Uber Opening Robotics Research Facility in Pittsburgh to Build Self-Driving Cars(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Uber Opening Robotics Research Facility in Pittsburgh to Build Self-Driving Cars
http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/02/uber-opening-robotics-research-facility-in-pittsburgh-to-build-self-driving-cars/
145 コメント
Say what you wish about the fractured Android ecosystem, but it managed to get >84% of the market-share vs <12% for iOS, despite having arrived later and being (at least in its earlier incarnations, before Android 4.x) a much less polished product. Samsung alone has more users than Apple does. Spreading their innovation around to partners was a killer move from Google the same as selling their software to IBM clones was a killer move for Microsoft.
Note: Not arguing that Apple's strategy was unsuccessful in the least, but Google wouldn't have been able to beat Apple at their own game (integrated hardware-software luxury-branded product) at the time of the iPhone/Android release.
Note: Not arguing that Apple's strategy was unsuccessful in the least, but Google wouldn't have been able to beat Apple at their own game (integrated hardware-software luxury-branded product) at the time of the iPhone/Android release.
It's because of the cost, nothing else. Everyone I know would switch to iPhone in a heartbeat if they had the Rs. 60k you need in India to buy one. My Android phone, on the other hand, cost me Rs. 13k.
Android thrived because shelling out a month's salary on phones is a losing proposition in third world countries (which have the majority of phone uses)
Android thrived because shelling out a month's salary on phones is a losing proposition in third world countries (which have the majority of phone uses)
This is just not true. Android manufacturers sell huge numbers of high end phones that cost the same amount as iPhones. I have owned both, and found the Android to be a much better user experience. iPhone has the worst keyboard I've ever used, the screen on the 5 was way too small, and I just find the whole UI to be really clunky and badly designed for the way I use devices (eg. The lack of a back button and inconsistent way apps try to deal with this limitation)
Sure, plenty of people like iPhones and plenty of people would swap, but I know a lot of people who really don't like iOS and are far happier with a high end android
Sure, plenty of people like iPhones and plenty of people would swap, but I know a lot of people who really don't like iOS and are far happier with a high end android
Apple's profits from the iPhone alone in the last quarter exceeded the total profits of Google and Microsoft combined.
At first i thought, you were comparing against only the mobile divisions of Google and Microsoft. But after some search, I found that their profit is really massive!
Now i really want to understand the forces in play, that help the iphone reap such gigantic profits :)
Now i really want to understand the forces in play, that help the iphone reap such gigantic profits :)
This is both true and completely irrelevant.
How so? This is about Google's relative competitiveness. You seem to blithely dismiss Apple's success with iOS relative to Android, claiming that high end Android phones sell in comparable quantities. This is patently contradicted by the facts. If the goal of an enterprise is to make profits, Apple is crushing Google in the mobile device business.
Google & Apple aren't remotely in the same business WRT mobile. Apple is hugely successful, no question, with their success riding largely on four factors: 1) industrial design, 2) idiot-proof OS, 3) zero hardware diversity, 4) 3rd party developer support. Google is hugely successful, too, but they have no mission statement that says they are intending to squeeze every last penny from the mobile market. I mean seriously, the last number I heard was that there were close to 1500 people working on Chrome-related stuff. The fact is that Google makes "small" (hundreds of millions to a few billion) amounts on a broad variety of things, and underwrites the spectrum of R&D/engineering via their advertising juggernaut. Whether they do well at this or not is another question, but they are not competing with Apple on hardly any fronts.
The discussion is not about whether Apple is a profitable company, its about whether "everyone who could afford it would buy an iPhone". There is plenty of evidence that many people prefer Android regardless of price. Whether Apple's business model is good or bad is a completely different discussion.
> This is just not true. Android manufacturers sell huge numbers of high end phones that cost the same amount as iPhones.
But not in India, a third world country, as OP makes the point. Majority of Android budget range here is ₹5000 ($90) to ₹15000 (~$300). Where as an iPhone costs ₹53,500.
But not in India, a third world country, as OP makes the point. Majority of Android budget range here is ₹5000 ($90) to ₹15000 (~$300). Where as an iPhone costs ₹53,500.
My point is that there are probably plenty of Indians who, if they had 53,000 to spend on a phone, would choose a high end Android. Some iPhone fans try to make the argument that "everyone who could afford it would buy an iPhone", and that is just not true as evidenced by the large number of high end Androids which are sold. Some people just don't like iOS.
It's not because of the cost. I switched to Android because I wanted a large phone and the Galaxy Note was available YEARS before the iPhone 6.
Then there is the annoying fact that as soon as a new iPhone comes out, the old ones get slow/ start crashing Every single iPhone my family has had (sample size of fifteen, starting from the original phone) has had this issue.
Edit: the other big issue was the iPhone's lack of multitasking. For the longest time it wasn't possible to do something as trivial playing Pandora while reading HN.
Then there is the annoying fact that as soon as a new iPhone comes out, the old ones get slow/ start crashing Every single iPhone my family has had (sample size of fifteen, starting from the original phone) has had this issue.
Edit: the other big issue was the iPhone's lack of multitasking. For the longest time it wasn't possible to do something as trivial playing Pandora while reading HN.
Well, in the US, a bit over a year ago I chose the Galaxy Note 3 over the iPhone 5S because it was bigger, faster, higher-resolution, had much more RAM, had a much larger battery (which was replaceable), etc. The iPhone 6 didn't exist at the time and I stand by my choice to go with an Android phone given the options at the time.
Price is just as important in the first world countries. Not everyone wants to spend almost $1k USD on a phone, which is something you might drop and break. When there are Android phones on offer with equal or better specifications and a lower price, most people will pick that one.
I don't think so. Having an iPhone is considered a status symbol. If they started selling it for say Rs.20K, it will lose its allure.
Android phones are cheaper than iPhones. That's all it is.
So? It doesn't matter how simple it was; it worked.
And the larger sized screens really made a difference to the market.
It's amazing to see Samsung in so much trouble now that Apple has released the iPhone 6/6+. They have lost a staggering amount of profit in only a few months.
It's amazing to see Samsung in so much trouble now that Apple has released the iPhone 6/6+. They have lost a staggering amount of profit in only a few months.
