
Google has reportedly stopped developing its own self-driving car - doener
https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/12/google-has-reportedly-stopped-developing-its-own-self-driving-car/
======
seccess
Mmmmmmm maybe not, this just went public:
[http://waymo.com/](http://waymo.com/)

~~~
dang
Thread on the HN front page right now:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13168888](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13168888).

------
emdowling
It's fascinating to see Google and (purportedly) Apple move in a similar
direction away from developing their own actual cars and instead building the
software platform. It makes a lot of sense for Google, who have always
struggled with selling products direct to consumers. It is more surprising for
Apple, but makes sense if you look at how they can add the most value.

I'm looking forward to seeing how this plays out. Are cars going to be (even
more) commoditised at the low end and differentiated by the platform on top of
it (Apple, Google, Tesla) in the same way phone carriers were commoditised by
the iPhone? My gut is that they won't (industrial design is a huge part of
choosing a car manufacturer), so the dynamics between platform and carrier
(Toyota, Fiat Chrysler, etc) are going to be fascinating to see unfold. The
traditional car industry moves at such a glacial pace, yet you have two tech
titans ceding a lot of control to them.

Of course, you then have the "apps" that will run on top of them, like Uber.
How they interplay with it all is another dimension too. Tesla has fired the
first shot here by restricting usage of non-Tesla car pooling services. It is
a worrying thought to think that buying a BMW might mean I'm locked into only
renting out my car through Apple-approved car riding services (and while I
can't see Apple creating their own car pooling service, never say never).

Tesla seems to be the only player doing the entire stack from top to bottom.
Very reminiscent of early Apple.

~~~
kriro
I wonder if a fully automated car might actually be a different product
category than a "regular" car. I could actually see a decent market for
(relatively ugly) self driving cars that are mostly seen as a means to get
from A to B. In fact I'm not sure if the ownership model is right for this
category. I could see renting/leasing these vehicles on a monthly base as a
service and the competition being buying a monthly commute ticket for the
train or something. I think my train ticket is in the vicinity of 180
Euro/month and all inclusive (insurance, maintenance) leases for midelevel
cars are in the 300 Euro/month+gas range but prices go up a lot if you want to
lease for <24 month. I could see paying 500-600/month for a self-driving car
that I can also use for grocery shopping and other random stuff.

~~~
ajmurmann
I can see that during a relatively short transition period but hope it won't
remain that way. Once all cars are autonomous we can do incredible things. For
example traffic lights to regulate traffic between cars will be obsolete. Cars
can just adjust their speed way before the intersection so that they just miss
each other at the intersection. Likewise we can avoid congestion by cars
registering for their route in advance. We could raise the speed limits on
freeways and other roads that only have cars on them or even remove them
entirely since the cars will know better what their limits are than some
blanket regulation. It also will be much safer, since self driving cars are
likely to quickly become safer drivers, but we will also remove erratic
behavior that humans display. For example there won't be no more people who
cannot zip properly (currently the majority of US Americans), no more cars not
speeding up properly on the freeway on-ramp and then slowing everyone down on
the freeway, no more weird stopping and slow driving by drivers who are lost.
This will make the overall traffic situation much more predictable and safer.

~~~
pacman128
Your description of how things would work with no traffic lights would scare
me to death. One errant car (mechanical failure, software bug or hacked) could
cause multiple fatalities. Systems need to be resistant to disaster from
perturbations like these.

~~~
funkymike
"One errant car" already kills scores of people today. It really isn't that
much different with autonomous vehicles. A stop light isn't going to prevent a
distracted driver from entering an intersection. Mechanical or software
problems already cause fatalities today.

That said I would still prefer to have a hands-on option with my car. Driving
around an unfamiliar neighborhood looking for someplace to eat or maybe house
hunting are examples of when you can't just pick a destination ahead of time.
You want to drive slowly and decide where to go turn-by-turn.

~~~
icebraining
Hands-on? You'll just tell your car, like a passenger would tell a hired
driver.

------
CM30
I don't think this is all that surprising to be honest. Google is (by and
large) a software development and services company, not a car manufacturer. If
they make their own autonomous vehicles, that means they then have to handle
everything from safety testing to customer support and sales in addition to
the self driving car technology itself.

