
Cars and the Future - prostoalex
https://stratechery.com/2016/cars-and-the-future/
======
FussyZeus
A good read, but it's another tech/car article that completely fails to take
into account two huge things: Car Culture and things that aren't cities.

On car culture: There is still an extremely large community of people in the
U.S. (and I have no reason to believe this is restricted to the U.S) who buy
cars NOT based on efficiency and price, we buy what we like. This is a huge
factor that I've heard no technical pundit address yet. Excluding the Tesla
which is a masterpiece, almost every other electric car is extremely dull.
Lackluster styling, meh on performance, and focuses on gadgets to make the
sale. To a "car guy," an electric car is right there with a Honda Accord or a
Toyota Camry; it's mashed potatoes. It's a doughnut with no filling. Yeah, it
will do the job and it will do it well, but you don't have any fun with it.
When I'm going to out to spend a years salary or so on transportation I want
something I'm going to enjoy driving.

On the other thing, I have yet to see an even semi-autonomous car that can
handle NOT being in a city. Intermittent Internet access, gravel/dirt roads,
long stretches of unmarked highway, etc. I can't picture one of Google's cars
making it's way up the driveway to my house, I have a feeling it would just
stop at the edge of the driveway (dirt) and go "Welp, my tiny 8 inch tires
can't handle an obstacle of that magnitude, get out and walk."

I realize these are the concerns of a small market but when people throw
around terms like "the car of the future" I feel the need to point out that
it's not the future for everyone, and in fact might be the future for a very
small group of people while everyone else keeps doing what they're doing.

~~~
exelius
> Car Culture

Well, "car culture" was invented to sell economy cars - nobody gets excited
over mashed potatoes, so they had to invent something sexier. I don't think
anyone legitimately believes that the auto industry is going to keel over and
disappear - autonomous cars will have a very, very long adoption period. But
over that period, I expect the "car guy" segment of the market (sports cars,
etc) to become more of the niche hobby of "human-controlled car racing". It's
not like horses totally disappeared after the invention of the automobile;
their purpose just became much more heavily weighted towards entertainment.

> things that aren't cities.

Autonomous vehicles already exist that work in non-city environments. But
yeah, there is probably some infrastructure that would need to be built first
-- and it will get built, just like roads did. I expect we'll see autonomous
cars in cities first, but the algorithms and hardware will improve over time
and extend to rural areas.

IMO we're about 15 years out from this entire debate being laughed at for how
stupid we all were back in the mid-2010s :)

~~~
FussyZeus
I would hope it becomes more niche. I'd say it will be a lot like the
performance desktops that gamers build right now. Most people just get an off
the shelf boring old laptop, but then the hobbyists who are into tinkering
build custom machines that look sexy and run like hell. Hopefully we'll get to
that point with cars in my lifetime.

The thing with the infrastructure argument is we're not funding our
infrastructure right now enough to maintain what we've already got, let alone
upgrade to roads and highways capable of keeping autonomous cars on the road.
I'm sure this kind of thing will be huge in California, Texas, New York, etc.
but for the rest of the states I think a Google car is going to have a hell of
a time.

~~~
exelius
> we're not funding our infrastructure right now enough to maintain what we've
> already got

We don't maintain our infrastructure because businesses aren't complaining
loud enough. If it starts to infringe on some company's ability to make a
profit, they'll start up and fund an astroturf campaign to improve the roads.
It's kind of laughable how cheap lobbying actually is relative to the amount
of money corporate America can throw around -- I'd bet you could make great
strides in a localized area with even $100,000 to spend (a lot to an
individual, but any decently large company spends more on alcohol for a
holiday party than that). If we're going to have corporate money in our
political system, let's at least try to make it work for us.

------
ufmace
Good article. It's pretty interesting to consider what the future of
transportation looks like and which companies are in the best position to take
advantage of it.

I'm inclined to think that Uber may well have the best position on this. They
may not have what it takes to put out the vehicle hardware or the self-driving
software, but they do have the network and trust to set up self-driving,
possibly electric, autonomous cars to substitute for conventional cars on at
least some of their trips, from selected start and end locations. They're
probably in the best position to make agreeable deals with whoever does end up
making the best software.