Check your dates. Samsung started losing much of its profit before the iPhone 6 came out. It lost 66 percent of its profit year over year in the summer quarter (Apple's weakest quarter, in fact).
Samsung may have lost some market share and profits when the iPohne 6 was launched, but it really started bleeding when it stopped any pretense at innovation, and it just kept iterating on the ugly design of Galaxy S3 and the bloatmess of Touchwizz. Galaxy S5 was considered a failure. Because of that Samsung intends to "rebuilt everything from scratch" with Galaxy S6. It's not because of the iPhone 6.
Samsung may have lost some market share and profits when the iPohne 6 was launched, but it really started bleeding when it stopped any pretense at innovation, and it just kept iterating on the ugly design of Galaxy S3 and the bloatmess of Touchwizz. Galaxy S5 was considered a failure. Because of that Samsung intends to "rebuilt everything from scratch" with Galaxy S6. It's not because of the iPhone 6.
I've checked the dates. Samsung recently posted their biggest loss in operating profit since 2009. Which unsurprisingly coincided with record sales and market share growth by Apple.
I didn't say they didn't lose MORE when Apple launched the iPhone 6. I said Samsung was already on a FAST DECLINE in profits since EARLY THIS YEAR.
Part of the reason why they are cheaper is that they are made by many manufacturers with experience in large scale electronics production who compete strongly on price for most of their product lines. If Google had decided to launch Android by themselves with the electronics production capabilities they had at the time, it would have been priced like Google Glass. If they had partnered with a single manufacturer, it would still have been vastly more expensive than what they did.
Not that there aren't other important factors for Android's success, as even relatively expensive Android phones are quite competitive with iPhones in market-share. But even if you assume it is just price, that is an argument in favor of the multi-vendor strategy, not against.
Not that there aren't other important factors for Android's success, as even relatively expensive Android phones are quite competitive with iPhones in market-share. But even if you assume it is just price, that is an argument in favor of the multi-vendor strategy, not against.
>it would have been priced like Google Glass.
Glass was purposely priced out of the range of consumers. It was meant as an experimental platform only.
Glass was purposely priced out of the range of consumers. It was meant as an experimental platform only.
Sure, I know I am being hyperbolic.
Still, it would have been priced higher than relative high end Android phones, have worse specs than mid-level phones and be perhaps better only in consistency and software-hardware integration (did I just accidentally describe the Nexus line?). It would not have beaten Apple at its own game and without a larger market-share and more friendly developer terms, it would not have had enough apps to achieve critical mass (and now I seem to be describing the Windows Phone...).
Still, it would have been priced higher than relative high end Android phones, have worse specs than mid-level phones and be perhaps better only in consistency and software-hardware integration (did I just accidentally describe the Nexus line?). It would not have beaten Apple at its own game and without a larger market-share and more friendly developer terms, it would not have had enough apps to achieve critical mass (and now I seem to be describing the Windows Phone...).
I am glad it is. Millions of people are able to get the benefits of smartphones because of that. If Google can bring auto-driving cars to the whole world with lower cost then I will again gladly welcome it. However, that's still a decade away really.
84% market share is a loss if you don't make any money on your product.
> 84% market share is a loss if you don't make any money on your product.
Its a win if it is preventing a competitor from getting the kind of dominance in a market that is key to delivery of a product on which you do make money (like, in Google's case, mobile platforms are to online advertising) that they could use to extract rents that would cut into those profits.
Chrome and Android don't need to make money directly to be successful, they just need to be popular enough that other browser or mobile OS vendors can't use their position to cut off Google's advertising revenues.
Its a win if it is preventing a competitor from getting the kind of dominance in a market that is key to delivery of a product on which you do make money (like, in Google's case, mobile platforms are to online advertising) that they could use to extract rents that would cut into those profits.
Chrome and Android don't need to make money directly to be successful, they just need to be popular enough that other browser or mobile OS vendors can't use their position to cut off Google's advertising revenues.
Well you are still potentially stopping your competitors from making money on their product.
That's certainly true, although I don't think Apple is struggling in the revenue department these days.
To be fair, Android has contributed to Google's core business by massively expanding the reach of their search ads...or so the story goes.
To be fair, Android has contributed to Google's core business by massively expanding the reach of their search ads...or so the story goes.
iOS has a 42.5% market share[1], where are you getting your info from?
[1]https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share...
[1]https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share...
That's their share of mobile web browsing. It measures usage, while the other numbers here are measuring share of unit sales.
There's always been a big disparity between the market share and web usage share of Android vs. iOS: http://blog.cloudfour.com/explaining-the-ios-and-android-mob...
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste...
There's always been a big disparity between the market share and web usage share of Android vs. iOS: http://blog.cloudfour.com/explaining-the-ios-and-android-mob...
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste...
Google (probably) knows the answer to this question. How many people completely miss the WiFi connection prompt?
You could mix in data from browsers (how many people browse near a wifi point that they have connected to with their browser, but don't connect with their wifi? how many people browse in the evening/morning but not connected to wifi?)
There's probably a wealth of demographic data they could correlate through gmail content and/or chrome browsing trends to correlate user income level, although I don't know if Google has privacy controls in place that makes sharing this data between divisions possible.
You could mix in data from browsers (how many people browse near a wifi point that they have connected to with their browser, but don't connect with their wifi? how many people browse in the evening/morning but not connected to wifi?)
There's probably a wealth of demographic data they could correlate through gmail content and/or chrome browsing trends to correlate user income level, although I don't know if Google has privacy controls in place that makes sharing this data between divisions possible.
Smartphones are the first computing experience for a lot of people. My mom, 64, had never used any sort of computing device before I got her an Android smartphone. She doesn't even know what a browser is. The only thing she knows is how to use WhatsApp and order things off a shopping app I installed for her. To her, that's the "internet". And she is perfectly happy with that.
IDC: Android at 84% (http://www.idc.com/prodserv/smartphone-os-market-share.jsp)
Strategy Analytics : Android at 85% (http://thenextweb.com/google/2014/07/31/android-reached-reco...)
Strategy Analytics : Android at 85% (http://thenextweb.com/google/2014/07/31/android-reached-reco...)