By working with existing car manufacturers, they can focus on their part of
the deal (the technology) and let someone who knows about designing, building
and selling cars do the rest of the job.

~~~
jandrese
I suspect Google got cold feet when they started considering the liability
issues once this goes mainstream. Even their millions of miles road tests were
done at low speeds near their campus.

~~~
greglindahl
A lot of Google's testing was done on US 101 and other interstates at highway
speeds, insomuch as there wasn't a traffic jam at the time.

~~~
jandrese
From what I understand their vehicle was limited to 25mph, how did they do the
highway speed testing?

~~~
euyyn
That's the Koala-type. The first iteration were modified Lexus', and self-
driving in highways is much easier than in cities, so it's attacked first.

------
helb
"Google’s self-driving car team preparing to spin out from Alphabet’s X"

[[http://www.recode.net/2016/12/7/13875208/google-x-self-
drivi...](http://www.recode.net/2016/12/7/13875208/google-x-self-driving-
spinout-alphabet)]

on HN yesterday:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13155600](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13155600)

------
throwaway40483
I'm wondering what this pivot will do the morale in the Chauffeur team. There
has been so much turbulence in the team with several key members leaving to
form their own company because they were so frustrated with the pace. I can't
imagine partnering with a traditional automaker will increase the pace.

~~~
deskamess
I think this is the Android playbook. Partner with phone/car manufacturers and
let them do what they do. You got to worry about customizations/fragmentation
but I am not sure if that is going to be an issue for a 'behind the scenes'
technology. You got to somehow tie this into Android Auto (license this?) for
an integrated environment and integrations with phones or onboard maps (to get
the search dollars).

~~~
jklinger410
And they will always suffer from fragmentation issues while Apple suffers from
a super-high profit margin.

So we're going to have cars identical to our phones and seemingly all of the
same problems that come along with that system.

~~~
deskamess
I am hopeful that since a car can cause damage, and loss of life it will put
under a stricter code. So they do have to meet a higher bar of safety and
standards that are just not required on a phone. Fragmentation is going to be
more of the car manufacturer branding... the underlying core engine will
likely be the same.

I am curious if there ever will be a consumer grade Google Pixel Car. There is
a risk it will compete with their partners, but it could have a niche if it is
intentionally undersold (for example, one or two colors at most).

------
finstell
Everybody is rushing to develop their own self-driving car, then they change
their minds in various ways, then team members change who they work for, some
of them quit and start their own company, some fail, some got acquihired. They
give deadlines and cannot meet them. Everyone is dying to be first in the
market or something like it. Feels there is so much greed. I don't get it,
what's the big fuss, why must everyone hurry? Can't they be just calm and
progress in a sensible manner. I don't expect this thing to turn out to be
winner takes it all. Automative industry is much like a close knit society
where they depend on similar resources. It's not exactly the same as posh
start up culture.

~~~
emdowling
Simple: everyone is looking for the next big platform. The smartphone
revolution came by surprise to most and it has taken years for companies to
catch up. Everyone is racing because they don't want to be caught with their
pants down again.

~~~
dx034
Exactly that. If one company (especially one with high production capacity)
would now release a fully functional self driving car, they could dominate the
car market for the next decade. Orders for trucks, delivery vehicles, uber etc
would alone max out production for several years. If done by a major player
(e.g. Toyota, GM, VW), they could probably get legislation in some states
changed quickly if they can proof that their system is safe.

Catching up isn't easy, you won't be able to just reverse engineer it.

~~~
__derek__
What you're suggesting is that the first self-driving car manufacturer (as
long as its cars are rolling off the lines of one of the major players) will
dominate (parts of) the _fleet sales market_. That's not insignificant, but
it's not the car market. I think you're underestimating how resilient the
existing driving paradigm will be among consumers (i.e. the people buying
personal cars and driving fleet vehicles).

> Catching up isn't easy, you won't be able to just reverse engineer it.

No, but the California-based employees with an understanding of that system
will be able to get a nice payday when they start working for a competitor.

------
Pyxl101
Is that surprising? I never assumed that Google was planning to build _actual
cars_ with this tech. I suppose I never really thought that deeply about how
it would roll out, but if I had, I would have guessed partnerships with others
in the industry.

