Redesigning the Industry- The future of the auto industry

[jpd80]

 

Good point sir. The technical part is relatively easy. There are lots of techniques today for GIS data management. But to make all this up to date map data work well with autonomous cars, coordination between carmakers and governments that maintain roads and other infrastructure will be critical.

 

Everyone knows about the challenges on the government and regulatory side of things. Me especially, as I work for the federal government. But governments everywhere understand the benefits of autonomous cars for their citizens. So I think Bob Lutz' predictions about autonomous cars being the norm will come true by the time I retire in 20 years.

The future isn't certain with Autonomous roll out, it's being driven by those with a vested interest

and not so much by customer request, so will be interesting to see how many end up trusting it

in these early iterations....a lot more development and physical road support is needed

[CurtisH]

There are 4 or 5 regular posters here who really understand software development, testing and implementation. And we’re telling you this won’t work in the real world.

I suspect the software folks who do think it can work are hackers or folks who only write phone apps and have no experience with mission critical software.

I’m more of an occasional poster. However, I am a software developer and agree that, with current technology, this won’t work in the real world.

[atomcat68]

 

 

 

Consciousness is so thoroughly different from machine learning in part because we are aware of what we are doing; a computer cannot be made 'aware' of the context in which it is making decisions, and thus there will always be edge conditions that the computer does not recognize, and who will be responsible for what happens when those edge conditions are encountered?

This is an excellent description of the current mindset of computers! I don't program computers, but I do work with a great deal of "AI" software in editing and effects programs while film making. Computers have to be told everything, because it can't use intuition or originate an idea. It can't have a plan for irrational behavior of organic creatures either.

 

The ONLY way for fully autonomous cars to work is to be on a separate road with other autonomous cars, but even then it would need some instruction from a street traffic controller but even after all of that, there would still be accidents.

 

As far as the Skynet jokes, I believe it would be much easier to defeat a real life Skynet than terrorists.

[rmc523]

This is an excellent description of the current mindset of computers! I don't program computers, but I do work with a great deal of "AI" software in editing and effects programs while film making. Computers have to be told everything, because it can't use intuition or originate an idea. It can't have a plan for irrational behavior of organic creatures either.

 

The ONLY way for fully autonomous cars to work is to be on a separate road with other autonomous cars, but even then it would need some instruction from a street traffic controller but even after all of that, there would still be accidents.

 

As far as the Skynet jokes, I believe it would be much easier to defeat a real life Skynet than terrorists.

 

Except the thing with Skynet was that by the time we realized what happened, they (the machines) had taken over.

[atomcat68]

But even in the films where they do get a great surprise attack like these films, their plans are always foiled by humans. The Matrix was also defeated too and sucks at life as much as Skynet. Even the best smart movie machine, the Hal 9000 got his plug pulled too.

 

With today's tech, if machines were made to wipe out humans, they'd be mowed down like those idiotic Star Wars robots from the prequels.

 

Even with all the advances in tech, computers often need to bailed out by a person if left alone at any task for a while and will forever need software patches as they can't solve anything on their own.

[tbone]

 

As far as the Skynet jokes, I believe it would be much easier to defeat a real life Skynet than terrorists.

That's because terrorist can be quite resourceful where a computer has to follow the logic.

[atomcat68]

That's because terrorist can be quite resourceful where a computer has to follow the logic.

 

Bingo! Computers have no intuition or imagination.

[jpd80]

If only people would look from their phones while driving........

[SoonerLS]

If only people would look from their phones while driving........

You mean people should actually <gasp> drive while driving? What kind of heretic are you?

[RichardJensen]

I can just imagine myself back in the 50s having similar arguments with people who believed that flying cars were the future.

[mackinaw]

I can just imagine myself back in the 50s having similar arguments with people who believed that flying cars were the future.