Lol, 84% in what countries?
Looking at our web stats across our clients, android isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to iOS.
Having a large market share in third world countries who won't buy your app isn't much of a win.
Looking at our web stats across our clients, android isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to iOS.
Having a large market share in third world countries who won't buy your app isn't much of a win.
Having a large market share in third world countries who won't buy your app isn't much of a win.
>> ask Whatsapp. :)
>> ask Whatsapp. :)
If Whatsapp lost, sign me up for losing.
Whatsapp is really a special case, though. They cornered a market that's relatively unique. Third-world countries don't need another messaging app.
And from my experience here in Cambodia, everyone is using Facebook anyway. So it isn't a clear black and white "third world countries only use whatsapp" either.
Also, there is a severe desire of everyone to buy an iPhone -- so they just lag behind a lot. You can buy a pre-jailbroken iPhone 4G for around $100 here.
Also, there is a severe desire of everyone to buy an iPhone -- so they just lag behind a lot. You can buy a pre-jailbroken iPhone 4G for around $100 here.
> Having a large market share in third world countries who won't buy your app isn't much of a win
Pretty sure the large market share in third world countries also doesn't care about your win either. They just have Android phones. Not sure if it is Google's win, users' win or OEM's that make the hardware's win. Kind of a mix perhaps.
Pretty sure the large market share in third world countries also doesn't care about your win either. They just have Android phones. Not sure if it is Google's win, users' win or OEM's that make the hardware's win. Kind of a mix perhaps.
>>Google opens an Uber competitor. Uber opens a Google (research) competitor.
Yep, but I feel like one significantly outclasses the other as a research facility. Will be interesting to see what happens.
>>but Google doesn't have the killer instinct that Uber does.
Why do you say that about the most visited site in the world? Genuine question.
Yep, but I feel like one significantly outclasses the other as a research facility. Will be interesting to see what happens.
>>but Google doesn't have the killer instinct that Uber does.
Why do you say that about the most visited site in the world? Genuine question.
I'm an Android developer, so that experience colors my perception. But compare Apple and Google in mobile. Everything Apple comes up with goes into making their product better, and they will fight with every tool they have to make the iPhone the better smart phone.
Every time Google comes up with a high quality product (Google Now, Inbox, Maps), they do everything they can to ship it on iOS as well as Android. If it wasn't for Apple, Google Now & Maps would be just as good on iOS as on Android. Google doesn't use their cloud service advantages as a weapon to make Android better than iOS. They just want their technology in front of everyone, no matter what they use.
I see self driving cars as a similar market. Google wants self driving cars to happen. There are lots of good reasons, but from their perspective it is both a play for even more data, and it increases the amount of time we have to use Google products. I can look at ads even longer if I don't have to drive on my commute. Thus for them doesn't it make sense to license/give away all of that tech to everybody? It doesn't matter who manufacturers the car, so long as it uses Google's car software.
Thus, plenty of companies will make self driving cars using Google's software. Thus Uber will have plenty of access to self driving cars.
If Google was more focused on killing Uber, they would hoard the self driving software for their 1st party initiative. I imagine if Uber invents self driving tech, no one else is getting it. They are far more interested in the core product of driving people from A to B.
It's a bit of 'commodize your compliments' and the two companies respective business model. Google operates a scorched earth campaign of making everything around ad supported internet as cheap or free as possible. Uber and Apple are building businesses around charging money for the product they make directly.
Every time Google comes up with a high quality product (Google Now, Inbox, Maps), they do everything they can to ship it on iOS as well as Android. If it wasn't for Apple, Google Now & Maps would be just as good on iOS as on Android. Google doesn't use their cloud service advantages as a weapon to make Android better than iOS. They just want their technology in front of everyone, no matter what they use.
I see self driving cars as a similar market. Google wants self driving cars to happen. There are lots of good reasons, but from their perspective it is both a play for even more data, and it increases the amount of time we have to use Google products. I can look at ads even longer if I don't have to drive on my commute. Thus for them doesn't it make sense to license/give away all of that tech to everybody? It doesn't matter who manufacturers the car, so long as it uses Google's car software.
Thus, plenty of companies will make self driving cars using Google's software. Thus Uber will have plenty of access to self driving cars.
If Google was more focused on killing Uber, they would hoard the self driving software for their 1st party initiative. I imagine if Uber invents self driving tech, no one else is getting it. They are far more interested in the core product of driving people from A to B.
It's a bit of 'commodize your compliments' and the two companies respective business model. Google operates a scorched earth campaign of making everything around ad supported internet as cheap or free as possible. Uber and Apple are building businesses around charging money for the product they make directly.
You misunderstand the motivation behind self-driving cars. It's not ads and not data. Google has enough of that.
It's just that a huge bunch of money goes to whoever who controls those.
It's just that a huge bunch of money goes to whoever who controls those.
> They just want their technology in front of everyone, no matter what they use.
I don't know about that - the Windows Phone people are pretty bitter about Google's current stance (no maps, no youtube, no hangouts).
I don't know about that - the Windows Phone people are pretty bitter about Google's current stance (no maps, no youtube, no hangouts).
> Everything Apple comes up with goes into making their product better
Apple maps? Your statement used to be true, but not anymore.
Apple maps? Your statement used to be true, but not anymore.
Google is the most visited site in the world because it offers a product that is significantly better than its competitors.
Google is yet to display the aggressive expand-at-all-costs philosophy of Uber. Despite all those privacy concerns, I still believe that many of the guys at Google believe that "Don't be Evil" mantra. It also helps that the guys who've been in charge so far - Page, Brin and Schmidt - are, at heart, nerds who just love technology. Page and Brin are mostly accidental businessmen - they were doing their PhDs, not trying to build the next Microsoft.
Kalanick and the guys running Uber seem to be more about business than technology. Nothing wrong with that, of course. This gives them the killer 'profit at all costs' instinct OP describes.
Plus, Google does about 10 things (maps, Android, search, Devices, Plus, video, cloud services, productivity software, Chrome, Chrome OS, autonomous cars, etc.). Uber does only one thing. That helps it to focus - a key ingredient of 'killer instinct'
Google is yet to display the aggressive expand-at-all-costs philosophy of Uber. Despite all those privacy concerns, I still believe that many of the guys at Google believe that "Don't be Evil" mantra. It also helps that the guys who've been in charge so far - Page, Brin and Schmidt - are, at heart, nerds who just love technology. Page and Brin are mostly accidental businessmen - they were doing their PhDs, not trying to build the next Microsoft.