If they can nail "self-driving tech" as well as they've nailed search, they'll
potentially earn licensing fees from all vehicles, rather than from the slice
of vehicles they'd manufacture themselves (with a long, expensive learning
curve ahead of producing quality vehicles).

~~~
usrusr
At first glance, Google becoming a car industry supplier like Delphi or Bosch
seems just as weird. I kind of was expecting them to eventually go for the
robocab business, with the steely bits manufactured by some Chinese OEM or
underutilized plants in Detroit, Wolfsburg or wherever. It could be nicely
phased in in limited access, limited range, low speed settings like e.g.
island resorts.

But repeating the Android model, generously handing over software to whoever
wants it so that they get a huge market share seems so much more consistent.
This is Google, after all. If people can "ok Google" their car to actually
take them to search results, Google's stranglehold on local business discovery
will be even stronger than it is today. And on the reverse side, when it came
to the point where people would "Hi Audi, take me to...", they could get
quickly pushed of large parts of the search/decision market that originally
emerged from web search and that they then so carefully extended to Maps,
Android and voice assist. If cars become "Siri-smart", drivers won't use
Google maps anymore. Seen like this, Google's self-driving endeavors suddenly
appear like a forced defensive move, very much unlike the quirky billionaire's
moonshot hobby vibe surrounding other parts of X.

~~~
shostack
With Google's shift to provide answers, not just information, Maps seems like
a crutch.

If I'm in a fully autonomous car, I don't want to look at a map. I want to
tell my assistant where I want to go and not worry about the rest.

This would be akin to providing the answer (getting you from A to B) without
the information (poking at a map).

~~~
usrusr
Exactly. Search, Maps and now Android (with and without voice assistant) are
basically methods to sell influence on our decisionmaking. When cars become
the day to day search interface for drivers/riders, Google will be in a much
weaker position for that.

Except if they somehow achieve a relationship with hardware companies as
symbiotic as in Android smartphones. Just being a backend search provider
would be a step back for Google, because that is pretty much a commodity
transaction where gatekeepers can negotiate for a sizable slice of the pie
(see Firefox).

------
ragebol
But they are working with other car makers.

Regardless, Google kick-started a lot of other car makers to start developing
self-driving cars or made it OK for other car makers to be more public about
their efforts.

Similarly to Tesla in pushing EV's in other car makers.

~~~
throwaway40483
> Regardless, Google kick-started a lot of other car makers to start
> developing self-driving cars or made it OK for other car makers to be more
> public about their efforts.

Exactly! This part of Google's legacy is severely under appreciated. People
were rolling their eyes when Google originally presented their plan. Amazing
how quickly it went from science fiction to reality.

~~~
spiderfarmer
I'd say it was the Darpa Grand Challenge that kickstarted it, not Google.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge)

I have the feeling Google never had a real plan behind this research project.
Tesla's plan is clear. Uber's plan is clear. What is / was Google's plan?

~~~
jfoster
Why can't it be the similar to the Uber or Tesla plan? Just because Alphabet
make the bulk of their revenue from sticking ads in front of eyeballs doesn't
mean that's how they have to continue making money.

~~~
spiderfarmer
You're absolutely right, but my point is that didn't plan with such a business
model in mind but just went with it.

------
RealityVoid
I just want to mention that I think Google's partnership with Fiat-Chrysler is
badly picked. The engineering of FCA is unimpressive and their process pretty
much kills innovation within their company. I may be wrong but I see FCA
surfing the google hype train.

~~~
tyingq
Perhaps that's on purpose. If they partnered with an automaker known for great
engineering, they might butt heads with their counterparts.

------
xpac
How does this news fit with this piece? "Waymo: Google’s Self-Driving Car
Company Is Finally Here"

[https://www.wired.com/2016/12/google-self-driving-car-
waymo/...](https://www.wired.com/2016/12/google-self-driving-car-
waymo/?mbid=social_twitter)

Sounds to me like two fundamentally different ways?

------
blizkreeg
I've been thinking of spending some time on an idea for a personal transport
vehicle. I can imagine the safety and testing regulations being onerous and
everything else that goes with making and selling any form of automobiles not
for the faint of heart.

