|
MikeCrotch posted:I'm pretty sure Google found out about this whole thing through someone doing database forensics and discovering that Levandowski has downloaded 14,000 onto external media in a suspect way, just before leaving the company. Also their manufacturer calling them and saying "uh Uber just asked us to make literally the exact same LIDAR part we made for you and we are telling you so we don't get sued for giving other people your IP, you may want to check this out" puppy: 
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
axeil posted:Also their manufacturer calling them and saying "uh Uber just asked us to make literally the exact same LIDAR part we made for you and we are telling you so we don't get sued for giving other people your IP, you may want to check this out"
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
aware of dog posted:I'm no expert, but Uber's future seems to be dependent on the success of its self-driving cars, and I can't imagine investors will be too happy about their losing the case and having to start all over. If investors lose confidence and start pulling out, they're toast. Lol investors can't just pull out. Uber isn't public. The investors are all going down with the ship.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
not to mention that if uber's imaginary future is a world where people rent out their privately owned vehicles so that uber can turn a profit... then why do people need uber? outside of a few super dense urban markets where car ownership is actively disincentivized, most people in america use uber because they want an alternative to driving their own vehicle. like every single time i use uber, it's so i can go to a social event and drink without worrying about a DUI. if i owned my own robot car, if ownership of robot cars is this widespread, then i or others wouldn't need uber or any taxi service at all. this is when people start talking about public fleets of vehicles and being able to divest from the personally owned automobile but that's so far in the future that it's not worthy of speculation with regards to uber's timeframe of inevitable collapse
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Alsup is so good. Uber must have shat themselves when they drew him as judge. I looked this up. He learned Java so he could preside over Oracle v. Google and know what he's doing. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:no, tesla and the other actual for real car makers are making quiet progress and will probably be the first to market with a fully automated vehicle See also: people hyped themselves up that Tesla's Model 3 would be the first "affordable" (read: only as expensive as a pretty typical car) electric car with decent range. Turns out Chevy released their Bolt several months ago, with slightly better range and basically the same price the Model 3 was targeted at, while the Model 3 still isn't really in production. Turns out no amount of trying to crush unions and hype yourself up as a disruptor is enough to make up your disadvantages against a full on auto manufacturer. Oh also the Tesla interior looks like this (which Elon Musk claimed was neccesary for the cost iirc):  While the Chevy looks like a normal car that doesn't shove all indicators and controls onto a single screen: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
fishmech posted:See also: people hyped themselves up that Tesla's Model 3 would be the first "affordable" (read: only as expensive as a pretty typical car) electric car with decent range. Turns out Chevy released their Bolt several months ago, with slightly better range and basically the same price the Model 3 was targeted at, while the Model 3 still isn't really in production. Turns out no amount of trying to crush unions and hype yourself up as a disruptor is enough to make up your disadvantages against a full on auto manufacturer. I'm not sure if not being first to market will matter for Tesla, they've got a strong brand identity in the electric space. As far as interior design goes, that has nothing to do with being an electric vehicle. Different car brands have different looking interiors. Tesla's "thing" is having all indicators on a central console panel. Chevy's design doesn't have that. A Mazda doesn't look the same as a Honda which doesn't look the same as a Tesla, etc. I don't think that's a fair criticism of Tesla's strategy (although if you personally don't like it, it's a fair argument for why you'd prefer one over the other).
