I'm wondering what this pivot will do the morale in the Chauffeur team. There has been so much turbulence in the team with several key members leaving to form their own company because they were so frustrated with the pace. I can't imagine partnering with a traditional automaker will increase the pace.
I think this is the Android playbook. Partner with phone/car manufacturers and let them do what they do. You got to worry about customizations/fragmentation but I am not sure if that is going to be an issue for a 'behind the scenes' technology. You got to somehow tie this into Android Auto (license this?) for an integrated environment and integrations with phones or onboard maps (to get the search dollars).
No, this is Ruth Porat saying, "silly engineers, we need businesses that MAKE money, lets get smart."
...Alphabet's stock price is going to go higher, but the trade-off here is talent walking away. Given the HN post the other day about the CFO, I'm sure there's much more to come - google's not going to be a company where the dreamers go for much longer. Lets see how it goes...
I am hopeful that since a car can cause damage, and loss of life it will put under a stricter code. So they do have to meet a higher bar of safety and standards that are just not required on a phone. Fragmentation is going to be more of the car manufacturer branding... the underlying core engine will likely be the same.
I am curious if there ever will be a consumer grade Google Pixel Car. There is a risk it will compete with their partners, but it could have a niche if it is intentionally undersold (for example, one or two colors at most).
> I can't imagine partnering with a traditional automaker will increase the pace.
Right? I was thinking exactly the same. One would think that having a car built in-house enabled them to iterate that much quicker.
Then again, Google is full of smart people, so there surely is a reason behind this decision.
One would think that having a car built in-house
enabled them to iterate that much quicker.
There tends to be a pretty clear separation between the self-driving sensors and brains ('the new stuff') and the car platform ('the old stuff').
As long as you're willing to have some sensors and actuators visible (i.e. you're working on a prototype rather than a consumer-ready product) there's not much technical value added from building a custom car vs modifying an existing one. Indeed, it can easily slow you down as now you have a bunch of work to do developing a new car.
The car that won the DARPA grand challenge was fairly close how it came off the production line - except for an off-the-shelf electrical actuator system developed for disabled drivers, an off-the-shelf secondary alternator to power all the sensors and computers, and a bunch of sensors bolted to the roof rack.
The reasons to build your own are business/PR rather than technical/development speed. For example they can make it look cute and unaggressive which might be good PR; or insist on a public transport style vandal proof design for an on-demand business model. These might be good reasons, but they're business reasons not technical reasons.