Seeing as how giant cos like Apple and Google are exiting the "making" space
of vehicles, is it crazy to even toy with an idea of building a vehicle that
moves people?

~~~
athenot
Even Elon Musk admitted it was crazy to take on cars. I suppose it's one of
those industries that looks simple from the outside because we're so familiar
with the user side, but the manufacturing of which is surprisingly complex.

~~~
blahfuk
As someone who's worked for one of the big 3, the supply chain and logistics
is mind-boggling. Not to mention what it takes to create factories that can
put out vehicles at the rate of the big guys. I don't think Google or any
other software company could compete without completely retooling their entire
company. It's not something you can do as a side project.

~~~
vxNsr
To add to this: when GM tried to copy the Toyota model it took them 20 years
and they still went bankrupt.... And now Tesla is using the factory that was
created for that original purpose.

------
batmansmk
Why do you think Google want this information to be out? A - Because they are
lagging behind and don't want to look like they played and lost. B - To seek
partnerships through Techcrunch. C - They don't want a non-working B2C
product, but sell a B2B one instead, because they doubt their capacity of
making it happen alone.

------
nickgrosvenor
So Google's ad revenue business subsidized the education of thousands of
people who took their newly acquired knowledge of autonomous vehicles to the
big car companies.

Aside from the Ad business Google is more like Stanford than any actual
business.

~~~
stuckagain
The people who left from Google's self-driving car division walked in the door
as the world's leading experts on the subject. I'm not sure you can say that
they learned everything from Google.

~~~
spdionis
Consider it funding general research then. Same result.

------
cpncrunch
Duplicate. Earlier submission here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13165111](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13165111)

Also, the title is incorrect.

~~~
dang
Thanks, we've updated the title to what the article says.

------
yalogin
This has to be considered a failure on some grounds at least. Why haven't they
made an acquisition to bolster their shortcomings? They bought boston dynamics
which failed. I am guessing they just did not see the ROI in getting into car
manufacturing. Instead they see themselves as an "Android for self driving
cars" company there by building their systems/software for cars, drones, etc.

------
dweekly
[http://waymo.com/](http://waymo.com/) \- sure doesn't look shelved.

------
Tepix
This decision will be beneficial for the relationship between Google and the
car manufacturers. Google will no longer be a competitor.

Whether or not there will be a first mover advantage remains to be seen. It
certainly feels as if Tesla has such an advantage for the electric car market
with the huge amount of pre-orders placed for the Model ≡.

------
JulianMorrison
I was starting to get the feeling, looking at Google's lidar-on-the-roof
design, that they were getting a bit obsolete before even making it to market,
having suffered from the curse of being first and having to build on older
tech.

------
novigodd
Does anyone seriously believe that seld-driving cars are only a few years
away?

So far I have only seen them working in nicely controlled environments
(American suburbs or highways, nice weather, clear road markings, etc). And
even then they drive slowly and awkwardly.

How will they handle the narrow roads in British towns, the unwritten right-
of-way rules on Swiss mountain roads, the scooter avalanches of Vietnamese
cities, the pot hole riddled streets of Russian cities, etc?

I think this is just an other case of Silicon Valley folks not realizing
what's outside of their bubble.

~~~
greglindahl
Silicon Valley has plenty of fog, narrow and winding mountain roads, darkness,
bad road markings, etc.

~~~
novigodd
Trust me they are nothing compared to the poor road conditions, lunatic
drivers or dangerous weather you'll find in the rest of the world or even the
USA.

------
retox
They realised they would actually have to provide customer support and that
they couldn't quietly ditch a car after 18 months.

------
baybal2
Death by pivot

------
denzil_correa
> The Information reports that Google’s self-driving car unit — known
> internally as Chauffeur — is working with establish automotive names to
> develop cars which will include some self-driving features, but won’t ditch
> the steering wheel and pedal controls.

Self-Driving cards to self-driving technology was the exact same news which
was reported out of Apple "Project Titan" too. It seems to be a trend in this
self-driving car space.

~~~
ralfd
Manufacturing and legislation is difficult enough, but how did Apple/Google
plan distribution? Servicing? It is not comparable to consumer tech, very few
would buy a car where it is unsure if this is only a hobby and if it it will
be supported 5 years down the road. The incumbent car companies have a massive
advantage.

