Fiat Chrysler, Google partnering on self-driving prototypes based on Pacifica minivan

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 33
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member

    macxpress said:
    I can't see this as this being marketed as a "Google Car", but rather a self-driving Minivan with Google Technology in it. 

    I'm still not fully convinced Apple is making its own car, but rather just making software for a car and they're looking for a partner to put their software into. Its VERY expensive to create and manufacture your own car. They'd be better off just partnering with someone to use their technology. 
    Thing is Apple is much better at hardware than they are at software. And their strength is supply chain. I'm very skeptical that any manufacturer would partner with Apple on car software. In order for it to be a money maker for Apple they'd need to be in a lot of different cars and I doubt BMW and Ford would agree to share the same software tech in their vehicles. 

    I don't really agree on that. System level software and microcode, the not sexy part of software (and what many people classify as systems engineering) is what's mostly used in cars and Apple's pretty good at that.
  • Reply 22 of 33
    irelandireland Posts: 17,798member
    foggyhill said:
    Wow, that's a staid butt ugly car.
    Google want to be the OS in all cars that aren't Tesla or Apple. They won't get there, but that's their goal would be my guess. Cars would run Android and Apple's car would run carOS etc. Tesla would run their own software, as would most luxury car brands. This is not the phone business however so it'll be interesting to see how it works out in the marketplace.

    And Apple is certainly building their own car. I'm 100% convinced. Too much smoke.
    edited May 2016 palomine
  • Reply 23 of 33
    MnMarkMnMark Posts: 22member
    Well a good looking car-truck/nav like that will have people lined up. This is so totally not the market - either someone is being silly with demographics or as stated above this is just a van that is testing gear or systems.rob53 said:
    macxpress said:

    Why wouldn't an everyday consumer want one? Thats like saying a Tesla isn't for the general public. 
    I for one will never trust a self-driving vehicle unless it runs on rails. I trust myself driving whenever and wherever I feel it's safe to drive. The only time a self-driving vehicle will work is when all vehicles are self-driving and they're limited to special roads but then you might as well take the train. There are much more important things to design in this world than self-driving cars. These are for Disneyland.

    Go ahead and flame me but let's get real. There's already been a low speed crash, what happens when there's a high speed crash where people die. Who's going to be responsible? No fault insurance? Give me a break, the courts will go after the manufacturer because the idiot behind the wheel is a computer. Talk about lots of new legislation the courts and government have no clue about ....
    I honestly don't think good self driving software and hardware well integrated is more dangerous than humans. I mean, if you are a 'good' driver (and of course even good drivers make mistakes or have lapses) you must worry about the other people on the road. And theoretically a driverless car would have a much better sense of what's going on. Give me self driving cars any day over drunk drivers and the other assorted maniacs that I pass on The 5 every day.
  • Reply 24 of 33
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    ireland said:
    foggyhill said:
    Wow, that's a staid butt ugly car.
    Google want to be the OS in all cars that aren't Tesla or Apple. They won't get there, but that's their goal would be my guess. Cars would run Android and Apple's car would run carOS etc. Tesla would run their own software, as would most luxury car brands. This is not the phone business however so it'll be interesting to see how it works out in the marketplace.

    And Apple is certainly building their own car. I'm 100% convinced. Too much smoke.
    If Cars makers allow that, giving up that control, they're dumb as bricks, simple as that.
  • Reply 25 of 33
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,096member
    So it's looking like I was right to begin with. This is just a prototyping program, not the pending market availability of a consumer vehicle. 

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/05/03/google-fiat-ink-deal-make-100-self-driving-minivans/83877878/

    "Google will collaborate with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles to put its self-driving car technology into 100 Pacifica minivans, the CEOs of both companies told USA TODAY.

    The vehicles will be used to turbocharge Google's seven-year-old autonomous car program. For Fiat Chrysler, the agreement provides a technological crash course in what it takes to transform a standard vehicle into an autonomous one.

    Google and other tech companies "are not my enemy, these are people who will help us shape the next phase of the automotive industry," Fiat Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne said by phone. Fiat shares (FCAU) gained 3% to $8.20 after USA TODAY reported on the deal late Tuesday.

    The partnership represents the first time Google’s team will be sharing with a major automaker information on how to integrate some of its secretive self-driving-car technology. Its existing fleet consists of a few dozen Lexus SUVs modified by Google staffers as well as a few two-person prototypes built in-house."

  • Reply 26 of 33
    brakkenbrakken Posts: 687member
    A Chrysler running on Android. 
    Great combination.
    it will be a smash hit! (and run)
  • Reply 27 of 33
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member

    This:




    And This:


  • Reply 28 of 33
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    http://bgr.com/2016/04/25/tesla-autopilot-safety-elon-musk/

    It looks like even semi-autonomous cars are safer than cars driven by humans only.
  • Reply 29 of 33
    hentaiboyhentaiboy Posts: 1,252member
    jdunys said:
    tzeshan said:
    Do you know hardware of making car is completely different from making iPhone? 
    Isn't it what they said before the iPhone came out? Isn't it what they said before the watch came out?

