Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   Xerox invented much of the tech behind the PC, but couldn't turn that into money. Google is repeating this feat with its driverless cars   (arstechnica.com) divider line
    More: Fail, Personal computer, story of Xerox, Graphical user interface, Xerox's mistake, Silicon Valley, successful companies, Google's Alphabet, Larry Page  
•       •       •

1049 clicks; posted to Business » on 18 Feb 2019 at 5:20 PM (13 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



33 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2019-02-18 05:23:32 PM  
Google will never build cars.
 
2019-02-18 05:25:23 PM  
It should do as least as well as Google Glass.
 
2019-02-18 05:33:03 PM  

HempHead: Google will never build cars.


They don't need to sell cars to make money.  They just need to sell subsystems.  Like Bosh and injectors and sensors.
 
2019-02-18 05:34:19 PM  
Xerox made a lot of money on its tech thanks to Steve Jobs paying them in Apple stock for the tech being developed at Xerox PARC.

As for google - why would an advertising company be successful in building and selling hardware?
 
2019-02-18 05:57:02 PM  

Saiga410: HempHead: Google will never build cars.

They don't need to sell cars to make money.  They just need to sell subsystems.  Like Bosh and injectors and sensors.


Google has only ever sold ads.
 
2019-02-18 05:59:29 PM  
Articles drawing on the most tenuous and ill-advised comparisons will be the death of us all.
 
2019-02-18 06:22:45 PM  

HempHead: Saiga410: HempHead: Google will never build cars.

They don't need to sell cars to make money.  They just need to sell subsystems.  Like Bosh and injectors and sensors.

Google has only ever sold ads.


Does a negative income count?

In its most recent quarterly earnings report, the company said it incurred a more than $1.3 billion operating loss in its "Other Bets" category
 
2019-02-18 06:28:09 PM  

bighairyguy: It should do as least as well as Google Glass.

But how does it compare with M.Night Glass?
 
2019-02-18 06:34:32 PM  

HempHead: Saiga410: HempHead: Google will never build cars.

They don't need to sell cars to make money.  They just need to sell subsystems.  Like Bosh and injectors and sensors.

Google has only ever sold ads.


Let's run with that assertion (I don't know how valid it is, and it doesn't matter). When driverless cars become a thing, people will invariably avert their eyes towards a screen that's connected to the internet. I'd bet good money that some of those passengers will be exposed to ads. We listen to the radio (or similar audio) in cars currently because our eyes are busy with the task of driving. Remove that task, and people still need to get places, but now can consume media.
 
2019-02-18 06:53:35 PM  
The Apple car will only have one button, and it will only be charged by Apple chargers that use a connector incompatible with the industry standard. And guess what happens if you want to listen to music.
 
2019-02-18 06:59:38 PM  
 
2019-02-18 07:20:52 PM  

BullBearMS: HempHead: Saiga410: HempHead: Google will never build cars.

They don't need to sell cars to make money.  They just need to sell subsystems.  Like Bosh and injectors and sensors.

Google has only ever sold ads.

Does a negative income count?

In its most recent quarterly earnings report, the company said it incurred a more than $1.3 billion operating loss in its "Other Bets" category


Only a Republican from Mississippi would think Google gives a flying shiat about a $1billion loss in pursuing emerging tech, lmao.

Probably the same ppl that think Google is just an "ad company".

Lol good God. You guys are shiatting all over the Business tab.

And don't call me Shirley.
 
2019-02-18 07:27:12 PM  
When a GUI hits a bug worst case is a reboot.  When a driverless car hits a bug worst case is barreling through a farmer's market.

Methinks google is doing the right thing being paranoid as hell with their tech.
 
2019-02-18 07:27:36 PM  

HempHead: Saiga410: HempHead: Google will never build cars.

They don't need to sell cars to make money.  They just need to sell subsystems.  Like Bosh and injectors and sensors.

Google has only ever sold ads.


Of ~$111B in revenue for 2017, 86% of it came from ads.  While this is a huge majority, it still means google made $15B in revenue from other sources.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles​/​investing/020515/business-google.asp

The reason it is able to sell so many ads is because it has a commanding control of the internet as we know it.  From backbone systems, to chrome, web hosting services, and commanding search on virtually every device we use on a daily basis.  Even Google Apps for Business produces a revenue stream.

Google very quietly shifted from an ad company to an AI company that uses ads for monetization.  Once it develops the AI systems far enough, it could very well start licensing the technology to other car manufacturers.
 
2019-02-18 08:05:02 PM  

Driedsponge: HempHead: Saiga410: HempHead: Google will never build cars.

They don't need to sell cars to make money.  They just need to sell subsystems.  Like Bosh and injectors and sensors.

Google has only ever sold ads.

Of ~$111B in revenue for 2017, 86% of it came from ads.  While this is a huge majority, it still means google made $15B in revenue from other sources.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/​investing/020515/business-google.asp

The reason it is able to sell so many ads is because it has a commanding control of the internet as we know it.  From backbone systems, to chrome, web hosting services, and commanding search on virtually every device we use on a daily basis.  Even Google Apps for Business produces a revenue stream.