Kalanick and the guys running Uber seem to be more about business than technology. Nothing wrong with that, of course. This gives them the killer 'profit at all costs' instinct OP describes.
Plus, Google does about 10 things (maps, Android, search, Devices, Plus, video, cloud services, productivity software, Chrome, Chrome OS, autonomous cars, etc.). Uber does only one thing. That helps it to focus - a key ingredient of 'killer instinct'
Based on the past, in 2 years Google will have shut down their Uber-esque project.
Meanwhile, Uber will be spending money researching their core business and will keep pressing on with shipping, consumer-focused products.
Meanwhile, Uber will be spending money researching their core business and will keep pressing on with shipping, consumer-focused products.
How exactly do you feel you can make those predictions about Uber?
I mean, other than the ridesharing thing, what other consumer focused products have Uber shipped? You can't really make a good prediction based on one thing, right?
I mean, other than the ridesharing thing, what other consumer focused products have Uber shipped? You can't really make a good prediction based on one thing, right?
Another issue some people here have overlooked: Google is a public company. It is responsible to its shareholders who seldom share the founders' long-term vision. 1 year of Google losing cash on an ambitious car project and investors will start grumbling. Another year of that and you will have some 'activist investor' asking for ending the damn thing and going back to making profits.
Uber is a private company and a growing one at that. It is expected to lose money. It can go all in without anyone but its private investors questioning it - private investors who want it to do whatever it can for a $100B IPO
Uber is a private company and a growing one at that. It is expected to lose money. It can go all in without anyone but its private investors questioning it - private investors who want it to do whatever it can for a $100B IPO
Google is public , but they offered unique stocks where control stays with the founders. So if they decide to invest in competing with UBER ,they will.
I feel that what Google has built (self-driving cars) is harder to replicate, but Google doesn't have the killer instinct that Uber does.
You need more than "killer instinct" to match a decade of research in autonomous vehicles.
What you call "killer instinct" I would call delusional or "dumb money".
You need more than "killer instinct" to match a decade of research in autonomous vehicles.
What you call "killer instinct" I would call delusional or "dumb money".
I probably agree on your viewpoint, but it's not like Google really has an advantage of "a decade of research" over everyone else.
They do have a serious advantage, but a the vast majority of benefits of this decade of research is not developed and kept by Google in-house. Key parts of it are either included in non-core components (sensor hardware, commodity electronics) that are used also in other applications (such as computer vision applications in manufacturing industry robotics) and Uber can simply buy that from other companies; or in publicly available academic research and data resources.
In terms of actual competitive advantage in self-driving cars, I'd say that Google has the following things - (a) a vast store of high-precision mapping and laser scan data that nobody else has; (b) a 1 (2?) year gap in pure research between what they have and what has been openly published by someone; and (c) a bunch of engineering expertise and experimentation experience that Uber doesn't have but some others do -e.g. many major car manufacturers. An impressive gap, but one that can be overcome in acouple years if you're serious about it.
They do have a serious advantage, but a the vast majority of benefits of this decade of research is not developed and kept by Google in-house. Key parts of it are either included in non-core components (sensor hardware, commodity electronics) that are used also in other applications (such as computer vision applications in manufacturing industry robotics) and Uber can simply buy that from other companies; or in publicly available academic research and data resources.
In terms of actual competitive advantage in self-driving cars, I'd say that Google has the following things - (a) a vast store of high-precision mapping and laser scan data that nobody else has; (b) a 1 (2?) year gap in pure research between what they have and what has been openly published by someone; and (c) a bunch of engineering expertise and experimentation experience that Uber doesn't have but some others do -e.g. many major car manufacturers. An impressive gap, but one that can be overcome in acouple years if you're serious about it.
many major car manufacturers
Who?
All demos that I've seen from Mercedes Benz, BMW, Toyota, Volvo, etc. were generations behind google. The self-parking car seemed to be their most impressive feat so far.
Meanwhile Google Car is commuting in live city traffic, without anyone touching the wheel.
Who?
All demos that I've seen from Mercedes Benz, BMW, Toyota, Volvo, etc. were generations behind google. The self-parking car seemed to be their most impressive feat so far.
Meanwhile Google Car is commuting in live city traffic, without anyone touching the wheel.
http://www.cnet.com/news/a-ride-in-volvos-autonomous-car-how...
Google just has better advertising because that is Google's core business.
Google just has better advertising because that is Google's core business.
Car manufacturers are aiming for consumer budget, i.e. are planing to sell these technologies to customers in foreseeable future, while google is building self driving car no matter the costs and is reaching space program-like budget. So there's also that to consider.
Car manufacturers are aiming wrong because of their old business model. Google is aiming at a taxi service, where expensive car costs are less critical, but being first to market(by quite a few years), reliable, having a large network and a good brand mean much more.
Here's a Mercedes prototype driving in live traffic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5kJ_8JAp-w
I would put that on the same league as Google's.
I would put that on the same league as Google's.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the big car manufacturers put a self-driving car on the market before Google. For instance, the car in the video looks much more like an actual product than the Google car, with it's spinning radar on top.
Google's spent a lot of money in a lot of different areas, but I haven't been terribly impressed by their output. Google glasses seems to be a good example about how they can excite people before release and then stumble when the product actually comes out (though this is an issue with a lot of tech companies).
Google's spent a lot of money in a lot of different areas, but I haven't been terribly impressed by their output. Google glasses seems to be a good example about how they can excite people before release and then stumble when the product actually comes out (though this is an issue with a lot of tech companies).
Self-driving cars is one of many research projects for google, and it's far from their core competency. If they have money to spend and are very focused on this. I wouldn't count Uber out.
Its a race between UBER building/acquiring self-driving capabilities vs. Google spreading to all the markets.
