
Can Detroit Beat Google to the Self-Driving Car? - EwanG
http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-gm-super-cruise-driverless-car/
======
zellyn
I don't understand why everyone keeps pretending there's a smooth continuum:
"He says they contain GM’s road map to autonomy, starting with “Driver in
charge” in 2010, progressing to “Driver mostly in charge” this year, to “Car
mostly in charge” in 2020, and finally “Car in charge” in 2025."

That just doesn't make sense. To my mind, there's "cruise control" as it
exists today, and "car drives itself completely and safely even in adverse
conditions". Pretending that it's safe to suddenly hand over to the human in
an emergency is just crazy.

~~~
Shivetya
Well with technology available as it is today I think Google is going to find
building the car is more difficult than creating the technology.

See its not just GM looking to do this, almost every make of components for
cars is into this space so a solution is already in the pipe. however when it
comes to delivering cars that people want; not what government agencies might
be coerced into buying; google doesn't stand a chance.

~~~
lallysingh
Alphabet's market cap is 490B, Fiat Chrysler is 19B. Toyota is (afaict) 150B.
GM is roughly 50B.

I don't think Google's gotta worry about building cars. They can just buy
someone who does.

~~~
dssddsds
Ugh Google just buy Tesla already /s

~~~
phkahler
They said somebody who can build cars. I assume that means on a large scale.
Much as I like Tesla, they are not currently up to the task and their market
cap makes then undesirable for anyone looking to buy a company that can make
cars.

~~~
dssddsds
hence the sarcasm tag

------
sithadmin
Detroit being the first to market here is possibly one of the worst things
that can happen. The last thing that this area of tech needs is Detroit
ruining its reputation before it even really kicks off.

US auto manufacturers are worse than laggards when it comes to the electronic
systems they embed in their vehicles -- things like Ford MyTouch are
borderline hostile to the user, and Jeep has definitely demonstrated a
dangerous level of malfeasance when it comes to such things. US manufacturers
also arguably lag behind when it comes to core automotive technologies as
well.

~~~
imglorp
It's an industry thing; even the Honda nav software I just got loaded on a
brand new vehicle is user hostile. It's firmly 2005 tech and not a moment
later.

Their whole development process is glacial and hardware focused. A ten year
feature cycle, between conception and release, seems normal.

Tesla using actual software people is going to wipe their floor in this
regard.

~~~
dandare
This is one think I don't understand. Dear automakers, it's 2015, please just
leave a big hole in the middle of the front panel with USB-C connector and
don't force your obsolete technology on me. Any half decent tablet with
Android is vastly superior to whatever "computer" you designed into the car in
2007.

~~~
mdorazio
It's complicated by two factors: 1) The head unit controls far more than maps
and entertainment; it's also wired into climate controls, seat positioning,
etc. that require direct access to other vehicle hardware. 2) Head units and
associated services are a profit center for OEMs. Switching to a "bring your
own tablet" model would cost them a fair amount of profit.

------
abcanthur
As we're talking about two+ major players competing to outfit the auto fleet
with self-driving software, I'd like to hear discussion of the pros and cons
of vehicles sharing software. Technically, economically, and especially
regarding driving dynamics.

Will a Google car be able to caravan with a GM car? Is a single hive mind able
to produce better energy/travel time results than the multiple hive mind of
Google/gm/tesla/toyota/+100m humans?

------
magic5227
This is funny "starting with “Driver in charge” in 2010, progressing to
“Driver mostly in charge” this year, to “Car mostly in charge” in 2020,
anded,. finally “Car in charge” in 2025."

Given what Google has already demonstrated, its more likely we will see fully
autonomous within 5 years. I'm betting less than that in a few test cities.

So probably too late already for "Detroit"

~~~
ghaff
Are you seriously suggesting that, in just five years, you'll be able to go to
your computer and order yourself a car that will drive itself to your house in
an arbitrary US city? (Because, if we're going to have 100% autonomous cars,
we might as well assume that we've totally revamped the whole automobile
distribution system too.)

Even the "car in charge" in 2025 seems ridiculously optimistic even if the
problem is tightly bounded by type of road.

~~~
magic5227
Yes.

I think maybe in 1-2 cities in limited areas I will be able to use an app on
my phone to order a Google car from point A to B. I think it will have lots of
limits, perhaps limited to certain areas within a city, perhaps limited by
speeds, time of day etc.

I don't think it will be long distance, most cities won't have it, highways
later, etc.

~~~
ghaff
>Given what Google has already demonstrated, its more likely we will see fully
autonomous within 5 years. I'm betting less than that in a few test cities.

So, in other words, no. Not to pick on you but the scenario you
(optimistically IMO) describe is that, on a test basis, under certain limited
circumstances and locations, might be able to have fully autonomous vehicles.
(Though if they're that limited, why would they be legally allowed on the
streets?)

And highways actually seem like a more likely nearish-term scenario given
that, aside from the occasional deer/moose, debris, and construction (which
could presumably be dealt with in various ways) seems far more manageable than
the typical city street.

------
untothebreach
Sorry for the off-topic-ness, but it really irks me when the US auto industry
is referred to as "Detroit." I grew up in Flint, MI and currently live just
outside of Detroit, and the implication that the US auto industry is here is,
frankly, rather offensive. Sure, there are a couple plants here and there, and
corporate HQs, of course, but after what the US auto industry did to the blue
collar workers in Flint and Detroit (among others here in MI), it feels
disingenuous to say that the US auto industry is "here."

~~~
kazinator
It's a synecdoche (and a deeply entrenched one: Detroit is a long-standing
symbol denoting the auto industry.)

Do you object to a farm helper being called a "hand", because he's an entire
man?

People understand that "hand" denotes the person, just like they understand
that Detroit, in context, isn't literally the city of Detroit.

If the President is visiting Los Angeles, and is informed of something, then
"Washington is informed".

Likewise, financial business is not only on Wall Street.

Broadway musicals aren't played only on Broadway --- even if we restrict the
context to New York.

~~~
untothebreach
Of course I understand that the auto industry is not _literally_ in Detroit,
but the fact that the auto industry is constantly referred to by the name of
the city they ruined is...upsetting to me.

------
maxerickson
Is it relevant who gets the tech first? I think regulation will end up having
them all hit the market at about the same time.

A few minutes later: Especially regulation of hands off systems.

------
SimonPStevens
Autoplaying unrelated ad video with music, half way down the page (well out of
sight when the audio starts) with no way to stop it apart from clicking on the
ad.

That's it, I've had enough of you internet, I'm going to use a adblocker. I
really tried to give you a chance. I tried to let you do the right thing and
show polite respectful ads. I understand that you need to make money, and I
wanted to let you show your ads I really did, I even clicked on them sometimes
when they looked interesting, but this is just too much. This is just abuse.
I'm not taking this any more. You brought this on yourself, and your bad
behaviour has ruined it for everyone else. Goodbye world of advertising, I
hope you drown in your own filth. I look forward to an internet where people
pay for things they like and the advertising revenue model dies a painful
death.

~~~
pinkrooftop
when adblockers start charging, I'll believe in an alternate revenue model for
the open internet

edit: I meant when people start paying for adblockers

~~~
xur17
[https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/](https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/)

~~~
pinkrooftop
I think I stated my idea incorrectly, I mean when people start paying for
adblockers. Which Hulu+ is doing quite well actually

------
NietTim
No.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)

