In 2012, a small team of Google Inc engineers and business staffers met with several of the world's largest car makers, to discuss partnerships to build self-driving cars.
In one meeting, both sides were enthusiastic about the futuristic technology, yet it soon became clear that they would not be working together. The Internet search company and the automaker disagreed on almost every point, from car capabilities and time needed to get it to market to extent of collaboration.
As Google expands beyond Web search and seeks a foothold in the automotive market, the company's eagerness has begun to reek of arrogance to some in Detroit, who see danger as well as promise in Silicon Valley.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Google and Detroit Diverge on Road Map for Self-Driving Cars
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 25 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @08:00AM
the company's eagerness has begun to reek of arrogance to some in Detroit, the bankrupt city of bankrupt too-big-to-fail carmakers
FTFY
(Score: 2) by Darth Turbogeek on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:35AM
Maybe, but they do know a *bit* more about real world cars than Google.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Wednesday July 02 2014, @09:32AM
This was on Slashdot a couple of days ago. I was marked as a troll for noting: The Detroit auto-industry has long since been captured by the unions, and exists only to serve their interests. Detroit doesn't want to innovate. Self-driving cars would require a massive rethink of their business strategies, production processes, etc.. How does that help the unions? It doesn't? Go away...
Talk to factories in Japan or Europe. Heck, talk to American car manufacturers with factories in "right to work" states. There will be plenty of interest. Just not in Detroit.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:06AM
You blame unions for your industry failures, and then point to Europe as a solution? Europe has a lot stricter labour regulations than the US! How come European auto industry can keep innovative and competitive with all those unionised workers making living salaries and working reasonable hours in a safe, regulated environment? Oh, the horror!
If your auto industry is failing to innovate, I'm pretty sure the workers are not to blame. Maybe it's the dumb executives, who knows? But no problem, you can just legalise slavery. That will give the entrepreneurs lots of incentives to "innovate", won't it? We already know how that works.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:12AM
Unions are a nice idea in a lot of ways, but they're not going to work where there's competition from places with no unions, no environmental protection, etc. Tariffs or other measures need to be put into effect to balance things but that seems to contravene trade agreements in many cases.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:46AM
Because trade agreements were carved in stone by the very own hand of God himself?
If trade agreements don't suit us, we change them. Not the opposite.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @11:27AM
Good luck with that.
(Score: 2) by geb on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:55AM
Stricter workers rights law is what helps to prevent unions making trouble in Europe. The unions don't get a chance to grow too powerful, because workers feel protected without them.
Unions are a sort of vigilante justice crude approximation of worker rights legislation, and nowhere near as good as the real thing.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Wednesday July 02 2014, @11:00AM
Unions are not powerful? Are we talking about the same Europe where I live in?
Where do you think those worker rights laws came from? Do you think the bosses and politicians woke up one day and decided to give rights to workers just out of kindness?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by opinionated_science on Wednesday July 02 2014, @01:08PM
fuel costs a lot more in Europe, hence innovation has a higher value. Also, diesel cars are >50% of all sales, due to the large difference in fuel and maintenance costs.
The USA has advanced cars, only they are sold by Toyota/Lexus Nissan etc... I think (but I am not sure) that the US Govt must buy US cars. These sorts of rules reduce the pressure on manufacturers to be innovative.
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Wednesday July 02 2014, @08:43PM
Going solely on what's available for auction on the GSA Website [gsaauctions.gov], I'd say this is true.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:07AM
I've always been surprised at the prevalence of union support at SlashDot. It seems to be mainly teachers rather than tech people, but there does seem to be quite a number of them and they're pretty rabid.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:52AM
Yeah, teachers. I hate them, too. That evil scum that taught me how to read and write, Maths, Philosophy, History, etc. How dare they organise to get better salaries and working conditions? They should be getting minimum wage and teach classes 18 hours a day with nothing but a bare room and a black board.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday July 02 2014, @12:01PM
I don't recall saying I hated them.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Wednesday July 02 2014, @12:11PM
I was being ironic, of course. Anyway, you may not hate them, but in your post I detect some contempt for them.
(Score: 1) by Tramii on Wednesday July 02 2014, @06:29PM
There's a huge difference between disliking the Teachers Union and having contempt for teachers in general.
I personally have the utmost respect for all the hard work teacher's do. They go above and beyond for generally crappy pay and have little-to-no support most of the time. However, that doesn't mean it would be hypocritical of me to critique certain practices of the Teachers Union.