Sadly, as much legislative power as Google may have, I think we may be in an age where its easier to create the technology of self-driving cars then to get through the political/regulatory red-tape that UBER has been fighting through for years. That's probably an exaggeration, but given the how many other companies are dabbling in the self-driving space now, it may be less innovative than a few years back. On the other hand, I don't thing political/regulatory barriers are any easier to get through.
At least we have two big players trying to solve a big problem, so hopefully we'll benefit in the end.
Sadly, as much legislative power as Google may have, I think we may be in an age where its easier to create the technology of self-driving cars then to get through the political/regulatory red-tape that UBER has been fighting through for years. That's probably an exaggeration, but given the how many other companies are dabbling in the self-driving space now, it may be less innovative than a few years back. On the other hand, I don't thing political/regulatory barriers are any easier to get through.
At least we have two big players trying to solve a big problem, so hopefully we'll benefit in the end.
I'm not sure that I want to ride in a car built by a company with a killer instinct. ;)
Google doesn't spread innovation around to partners [0]... the terms of OHA, and the terms of Play Store are strongly in favour of Google and effects any competitor [1] that forks Android without Google's blessing.
The Play Store terms range from absurd to downright ridiculous.
[0] http://techcrunch.com/2009/12/22/google-open-when-convenient... [1] http://marketingland.com/acer-incident-revives-conspiracy-th...
The Play Store terms range from absurd to downright ridiculous.
[0] http://techcrunch.com/2009/12/22/google-open-when-convenient... [1] http://marketingland.com/acer-incident-revives-conspiracy-th...
More like, my ex-cofounder created Facebook, so I rage-opened a terminal and typed in `mkdir facebook_killer && cd facebook_killer && git init`
> I imagine Google will license their future self driving-car stack to the existing car manufacturers, Uber, et al.
Tesla perhaps?
Tesla perhaps?
Even spreading it around will work in Google's favor in this case. In this case, it seems Google's goal would be gathering transportation (and obtain tracking information). Thus they could undercut Uber prices.
"Uber opens a Google (research) competitor" with money it got from Google ($258 million)
Back in 1987, Carnegie Mellon already had robotic vans [1] trying to drive around the campus. They were slow-moving, so students had ample time to cross the road as they approached. I probably have a picture in a box, somewhere. As I recall a major issue was how to stay on the road. [2]
[1] https://www.ri.cmu.edu/pub_files/pub2/thorpe_charles_1988_1/...
[2] https://www.ri.cmu.edu/pub_files/pub3/thorpe_charles_1988_1/...
[1] https://www.ri.cmu.edu/pub_files/pub2/thorpe_charles_1988_1/...
[2] https://www.ri.cmu.edu/pub_files/pub3/thorpe_charles_1988_1/...
I was in the Navlab once. It had a crew of five - a driver, an operator, and three people in the back at rack-mounted workstations. They had to convert the thing to hydraulic motor drive so it could drive slowly enough.
Their LIDAR was very advanced. They had a 2-axis scanning LIDAR, with one rotating and one nodding mirror. So they had full 3D depth images. Most of the DARPA Grand Challenge vehicles only had line scanners.
Their LIDAR was very advanced. They had a 2-axis scanning LIDAR, with one rotating and one nodding mirror. So they had full 3D depth images. Most of the DARPA Grand Challenge vehicles only had line scanners.
Actual Uber announcement: http://blog.uber.com/carnegie-mellon
I'm not sure a "partnership" qualifies as "cleaning out".
I'm not sure a "partnership" qualifies as "cleaning out".
Google probably wants to run a big data center that coordinates and organizes all the world's cars. A reliable centrally coordinated self driving vehicle network would greatly canabalize air and train travel and cargo, so the winners in this space will control the world's transporation network. Google will probably win, but either way the world economy will benefit massively from the reduction in transportation costs.
Google may benefit from it, but it's not like it would be irreplaceable. Google would just have the advantage of pioneering a new market.
Besides governments in other countries (since I assume US will stay "wild capitalism" for longer than others) can just call an open competition for such controlled network management services and then be semi-controlled by that government.
It's not like google or anyone gonna have full actual control over who goes where even when/if such system will exist.
Besides governments in other countries (since I assume US will stay "wild capitalism" for longer than others) can just call an open competition for such controlled network management services and then be semi-controlled by that government.
It's not like google or anyone gonna have full actual control over who goes where even when/if such system will exist.
That makes sense. CMU has been working with Cadillac on self-driving cars, and has demoed them in Washington DC traffic. The CMU/Cadillac car has nothing visible externally which marks it as a self-driving car. They may be closer to a production product than Google.
I'm pretty sure they aren't partnering with CMU, but rather offering many senior scientists and faculty members lucrative salaries to leave academia and work for them. So the Cadillac IP still belongs to the university. In fact, that actually spun out into a separate company called Ottomatika (which has a licensing deal from CMU).
They are formally partnering with CMU. Here's the CMU press release.
http://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2015/february/uber-...
"Uber and Carnegie Mellon University are announcing today a strategic partnership that includes the creation of the Uber Advanced Technologies Center in Pittsburgh, near the CMU campus. ... The agreement also will include funding from Uber for faculty chairs and graduate fellowships."
http://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2015/february/uber-...
"Uber and Carnegie Mellon University are announcing today a strategic partnership that includes the creation of the Uber Advanced Technologies Center in Pittsburgh, near the CMU campus. ... The agreement also will include funding from Uber for faculty chairs and graduate fellowships."
I stand corrected.
So Uber is using low wage drivers to make money so they can invest in self driving cars to completely make the drivers obsolete.
Talk about a moral paradox.
Talk about a moral paradox.
I'm ok with that. These drivers will move onto intelligent work where they can get trained in less menial work. The only reason a taxi driver stays a taxi driver is because he believes he has no other alternative to make money. Let's get them training in customer service or creative work and give them human jobs.
"These drivers will move onto intelligent work where they can get trained in less menial work"
Can you point to any time in history where that actually occurred on a large scale? Genuinely interested.
Can you point to any time in history where that actually occurred on a large scale? Genuinely interested.
75% of the US used to be farmers.
(Not all of farming is menial, but a lot of it is and it was much less sophisticated than it is today).
(Edited 90 --> 75.)
(Not all of farming is menial, but a lot of it is and it was much less sophisticated than it is today).
