In a move that could backfire badly, car manufacturers are working together to buy control of Nokia maps with the intent of blocking Google's development of software for self-driving vehicles. The auto-makers consider open sourced autonomous vehicles to be an existential threat to their existing business, and are prepared to pay Nokia more than two billion dollars to stymie the disruptive technology.
“The greatest threat to the automobile industry would be if Google developed an operating system for self-driving cars and made it available free to everyone,” said one source speaking with the WSJ.
http://jalopnik.com/bmw-audi-and-mercedes-benz-want-to-buy-nokia-s-maps-t-1702660909
Related Stories
BBC writes that German carmakers Audi, BMW and Daimler are buying Nokia's "Here" maps business for €2.8bn (£2bn):
"High-precision digital maps are a crucial component of the mobility of the future," said Dieter Zetsche, chairman of the board of Daimler. The carmakers plan to use Here's technology to combine precise digital maps with real-time vehicle data more closely. "For the automotive industry, this is the basis for new assistance systems and ultimately fully autonomous driving," the automakers said in a statement.
The rival automakers each plan to hold an equal stake in Here. The company said vehicle manufacturers are sharing data to make real-time map updates a reality.
Perhaps it's also worth mentioning that Nokia bought Navteq in 2007 for €5.7bn.
takyon: Nokia Intends to Buy Alcatel-Lucent
BMW, Audi, and Mercedes Want to Buy Nokia's Here Mapping Group
Uber Acquires Mapping Assets and Employees From Microsoft/Bing
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 07 2015, @10:26PM
Because making the rest of the car is easy?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday May 07 2015, @11:06PM
Because The car makers would: 1) then have to pay Google for the software, and 2) would lose sales of map updated to Google who would probably provide them direct to the end users.
Map updates for In-Dash car systems are ridiculously expensive. about 140 a pop if your car uses Garmin - (which is Nokia/Here in disguise), and up to a couple thousand if your car is made in Germany using one of their proprietary systems. Yet a Separate on-dash Garmin can be bought with lifetime maps and traffic updates.
Having Here maps (via Garmin) in my car I can tell you that they are pretty close to being eclipsed by the quality of Google Maps and Navigation on my Android. Street-View cars and their own Satellites have given Google a leg up.
I'm sure these car manufactures can whine to the EU to punish Google for being better if this gamut fails.
Google has self-drive software, and they have maps, and these guys see a lot of lost profit in the future.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 07 2015, @11:13PM
Losing revenue from lost map updates sales doesn't seem an existential threat to the car industry.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Friday May 08 2015, @01:32AM
Have you tried google maps and street view lately?
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday May 08 2015, @02:10AM
Not more than once or twice a day, just about every day. I'm always looking up something it seems.
Don't like the new format on the computer, but it still works.
Plus, the google maps app on android has a navigation feature with voice turn by turn directions,
as well as integrated traffic. With a dash mount it is quite suitable for navigation.
Only problem with Maps app on Android is large expanses of No cell Signal zone, in out of the way
places like great expanses of the US South West (deserts especially) and Upstate New York, New Hampshire, and parts of Vermont.
For those places the best bet is to remember to download the maps for off-line use [google.com].
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by sigma on Friday May 08 2015, @12:58AM
Because making the rest of the car is easy?
Easy enough for Google to have already built a fleet of them [dailytech.com].
If you're thinking of autonomous cars as a conventional vehicle with a few gadgets bolted on to make it drive itself, you're right, existing manufacturers have an advantage. Thing is, the people managing those car companies understand that driverless vehicles are a truly disruptive technology and are looking a little further ahead. They're looking at a future where cars designed from the ground up to be autonomous won't be constrained by the need for all the human interface junk, nor the social structures around human drivers (parking, fuel stations, drivethrough food, shopping malls etc, etc).
One obvious outcome is that far fewer cars will be needed when a vehicle can, for example, drive papa to work, back home to drop the kids at school, come back to take mama to her job, perhaps refuel and and park itself, or more likely, be a pool/on-call car (Uber-style) for the rest of the day.
