I hope they get the self-driving car right. That will save lives and I really want one
Let's say Google car is released today. How long will it take to replace every car in the US? Decades/centuries? It's a pipe dream. Don't forget their are trucks, buses, etc that won't be driverless.
From googles own "ten things we know to be true" :
"It’s best to do one thing really, really well.
We do search. With one of the world’s largest research groups focused exclusively on solving search problems, we know what we do well, and how we could do it better. Through continued iteration on difficult problems, we've been able to solve complex issues and provide continuous improvements to a service that already makes finding information a fast and seamless experience for millions of people. Our dedication to improving search helps us apply what we've learned to new products, like Gmail and Google Maps. Our hope is to bring the power of search to previously unexplored areas and to help people access and use even more of the ever-expanding information in their lives."
Google forgets the only reason it has any significance in the world at all today is because it first had focus.
Google, like Nvidia, tells everyone what it plans to do, exciting the fan base with futuristic ideas. Everyone knows that Google is working on driverless cars. Fewer people realize that every car maker and lots of other companies have been working on the same things, and are likely in a better position to monetize their work.
Just look at phones, tablets, TV boxes, and everything else Google has tried to duplicate, with resounding failure. It's trying lots of things but has very little to show for all this. It still makes the majority of its money from desktop advertising, the same thing it was doing in 2005.
Apple's few new things have each turned into massive new businesses. The iPhone is a $100B business, but iPad is now a $30 billion business just 4 years after it was introduced, iTunes and the App Store are an $18 billion business, Apple TV and accessories are a $6 billion business, and Apple is launching Apple Pay and Watch as entirely new business segments.
Google sells $55 billion of ads and invests in a lot of things that haven't really taken off or have completely flopped. It's all beta concepts that never take flight.
Your right and Apple pay and watch are very exciting.
But Googles approach doesn't have to be successful now, it needs a success somewhere in the future of course, but only when Googles income runs out.
That can take a while.
By trying lots of (interesting) things they can hit the jackpot and become the most dominant company of the future.
If they manage to enhance robotics enough for example Google will rule the world (literally probably). If they enhance AI enough they will rule the world even more.
So it isn't strange that they are trying while the money lasts.
Your right and Apple pay and watch are very exciting.
But Googles approach doesn't have to be successful now, it needs a success somewhere in the future of course, but only when Googles income runs out.
That can take a while.
By trying lots of (interesting) things they can hit the jackpot and become the most dominant company of the future.
If they manage to enhance robotics enough for example Google will rule the world (literally probably). If they enhance AI enough they will rule the world even more.
So it isn't strange that they are trying while the money lasts.
Execution is an integral part of making a bet successful. Google isn't short on great ideas. But they have not shown the necessary discipline to execute properly on that great idea.
You are right that no revenue stream lasts forever. There needs to be something else that can take its place once that revenue stream dries up. But spending money just because it can is just not the way to go about things. A time may come when Google will find itself in want of money to invest in a venture but its previous spending binge have left it with insufficient cash to invest. Just because the pot of money is larger, that does not mean that a business can afford to abandon all semblance of financial discipline.
Robotics may have the potential to be huge one day. But just because Google bought a robotics company, one should not speculate that Google will one day rule the world or reach a $1 trillion market cap. Google's record of execution just doesn't give me much faith.
Your right and Apple pay and watch are very exciting.
But Googles approach doesn't have to be successful now, it needs a success somewhere in the future of course, but only when Googles income runs out.
That can take a while.
By trying lots of (interesting) things they can hit the jackpot and become the most dominant company of the future.
If they manage to enhance robotics enough for example Google will rule the world (literally probably). If they enhance AI enough they will rule the world even more.
So it isn't strange that they are trying while the money lasts.
People said that about Microsoft too 90s-2000s. Now look at how Microsoft Research is shutting down in silicon valley with little to show for all the advanced research.
Apple had its own Advanced Technology Group, and mostly what it accomplished was basic research that other companies appropriated and profited from. And a decade before that Xerox was funding advanced research that largely only ended up benefiting other companies.
So when you say Google is repeating the same moonshot stuff and that you believe this will all work out well, I have to wonder what your confidence is based on.
Why, it's an inevitable conclusion. Fossil fuels are running out, so in the very near future when all cars are electric, especially within a metropolitan area, autonomous driving cars specifically taxis's will more than likely become reality. I have no doubt that the streets will contain some sort of grid layer, where cars will draw it's power from, very close to how wireless mobile phone charging is accomplished and than at the end of each month you will receive a bill, just like your home electric bill for the power usage you've consumed. In cities there is no need to be in control of your car, especially when the car has more information about driving conditions and faster routes, it's not like you can open her up to see what she can do in places like New York. Google is on the forefront of this technology which is one of many reasons why I own a fairly substantial amount of stock from them.