(Edited 90 --> 75.)
The transition went much much slower than it does today most people are missing a very important point here.
We aren't just talking about automation of physical things we are also talking about automation of intelligence based tasks.
Also people often bring out the horse carriages as an example of how the people who controlled those just went on to become car drivers instead but the horses they never found new occupation.
Automation is replacing higher and higher levels of thinking and that is the problem. Its not just going to compete with you for your physical abilities but your mental ones. That's the big deal and thats where we are headed.
Driverless cars illuminates that point quite substantially.
We aren't just talking about automation of physical things we are also talking about automation of intelligence based tasks.
Also people often bring out the horse carriages as an example of how the people who controlled those just went on to become car drivers instead but the horses they never found new occupation.
Automation is replacing higher and higher levels of thinking and that is the problem. Its not just going to compete with you for your physical abilities but your mental ones. That's the big deal and thats where we are headed.
Driverless cars illuminates that point quite substantially.
So did those people get job training and move on to white collar jobs, or did their children? My guess is most of those farmers retired or died.
Things don't work like that in the real world. There is a very real problem when technology quickly makes an entire workforce obsolete.
I believe there will eventually have to be a minimum income that is given to every adult. There will be many people choosing not to work who are fine living off this minimum income. There will also of course be those who would rather work but whose skills are obsolete.
I believe there will eventually have to be a minimum income that is given to every adult. There will be many people choosing not to work who are fine living off this minimum income. There will also of course be those who would rather work but whose skills are obsolete.
I don't think it will work out that way. If Uber dumps them cold they'll have no money to retrain.
Also I doubt taxi driver stays taxi driver because of all alternative opportunities he has.
Also I doubt taxi driver stays taxi driver because of all alternative opportunities he has.
What were these drivers doing before Uber? Let's not pretend that any job is an ok job. These jobs are not ok for humans and with a basic income, these people can contribute in better more creatives ways. My best friends mom was a cleaner for the Hilton for 20+ years. Sure it was a job, but there was nothing meaningful about it.
I am not sure what you are trying to get at. The people who are drivers are drivers for many different reasons some of the are quite well educated and I don't think you can conclude what you seem to conclude.
Technology killing jobs is a real problem, technology killing jobs in an increasingly faster and faster pace is an even bigger problem as it doesn't allow people to re-educate themselves.
It's a much much much bigger problem than you seem to imply.
Technology killing jobs is a real problem, technology killing jobs in an increasingly faster and faster pace is an even bigger problem as it doesn't allow people to re-educate themselves.
It's a much much much bigger problem than you seem to imply.
It's much more likely that these drivers' children will move onto "intelligent work." The drivers themselves -- the ones for whom it's a primary source of income, anyway -- are mostly stuck in a financial rut. They don't exactly have the spare cash sitting around which would allow them to just learn some "creative work." Getting bills paid and food on the table for their family will take priority.
I am not sure what you mean. For most people this is it.
I would've thought this is a business problem - it's developing a product which cannibalizes their own market.
Uber's problem is that this is a big public announcement. And so what you have to be wondering is what all the Uber drivers are going to be thinking about their future today with Uber. There biggest problem in the next 5 years if they keep announcing self-driving car stuff could very well end up being that their competitors have an easy time poaching all their drivers.
Uber's problem is that this is a big public announcement. And so what you have to be wondering is what all the Uber drivers are going to be thinking about their future today with Uber. There biggest problem in the next 5 years if they keep announcing self-driving car stuff could very well end up being that their competitors have an easy time poaching all their drivers.
It's not cannibalizing their market, it's exploding it. Currently, I will use uber infrequently because it's fairly cheap, half the price of a typical cab ride (and by contrast, I would say I use cabs rarely, when I have no other choice). If it becomes 1/10th the price of a typical cab ride, I would probably use it at every opportunity, all the time. More than 10x my current usage? Yes, probably.
thats great it just doesent help the drivers. They are not lacking rides they are lacking revenue from those rides.
The flaw in this thesis is that Uber charges 25% of the fare, plus fees, while the driver takes on the cost of the vehicle (depreciation, maintenance, finance), gas, parking, and pretty much everything else. If you get rid of the drivers, then Uber has to pay for all of that. That would be vastly more expensive, riskier, and if passengers really did expect prices to drop 5x, operating margins would evaporate. Making 25% off of somebody else's capital and labor is a pretty good trick, I don't see Uber or anyone else getting a better deal than that.
To be fair, Uber doesn't seem to promise any of its drivers a 'career'. It offers them a way to supplement their existing careers.
I don't see how this is any different from factories replacing low skill labor with robots. As libertarian as it sounds, I would point the finger at drivers who think of driving as a 'career'.
I don't see how this is any different from factories replacing low skill labor with robots. As libertarian as it sounds, I would point the finger at drivers who think of driving as a 'career'.
Uber have been very very gung-ho about how much their drivers make so I would claim that they do in fact promise a career. Not with uber-x but with the more expensive services they offer.
My most recent Lyft driver was a taxi driver (not sure if former or current). I don't know how common that is, but if he found it beneficial, I wouldn't be surprised if it's pretty common.
Somehow, I doubt Uber spends too much time worrying about morality.
I'm imagining a future where there are self-driving busses that route themselves based on where people are and where they want to go. For a dense urban area, I think this has real potential to increase route efficiency and bus utilization while decreasing crowding and unpopulated bus trips.
Bus routes/schedules influence riders' behavior (People reach a bus stop at the time when they expect their bus to arrive). If buses try to automatically adjust route and timing based on riders' needs, riders will start showing up whenever and wherever they want. That makes me feel that the buses may become less utilized, not more.
I do not think so, Many times bus routes are created without thinking about traffic. An app like that that dynamically updates based on where the "blob" of riders are would be awesome.
Bridj [1] is a Boston startup exploring this opportunity. Here's a recent article. [2]
[1] http://www.bridj.com/ [2] https://www.bostonherald.com/business/business_markets/2015/...
(I have no association with the company.)
[1] http://www.bridj.com/ [2] https://www.bostonherald.com/business/business_markets/2015/...
(I have no association with the company.)