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
axeil posted:
Uh, no. All current Tesla models have a secondary display in the normal "instrument panel" area for the most important info. The Model 3 interior is a radical departure for Teslas, it's lovely, bare, and poorly designed. Here's the Model S interior for instance: fishmech fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
call to action posted:Isn't Uber's/Otto's tech the only real competitor to Google/Waymo? Not only are they not the only competitor, they are by the most recent report I've seen woefully far behind Waymo...and everyone else. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/04/uber-google-waymo-self-driving-cars quote:According to driving statistics compiled by an analyst firm, Uber is the worst of six major self-driving car companies testing its vehicles in the state.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
fishmech posted:See also: people hyped themselves up that Tesla's Model 3 would be the first "affordable" (read: only as expensive as a pretty typical car) electric car with decent range. Turns out Chevy released their Bolt several months ago, with slightly better range and basically the same price the Model 3 was targeted at, while the Model 3 still isn't really in production. Turns out no amount of trying to crush unions and hype yourself up as a disruptor is enough to make up your disadvantages against a full on auto manufacturer. When the Bolt started getting 5 star reviews and "Car of the Year" acclaim I thought that maybe Tesla was going to be in a lot of trouble. Chevrolet is a massive car company and will have none of the startup production difficulties that Tesla will have. It looked like Chevrolet beat Tesla to market in producing a great electric car at a consumer price point. And yet it's been a few months and I've heard no buzz about the Bolt, never seen one on the street and seen no advertising. Does Chevrolet not care? It doesn't feel like they're giving it any push at all and they're sending the product out to die. Is this going to end up being a classic example of disruption where the old company is so focused on their profitable old products that they neglect to push their new innovation? I don't follow cars very closely so maybe I'm missing something, but I feel a bit baffled by what is going on. Edit: Ok it's not just my gut feeling, the Bolt is actually selling badly. quote:Why Chevrolet Bolt, 238-mile all-electric car, isn’t selling well Femtosecond fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:it's odd to me that people think software developers will be the bigger innovators in the car industry than car manufacturers themselves Granted cars are a lot harder than either of those things, but even there I think the idea is that Google/Uber would be integrating their tech onto existing cars from car manufacturers, not making brand new cars themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:Edit: edit: okay the article says that yeah the cars are just sitting there. Weird considering that the Leaf and Teslas have sold plenty well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:When the Bolt started getting 5 star reviews and "Car of the Year" acclaim I thought that maybe Tesla was going to be in a lot of trouble. Chevrolet is a massive car company and will have none of the startup production difficulties that Tesla will have. It looked like Chevrolet beat Tesla to market in producing a great electric car at a consumer price point. And yet it's been a few months and I've heard no buzz about the Bolt, never seen one on the street and seen no advertising. Does Chevrolet not care? It doesn't feel like they're giving it any push at all and they're sending the product out to die. Of course it's not going to sell well or be particularly popular, it's still a car that at best costs you $30,000 after the tax break for overall passenger space etc on par with cars that sell for $17,000 or so like the Ford Focus. But getting to $30,000 after the tax rebate is bringing electric cars with serious range (200+ miles) far closer to affordable than current vehicles were. Most current electric vehicles at a similar price only offer 50-100 mile ranges more or less. And to get 200+ mile range you needed to get up to a Tesla Model S (starting at $70,000) or Model X (starting at $90,000 miles) Cicero posted:People said the same thing about the iPod and iPhone, and there 'software companies' dominated audio/consumer electronics companies and then phone companies. What? Apple is a hardware company, and has been for over 40 years. What are you smoking? And they never "dominated" phones either, lol. Cicero posted:
Leafs cost significantly less in tandem with having lower range, they've also been for sale much longer. Tesla hasn't sold very many cars either, their biggest year so far was 2016 when they shipped about 90,000 vehicles across all their lines. fishmech fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
fishmech posted:What? Apple is a hardware company, and has been for over 40 years. What are you smoking? quote:And they never "dominated" phones either, lol. Cicero fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Tesla hasn't sold very many cars either, their biggest year so far was 2016 when they shipped about 90,000 vehicles across all their lines.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