You don't think Google collecting personal data on everybody is improving people's lives? /s
Let's say Google car is released today. How long will it take to replace every car in the US? Decades/centuries? It's a pipe dream. Don't forget their are trucks, buses, etc that won't be driverless.
I suspect a very small percentage of vehicles in use are over 10-15 years old—especially in terms of % total miles driven.
As pointed out by others, ALL companies in the vehicle space have been working on this. They would all roll out driverless vehicles at once, probably using agreed upon standards. To do otherwise would make little sense.
Let's say Google car is released today. How long will it take to replace every car in the US? Decades/centuries? It's a pipe dream. Don't forget their are trucks, buses, etc that won't be driverless.
You don't need to replace every car, just the cards that address being sold. That assumes people actually but their own driverless car. As it can drive itself it can travel in its own between people too use it. Which makes it a good opportunity for the next step with uber to get rid of the drivers.
Also what makes you think trucks won't be replaced? The tech for removing drivers in trucks is further along than cars. Creating trains of trucks where only the first truck has a driver is a long way through testing.
Same reason why Simon Prakash, David Tupman, John Theriault, Dag Kittlaus, Ron Johnson, Benjamin Fay, Andy Miller, Bertrand Serlet, Sarah Brody, John Herbold, etc. all top executives, left Apple, to pursue other interests, there is no conspiracy here, happens all the time.
No, he left in the same way that Scott Forstall left…still no conspiracy involved but they got booted for cause: being arrogant while screwing up something major with probably more than a dash of insubordination to the incoming CEOs.
Why, it's an inevitable conclusion. Fossil fuels are running out, so in the very near future when all cars are electric, especially within a metropolitan area, autonomous driving cars specifically taxis's will more than likely become reality. I have no doubt that the streets will contain some sort of grid layer, where cars will draw it's power from, very close to how wireless mobile phone charging is accomplished and than at the end of each month you will receive a bill, just like your home electric bill for the power usage you've consumed. In cities there is no need to be in control of your car, especially when the car has more information about driving conditions and faster routes, it's not like you can open her up to see what she can do in places like New York. Google is on the forefront of this technology which is one of many reasons why I own a fairly substantial amount of stock from them.
I live in London. I can't imagine self-driving cars being allowed here for at least twenty years, if not much longer. Too much mayhem.
I live in London. I can't imagine self-driving cars being allowed here for at least twenty years, if not much longer. Too much mayhem.
Autonomous driving cars would defiantly get rid of all that mayhem your talking about. Like it or not Benji, this is an inevitable future, that is if the zombies don't get us first.
From googles own "ten things we know to be true" :
"It’s best to do one thing really, really well.
We do search. With one of the world’s largest research groups focused exclusively on solving search problems, we know what we do well, and how we could do it better. Through continued iteration on difficult problems, we've been able to solve complex issues and provide continuous improvements to a service that already makes finding information a fast and seamless experience for millions of people. Our dedication to improving search helps us apply what we've learned to new products, like Gmail and Google Maps. Our hope is to bring the power of search to previously unexplored areas and to help people access and use even more of the ever-expanding information in their lives."
Google forgets the only reason it has any significance in the world at all today is because it first had focus.
"It's best to do one thing really, really well" doesn't preclude pursuing doing other things that don't pan out as long as you still have one thing you do really well. Ironically, the Gmail example in the quote that you cite as extolling "focus" started as an employee side project that had little to do with Google's core business of indexing websites.
Autonomous driving cars would defiantly get rid of all that mayhem your talking about. Like it or not Benji, this is an inevitable future, that is if the zombies don't get us first.
Have you noticed the few odd folks here that spend all day on AI defending anything that is a anti to Apple? Pretty weird way to spend your days IMHO.
Autonomous driving cars would defiantly get rid of all that mayhem your talking about. Like it or not Benji, this is an inevitable future, that is if the zombies don't get us first.
Have you noticed the few odd folks here that spend all day on AI defending anything that is a anti to Apple? Pretty weird way to spend your days IMHO.
Have you noticed the few odd folks here that spend all day on AI defending anything that is a anti to Apple? Pretty weird way to spend your days IMHO.