~~~
viscanti
Things like UberHop, where there's a pre-defined route seem like a logical
first step. There's likely a large jump from that to fully autonomous vehicles
that can drive on any road in any situation. But in that world, Uber (or Uber-
like services) will have a jump on the competition as they'll have likely
years of first-mover advantage, raising brand awareness about autonomous
vehicles.

~~~
exelius
> raising brand awareness about autonomous vehicles.

IMO this is Uber's biggest strength. Once autonomous driving becomes even
remotely real, investors would just be able to buy a bunch of cars, build a
thin framework around some fleet management software and some payment
processing, and have an Uber clone all of their own. Very little execution
risk; the only requirements are capital investment. Uber has a built a
powerful brand though, and will likely be the first choice of consumers.

But Uber will still likely be at a disadvantage in this scenario. Companies
able to offer only driverless cars will have a huge advantage in cost
structure: not only does a startup not have to pay drivers a share, they also
don't have the overhead associated with hiring, managing, interacting, dispute
resolution, etc. with drivers. They can just ignore what amounts to an
enormous part of Uber's operations.

Sound familiar? It's exactly what Uber did to the taxi companies. Dispatching,
metering, scheduling, etc. are all huge parts of taxi operations that Uber
completely automates or ignores.

Of course, the whole industry will probably just end up going the route of the
airline industry -- hedge funds and investment banks put up the cash for the
airplanes (cars) via a holding company, then insure them and lease them out to
airlines, which actually operate them. The only people who will make anything
from it will be the banks.

~~~
ufmace
I'm inclined to think that Uber still has an advantage in that the first self-
driving systems will probably be pretty limited in the areas they can drive
in. New self-driving rides only company X will have to sell the idea of "If
you're in area Y, get a ride with X instead of Uber or a Taxi! Just make sure
you're only going somewhere else in area Y or we can't help you." Uber will be
able to say "You can always get an Uber ride from anywhere to anywhere. If we
know you're going in the right area, we might send you a self-driving car, but
you don't have to worry about it."

I think people will keep choosing Uber just because nobody feels like trying
another limited solution in special cases, even if it's cheaper.

~~~
exelius
The vast, vast majority of Uber (and taxi) trips happen in densely populated
areas where autonomous cars are likely to provide the most benefit.

Also, I don't think self-driving cars will see wide availability as a product
unless they can serve a big majority of driving use cases. There will be an
adoption curve, and given the price of an automobile, it will be very long.

------
Shivetya
With regards to the simplicity implied with electronic propulsion I think far
too many people vastly underestimate the complexity that is a battery pack,
the regenerative systems, and propulsion motors. While electric motors are
simple in theory they are very complex items on their own and long term
viability has to be worked out. Throw in the packs weight alone requires
juggling of the rest of the cars construction to get weight back down to
acceptable levels.

Self driving, yeah I think Google is doing fine for Disneyland type
environments but the ever changing world of driving cannot be surmounted by
data. It will take systems which can make microsecond decisions and actually
know what they have perceived. So identification of all objects in play is
key. the government approach of having cars all talk to each other seems
opposite of where the car companies went.

Last, ride sharing will likely get surpassed by automating buses of various
sizes dynamically scheduled based on needs. Why there hasn't been a nationwide
push to electrify school buses is beyond me, want to get a generation off to
the right thinking fast, start with kids

~~~
henrikschroder
> but the ever changing world of driving cannot be surmounted by data.

That's insane, of course it can! How can you look at the current technological
changes and come to the conclusion that there's an invisible barrier we're
never going to pass? Given hardware that is fast enough, of course we can
construct software to make microsecond decisions about the environment!

~~~
viscanti
The current technology is incredibly dependent upon high quality maps of the
area. In theory that's a solvable problem, but it requires breakthroughs in
mapping (it's prohibitively expensive to map to the degree needed for large
areas), breakthroughs in reactions to unpredictable or untrained situations,
breakthroughs in sensors that can work in poor climates (rain and snow) and
breakthroughs in computing to be able to make it affordable once it's possible
to process that.

It's not impossible, but it's probably safe to say that it's currently
insurmountable by data given current technology and the cost structures
involved. Given several large, game-changing breakthroughs, of course it's
possible.

~~~
henrikschroder
You're moving a bunch of goalposts here.

Mapping isn't required at all for self-driving, it's required for self-
navigation. Also, the obvious solution to mapping is to let every car provide
input as they're driving. What do you think Google is doing with both Google
Maps and Waze? They collect a shit-ton of data while people are using those
apps and driving. There's your mapping.