fishmech posted:See also: people hyped themselves up that Tesla's Model 3 would be the first "affordable" (read: only as expensive as a pretty typical car) electric car with decent range. Turns out Chevy released their Bolt several months ago, with slightly better range and basically the same price the Model 3 was targeted at, while the Model 3 still isn't really in production. Turns out no amount of trying to crush unions and hype yourself up as a disruptor is enough to make up your disadvantages against a full on auto manufacturer. Don't forget that Musk is claiming production rates greater than that of Toyota (the gold standard) or Honda at similar quality levels right off the bat. Why is it that tech companies presume that making actual things is easy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Is this because GM has had trouble making enough or are they really just sitting on lots? IMO the Bolt price being roughly the same as a Volt does not help it. I bought a Volt because the ~50 mile range means I get most of the work week without having to charge it overnight, and the gas option means longer distance travel can be done without planning or considering charge stations. I've owned the Volt for about 3.5 months and only filled the gas tank once, and even then I probably didn't need to thanks to an unexpected charging station at my destination.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Don't forget that Musk is claiming production rates greater than that of Toyota (the gold standard) or Honda at similar quality levels right off the bat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I was trying to group tech companies together, the point is that Apple managed to be incredibly successful pivoting into new areas where incumbents were highly skeptical that they'd beat 'experience' (see: infamous quote from that guy at Palm). But you said software companies. And uh, Apple was equally unsuccessful at pivots in the past, for instance their attempts to move into set-top boxes and standalone digital cameras. Not to mention how their original core product category cratered so badly in the market. Hell even the iPod had a lot of problems initially because Steve Jobs wanted it to be tied to Apple's computer hardware - they would only support using it over FireWire with Apple computers in a time period when Apple computer marketshare had collapsed to ~3%. Well over 90% of potential customers straight up couldn't use an iPod if they wanted, because of Steve's weird ideas. Luckily, people managed to push back and get USB and Windows support implemented for later iPods to make it usable by a wide audience, but it nearly ended up dead in the cradle. "Dominating profits" means approximately jack and poo poo. Market share is what matters, customers don't care how many gold plated yachts a company's CEO could theoretically afford. Cicero posted:90k is actually quite good considering they only had two models that cost what, like 70k minimum? The Nissan Leaf is the best selling electric car ever with 260,000 sold (after 5 years of first Japan and then worldwide availability) as of the end of 2016 though. If you add together all the Tesla cars built together it only slightly surpasses that one model because eg they'd only sold ~150,000 Model S cars by the same point. (2016's production by Tesla was a massive increase from the previous year and more). None of these electric cars are selling particularly well in comparison to normal cars, it shouldn't be any surprise that people aren't seeing a bunch of Bolts around when it's only been out a few months,
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Zachack posted:IMO the Bolt price being roughly the same as a Volt does not help it. I bought a Volt because the ~50 mile range means I get most of the work week without having to charge it overnight, and the gas option means longer distance travel can be done without planning or considering charge stations. I've owned the Volt for about 3.5 months and only filled the gas tank once, and even then I probably didn't need to thanks to an unexpected charging station at my destination. Yeah I remember when the Volt was first announced I thought it was far more attractive than a pure-EV vehicle and yet I still didn't get one when I got a new car (a Chevy even) because the additional cost just didn't make much of a sense from a savings perspective. Possibly people aren't buying the Bolt because it's "just" a Chevy while Tesla has some better branding so it's seen as more of a status symbol, like the Prius back in the early 00s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
axeil posted:Possibly people aren't buying the Bolt because it's "just" a Chevy while Tesla has some better branding so it's seen as more of a status symbol, like the Prius back in the early 00s. Nobody's buying the Tesla replacement, because you can't actually buy the Tesla replacement yet. And people don't buy any electric cars at a particularly high rate. The Bolt is selling at fairly normal rate for an electric car, which is not a large amount. If you compare it to any normal vehicle it looks very bad, but when you compare it to the actual competition it has, it's fairly typical, especially considering the price point it's in (again: the Nissan Leaf is selling more, but it costs up to $8,000 less when you factor in the tax rebates both it and the Bolt are approved for, in exchange for half the range. That's almost 25% cheaper at the prices involved).