Google very quietly shifted from an ad company to an AI company that uses ads for monetization.  Once it develops the AI systems far enough, it could very well start licensing the technology to other car manufacturers.


Basically.

Real, autonomous cars still have a way to go.

Google, one of, if not the, premier AI research team on the planet when you consider Alphabet, and things like DeepMind with AlphaGo and pursuing protein folding, creating Tensorflow, hundreds of research papers published every year on the forefront of the field, numerous environmental ML contributions for greater insight, computer vision, robotics, healthcare, Natural Language Processing, constant algorithmic advances in learning and neural networks, providing tens of millions in grants for programs, the open source tools and development.. etc etc into infinity. It is literally too much to list, and that's just AI.

Why do people think Apple poached Google's head of AI? Apple isn't even close to them in this realm. For that matter, I can't think of anyone else who is FWIW

They don't really care about some startups selling equity for "self delivery cars that reach a max of 25mph". I highly doubt any of those companies will be able to scale to fully autonomous at real speeds, so who cares? They're going to monopolize the 25mph self delivery market? Heh heh heh, good luck with that.

Good history of Xerox though. About the only valuable thing in that link.
 
2019-02-18 08:10:15 PM  
so it would be a parallel PARC.
 
2019-02-18 09:53:54 PM  
This is just stupid, do you know how many trillions have changed hand because of them? How much we have learned because they took a chance and did it first?
 
2019-02-18 09:55:26 PM  

WeedBong420: They're going to monopolize the 25mph self delivery market? Heh heh heh, good luck with that.


Most of the roads in Portland, OR are either 25 or 20 mph.  And for the streets that are posted at 30 or 35, there are parallel routes.  I suspect many urban areas are the same.
 
2019-02-18 10:18:58 PM  

COMALite J: bighairyguy: It should do as least as well as Google Glass.
But how does it compare with M.Night Glass?


Disappointingly and nonsensically.
 
2019-02-18 10:29:05 PM  

HempHead: Google has only ever sold ads.


I got a kick because I'm reading this on my Google smartphone.
 
2019-02-18 11:24:41 PM  

Krieghund: HempHead: Google has only ever sold ads.

I got a kick because I'm reading this on my Google smartphone.


I'm reading this on my Amazon Fire Phone.
 
2019-02-18 11:28:43 PM  

Driedsponge: HempHead: Saiga410: HempHead: Google will never build cars.

They don't need to sell cars to make money.  They just need to sell subsystems.  Like Bosh and injectors and sensors.

Google has only ever sold ads.

Of ~$111B in revenue for 2017, 86% of it came from ads.  While this is a huge majority, it still means google made $15B in revenue from other sources.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/​investing/020515/business-google.asp

The reason it is able to sell so many ads is because it has a commanding control of the internet as we know it.  From backbone systems, to chrome, web hosting services, and commanding search on virtually every device we use on a daily basis.  Even Google Apps for Business produces a revenue stream.

Google very quietly shifted from an ad company to an AI company that uses ads for monetization.  Once it develops the AI systems far enough, it could very well start licensing the technology to other car manufacturers.


The rest of the revenue comes from Google Play.

All of the car manufacturers have already partnered up.  Google, as the article says, is the odd man out.
 
2019-02-18 11:37:57 PM  
Article is dumb on so many levels.

1. Driver-less cars and personal computers have nothing in common other than they are computers. If your personal computer crashes it doesn't really cost anything but some lost time. If your driver-less car crashes it might kill someone. The hardware and software all have to be nearly flawless.

2. The blind guy in Austin was a publicity stunt. I basically couldn't find any info other than the fluff articles that various media outlets reprinted but I'm willing to bet money it was a pre-planned route, they did it with a driver in the car several times before they let the car do it on it's own and they didn't do it except in absolutely perfect conditions.

3. Xerox's investments didn't go to waste. They admitted they were bad at the PC business, were able to invest in Apple and Apple got to take the ideas to market. Xerox made money on that deal.   The article seems to suggest that advancements come in a vacuum and that Xerox somehow lost. Google will almost certainly license the IP, which is probably their plan anyway.

4. All the driver-less start-ups mentioned are a pipe dream and a waste of VC capital. It is doubtful someone will be able to go all-in on driver-less without massive resources like Google or Apple.  Such groups should be focusing on incremental changes instead

5. I think true driver-less will come out of one of the large automakers or possibly Tesla. All of these manufacturers are betting on visual systems and making incremental improvements, first as driver-assist and later as full self driving.  I don't believe LIDAR will ultimately be the answer.
 
2019-02-19 12:23:46 AM  
Here's the problem: The software for self-driving cars isn't like a cure for cancer where whoever gets their first slaps a patent on it and controls it out right for decades. Everyone and their brother is developing this software. Who will google sell it to when all of the car and ride share companies have their own proprietary system?
 
2019-02-19 01:46:54 AM  

HempHead: Saiga410: HempHead: Google will never build cars.