~~~
johnward
Google has a huge disadvantages in support. You can't automate car service and
simply ignore customers in that business. It would be a massive overtaking for
Google to try to provide customer service.

------
wrsh07
The update to this article is more or less here:
[https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/13/googles-self-driving-
car-u...](https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/13/googles-self-driving-car-unit-
spins-out-as-waymo/)

------
slackoverflower
So many leeway for Tesla. Uber's only hope for beating Tesla's car sharing
feature was working with Google. Uber is not even profitable yet, they can't
invest in this category yet. Tesla going to steal the show, already Apple-like
cult forming around it.

~~~
dagw
_Uber 's only hope for beating Tesla's car sharing feature was working with
Google._

How do you figure? Uber is currently working with Volvo on autonomous cars,
and when it comes to producing safe, reliable cars that people want, in
volume, I'd personally bet on Volvo over Google.

------
nodesocket
It seems a bit strange to go the software only route when Tesla and Uber
already have working hardware & software.

Apple and Google missed the chance to spend their piles of cash and buy either
Tesla or Uber. Now it is too late. All four are going to be battling head-to-
head.

------
lstroud
I hope this means that the didn't feel they had the legal expertise to get
through the regulatory controls. Hopefully this is not related to legal issues
around responsibility for accidents, insurance, etc.

------
frik
Wow. But they probably try to achieve the same strategy as with Android. It
could work out very well. Sadly it seems in contrary to Android it won't be
open source.

------
dispose13432
Makes sense.

I don't think Google ever (OK, in the past couple of years) really intended
for self-driving cars to happen, or expected self-driving cars to happen
(within a few decades).

What it was (and what Project X seems to be these days), was a great way to
attract talent.

"Wanna work in a company which makes self driving cars, internet balloons, 20%
time, and robots" sounds way cooler than "Wanna work in Doubleclick v.2"

~~~
jklinger410
>I don't think Google ever (OK, in the past couple of years) really intended
for self-driving cars to happen, or expected self-driving cars to happen
(within a few decades).

Self-driving cars will roll-out to select markets within the next couple of
years.

Google just doesn't want to manufacture the vehicles.

------
pvsukale3
You know what would be cool ? Deepmind working with Tesla , with their best
engineers on this team.

------
devoply
All these side projects are just to keep certain developers busy until Goog
figures out what to do with them. There was never any intention of making a
viable car. Just R&D to figure out what can be done that would then be applied
to Goog's ad business.

------
lambdadmitry
Slightly off-topic, but:

> While Google may be taking its pedal off the gas for self-driving vehicles

Is it considered OK to include obvious puns like that in a seemingly serious
publication?

~~~
dagw
It would have been preferable with a better pun, but adding a touch of levity
to otherwise dry topics in serious publications is always welcome.

------
russdill
The headline is a bit misleading, it looks like Google is not going to
manufacture self driving cars, but will develop self-driving technology. I'm
not sure how this is a surprise.

~~~
lambdasquirrel
Well, given how deep its pockets are and its past propensity to try on big
projects, I'd say it was surprising.

What's more surprising is that both Apple and Google seem to have ended up in
this same place.

~~~
spiderfarmer
It would be different if they already had an attractive car on the road, but
they haven't. Just look at how much time and money it takes for Tesla to
create a profitable vehicle for the masses. The R&D costs for autonomous
driving are small in comparison.

If comma.ai can (sort of) create an autonomous vehicle with just a couple of
employees and Tesla can go fully autonomous with a sensor suite that's 5% of
the cost of Google's, how much money is there to be made for Apple and Google?
Even if the quality of their self-driving setup is 10x better, they will have
a hard time selling it.

~~~
jzwinck
A company like Google has the scale and experience to create a regulatory
landscape in which a car even 10% less safe will be forbidden on public roads.
They might even look good doing it.

As geohot discovered, cars are sold to consumers only after they are sold to
regulators. Tesla understands this, but if someone else builds a safer car,
incumbents' experience may be rendered academic.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
The problem with this scenario is that modern cars are already safe enough
that it will literally take decades to gather enough data to prove a
statistically significant 10% safety increase from autonomous cars, even if
you sell millions of them.