 

See this:

 

http://www.autonews.com/article/20171120/MOBILITY/171129980/dude-wheres-my-flying-car

[7Mary3]

Just read the latest installment about the potential impact to auto dealers. Interesting stuff to be sure. To be honest, I really do see a future where autonomous electric cars are the most numerous on our roads and private car ownership becomes something of a rarity. The question is when. There are just too many people who look at this favorably, and it is hard to notice that if you surround yourself with auto enthusiasts. For the average person, having use of a vehicle without having to buy, own, insure, maintain, repair, wash, park, or even drive is quite appealing! The technology is advancing far more rapidly then most anyone thought it would, and now I see it as a question not of 'if', but 'when'. That having been said, I don't see is as 'soon', however. On the technical front, probably the biggest hurdle will be integrating autonomous vehicles with non-autonomous vehicles. This may require dedicated roads or at least traffic lanes. People will adopt the technology quickly if it can deliver safe and convenient transportation. Another problem is what happens to the billions of dollars tied up in car ownership and the industry itself when the wind-down comes. It could have a very negative effect on the economy, at least in the short term. Time will tell.....

 

I am seeing a few things in my area that hint at what is coming. Caltrans has begun re-striping freeways for autonomous cars, and Porsche has opened an 'Experience Center' where you can drive your (or one of their) Porsches on a closed road course.

[silvrsvt]

. For the average person, having use of a vehicle without having to buy, own, insure, maintain, repair, wash, park, or even drive is quite appealing!

 

So what is the point if it costs the same as a traditional model...the one article I posted posed this question:

 

What are people supposed to do in a emergency situation where they have to evacuate an area like what happened during Sandy or Hurricane that hit Houston earlier this year? There isn't going to be enough time for a surge or to get all those people out of those areas.

[7Mary3]

 

So what is the point if it costs the same as a traditional model...the one article I posted posed this question:

 

What are people supposed to do in a emergency situation where they have to evacuate an area like what happened during Sandy or Hurricane that hit Houston earlier this year? There isn't going to be enough time for a surge or to get all those people out of those areas.

 

We are dealing with hypotheticals here, but I think it's a safe bet the costs for the user would be less due to car sharing being an integral part of the model. With autonomous cars, the car/driver ratio would be less, perhaps significantly less.

 

As for evacuations in a natural emergency, it's conceivable a autonomous vehicles would be more efficient in transporting people away from the danger areas. Vehicle to vehicle communication could provide more orderly traffic flow, near perfect and instant information on changing conditions may provide optimal routing. Think of how significant this would be for someone in an unfamiliar area.

 

Again, this is 'pie in the sky' at this point, but consider the possibilities.

[SoonerLS]

There are just too many people who look at this favorably, and it is hard to notice that if you surround yourself with auto enthusiasts. For the average person, having use of a vehicle without having to buy, own, insure, maintain, repair, wash, park, or even drive is quite appealing!

That may be true on the coasts with their densely-packed urban population centers, but it doesn't hold true between the Appalachians and Rockies--and particularly between the Mississippi and Rockies--where the population densities are lower and less centralized. There's a reason we don't have major mass transit systems out here.

 

As for myself, I might could go for a car that can drive itself, but not having a car that's under my control is an absolute non-starter.

[7Mary3]

That may be true on the coasts with their densely-packed urban population centers, but it doesn't hold true between the Appalachians and Rockies--and particularly between the Mississippi and Rockies--where the population densities are lower and less centralized. There's a reason we don't have major mass transit systems out here.

 

As for myself, I might could go for a car that can drive itself, but not having a car that's under my control is an absolute non-starter.

 

The other side of that is less dense areas are easier for autonomous vehicles to navigate, and it's a given these 'transportation providers' will be national. So, is more rural areas the driver/vehicle ratio will be lower than the larger cities, but overall you still have a lot fewer vehicles than you have now on a nationwide basis. It's not mass transit, though it could replace a lot of mass transit.

 

No answer for those who don't wish to take advantage of the service, though with time I think many could be won over.

 

But again, it's all conjecture at this point. If autonomous vehicles can eventually deliver on these promises, they will absolutely be the biggest game-changer in modern times since air travel.

[silvrsvt]

Mass transit is a joke...in the area I live in- we have about 1.2 million people living in about 1100 square miles. I can't even get a bus or alternative transportation to my work place that's 15 miles from my house. If I took Uber just to work-I'd be paying slightly more than what I'm paying for insurance/gas/car payment on an car that costs more than what the average car does. I can get to NYC no problem, but Its far harder to get anywhere locally.

 

If anything your going to need even more cars to get people around (if personal ownership goes away) Its not like this car is going to wait for you while your shopping-its going to go to the next customer.