Not if you have breast cancer and are stuck in a hospital bed 24/7. So excuse me if I don't have much of a life right now, I would be more than happy to exchange mine for yours, believe me. I defend those products which I personally own and enjoy and I don't willy nilly choose this technology either, I happen to actually know what I'm doing and want. So I ask you why do people find it necessary to put down those things that they don't use, will ever use or for that matter have ever used. Every time there is thread about Google, Samsung, Microsoft, heck, anything that isn't Apple, there is literally one snide comment after another, not even clever ones at that. I think adding a little balance to the conversation at least makes it a little more interesting or should I just join in on all of the negativity for the sake parity.
Comments
Another view of Google is a for-profit and poorly run copy of Apache Inc.
Don't hold your breath.
Some of us enjoy driving. And they don't (and likely won't) do anything.
People forget that EVERYONE ELSE that makes a car has been working on this for some time, once again Google did not invent the concept.
Google has betas
Apple has beats
You don't think Google collecting personal data on everybody is improving people's lives? /s
Let's say Google car is released today. How long will it take to replace every car in the US? Decades/centuries? It's a pipe dream. Don't forget their are trucks, buses, etc that won't be driverless.
"It’s best to do one thing really, really well.
We do search. With one of the world’s largest research groups focused exclusively on solving search problems, we know what we do well, and how we could do it better. Through continued iteration on difficult problems, we've been able to solve complex issues and provide continuous improvements to a service that already makes finding information a fast and seamless experience for millions of people. Our dedication to improving search helps us apply what we've learned to new products, like Gmail and Google Maps. Our hope is to bring the power of search to previously unexplored areas and to help people access and use even more of the ever-expanding information in their lives."
Google forgets the only reason it has any significance in the world at all today is because it first had focus.
Your right and Apple pay and watch are very exciting.
But Googles approach doesn't have to be successful now, it needs a success somewhere in the future of course, but only when Googles income runs out.
That can take a while.
By trying lots of (interesting) things they can hit the jackpot and become the most dominant company of the future.
If they manage to enhance robotics enough for example Google will rule the world (literally probably). If they enhance AI enough they will rule the world even more.
So it isn't strange that they are trying while the money lasts.
Your right and Apple pay and watch are very exciting.
But Googles approach doesn't have to be successful now, it needs a success somewhere in the future of course, but only when Googles income runs out.
That can take a while.
By trying lots of (interesting) things they can hit the jackpot and become the most dominant company of the future.
If they manage to enhance robotics enough for example Google will rule the world (literally probably). If they enhance AI enough they will rule the world even more.
So it isn't strange that they are trying while the money lasts.
Execution is an integral part of making a bet successful. Google isn't short on great ideas. But they have not shown the necessary discipline to execute properly on that great idea.
You are right that no revenue stream lasts forever. There needs to be something else that can take its place once that revenue stream dries up. But spending money just because it can is just not the way to go about things. A time may come when Google will find itself in want of money to invest in a venture but its previous spending binge have left it with insufficient cash to invest. Just because the pot of money is larger, that does not mean that a business can afford to abandon all semblance of financial discipline.
Robotics may have the potential to be huge one day. But just because Google bought a robotics company, one should not speculate that Google will one day rule the world or reach a $1 trillion market cap. Google's record of execution just doesn't give me much faith.
Your right and Apple pay and watch are very exciting.
But Googles approach doesn't have to be successful now, it needs a success somewhere in the future of course, but only when Googles income runs out.
That can take a while.
By trying lots of (interesting) things they can hit the jackpot and become the most dominant company of the future.
If they manage to enhance robotics enough for example Google will rule the world (literally probably). If they enhance AI enough they will rule the world even more.
So it isn't strange that they are trying while the money lasts.
People said that about Microsoft too 90s-2000s. Now look at how Microsoft Research is shutting down in silicon valley with little to show for all the advanced research.
Apple had its own Advanced Technology Group, and mostly what it accomplished was basic research that other companies appropriated and profited from. And a decade before that Xerox was funding advanced research that largely only ended up benefiting other companies.
So when you say Google is repeating the same moonshot stuff and that you believe this will all work out well, I have to wonder what your confidence is based on.
Don't hold your breath.
Why, it's an inevitable conclusion. Fossil fuels are running out, so in the very near future when all cars are electric, especially within a metropolitan area, autonomous driving cars specifically taxis's will more than likely become reality. I have no doubt that the streets will contain some sort of grid layer, where cars will draw it's power from, very close to how wireless mobile phone charging is accomplished and than at the end of each month you will receive a bill, just like your home electric bill for the power usage you've consumed. In cities there is no need to be in control of your car, especially when the car has more information about driving conditions and faster routes, it's not like you can open her up to see what she can do in places like New York. Google is on the forefront of this technology which is one of many reasons why I own a fairly substantial amount of stock from them.