Car makers know there'll be a multitude of less obvious disruptions as well, and in that future, their experience and tooling is of far less value, and in fact could be a burden on their ability to adapt fast enough to compete.
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Friday May 08 2015, @04:18AM
Didn't this happen before [wikipedia.org]?
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Friday May 08 2015, @10:25PM
Yes [wikipedia.org].
1702845791×2
(Score: 4, Insightful) by davester666 on Friday May 08 2015, @06:13AM
They see it as the next step of the car industry.
Previously, you effectively pay for the car up front, and the manufacturer only gets a little more ongoing money from dealers for parts/labour [as part of their franchise arrangement].
Now, they want you to pay up front for the car, AND pay monthly fee's to use the features of your car that you already paid for [like, say, navigation maps or wifi]. And if they make it easy for Apple and Google to just hook up their phone [or even worse, just have it in the car and it works], that makes the sales pitch for paying for maps and another monthly cellular bill that much less appealing. And as a bonus, they can track how and where your drive, what's going on with your car and sell it to make even more money. And then there are helpful ads that need to be displayed [turn left into the Arby's parking lot, and buy a Philly for 20% off].
IoT is going to be the death of us. Every manufacturer sees it as a way to generate revenue first, and helping the customer second [if at all].
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday May 07 2015, @11:13PM
So what's so special about Nokia's Here Mapping Group?
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Thursday May 07 2015, @11:40PM
The life blood of Garmin, Tom Tom, Magellan, etc, etc, as well as many car In-Dash Nav systems.
Nokia was the big dog in mapping till google started sending street-view cars all over the world.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Friday May 08 2015, @07:03AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday May 08 2015, @09:40AM
So Google can just partner with TomTom and be done with it? Doesn't seem like Nokia HMG is that special. On top of this Google has their own maps?
It ought to be how mapping data can be used. Not the mapping data itself. Which probably can be recreated as necessary and is only a cost and time barrier. Not something that would hinder Google.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 07 2015, @11:47PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 08 2015, @03:45AM
My guess is that they have a patent portfolio.
"A method to describe a route to a location ON A COMPUTER"
(Score: 2, Interesting) by anubi on Friday May 08 2015, @06:42AM
Following is a layman's rant on the idea of patenting...
There should be no patent on the CONCEPT of skinning a cat; however a particular METHOD of skinning a cat could be patented. If you want to do it "on a computer", then the exact placement of the cat on the machine and exact tool used to skin the cat can be claimed.
However, I guess one could find an infinite number of ways to skin a cat on a computer.
I am getting so fed up with these "blanket" patents that are so broad that even having a cat next to a computer is a violation.
If Nokia wants to make maps, fine. If Google wants to follow around and make maps too, fine. To me, this is just a McDonalds vs. Burger King thing.
And that's what I would say should I find myself ever in a jury regarding these matters.
I look forward to seeing what Google can do with their autonomous cars. I hope they succeed. We already have way too many humans driving cars not paying due attention.
This patent litigation stuff is just going too far when the patent system is just used to throw stumbling blocks at others trying to get something done. I certainly cannot see anything Google or Here Mapping Group has done that is all that unique, however I would consider the databases they assembled to be their property and they should be able to share them on whatever terms they wish to negotiate.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 08 2015, @05:34AM
Nothing, it's just part of the quickly disintegrating Nokia carcass...
If you want to be wow'd by a map, look at the OpenStreetMap project.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 08 2015, @12:50AM
Shitty car manufacturers would not care about Google or whoever providing maps and self-driving cars. Those cars are shitty to drive anyway, and you just want to get to your destination without experiencing the drive. What Google wants to do is take the fun out of driving, the sales point of these three (and a few others maybe). No sane human being would buy an S-Class and then let Google drive it for them. Google wants drones it can control, and wants to tell you its in your best interest. 1984 is near. These three companies are fighting the good fight. They are saving the world from hostile takeover. They have my full support. Anything that delays Google's attempts to take over the world are welcome.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by tibman on Friday May 08 2015, @01:41AM
Yeah! And nobody wants preset radio stations. That would take the thrill out of spinning all those knobs. And nobody would want a service that does all your navigation for you. That would take the thrill out of staring at maps and penciling down a route. Nobody would even want an automatic transmission. That would take the thrill out of shifting those gears yourself.