 

All this reeks of just a way to extract money from customers without anything to show for it-making it a rental economy where nothing is owned. At least with a car I own myself, i can pay for it over 4-5 years and then have that car another 4-5 years (or longer) without payments-help offsetting the costs.

[rperez817]

 

So what is the point if it costs the same as a traditional model.

 

Shared autonomous cars should have a big cost advantage over owning or leasing regular cars. Regular cars stay parked 90% or more of the time. Plus the increased safety from autonomous cars will result in even larger cost savings for society as a whole.

[fordmantpw]

All this reeks of just a way to extract money from customers without anything to show for it-making it a rental economy where nothing is owned. At least with a car I own myself, i can pay for it over 4-5 years and then have that car another 4-5 years (or longer) without payments-help offsetting the costs.

 

Bingo! That's what the world is going to. Look at phones. You don't buy it, you pay a monthly fee, then you turn it in and start the process over again. Look at software. You pay a monthly fee for activation for software as a service (SAAS). Home ownership is going down too.

[silvrsvt]

 

Shared autonomous cars should have a big cost advantage over owning or leasing regular cars. Regular cars stay parked 90% or more of the time. Plus the increased safety from autonomous cars will result in even larger cost savings for society as a whole.

 

How so? Current subscription models are well over $500 range for some of the first ones.

 

Lots of things "sit" without use-

 

A Share Autonomous car will go down the path of least cost-your going to get picked up in something with vinyl or plastic seats (Easy to Clean!) or they are going to be beat to shit on the inside because no one is going to give a fuck about actually taking care of them- I know some people don't do that now- but I actually care for what "my" car looks like.

 

I'm not saying that some form of this stuff won't take place, but I sure as hell don't expect a wholesale transformation of it happening in the next 20 years or so and no one actually owning a car.

[Roland]

 

The other side of that is less dense areas are easier for autonomous vehicles to navigate, and it's a given these 'transportation providers' will be national. So, is more rural areas the driver/vehicle ratio will be lower than the larger cities, but overall you still have a lot fewer vehicles than you have now on a nationwide basis. It's not mass transit, though it could replace a lot of mass transit.

 

No answer for those who don't wish to take advantage of the service, though with time I think many could be won over.

 

But again, it's all conjecture at this point. If autonomous vehicles can eventually deliver on these promises, they will absolutely be the biggest game-changer in modern times since air travel.

 

Again, I think a lot of this overlooks that people aren't just buying least cost transportation, they're buying comfort, convenience, and image. Summoning a vehicle will never be as convenient as simply walking out to your personal vehicle. This is particularly true in lower density areas where there may not be a lot of vehicles queued up. If you happen to request a ride at a bad time you could potentially have a substantial wait.

 

Think about the nature of the interiors that we see in shared transportation - it always trends toward utilitarian and low maintenance because of the way it's going to be used and abused. The exception is rental cars which are inspected after each use and disposed of by the time they become ratty and undesirable. That can't be the case in a "death of automobile ownership" scenario because there won't be a secondary market. I suppose they could be passed down to cheaper services, but remember that currently people are accustomed to being able to get a comfortable, nicely appointed vehicle even at the lowest price points.

 

Remember that people don't just use their vehicles as transportation, they also use them as storage for everything they need when they're travelling. So if Mom wants to go shopping she's going to have to summon a vehicle, install two car seats, load up all the kid stuff and then reserve the vehicle for the entire day so she can keep all that stuff and her shopping in the vehicle in between stops. All this and there's a non-zero chance that it shows up with a footwell full of vomit from the drunk who last used it the previous night.

 

I think there's some potential for transportation services to replace second and third cars as they are adopted for commutes but in a lot of cases people will replace those practical commuter vehicles with more utility or leisure focused vehicles. In fact, I think we'll see a trend of mass transit riders shifting toward individual transportation choices, some of them personally owned.

 

Nobody really wants to use mass transit. They suffer it because of the cost or the hassle of personal vehicles in high density commutes. If you lower the cost and eliminate some of the hassle of the individual transportation option people will move toward it.

[silvrsvt]

 

Bingo! That's what the world is going to. Look at phones. You don't buy it, you pay a monthly fee, then you turn it in and start the process over again. Look at software. You pay a monthly fee for activation for software as a service (SAAS). Home ownership is going down too.