You don't think Google collecting personal data on everybody is improving people's lives? /s
Let's say Google car is released today. How long will it take to replace every car in the US? Decades/centuries? It's a pipe dream. Don't forget their are trucks, buses, etc that won't be driverless.
I suspect a very small percentage of vehicles in use are over 10-15 years old—especially in terms of % total miles driven.
As pointed out by others, ALL companies in the vehicle space have been working on this. They would all roll out driverless vehicles at once, probably using agreed upon standards. To do otherwise would make little sense.
Also what makes you think trucks won't be replaced? The tech for removing drivers in trucks is further along than cars. Creating trains of trucks where only the first truck has a driver is a long way through testing.
Same reason why Simon Prakash, David Tupman, John Theriault, Dag Kittlaus, Ron Johnson, Benjamin Fay, Andy Miller, Bertrand Serlet, Sarah Brody, John Herbold, etc. all top executives, left Apple, to pursue other interests, there is no conspiracy here, happens all the time.
No, he left in the same way that Scott Forstall left…still no conspiracy involved but they got booted for cause: being arrogant while screwing up something major with probably more than a dash of insubordination to the incoming CEOs.
Don't hold your breath.
Why, it's an inevitable conclusion. Fossil fuels are running out, so in the very near future when all cars are electric, especially within a metropolitan area, autonomous driving cars specifically taxis's will more than likely become reality. I have no doubt that the streets will contain some sort of grid layer, where cars will draw it's power from, very close to how wireless mobile phone charging is accomplished and than at the end of each month you will receive a bill, just like your home electric bill for the power usage you've consumed. In cities there is no need to be in control of your car, especially when the car has more information about driving conditions and faster routes, it's not like you can open her up to see what she can do in places like New York. Google is on the forefront of this technology which is one of many reasons why I own a fairly substantial amount of stock from them.
I live in London. I can't imagine self-driving cars being allowed here for at least twenty years, if not much longer. Too much mayhem.
I live in London. I can't imagine self-driving cars being allowed here for at least twenty years, if not much longer. Too much mayhem.
Autonomous driving cars would defiantly get rid of all that mayhem your talking about. Like it or not Benji, this is an inevitable future, that is if the zombies don't get us first.
From googles own "ten things we know to be true" :
"It’s best to do one thing really, really well.
We do search. With one of the world’s largest research groups focused exclusively on solving search problems, we know what we do well, and how we could do it better. Through continued iteration on difficult problems, we've been able to solve complex issues and provide continuous improvements to a service that already makes finding information a fast and seamless experience for millions of people. Our dedication to improving search helps us apply what we've learned to new products, like Gmail and Google Maps. Our hope is to bring the power of search to previously unexplored areas and to help people access and use even more of the ever-expanding information in their lives."
Google forgets the only reason it has any significance in the world at all today is because it first had focus.
"It's best to do one thing really, really well" doesn't preclude pursuing doing other things that don't pan out as long as you still have one thing you do really well. Ironically, the Gmail example in the quote that you cite as extolling "focus" started as an employee side project that had little to do with Google's core business of indexing websites.
and beats beats betas ...
Have you noticed the few odd folks here that spend all day on AI defending anything that is a anti to Apple? Pretty weird way to spend your days IMHO.
Autonomous driving cars would defiantly get rid of all that mayhem your talking about. Like it or not Benji, this is an inevitable future, that is if the zombies don't get us first.
Have you noticed the few odd folks here that spend all day on AI defending anything that is a anti to Apple? Pretty weird way to spend your days IMHO.
How are self-driving cars anti-Apple?
Have you noticed the few odd folks here that spend all day on AI defending anything that is a anti to Apple? Pretty weird way to spend your days IMHO.
Not if you have breast cancer and are stuck in a hospital bed 24/7. So excuse me if I don't have much of a life right now, I would be more than happy to exchange mine for yours, believe me. I defend those products which I personally own and enjoy and I don't willy nilly choose this technology either, I happen to actually know what I'm doing and want. So I ask you why do people find it necessary to put down those things that they don't use, will ever use or for that matter have ever used. Every time there is thread about Google, Samsung, Microsoft, heck, anything that isn't Apple, there is literally one snide comment after another, not even clever ones at that. I think adding a little balance to the conversation at least makes it a little more interesting or should I just join in on all of the negativity for the sake parity.