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
fishmech posted:"Dominating profits" means approximately jack and poo poo. Market share is what matters, customers don't care how many gold plated yachts a company's CEO could theoretically afford. quote:The Nissan Leaf is the best selling electric car ever with 260,000 sold (after 5 years of first Japan and then worldwide availability) as of the end of 2016 though. If you add together all the Tesla cars built together it only slightly surpasses that one model because eg they'd only sold ~150,000 Model S cars by the same point. (2016's production by Tesla was a massive increase from the previous year and more). None of these electric cars are selling particularly well in comparison to normal cars, it shouldn't be any surprise that people aren't seeing a bunch of Bolts around when it's only been out a few months,
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
I don't think modern cars are a status symbol, they all look generic, lacking the character of classic cars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I like how you just ignored the part where the other tech company that 'disrupted' the phone scene incumbents managed to be phenomenally successful at the exact metric you're talking about. Can always trust Fishmech to ignore any data he doesn't like. Are you really not aware that all those "google" phones are manufactured by the phone scene incumbents, who have barely changed since before Android came out? Or do you think Google actually bought out all of Samsung, LG, Huawei, Lenovo, HTC, etc? They provide software for the hardware manufacturers, not the hardware itself. They booted out Microsoft and Palm as OS-producers for smartphones, but when those were dominant the market was also a far smaller luxury market. They booted out Nokia's Symbian which ran on most of these manufacturers as well as Nokia's own phones, but in large part Symbian had collapsed on its own due to an inability for the companies that used it to keep development going in ways it needed to go, and then Nokia's own problems with their own phones hurting it as well. And Blackberry devices were barely smartphones to begin with, since the classic Blackberry OS couldn't really handle modern app design, and their attempts at providing a new OS that could happened far too late and on very trashy phones. To wit: Android taking over had basically nothing to do with "software companies disrupting hardware companies" - the things they replaced were primarily solutions from software companies (do remember, Palm OS software was spun off from Palm hardware company in the early 2000s for no good reason, though it led to increased licensing of Palm OS on first PDAs by other manufacturers and then tablets). It was simply one software provider becoming the preferred vendor to an array of hardware manufacturers that previously used others. I'm not sure what you're getting at. The point is Tesla doesn't have particularly high sales, and indeed no electric car has particularly high sales. fishmech fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
super sweet best pal posted:I don't think modern cars are a status symbol, they all look generic, lacking the character of classic cars. I love the look of my BRZ, but for the most part you're absolutely right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Cicero posted:People said the same thing about the iPod and iPhone, and there 'software companies' dominated audio/consumer electronics companies and then phone companies. i dunno if i'd call apple a software company in the same vein of microsoft, apple has always relied on hardware. apple's signature product wasn't the mac os, it was the mac
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I was trying to group tech companies together, the point is that Apple managed to be incredibly successful pivoting into new areas where incumbents were highly skeptical that they'd beat 'experience' (see: infamous quote from that guy at Palm).
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Are you really not aware that all those "google" phones are manufactured by the phone scene incumbents, who have barely changed since before Android came out? Or do you think Google actually bought out all of Samsung, LG, Huawei, Lenovo, HTC, etc? They provide software for the hardware manufacturers, not the hardware itself. They booted out Microsoft and Palm as OS-producers for smartphones, but when those were dominant the market was also a far smaller luxury market. They booted out Nokia's Symbian which ran on most of these manufacturers as well as Nokia's own phones, but in large part Symbian had collapsed on its own due to an inability for the companies that used it to keep development going in ways it needed to go, and then Nokia's own problems with their own phones hurting it as well. And Blackberry devices were barely smartphones to begin with, since the classic Blackberry OS couldn't really handle modern app design, and their attempts at providing a new OS that could happened far too late and on very trashy phones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Cicero posted:The original thing I was responding to was someone being skeptical of Google/Uber/tech companies bring successful in the self-driving car space because they don't have as much experience making cars as car companies. But they don't need to make the cars themselves to be successful with their tech in that space, just like Google has had success in the smartphone space without selling many phones themselves. the thing about a self driving car is that it's 5% self driving tech and 95% car. natural assumption is that the people who know the 95% are going to be more successful in the market than the people who specialize in the 5% google isn't even developing their own car anymore, they're just going to license the self driving part to whatever automakers don't have an acceptable in house solution. you can point towards waymo's success and i can point towards uber's failure if we want to trade anecdotes, meanwile there's far more car manufacturers involved in this race than software/tech companies personally i think the reason that SV tech firms are seen as more successful than established giant industrial firms is because SV is far sexier and has far more hype than a steady, old money performer boner confessor fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