I think there's a lot of potential for van-sized automated transit systems. Carrying 4 people gets you most of the fuel efficiency savings of a bus but without the big inefficiencies when you've only got one passenger on an unpopular route.
This feels a bit strange, no? Shouldn't all of their drivers immediately stop using Uber?
I think individuals who are living paycheck to paycheck as Uber contractors probably aren't able to respond to the possibility that their job will be replaced by automation. Very few people are able to prepare for that kind of thing, actually, even if the warning is in the foreseeable future.
If they quit, what should they do to pay the bills in the mean time?
If they quit, what should they do to pay the bills in the mean time?
Uber's design inherently makes any kind of collective bargaining almost impossible. As long as money can be made by being an Uber contractor, people will do it -- right up to the moment that Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars. There is no picket line to patrol here, no way that the drivers can meaningfully coordinate with one another. Dispatch communicates with drivers, and vice versa, but there is no possibility of lateral communication between drivers.
It's pure, emotionless capitalism. Labour is now a commodity like any other. Depending who you ask, this is either the harbinger of a widening wage gap and the poverty that accompanies it, or a long-overdue development which paves the way for optimum efficiency.
It's pure, emotionless capitalism. Labour is now a commodity like any other. Depending who you ask, this is either the harbinger of a widening wage gap and the poverty that accompanies it, or a long-overdue development which paves the way for optimum efficiency.
I have an idea for unionizing Uber drivers via a smartphone app. It would work around the problem you mentioned, which is that Uber can quickly replace workers who strike for 1 week or more at a time.
Basically, do "flash strikes" for 30 minutes at at time.
It would work like this: Uber drivers install an app to join the union, and when the union decides to "strike", it sends a message to all drivers in the union. The drivers cancel all rides for some short period of time, say, 30 minutes, and then they resume driving like normal. This driver outage would be disruptive to Uber in terms of user experience, but it wouldn't be long enough to replace the striking workers.
Basically, do "flash strikes" for 30 minutes at at time.
It would work like this: Uber drivers install an app to join the union, and when the union decides to "strike", it sends a message to all drivers in the union. The drivers cancel all rides for some short period of time, say, 30 minutes, and then they resume driving like normal. This driver outage would be disruptive to Uber in terms of user experience, but it wouldn't be long enough to replace the striking workers.
Part of the reason unions work is because they sign agreements with employers that prevent them from hiring from outside the union to fill jobs during a strike. I can't imagine a scenario in which Uber enters such an agreement. Even if a union exists, Uber is free to hire non-union members and pay them as much as necessary to get them to work during a strike. In the long run, economics wins out and Uber ends up paying the minimum that enough people are willing to work for, which is exactly what they were doing anyway.
What would they be trying to achieve by striking? Getting Uber to stop pursuing self-driving cars?
It's pointless, because someone at some point will launch the self-driving version of Uber.
Also, Surge Pricing would make it difficult to get everyone to hold out for the strike.
It's pointless, because someone at some point will launch the self-driving version of Uber.
Also, Surge Pricing would make it difficult to get everyone to hold out for the strike.
Then the people who don't join the union (or join but don't follow the instructions) get all the rides during those 30 minutes, and everybody who canceled all their rides during the strike gets kicked out of Uber, and word quickly spreads that going on strike is a good way to instantly lose your livelihood.
You'd have to somehow get 100% penetration, not only among current Uber drivers but among all potential Uber drivers in the area, before doing anything. Doesn't sound feasible, especially since anyone who declines to participate will make a killing.
You'd have to somehow get 100% penetration, not only among current Uber drivers but among all potential Uber drivers in the area, before doing anything. Doesn't sound feasible, especially since anyone who declines to participate will make a killing.
Of course uber knows what other apps you have installed.
> no way that the drivers can meaningfully coordinate with one another
Except that 100% of drivers have a smartphone on a public network.
Except that 100% of drivers have a smartphone on a public network.
Well, they could just switch to working for Lyft instead of a company that is actively trying to automate their jobs away, if for no other reason than to put some upward pressure on Uber's driver payout percentage.
By that logic, shouldn't all of the workers in [manufacturing|food service|sales|etc] do the same?
Virtually all firms are going to invest in optimal production/service methodologies in order to stay competitive and capture the largest margins. In the (somewhat) near term, that means replacing a whole lot human labor with automation. But until then, there is still a job there to be done and a lot of people that would like to have the money for doing it.
With that said, I don't disagree that the long-term career prospects of taxi driving are plummeting. I think many other careers are nearing their expiration dates as well, though I may be overly pessimistic...
Virtually all firms are going to invest in optimal production/service methodologies in order to stay competitive and capture the largest margins. In the (somewhat) near term, that means replacing a whole lot human labor with automation. But until then, there is still a job there to be done and a lot of people that would like to have the money for doing it.
With that said, I don't disagree that the long-term career prospects of taxi driving are plummeting. I think many other careers are nearing their expiration dates as well, though I may be overly pessimistic...
As scientists, we work towards a better future, where human does not need to work, and machine does everything for you, the only tiny bit of work human will do is to ..... be a battery... it is paradise...
This doesn't represent an immediate threat to Uber's drivers, and I doubt most Uber drivers see themselves as Uber drivers in 3-5 years.
Be serious.
Neither Uber nor Google have ANY experience making cars. They aren't the simplest products to sell. Complex regulations that varies city by city, state by state, country by country. And even then the minute you become successful the existing car manufacturers will simply jump into the market and swallow you whole.
Uber drivers have absolutely nothing to worry about.
Neither Uber nor Google have ANY experience making cars. They aren't the simplest products to sell. Complex regulations that varies city by city, state by state, country by country. And even then the minute you become successful the existing car manufacturers will simply jump into the market and swallow you whole.
Uber drivers have absolutely nothing to worry about.
Uber and Google don't need to sell cars. They only need to sell rides.
All the car companies are working on autonomous vehicles, too. I think you're right that Uber and Google don't know enough about building cars, I think the smart money is that somebody like Volvo[0] or Volkswagen will be first to market with a commercial autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle.
[0] http://www.cnet.com/news/a-ride-in-volvos-autonomous-car-how...
[0] http://www.cnet.com/news/a-ride-in-volvos-autonomous-car-how...