Not everyone wants to shoot a deer in order to eat dinner. Most people drive a car because it is the most practical way to get to work and back. Having a luxury car could also mean you have the luxury of not having to even pay attention to the road. It would be funny to be sitting in a manual 70k$ car revving the engine to get attention and all the plebs in their shitty plastic cars are watching netflix and completely ignoring you : )
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 08 2015, @05:08AM
Not everybody wants a computer to do the driving. Some drive to get from point-A to point-B. Why not take the bus then? Some drive for pleasure. Maybe the driver wants the experience from driving. No two drivers are the same, and no two cars are the same either.
That would take the thrill out of shifting those gears yourself.
Drive a manual car with a petrol engine and a turbo charger. Then hear the satisfying sound of the bov while changing gears. I guess no one wants to hear that. They just want to not have to shift gears because gears are so difficult. There should be a lower minimum for drivers, because not every passenger can drive in an emergency, which they will have to do when the google-infected car breaks down.
Most people drive a car because it is the most practical way to get to work and back.
Everyone does not drive to get to work and back. There are other uncommon uses of cars such as: Driving for pleasure, Driving to let off some steam, etc.
How many times have you broken traffic rules and overspeeded because you were angry at something, and in the end it helped calm you? How would you let off steam if you are just the passenger? The car wouldn't let you get in front of somebody and slam on the brakes if you're angry with them. You will bottle up the anger and it will spill out at the wrong time causing real harm.
It would be funny to be sitting in a manual 70k$ car revving the engine to get attention and all the plebs in their shitty plastic cars are watching netflix and completely ignoring you
No, actually the plastic car drivers watching netflix will be watching netflix because they could not afford the $70k car. Its all google's fault. People who couldn't afford to have a large email inbox were "given" 1GB by google making them feel bigger/capable/more successful than they actually were.
By the way, I drive a cheap car (without plastic), manual and no computers on board. And I like it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 08 2015, @07:11AM
That same thing often results in some innocent person involved in an accident.
The best outcome is a tree, fire hydrant, or lighting standard takes the hit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 08 2015, @08:28AM
That same thing often results in some innocent person involved in an accident.
Not often, rarely. An angry person is full of energy and will not sleep at the wheel. One can slow down after a kilometer or two of speeding. And/or cut through traffic for a while.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Paradise Pete on Friday May 08 2015, @09:23AM
Worst Argument Ever.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sigma on Friday May 08 2015, @02:25AM
No sane human being would buy a luxury vehicle and then let a chauffeur drive it for them.
FTFY.
And I suspect you're wrong about that. So wrong you've set a new Soylentil record for wrongness that will endure for many decades as an example to our children and our children's children for how absolutely wrong a single internet poster can be...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 08 2015, @05:21AM
No sane human being would buy a luxury vehicle and then let a chauffeur drive it for them.
Google wants people with few means to feel like princes sitting in carriages and being driven.
That is the whole point of google's self-driving, self-accidenting cars.
So they can be controlled and led to the slaughter-house.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday May 08 2015, @02:42AM
Hmmm.. Flamebait or Troll? Flamebait or Troll?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 08 2015, @02:56AM
Yes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 08 2015, @04:17AM
Flamebait or Troll?
Or the voice of reason?
(Score: 2) by everdred on Friday May 08 2015, @03:21PM
There's no mod for "Half-right" or "Well-intentioned with a side of crazy" so I modded it Interesting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 08 2015, @01:10AM
They want to block this so auto makers can continue to charge $155 for map updates?
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Friday May 08 2015, @03:19AM
Uber has put in a 3 billion US$ offer. http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-may-buy-nokias-mapping-unit-here-2015-5 [businessinsider.com]
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by radu on Friday May 08 2015, @08:54AM
So there's no threat at all. Google doesn't give anything for free. Instead of buying Nokia Maps, I'd use the money for a campaign to educate people on exactly how costly it is to use Google products. There are alarmingly few people who think about the implications of giving all the details about their lives away; or even knowing they do that every minute.