For untrained or unpredictable situations, you don't need a breakthrough, you
just need the steady improvement of sensors and computer vision. You only need
to encounter a situation once for the entire fleet of self-driving cars to be
trained on it.

For computing, you don't need breakthroughs, you just need more, and we're
getting more, every year, steadily. Self-driving cars is not a matter of
flashes of genius, it's a boring matter of economics of making the sensors
cheap enough, the data collection cheap enough, the computing cheap enough,
for it to be fitted to every car and there we go.

------
erbo
What saddens me about all this is that the trend away from cars also
represents a trend away from _freedom._

If you have a car that you can drive, you can travel pretty much as you
please, subject to the availability of time and economic resources (e.g. fuel,
vehicle maintenance). Without one, you are either restricted to the distance
you can travel on foot (or via human-powered devices like bicycles, which
extend that range some but not to a great extent), or you become dependent on
others to provide you the service of transportation...and, in many cases,
those services are either heavily regulated by government (e.g. airlines,
trains, traditional taxi services) or outright _provided_ by government (e.g.
municipal buses and light rail). This gives the government the ability to
arbitrarily deny the freedom to travel at its whim (e.g. the "no-fly" list).

Of the three trends cited, electric cars least affect the freedom to travel,
though their limited range compared to vehicles with an IC engine might
infringe somewhat. Self-driving cars rely heavily on communication with
external services for their navigation and operation, and this provides a
chokepoint where government can exert pressure. And we've certainly seen how
governments are responding to the rise of ride-sharing services, by attempting
to regulate them, which is still an ongoing controversy.

Is there anyone out there that is seriously addressing the threat to freedom
that the demise of the traditional car represents?

~~~
lhopki01
What saddens me about the rise of cars is the loss of freedom. No longer can
you travel where you want when you want on your horse, subject to the
availability of grass and no cliffs. Now you will be limited the ares around
gas stations, to the roads and the laws of government on those roads. Who will
look out for our freedom that the demise of the horse represents?

------
sliverstorm
I'm rather incredulous about the whole, _electric is simpler_.

Combustion engines are pretty damn simple, at their heart. Modern engines are
complex monsters because we have been steadily refining them- lower emissions,
more power, greater longevity. You have a whole host of devices managing the
engine to make it perform optimally.

Electric engines can also pretty damn simple. And yet we switch to brushless
for durability. We thermally manage the battery banks for performance. We add
regenerative modes for efficiency.

I suspect eighty years from now, the electric engine will be just as complex
if not more, than the combustion engine of today.

~~~
blktiger
It's not really about being simpler, but rather that electric has _fewer
moving parts_. A modern gasoline car has hundreds of moving parts while an
electric car has more like 1-4 moving parts (the motors). This means that the
electric car is simpler to maintain. Think about all the important car
maintenance items you have to pay for. Oil changes, belt replacements,
transmission fluid changes, spark plugs, etc. On an electric car, you have a
much smaller list of things to worry about. Basically you only need to replace
the battery and the tires. Battery replacement should only need to be done
every 5-10 years and tires should wear pretty much the same as in a gasoline
car.

~~~
sliverstorm
I can't help but point out a spark plug is not a moving part.

~~~
avn2109
There is a (small) spring-loaded reciprocating mechanical element - aka a
moving part - in many (all?) spark plugs [0]. Lubricating this reciprocating
interface is an active research area.

[0]
[http://4.bp.blogspot.com/\--EcUF2vWkUM/T7aL828jmdI/AAAAAAAACP...](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--EcUF2vWkUM/T7aL828jmdI/AAAAAAAACPg/BVrIW3eRdI4/s1600/spark_plug.png)

------
salmon30salmon
I think this is interesting, from a planning standpoint of today. In Portland,
there is a huge effort to focus on pushing biking and transit as opposed to
improving the quality and capacity of our roads. I find this interesting, only
because the concept of a 4 wheeled automobile that is around 6 feet wide.
Existing infrastructure will be heavily utilized by this no matter what the
future brings.

I am not an expert at all on city planning of course, and I realize its an
incredibly complex field, but from a complete layman standpoint, investing in
existing infrastructure today seems prudent.

~~~
Zigurd
Just as high speed trains are lighter and less crash-worthy than slow trains,
self-driving cards will evolve to be as light as reasonably possible while
providing comfort. Lanes will become narrower, or allocated on demand. The
extent of disruption is mostly underrated.