Self-driving cars is mostly a software / data problem, not a car problem. Google is much better positioned for that than car manufacturers.
(Leaving aside privacy issues for the moment) An existing car manufacturer could build sensors/data collection into their entire fleet over a period of several years. They could monitor the environment around millions of cars and learn to model driver behavior.
I don't know how many Google Maps cars Google has, but if car manufacturers got serious about data collection, there's no way Google could compete with the scale of their installed user base.
I don't know how many Google Maps cars Google has, but if car manufacturers got serious about data collection, there's no way Google could compete with the scale of their installed user base.
That's just collection, but you need also need real-time processing. I'm pretty sure Google has more software engineers and computer scientists at hand than any car manufacturer.
Sure, but a car company could hire software people, or contract with somebody like IBM.
Most of what Google is doing with their self-driving car is not a difficult software or AI problem, they've simply built extremely, extremely detailed maps of a limited subset of roads: http://www.wired.com/2014/05/google-self-driving-car-maps/
Contrast that with the DARPA challenges, where a car needed to navigate unpredictable off-road terrain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge
Doing it Google's way, you need some sensors and onboard processing, but the amount of hardware is actually pretty minimal compared to Carnegie Mellon's self-driving cars. Most of the fancy hardware is for making the maps, not driving the car.
Most of what Google is doing with their self-driving car is not a difficult software or AI problem, they've simply built extremely, extremely detailed maps of a limited subset of roads: http://www.wired.com/2014/05/google-self-driving-car-maps/
Contrast that with the DARPA challenges, where a car needed to navigate unpredictable off-road terrain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge
Doing it Google's way, you need some sensors and onboard processing, but the amount of hardware is actually pretty minimal compared to Carnegie Mellon's self-driving cars. Most of the fancy hardware is for making the maps, not driving the car.
[deleted]
They have nothing to worry about.
First Uber isn't going to actually ever do this - programming is not their core competency, and they don't make enough to fund it for the length of time necessary.
Second it'll be decades before there are self driving cars, so the drivers can make money in the meantime.
Third, once the cars do arrive they will start with long distance highway trips, which is not what Uber does.
First Uber isn't going to actually ever do this - programming is not their core competency, and they don't make enough to fund it for the length of time necessary.
Second it'll be decades before there are self driving cars, so the drivers can make money in the meantime.
Third, once the cars do arrive they will start with long distance highway trips, which is not what Uber does.
What is Uber's core competency?
It's organizing and connecting people.
It is not high difficulty engineering projects. Their app and website are pretty straightforward stuff.
For a self driving car you need completely different people.
It is not high difficulty engineering projects. Their app and website are pretty straightforward stuff.
For a self driving car you need completely different people.
But surely they can get the right people with their capital.
You need the right people to know who the right people are.
Uber is just not well equipped for this. They could do it certainly (throw enough money at it), but their risk/reward is not in the right place.
(But it I mean setup a research team and at least type, I don't expect a self driving car for decades. Maybe a sort of road train that only drives on pre-marked routes would happen first.)
Uber is just not well equipped for this. They could do it certainly (throw enough money at it), but their risk/reward is not in the right place.
(But it I mean setup a research team and at least type, I don't expect a self driving car for decades. Maybe a sort of road train that only drives on pre-marked routes would happen first.)
It's interesting to see comments of the nature of "Google doesn't have the killer instinct that Uber does."
This is a fight over the businesses of logistics and transportation in general, and on a global scale. You can expect Amazon to join the fight. This is not limited to driving people across town, and winning is vastly more valuable. Nobody is going to hold back.
This is a fight over the businesses of logistics and transportation in general, and on a global scale. You can expect Amazon to join the fight. This is not limited to driving people across town, and winning is vastly more valuable. Nobody is going to hold back.
I always felt like long-haul B2B deliveries (e.g., from warehouse to supermarket) was the most sensible starting point for actual use of self-driving vehicles on the roads. No worries about convincing customers to give up control, the extra equipment overhead is probably relatively small when you're already working with a massive truck, no stopping to sleep/eat, no tired drivers...
I find it interesting that Google will probably mint a nice ROI from it's Uber investment and ostensibly dump it all right back into research for robotic cars (I get this isn't how it works, but the idea is novel). CMU has some of the most brilliant minds in robotics - It should be very interesting to see who wins this arms race.
This seems like this should be easy to source... should we call the robotics institute? Cleaned out seems a bit hyperbolic.
Self-driving cars in a world where all cars are self-driving is doable. Self-driving cars sharing the road with the morons I deal with every day is not going to happen any time soon, much less dealing with accidents, road closures, ice, snow, rain and the occasional angry politician.
This is irrational. If self-driving cars are overall safer than their human counterparts, why wouldn't we allow a mix? I mean, we don't ban human drivers because of all the accidents and deaths caused of human errors, so why would be not allow self-driving cars, even with some failures?
> This is irrational
Humans can be pretty irrational, and law unfortunately isn't enacted in the science lab. We'll just have to wait and see who wins on the political level.
Humans can be pretty irrational, and law unfortunately isn't enacted in the science lab. We'll just have to wait and see who wins on the political level.
> Self-driving cars sharing the road with the morons I deal with every day is not going to happen any time soon
It's already happening, and they seem to be working pretty well. The most difficult issue is going to be politians.
It's already happening, and they seem to be working pretty well. The most difficult issue is going to be politians.
We're one step closer to Johnny Cab, though I suspect it will work a little better than the version in Total Recall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGi6j2VrL0o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGi6j2VrL0o
Either way, Google vs. Uber means cheaper cab rides for all of us...
Imaging that, we can get rid of all drivers, must be brilliant...
soon techcrunch headlines would be: UBER DRIVERS LAID-OFF, REPLACED BY SELF-DRIVING CARS
Heh so thats what this uber job offer was about.. i should have replied! ;)
Sniff Sniff... I smell a buyout coming.
It will be interesting to see which one can commodize the other. I feel that what Google has built (self-driving cars) is harder to replicate, but Google doesn't have the killer instinct that Uber does.
If Android is any guide, Google would rather spread their innovation around to partners rather than to use it to build a killer first party product. I imagine Google will license their future self driving-car stack to the existing car manufacturers, Uber, et al.