They don't need to sell cars to make money.  They just need to sell subsystems.  Like Bosh and injectors and sensors.

Google has only ever sold ads.


What do you think you'll be looking at while the car drives itself?
 
2019-02-19 02:39:36 AM  

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: Driedsponge: HempHead: Saiga410: HempHead: Google will never build cars.

They don't need to sell cars to make money.  They just need to sell subsystems.  Like Bosh and injectors and sensors.

Google has only ever sold ads.

Of ~$111B in revenue for 2017, 86% of it came from ads.  While this is a huge majority, it still means google made $15B in revenue from other sources.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/​investing/020515/business-google.asp

The reason it is able to sell so many ads is because it has a commanding control of the internet as we know it.  From backbone systems, to chrome, web hosting services, and commanding search on virtually every device we use on a daily basis.  Even Google Apps for Business produces a revenue stream.

Google very quietly shifted from an ad company to an AI company that uses ads for monetization.  Once it develops the AI systems far enough, it could very well start licensing the technology to other car manufacturers.

The rest of the revenue comes from Google Play.

All of the car manufacturers have already partnered up.  Google, as the article says, is the odd man out.


And yet, who is anywhere as close as Waymo/Google is to a fully autonomous car, with millions of test miles under their belts?
 
2019-02-19 05:16:05 AM  
I can think of some pretty big applications for driverless vehicles in the trucking industry that could probably work today.

One is getting rid of "yard dogs" whose job is moving trailers around from a loading dock to a storage position in a parking lot. They never go out on a street so you can keep the speeds at 15 mph or less and don't have to worry about lots of traffic confusing things.

Another is running autopilot on interstate highways in rural areas.
 
2019-02-19 08:09:30 AM  
A driverless vehicle that navigates a city at low speed should be a viable business, IMO. Max out at 35 mph and you're golden for most cities. It can grow from there.
 
2019-02-19 08:37:39 AM  

Interceptor1: A driverless vehicle that navigates a city at low speed should be a viable business, IMO. Max out at 35 mph and you're golden for most cities. It can grow from there.


Because people are irrational, I bet major U.S. cities are going to vigorously fight driverless vehicles for reasons.
 
2019-02-19 08:41:48 AM  

thornhill: Here's the problem: The software for self-driving cars isn't like a cure for cancer where whoever gets their first slaps a patent on it and controls it out right for decades. Everyone and their brother is developing this software. Who will google sell it to when all of the car and ride share companies have their own proprietary system?


Get certified first then petition Congress to mandate it's use.
 
2019-02-19 08:46:55 AM  

thornhill: Interceptor1: A driverless vehicle that navigates a city at low speed should be a viable business, IMO. Max out at 35 mph and you're golden for most cities. It can grow from there.

Because people are irrational, I bet major U.S. cities are going to vigorously fight driverless vehicles for reasons.


Sadly, I agree. After some politician figures out he/she can make money on advertising on the vehicle it'll take off though. Money always gets its way here.

Seven people were killed by driverless ads this year, but we made money off of it so we're good.
 
2019-02-19 09:48:26 AM  

sotua: TedCruz'sCrazyDad: Driedsponge: HempHead: Saiga410: HempHead: Google will never build cars.

They don't need to sell cars to make money.  They just need to sell subsystems.  Like Bosh and injectors and sensors.

Google has only ever sold ads.

Of ~$111B in revenue for 2017, 86% of it came from ads.  While this is a huge majority, it still means google made $15B in revenue from other sources.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/​investing/020515/business-google.asp

The reason it is able to sell so many ads is because it has a commanding control of the internet as we know it.  From backbone systems, to chrome, web hosting services, and commanding search on virtually every device we use on a daily basis.  Even Google Apps for Business produces a revenue stream.

Google very quietly shifted from an ad company to an AI company that uses ads for monetization.  Once it develops the AI systems far enough, it could very well start licensing the technology to other car manufacturers.

The rest of the revenue comes from Google Play.

All of the car manufacturers have already partnered up.  Google, as the article says, is the odd man out.

And yet, who is anywhere as close as Waymo/Google is to a fully autonomous car, with millions of test miles under their belts?


Google made claims about self driving being a problem that was solvable in the short term that simply were not true.

In 2011, soon after Google first told the world about the robocars it had secretly been developing, it promised that the vehicles would be able to "drive anywhere a car can legally drive." Its timeframe for delivering the technology was generally understood to be in the neighborhood of five years. For example, in a 2014 Wall Street Journal article, project director Chris Urmson was quoted as saying he was hoping "to field a fully autonomous car" by the end of the decade.

Google now realizes that this is a problem that will not be solved in the short term. They've been publicly saying that what they initially thought would take five years will take several more decades to solve.
 
2019-02-19 10:55:47 PM  

StatelyGreekAutomaton: HempHead: Saiga410: HempHead: Google will never build cars.

They don't need to sell cars to make money.  They just need to sell subsystems.  Like Bosh and injectors and sensors.

Google has only ever sold ads.

What do you think you'll be looking at while the car drives itself?


Netflix.
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report