

The best course of action that Alphabet has is to acquire a proven aerospace
company, give it some great AI folks, and come back in a year to check on
their progress. But most of these Project X types like their ivory towers.
It's how Google convinced them to join Project X in the first place, selling
them on the promise that they'd be in the same ivory tower they were in back
in MIT, just with guaranteed funding and a request to think about commercial
viability. So, not gonna happen.

~~~
nickpsecurity
"The best course of action that Alphabet has is to acquire a proven aerospace
company"

It's a good long-term bet if it's a defense contractor that's been getting
contracts for decades. Could hedge a bit against what the market might hit
them with. Plus, they're trying to get tighter with government anyway. They'd
likely acquire people good at doing that, too. Then start brining their tech
or services in defense industry in general more than now.

~~~
nickpsecurity
Reply to the person who deleted the comment about aerospace companies having
overruns and being late. It's a common misconception that this is
incompetence. It was worth this reply if you're still reading:

That's on purpose. They bribe politicians overseeing or in the military. Those
deliver them contracts worth many times what they paid in bribes. It's called
the "revolving door" of the Pentagon by those that follow it. It becomes
obvious when you notice all these failures are tolerated with none of the
proven fraud resulting in prison sentences. The same ineffective companies
keep getting big contracts with the effective, smaller ones fighting for
scraps. As it's designed to be.

Nice example posted here a while back:

[http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/03/spyagency200703](http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/03/spyagency200703)

------
mc32
I still don't get the foray into delivery of physical low value products. The
cost of delivery is a sufficient portion of the total value of the products so
as to make it economically impractical for most cases.

And we have the example of Peapod and WebVan which didn't just foretell but
proved unless it was for specialized markets, it's a proposal for hemorrhaging
money. Even if you get automation and you perfect the travelling salesman's
problem you're still mostly dealing with low value products. Now, if it was
delivery of expensive (Rx) drugs, or maybe even heavy but valuable items like
gold or jewelry, legal documents, etc. okay. people will pay for that and you
can make a profit but toiletries and pantry goods?

~~~
david927
_The cost of delivery_

You argue that as if it's a constant -- and that it's not is the point. The
exact innovation they are stumbling on is a way to lower that cost to _near
zero_.

Drone technology will eventually happen. The question is how far out it is.
And make no mistake, when it does happen, it will truly be a revolution
(without the hyperbole).

~~~
mc32
Yes, but fuel isn't free, vehicles are not free (shrinkage isn't free).
Margins on these goods is very poor (1% [1] makes or breaks an outfit). Now,
let's say you're right, they want to get the technology right and want to
drive prices down like FedEx did back in the '70s for overnight deliveries.

Why not start with high value items --items where cost of delivery is a small
fraction of the value of the good. Like FedEx did? Why go after groceries and
perishables? It's an odd choice.

This is akin to Musk choosing Titan over Mars to explore the feasibility of
interplanetary colonization by people.

[1][http://smallbusiness.chron.com/industry-standard-gross-
margi...](http://smallbusiness.chron.com/industry-standard-gross-margin-
groceries-38121.html)

~~~
TheCoelacanth
To deliver something in an hour, you have to be storing it very close to where
you are going to deliver it. With low value items, it is practical to do that.
With high value items, the cost of doing that would be prohibitive.

~~~
mc32
So, for many of these items Google does not have Google warehouses full of the
things. They can partner with high value item sellers like they do with these
low value items. They are not incurring the costs of warehousing and parked
money.

------
KKKKkkkk1
The fact that companies like Facebook and Google are spending billions of
dollars/year on undisclosed research projects is in my view a gigantic failure
of corporate governance. I think investors are going to be hugely disappointed
when they find out that they thought they put their money into Internet
advertising cash cows, and now that money is gone, spent on building jetpacks
and space elevators. I do think those projects are very cool, but this is not
the proper way to pursue them.

~~~
digi_owl
Then what is? Seems to me to be very similar to the glory days of PARC and
such where they seemed to have the funds to research just about anything. Lets
not forget that Xerox brought the world the GUI, laser printer and Ethernet by
funding PARC, even if they in the end was not who ended up monetizing the tech
(laser printer excluded).

~~~
Tempest1981
Right, what are the other options?

* Government? Would be targeted as waste. (Maybe sneak it into NASA?)

* Startup? Would anyone fund it? No short term payout.

* Non-profit?

* Billionaire's pet project?

~~~
exergy
Perhaps it's the fact that I'm inexorably falling deeper into academia every
year, but government research is definitely NOT a waste from my perspective.

Some of the best PhD students, working on some of the most interesting
projects in my experience all had DOE or EPA grant projects. I think this sort
of research deserves a lot more money since, in my (biased) opinion, it pushes
humanity forward through public access of research in the form of
publications, theses, and the strict requirements that data be preserved for
future reference.

~~~
a_imho
I think it is meant as not cost effective, as governments are usually very
wasteful in redistributing resources.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Wasteful compared to what? I mean, what does your normative budget look like
for an R&D project?

------
misterbowfinger
This article seems to focus on Drone deliveries, but forgets that Amazon has
been re-inventing logistics for years now.

~~~
saosebastiao
Not very well. They're very good at coming up with new ideas, but very poorly
applying them to their situation. Amazon gets credit for trying, but they
should get more credit for propping up bad ideas with operating losses for
long enough that outside observers eventually think they might be good ideas.

------
throw20161123
This article reads like Google tried the MVP route with physical products and
discovering that physical space is a far less forgiving operating environment.

------
gmarx
I enjoy how the article sometimes seems to have the point of view that this is
the first time engineers ever had to work this way. I don't think they are
taking software engineers and asking them to create drones. These seem like a
lot of the same problems Boeing would have making drones or that UPS would
have trying to make deliveries if such drones already existed. Nothing unique
to Silicon Valley companies in this respect

------
mmmurf
The world of the future _is_ software. We're on the slow and exciting path of
better and better digital representations of reality... everything from cheap
orientation sensors to ADCs that were in the realm of science fiction a few
years ago.

The same is gradually happening with things like batteries, motors, etc.
Everything is becoming more standardized and more like software.

The current limitations have to do with both physics and engineering, and also
software reliability, but those barriers are all receding. Solar Cell roof
shingles are an idea likely had by many kindergarteners, but the genius has to
do with making a longer-term bet and creating the financing to make it into a
viable business in a world that rewards short-term results.

The important thing is that a Billionaire today can make a bigger impact than
a superpower government could a decade ago. The glorification of the bygone
era of massive infrastructure investment voiced by Thiel at the GOP convention
can be alternately viewed as a wish that we had more Musks taking big gambles
and a general cynicism about the tech elite who develop cults of personality
after a single, largely luck-driven, often low-tech home run.

The Interstate highway system was a buildout that could happen because of the
solving of coordination problems that had prevented escape from a local
maximum. As governments lose relevance, it is up to the Musks of the world to
usher in both the technological vision and the social coordination solutions.

------
maverick_iceman
Weird, the web link didn't work for me but searching directly for the article
name in Google did.

------
JPKab
Paywall. Is there a way around it to read the article?

~~~
yannickt
Click on the "web" link below the HN thread headline. It will direct you to a
search page for the article, and the top result will not be paywalled.

~~~
wil421
That doesn't work and hasn't for some time. I'm not sure if it's for all sites
but the web link rarely works for me. Especially the web link for WSJ.

~~~
nostrademons
Web link + open article in incognito.

~~~
wil421
Let me try on my desktop. Harder to open in incognito on mobile.