You can respect the work of Google engineers while at the same time denouncing Google's policies. Don't try and conflate the two.
(Score: 2) by LookIntoTheFuture on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:33AM
I'm not surprised this was modded troll. You make a broad, oversimplified statement about a complex issue that will surely make people angry. You might as well say "Unions serve no purpose and only cause problems. Right to work states rule!"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday July 02 2014, @12:04PM
As a working definition of trolling, that is not a bad one.
It's not OP's anti-union position that bothers me. Reasonable people can disagree on that and the history of industry in the US has problems that come from both the management side and the union side.
It's *how* you say things that determine whether you're contributing to the discussion or detracting from it.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by acid andy on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:59AM
I keep posting this whenever this topic comes up but never had any response, so I'll try again.
I can't see the full autonomy that Google wants being accepted any time soon and I think the car makers are right to fear the backlash when something goes wrong. It makes much more sense as an adaptive cruise control with full driver intervention where necessary.
The common retort people have is that the Google car only has to be better than the vast majority of drivers to improve road safety. In actual fact, any accidents it causes will be disastrous for its reputation because of the way the media will react. Such a technology needs to earn massive amounts of public trust which will be easily destroyed and very hard to regain.
If you believe you are a skilled driver and you make a mistake, I'm willing to bet you'll still come to terms with the mistake (and you can learn from it) much better than if you bought a self driving car and it makes a mistake that you know you wouldn't have.
Any mistakes a self driving car makes will cause media outrage anyway.
Also there are some driving Kobyashi Marus where whichever choice the algorithm takes, the driver is going to think it took the wrong one.
Driving style is a very personal thing and there are arguably driving ethics. For example it's often taught not to brake or swerve for small animals but I'm sure millions of drivers will be disgusted if the self driving cars are coded to splatter the poor creatures on an empty road with clear visibilty at 30mph. Has this issue ever been addressed by the way? I've not heard it mentioned before.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 1) by acid andy on Wednesday July 02 2014, @01:53PM
TLDR:Will the Google cars squash squirrels that many drivers would have avoided? This is an example of differing driving ethics between the algorithm designer and driver. Another example might be choosing to let a human driver out.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 03 2014, @03:08PM
As the old joke says, squirrels? maybe. Lawyers, on the other hand...
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Wednesday July 02 2014, @03:40PM
a consequence of full automated driving will be the full telemetry that comes with it. There is no driving style in bumper-to-bumper traffic ; pick any big city.
Alot of people think it will be like now, with robot cars. It will not. Robot cars will start on the highway (where there are lanes, and restricted driving practices already), and then move into cities (automated parking assigned within 10 miles - locked traffic patterns ).
I imagine that it is quite likely initially part-automation (driver assisted) will be the norm, before full automation will be allowed, but once it starts the end is inevitable. I don't see the job of taxi going away, only the human will be used for the "non-car" bits , helping the customer with bags etc..
These cars cannot come soon enough, it is carnage out there. Many people who *cannot* drive will be able to.
Just so long as the idea does not get corrupted by govt and megacorps controlling the population movements, and finding a new taxation source...
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday July 02 2014, @05:44PM
"I'm sure millions of drivers will be disgusted if the self driving cars are coded to splatter the poor creatures on an empty road with clear visibilty at 30mph."
Ah that's nothing, its just some weird kind of dog. Splat. Whoops it was a kid who fell down getting up on all fours. You'll end up with absolutely everyone involved suing google as a deep pocket.
Or their dog was on a leash and a trivial safe dodge would have missed it but the leash tangled in the wheel and ripped someones arm clean off and the bleed out. That'll be a fun trial.
One interesting thing to think about is an illegal doesn't cost much, judgment proof, and the feds will let them get away with anything. So these people trying to sell $25K kits to convert a car to self driving don't get it. I can already get a car I don't have to drive for less than $25K, just use my existing car and have someone else drive it for me. Someone's going to invent a startup like that sooner or later. Reputation tracking so you don't get an axe murderer, etc. Kind of the opposite of the taxi disruption services, this is more a car pool disruption service or something like that.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by anti-NAT on Wednesday July 02 2014, @12:42PM
and therefore will resist disruptive ones.
http://www.claytonchristensen.com/key-concepts/ [claytonchristensen.com]
(Score: 1) by anti-NAT on Wednesday July 02 2014, @12:45PM
Like Kodak, Nokia and Bucyrus-Erie.