    Techonology is technology is technology. If Tesla can do it...
    You may own a phone that's assembled in China. Would you trust you and your family's lives to a car that's assembled there?
  • Reply 30 of 33
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    quinney said:
    http://bgr.com/2016/04/25/tesla-autopilot-safety-elon-musk/

    It looks like even semi-autonomous cars are safer than cars driven by humans only.
    Anyone who has driven more than a mile knows humans are horrible drivers and I include myself in that, though it may take me 100 miles to find out since I'm using a sample of 1 in that case :-) so it takes longer for the proof to appear.

    They could sensor the crap out of car, put 20 redundant processors, communicate with other vehicules and the environment (road, signs, weather info, even pedestrians if they allow it, etc). When the flood of info coming from everywhere is layered together, you could create an absurdly safe car.

    That would like hundreds of pairs of eyes scanning the road, feeling it, receiving info about what's around and ahead without ever losing focus. That people think they're up to be better than that, except maybe race car drivers going at the limit of traction and speed, is kinda funny.

     Only total chaos, say a child jumping in front of a car from between park cars, could lead to fatalities or major injuries.
    edited May 2016
  • Reply 31 of 33
    waterrocketswaterrockets Posts: 1,231member
    ireland said:
    foggyhill said:
    Wow, that's a staid butt ugly car.
    Google want to be the OS in all cars that aren't Tesla or Apple. 
    I'm not convinced of this. I think Google just wants your eyeballs on a screen instead of the road. If they disrupt transportation with the convenience of individual trips, but without driving, then I think it's possible that's the end-game.

    Look at Google Fiber. They don't want to be a world-dominating service provider. They're clearly disrupting existing services to force them to bump bandwidth, and again get more eyeballs on screens. Once most of their customers are on a 300Mbps connection, I can't imagine they'll be expanding Google Fiber.

    It could be the same with self-driving cars. They are just trying to kick-start the industry so they can get the eyeballs. There will be a lot of fallout though, as younger drivers care less and less about cars, the auto industry could collapse into building a few basic models for self-driving, with nobody giving a flying flip what kind of vehicle pulls up to the curb to pick them up, as long as they can stare at their phone while traveling.
  • Reply 32 of 33
    Reminds me of a cell phone named RokR with Apple software on it. Gave Apple a chance to test out the idea of iTunes and popularity, while also delaying Motorola from developing it's own MP3 player... and then WHAM, Apple came out with a device of it's own and smashed it all. All this is doing is giving Google a chance to test out their product without having to manufacture the entire car, while it develops and tests the next big thing.
    Actually your mistaken. The Rockr used a stripped down version of flip phone Razer. It's functionality was slow, it synced far less and saved nowhere near a gig. 

    Also Apple wrung it's hands of the marketing and "Hello Moto" never sold. 

    This is car is happening. Part of the secret I believe is less about surprise and more perfecting the assembly. Cars are not that difficult to make. If UAW is left out, t
  • Reply 33 of 33
    Actually your mistaken. The Rockr used a stripped down version of flip phone Razer. It's functionality was slow, it synced far less and saved nowhere near a gig. 

    Also Apple wrung it's hands of the marketing and "Hello Moto" never sold. 

    This is car is happening. Part of the secret I believe is less about surprise and more perfecting the assembly. Cars are not that difficult to make when your talking about a company that has rarely made its own products. 

    There are other factors too that Apple will have a lead on the actual experience. Batteries. 

    Tesla will ill probably be out of business by 2019 and thier gigs factories liability.

    an example of why they shut down. Elon had the suv in late production and then insisted on Delorian doors which have major failure problems. Gravity and Hydrolics  are tricky and they've pre sold more than GM or Ford could pump out. One of the major tech companies will buy it. 

    I I hope it's not Apple and that Apple will leverage its great scale world and distribution.

    And iPhones are very hard and tedious to assemble. 

    The he fear is stupid. In 100 years it'll be illegal to drive without the car having autonomy because of insurance. The more expensive it gets the less cars above 35,000 get sold.

    Also it's unveiling may go in a different direction for Apple. The scrutiny government agency impose on autonomy and ignorance of it will produce photos long before one could bought. 


    They had no leverage in TV and they've decided to see what happens in the OTA experiment which is smart. Hulu might money but the bottom line remains the same.

    If grandpa can't watch Wheel of Fortune and Nightly news live and same day Apple won't launch this rumored service. They could around this in the way the Xbox one did but that's unlikely considering how Apple uses and sells its accessory.

     Sling is too slow for a Comcast subscriber and while cheaper it feels cheap. Hulu fares better I think and when the FCC frees up the set top box t

Sign In or Register to comment.