Keep in mind the NHTSA safety statistics you frequently see quoted are for the
entire car population on the road, with a significant portion of 10-15 year
old cars which are less safe than new cars. Even 25 year old cars without
crumple zones and airbags is something you see on the road every single day.

~~~
petra
>> crumple zones and airbags ..

Those have to do with fatality rates, not accident rates(1 accident per
250,000 miles).

>> statistically significant 10% safety increase For a sample size of a
million cars , each year is 15 Billion miles, i.e. 60,000 accidents per year,
vs 54000 accidents per year is statistcally significant.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
Fatality rates are what's recently been discussed, e.g. related to the Tesla
AutoPilot crash.

If you switch to measuring "accidents", two big concerns pop up: 1) who
defines what an accident is? and 2) if we get autonomous cars that end up in
less minor accidents but same or more number of fatalities, is it really worth
it?

We could extend it to "fatalities and accidents where someone is left
permanently disabled", which is pretty unambiguous and does measure the most
important factors. But I'm afraid (or rather, glad) that this won't give you
an orders-of-magnitude increase in statistical samples as you get when
counting all accidents.

------
goatslacker
This was known and expected.

------
andrewclunn
See, "Everything other than the highway is really hard, and Tesla already beat
us all to market there."

------
alrs
The only way this could have worked was to push cyclists and meat-drivers off
the road and hand the bulk of the decision making to something centralized.
I'm so thankful this vision appears to be dying.

~~~
gchadwick
Dying? The article says Google will be concentrating on selling their tech to
existing car makers rather than producing their own car. Nothing more. Which
makes perfect sense. Personally I never thought Google building the entire car
was their planned end game.

~~~
ars
The article is marketing speak.

It's dead. That's how they talk when they kill a product but don't want to say
that.

Which doesn't surprise me in the slightest. I suspect a self driving car, on
city streets, without general AI, is impossible.

It'll only work on prepared, limited access roads (like highways).

Next step: Instrument highways for self driving cars.

In-City self-driving cars is dead.

~~~
Kiro
You have no idea what you're talking about.

~~~
MarHoff
I think he does.

We must let go delusional thinking that with current AI we can safely throw
autonomous car in a dense urban area.

Using autonomous car to improve mobility in rural area (eg. for elders people)
would prove much more applicable as a paid service and complemental to public
transportation.

But if mainstream geeks and investors keep dreaming about K2000 they will be
deceived by current AI.

~~~
pveierland
> We must let go delusional thinking that with current AI we can safely throw
> autonomous car in a dense urban area.

Given the capability which Tesla currently demonstrates, it seems extreme to
call the idea of full autonomy with current AI technologies delusional. With
their current progress, full autonomy in production seems reasonable within a
few years.

[https://vimeo.com/192179727](https://vimeo.com/192179727)

~~~
MarHoff
I only see some nice data-visualizations added in post-production and spice-up
with a feelgood song after a successful ride.

As for capability and reasonable aspect, I will be much more interested in
reading post-mortem reports of the fatal crash under a truck by road safety
organizations when (and if) they come out...

~~~
MarHoff
And as it turned out Uber AI now cross red light:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CdJ4oae8f4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CdJ4oae8f4)

Distinguishing verifiable facts from marketing is actually important...

------
ceejay
My guess is existing auto (and other) manufacturers have all but locked up
world's supply chain of raw materials necessary to make it feasible to
manufacture automobiles at large enough scale.

If I were Google (if they seriously want to consider getting into
manufacturing their own products) I would look into starting a chain of junk
yards and refineries.

~~~
azernik
It's just a very capital-intensive business with long turnaround times on new
hardware designs. It would take not only a lot of investment, but also a large
delay on Google's part to get their own car out the door.

~~~
kpil
It's also requires a lot of know-how, that takes long time to build up.

Building electrical cars removes some of the difference because the
traditional drive train is a large chunk of engineering. (Hint, China can't
design good engines yet, so they are buying companies with people that do.)

If I remember correctly ABB patched together a electric drive train technology
demo car 20+ years ago including a drive by wire system with electric steering
and brakes. They probably mostly did it to show off their high voltage pmm
controllers.

