
Another Group of Google Veterans Starts a Self-Driving Technology Company - artsandsci
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-04/another-group-of-google-veterans-starts-a-self-driving-technology-company
======
malandrew
When companies pay each engineer X and earn 10 times X on each engineer, this
is inevitable. Near as I can tell, this is a strategy that is helping
engineers retain more of the value they are creating.

If the difference was more subtle such as 2 to 3 times X, then the incentive
to go through this much trouble to retain much of the value you create is much
smaller.

~~~
jakelarkin
nit: self-driving talent doesn't currently earn anything, but rather holds
some long-term strategic value

I would summarize this effect as BigCorp HR being much more
disciplined/constrained on individual compensation than the M&A department.
Naturally, well-positioned and clever employees will capitalize on this.

~~~
mmagin
I'm pretty sure there are differing accounting/tax consequences in each sort
of spending.

------
outside1234
Is this the new recruiting for elite recruits?

We saw this with the Nest folks, which was really a shell company that hired
as many talented folks from Apple as possible, built a product, and then put
themselves up for sale in the valley: either back to Apple or to Google.

This basically makes joining one of these startups a no-risk opportunity: huge
upside if the thing you build actually works out, slide into a bigco job again
if it doesn't...

~~~
deepnotderp
What exactly is the downside of that? Is it really that wrong that bright
employees who make the actual product have a little more leverage?

~~~
ben_jones
I see parallels between this and lobbying in the US government where lobbied
officials will leave for a private sector position as a lobbyist or executive
at say a $BIG_TELCO or $BIG_OIL company. Why shouldn't government
professionals use their knowledge and expertise to get more leverage going
into the private sector?

I think the biggest argument here is that sometimes the end goal becomes not
the work that person is currently doing but the _payout_ down the road if
their actions line up in a certain way. If your goal at Google is to leave in
three years and start a self driving car-company to get acqui-hired, you might
for instance spend three years making lists of people to take with you or
knowledge that won't violate NDAs or whatever. Though often times that might
be acceptable, a.k.a. the 'you don't owe your employer anything' line of logic
(which generally I agree with), sometimes it can become morally dubious if for
example, it corrupts personal relationships or becomes manipulative.

And then finally you get the case of the Waymo guy who may have planned and
conspired to steal information on his way out the door, ironically after
having already gained multi-generational wealth.

~~~
sbov
In a vacuum, this isn't a problem. In practice, what you have is people
regulating and creating laws for their future employer, and/or legal bribery
(knowing you'll get a cushy job for supporting a bill). At this point, you
aren't leveraging your knowledge, you are abusing your power.

------
deepnotderp
The bet on maps is interesting. I'm of the personal opinion that in the long
run only machine learning can solve autonomous driving, but both MobilEye and
now this company both have invested heavily into maps.

MobilEye makes sense, they have vested financial reasons that dictate what
they do, so they can't turn their back on maps which they've been using for
such a long time.

On the other hand, _starting_ a company in maps for self driving cars,
especially by what appears to be industry veterans, is far more interesting.

~~~
andreyk
Cruise (now part of GM) also relies heavily on maps, based on a talk I saw
their lead CV guy make. It does make a good deal of sense - maps (at least
street-maps) are mostly static and they make the problem way easier, so why
not use them. In fact, most people these days are implicitly using maps - how
often do people drive to new places without GPS navigation? Of course, vision
and likely ML are still a necessary part of the equation.

~~~
potatolicious
> _" In fact, most people these days are implicitly using maps - how often do
> people drive to new places without GPS navigation?"_

I'd argue also they're using maps in an even more fundamental way - most
driving occurs in places where the driver has already been, and relying on a
wetware-stored map is a critical part of safe and effective driving.

Local knowledge - traffic patterns, weird traffic signal setups, difficult
lane changes, etc, is pretty critical to driving well.

~~~
yeukhon
If I have been to the destination multiple of times, I usually don't open map,
I leave my phone off, or I let Pokemon Go running. But sometimes I do use map
to seek for alternate faster route if I am in a hurry even if I am familiar
with some alternate routes just to be sure.

Since I don't use Waze (horrible experience), Google Map won't tell me there's
a camera ahead, or police is ahead.

~~~
potatolicious
Right - I may have phrased my point badly. The idea is that _all_ effective
driving relies on pre-mapping, either via digital means (your phone) or human
means (your brain).

The expectation that self-driving can be perfected without any kind of pre-
mapping and the system can behave at high reliably in-situ seems unreasonable.
Even humans can't do that.

~~~
cfreeman
Humans and computers have different strengths though. Just because humans
can't do something good doesn't mean computers can't, and vice-versa.

------
gallerdude
This kind of articulates a larger attitude I feel about startups in general -
too many people are going for too much. Right now, a bunch of companies are
going for too much of the metaphorical self-driving pie.

But, there's a lot of niches with less competition - yeah, the slice might be
smaller, but I'd rather have a 90% chance at 10% of the pie than a 10% chance
at 90% of the pie.

~~~
malandrew
What niches do you consider unexploited or lacking in competition?

~~~
gallerdude
I'm not thinking of anything in specific - just in general, more people
levitate towards the big things rather than the small things.

------
aresant
To what degree was Otto a comp for the valuations put on autonomous vehicle
startups?

Has to be fascinating AND deflating if one of your data points was "holy shit
we can make $700m in 6 months if we get a team + MVP out the door!".

------
samlittlewood
Waiting for one called 'FlashDrive'

------
SEJeff
Am I the only person genuinely shocked Google doesn't slap their self driving
car engineers with non-competes?

I realize that non-competes are illegal by CA law, but perhaps they should do
the engineering in a different state to stop hemorrhaging talent that tries to
compete with them?

~~~
andrewfong
(1) When most of your existing operations are already in CA, moving to a
different state isn't exactly trivial. And if the primary reason you're moving
is to enforce a non-compete, I bet it'd make recruitment of the better
engineers more difficult.

(2) Even if Google did their engineering in another state, let's say the
engineer in question then moves to CA. There's a good chance that CA law would
still apply.

~~~
alphonsegaston
#2 Really depends on how bad they want to come after you. There have been
cases where non-competes originating out of state have been enforced here in
California. I personally wouldn't want to go up against Google's legal team
and their war chest.

------
return0
From their website [https://www.deepmap.ai/](https://www.deepmap.ai/) it seems
they are focusing on high-definition, centimeter-accuracy maps. Why is that
important? It seems with a rough map and training, a robot can find its
destination.

~~~
CardenB
Your assumption is wrong. It's still really difficult for vehicles to navigate
without high definition maps.

------
npelly
Would love to read the 80 page white paper mentioned in the article.

------
PascLeRasc
Who wants to start a pool on when Uber will buy it?

------
steevenwee
Lawsuit incoming!