stop_hes_already_dead.avi https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/uber-said-to-use-sophisticated-software-to-defraud-drivers-passengers/ Ars posted:Uber said to use “sophisticated” software to defraud drivers, passengers
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Cicero posted:The original thing I was responding to was someone being skeptical of Google/Uber/tech companies bring successful in the self-driving car space because they don't have as much experience making cars as car companies. But they don't need to make the cars themselves to be successful with their tech in that space, just like Google has had success in the smartphone space without selling many phones themselves. You can't just slap an OS on a car and expect it to self-drive safely, you'll need very in-depth experience with every car you intend to place the software in, with all the sensors as well as the drivetrain and handling characteristics. Otherwise, people will die. Meanwhile an OS not properly optimized for a phone just means maybe your phone runs a little worse, who cares? It's a major impediment to Google who has a real self-driving car program, it's an insurmountable obstacle to Uber who only has such a program on the basis of stolen tech and a vague intention of appealing to investors. It'll be somewhere in between that for most other companies that aren't already car makers, some will be more towards the Google end which is really a best case scenario, others will be essentially fraudsters like Uber. In reality, the people who actually implement it will probably be the car manufacturers themselves, each doing their own thing, because cars are nowhere near as uniform as a smartphone hardware is. Honestly my expectation is that if there's going to be any third party "self driving" platform thing, it'll be specifically a product meant for between-car communications for optional improved efficiency or something like that. It won't be the thing actually handling the self-driving tasks, that needs to be tied in so well to the car that a common platform seems neither necessary nor practical, absent some sort of government regulation demanding that the driving hardware itself be aligned to a common platform across manufacturers. You ain't gonna be installing a social network browser app on the self-driving hardware after all, at least not if there's any sanity left in the designers of said hardware.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Okay? This is exactly my point. Google has sold very few phones themselves, they just provide the software and services for others, yet they're still successful in the smartphone space. Waymo is going the same way and Uber would likely still partner with a manufacturer for the car, which they would put their tech in and then sell rides on. I don't think people expect either to make their own competitive cars, at least not anytime soon. this is my point too more or less so i dont know why you're trying to argue with me outside of bored contrarianism
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
axeil posted:stop_hes_already_dead.avi That's amazing. This is the most excitement Twitter could drum up in response, which is really nothing more than what's in the headline: Twitter co-founder Ev Williams is selling 30 percent of his stock for ‘personal’ reasons quote:Twitter has long been seen as a possible target for an activist investor; the company’s single-class stock structure makes it vulnerable to an outsider with a big wallet who could come in and start buying shares (and thus, votes). An outsider coming in and changing how Twitter is run might not be the worst thing in the world. Who knows, maybe one day they could turn a profit! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
axeil posted:stop_hes_already_dead.avi drat. It's evil turtles all the way down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:drat. It's evil turtles all the way down. So who's gonna play Kalanick in the Adam McKay movie about Uber? E: also, the FDA just reversed course and gave 23andMe approval to sell disease-predisposition tests aware of dog fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Doggles posted:That's amazing. Buy it with the explicit purpose of banning Trump
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
aware of dog posted:So who's gonna play Kalanick in the Adam McKay movie about Uber? What was the rationale before for denying them? Is this a good thing or bad thing for everyone? Do we finally have those clinics from GATTACA where we can take our SO's DNA to be tested?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
axeil posted:What was the rationale before for denying them? they're kind of dancing on the line of "providing health advice" but not in a shady way. like there's two reasons to get a genetic test, to see what your genetic heritage is for funsies and to see your predisposition for potentially genetically determined diseases. but if private company send you a reading that says "you have marker xyz which is associated with a 37% increase in likelihood for alzheimers" is that medical advice, or isn't it? this is why they had to split their product into three lines, the ancestry edition, the genetic health edition, and the both at once edition. and it's not so much that they were denied, but that they werent in regulatory compliance of FDA rules until now
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
axeil posted:What was the rationale before for denying them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 21:46
|
|