 

A phone is fungible-there is a world of difference between a car that costs on average 30K or more and a phone that is under $1000 bucks that is paid for over 24 month or so-I know I can keep my phone longer than that if needed (that what I did with my iPhone 6+ till the X came out) and pay less on my monthly bill.

 

SAAS makes more sense since its saving you money vs buying the product-I have adobe cloud that is $348 a year ($29.99 a month) vs paying say $900 for Photoshop itself-but I have access to Lightroom, Adobe Pro, etc also for the same price. Office 365 same thing-$50 a year with 5 seats to share with family vs $400 for Office Professional.

 

Home ownership is mostly to due to younger generations being in debt and financial prospects not being as good or delaying "growing up" with living with parents etc.

[fordmantpw]

 

A phone is fungible-there is a world of difference between a car that costs on average 30K or more and a phone that is under $1000 bucks that is paid for over 24 month or so-I know I can keep my phone longer than that if needed (that what I did with my iPhone 6+ till the X came out) and pay less on my monthly bill.

 

SAAS makes more sense since its saving you money vs buying the product-I have adobe cloud that is $348 a year ($29.99 a month) vs paying say $900 for Photoshop itself-but I have access to Lightroom, Adobe Pro, etc also for the same price. Office 365 same thing-$50 a year with 5 seats to share with family vs $400 for Office Professional.

 

Home ownership is mostly to due to younger generations being in debt and financial prospects not being as good or delaying "growing up" with living with parents etc.

 

I'm not necessarily comparing phones and software to cars, just mentioning other areas where folks don't "own" things anymore.

 

SAAS is to keep a constant revenue stream for the software provider, and it looks better to the consumer because it is less up-front cost. In the end, it costs the consumer more, but you do have the latest and greatest! Office 2007 (or even 2003) would still suit 99% of users just fine today. What is the incentive to spend another $2-300 on new software if the old version works just fine. The company I work for is working extra hard to grow our SAAS side of the business for those very reasons. I do appreciate the Adobe cloud because I have used it a couple times for a few months. I had to update some Flash code and I didn't have the software to do it. I paid to rent it because I use it sparingly, but if I used it regularly, I would buy it. In that case, it saved me money, but if I were paying $350/year, it wouldn't.

 

Phones are seen as "throw-away" by many, and they consider that $30/month fee for the phone as part of the deal because they always have to have the latest and greatest. Not to mention the $10/month for protection for that phone they are "borrowing." Music? Pffft, let's just pay $15/month to stream it!

 

Home ownership because the younger generation is in debt? See the above few sentences.

[SoonerLS]

Mass transit is a joke...in the area I live in- we have about 1.2 million people living in about 1100 square miles. I can't even get a bus or alternative transportation to my work place that's 15 miles from my house. If I took Uber just to work-I'd be paying slightly more than what I'm paying for insurance/gas/car payment on an car that costs more than what the average car does. I can get to NYC no problem, but Its far harder to get anywhere locally.

The Oklahoma City metro area has about the same population, but spread out over almost 6,400 sq.mi. There are places where mass transit works (around campus at OU, f'rinstance), and it can work for some tasks (like getting from your apartment to campus), but beyond that it's basically useless. Cars As A Service could help in those scenarios, but that's a relatively small percentage.

If anything your going to need even more cars to get people around (if personal ownership goes away) Its not like this car is going to wait for you while your shopping-its going to go to the next customer.

That also ignores one key point: if you don't change the work schedules of the majority of people in an area, you'll still need at least as many cars. You'll still have X number of people who need to get from their homes to their offices between 6am and 8am, whether they're driving the cars they own or riding around in a CAAS taxi. The idea of "ten people can share one car" only works if those ten people don't have to arrive at ten (or even two) different locations simultaneously...

[RichardJensen]

The question is when.

 

 

The key, key, key question, as pointed out in this video, is that of 'enveloping the world'.

 

You absolutely cannot create autonomous vehicles capable of universal problem solving, and as I've said before, electronics have no secondary awareness; they have no idea what they're doing, therefore they cannot evaluate *obvious* problems.

 

So you are, as this video points out, given the task of filling the entire United States, the fourth largest country on the planet by area, with uniform and uniformly maintained markers for autonomous vehicles, as well as perhaps mandatory markers for other vehicles on the road, etc.

 

It's not going to happen, folks.