I worked at Google for 3 years and GM for 5 years (including engineering in Cadillac) so when I see news about the companies, my ears tend to perk up.
A few things should be set straight. Google was not (and by a long shot) the first to think of and try to develop self driving technology. I'm disappointed to see technical people in silicon valley not think a bit more critically. All OEMs and many tier 1 suppliers have thought about and (especially larger players) tried to build self driving cars. When you're a company like Denso or Bosch, this is a massive opportunity and not to aim a few people of your hundreds of thousands of employees to the problem is hard to imagine even if you know nothing about automotive. To be clear when I worked at Bosch from 2004-06, this tech was in development.
Secondly, the HN crowd specifically is notably biased. Check out Google self driving announcements vs GM (or any news about automotive manufactures other than Tesla). Having worked at both companies in product and engineering - yes they are of course different. But not nearly as much as you think. The single most notable difference is that Google is a very margin rich business. That allows the company to attract and retain top talent but it doesn't mean engineers that doesn't work at Google are bozos.
Thirdly, the technology that traditional OEMs have tried to develop is around 2 axis - cost and safety. Google is approaching the problem differently. Google's approach of a $x0,000 LiDAR system might prove to work if LiDar costs fall but thats a big risk. Also, Google admits that their cars don't work in things like rain. I'm not saying Google won't win this space - the contrary, I think they have a great shot. What i'm saying is this is significantly complex tech and its complexity is hard to understate. There can and will be different solutions that work.
Lastly, GM and Google are not the only ones in the game. Nissan and Mercedes have announced they will have cars with similar tech in 2017/18. Ever single automotive player is investing huge amounts of resources.
While this may be true, it's also been the observation of a lot of people here that, historically, it's been difficult for non-software industries to build effective consumer facing software teams, no matter how well capitalized.
It's not inconceivable that car companies are simply not equipped to manage the kind of complexity intrinsic in building fully autonomous vehicles, independent of the amount of resources they deploy.
I agree that automakers haven't been the greatest with consumer facing software/UI; I've yet to use a stock touchscreen interface in a car that doesn't cause bouts of rage.
However, automakers are probably up there with the best of the best when it comes to embedded "replace the consumer" software. Almost every aspect of a modern car is software controlled or software monitored in some way. I think that the fact that many people don't see their car as a network of computers, or recognize that it's pretty much all software is proof of that. Automakers have slowly been replacing the driver with software, and many people don't notice or think of it like that, because it just works, requires no input or interaction, and doesn't fail.
Honestly I think that in the end, Google will probably end up with a better product, but today, there's probably no one better equipped than car companies to make autonomous vehicles that align with consumer expectations of what an autonomous vehicle should be, both in engineering and resources.
Edited to add:
Look at what's already been done as far as software controlled driving. Mercedes has a system that will stop your car if you're about to rear end someone/hit something. A bunch of manufacturers have systems that will warn you when you're drifting out of your lane. Maintaining speed to the car in front of you instead of just setting a fixed cruise control speed is getting pretty widespread too. All of these by themselves seem like simple iterations, but when you start putting them all in one package, its moving closer and closer to an autonomous car, and all of it works so well that many people don't even notice.
Anyone remember reading an old article about the relationship between safety equipment and risky behavior? The idea was that the more safe you feel, the more likely you are to engage in unsafe behavior. The example given was that cyclists with helmets were much less cautious of traffic than bicyclists without helmets.
So I'm not sure if this has to do with cars feeling more safe or just the prevalence of smart phones, but driving down the interstate and paying close attention to what other cars are doing is terrifying. Literally every day I see a number of people driving 70+ MPH and slightly drifting over the lines or driving with their phones perched in front of them on the steering wheel. And it is not just teens or other classes of people typically associated with risky behavior, it is everyone.
This transition from smart-cars to self-driving cars is scary. As the cars become more attentive it seems we get less attentive.
That's an interesting thought, but we are already incredibly inattentive drivers - as evidenced by the 33,000 automotive deaths last year in the U.S. alone. Self driving cars can't come soon enough.
Fortunately, the same technological advances that have given us hand-held computing to distract ourselves are also going to give us self driving cars to save us.
>>"The roads will be equipped with sensors and cameras that enable roads to communicate with cars to alert drivers to hazards and congestion. The technology, to be deployed along stretches of Detroit’s busiest freeways, will monitor vehicle speed and position, though that information will be anonymous and police won’t use it to ticket drivers, Lauckner said."
Call me skeptical, but I highly doubt that this type of tech would not be used by police
I wonder if the "vehicle-to-vehicle" technology could be implemented faster if it was included in GPS mapping apps. Sure, your GPS can't slam on your brakes but it could warn you of hazards, and your data might be used to slam on the brakes of the car behind you (and prevent you getting rear-ended!)
A few things should be set straight. Google was not (and by a long shot) the first to think of and try to develop self driving technology. I'm disappointed to see technical people in silicon valley not think a bit more critically. All OEMs and many tier 1 suppliers have thought about and (especially larger players) tried to build self driving cars. When you're a company like Denso or Bosch, this is a massive opportunity and not to aim a few people of your hundreds of thousands of employees to the problem is hard to imagine even if you know nothing about automotive. To be clear when I worked at Bosch from 2004-06, this tech was in development.
Secondly, the HN crowd specifically is notably biased. Check out Google self driving announcements vs GM (or any news about automotive manufactures other than Tesla). Having worked at both companies in product and engineering - yes they are of course different. But not nearly as much as you think. The single most notable difference is that Google is a very margin rich business. That allows the company to attract and retain top talent but it doesn't mean engineers that doesn't work at Google are bozos.
Thirdly, the technology that traditional OEMs have tried to develop is around 2 axis - cost and safety. Google is approaching the problem differently. Google's approach of a $x0,000 LiDAR system might prove to work if LiDar costs fall but thats a big risk. Also, Google admits that their cars don't work in things like rain. I'm not saying Google won't win this space - the contrary, I think they have a great shot. What i'm saying is this is significantly complex tech and its complexity is hard to understate. There can and will be different solutions that work.
Lastly, GM and Google are not the only ones in the game. Nissan and Mercedes have announced they will have cars with similar tech in 2017/18. Ever single automotive player is investing huge amounts of resources.