Ford Charts Cautious Path Toward Self Driving, Shared Vehicles (reuters.com) 50
Ford Motor Chief Executive Mark Fields is looking for more deals to advance the automaker's expansion into ride services and autonomous vehicles, but will not rush to match big spending by auto industry rivals, he told Reuters. Investors comparing the size of Ford's investments to what other automakers have announced are "looking at the wrong scoreboard," Fields said in an interview at Ford headquarters on Tuesday, ahead of the company's annual late-summer investor meeting. From the report: "Don't confuse activity for progress," Fields said in response to questions about why Ford's future 'mobility' investments appear to lag those of competitors such as General Motors, Daimler AG and Toyota Motor Corp. Mobility is the term auto companies and investors use to describe the next wave of personal transportation, which is still largely car-based but includes a wide range of services from ride sharing to automated driving and parking.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, don't most people leave stuff in their car they like to have with them on travels? Music? Radio tuned to certain stations, EQ settings? After market audio systems?
Registration and insurance papers, etc.?
I couldn't imagine having an auto I share with people not even in my family.
Re: (Score:1)
Because it'll reduce the cost of transportation, freeing up people's money for other things? I use a car maybe 1 hour out of my day; That means it sits, unused, 23 hours a day, but I still pay full price for it. If I can share the same vehicle with 3 other people, then we can split the costs, and save a lot of money.
I don't, really. I have some loose change tha
and then drive people away from the polling place (Score:2)
and then drive people away from the polling place if you are a voter that does not vote their way.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes because governments over the last century have never lied or bullshat their peoples for the sake of ideology..
Re: (Score:2)
It's not smart at all. It's dumb. Activity leads to patents.
Too late. Most of the important patents are already locked down. Anyone building SDCs will be paying a lot of licensing fees to Google. Patents mean that there is a big advantage in starting early.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. I have a Tesla Model S and it drives perfectly fine for me every day in stop and go traffic. At higher speeds it works well too but it is prudent to keep a close eye on it. I think autonomous driving in limited situations is still helpful even if it doesn't work everywhere.
I think within a year or two, Tesla will be able to drive long distances on major freeways with little or no human intervention. That's a huge value to me as a driver.
If my car can handle both stop-and-go traffic and long-dist
Progress via Lawyers and Lobbyists. (Score:2, Insightful)
Bet against a technology, give it a little lip service. While Lobby to make sure these things never make it on the road. Thus having your competors waste money, while you have the next generation of car without that expensive to make feature. Perhaps a truck with a larger Grill in front.
Re: (Score:2)
or most of us prefer personal vehicles than paying per mile or whatever to rent a car anytime we need to go somewhere
Re: (Score:2)
or most of us prefer personal vehicles than paying per mile or whatever to rent a car anytime we need to go somewhere
Most people prefer to own because owning is cheaper than renting. Once it isn't, they will switch to renting. Even today, where renting is cheaper, such as in dense cities like NYC or SF, many people pay by the mile.
Re: (Score:2)
Only to a point.. Adoption will slow once the inconveniences start to mount.
Ford is wrong on this one (Score:2, Interesting)
Millennials cannot afford cars because they are broke.
(Don't worry, we'll join them once the TPP kicks in.)
In the near future, only the rich will own cars, much like only the rich owns planes today.
fewer owners == fewer cars == fewer car MFRs
They're not wrong (Score:2)
Smart Move (Score:2)
Let their competitors do all the hard work.
If self-driving primarily needs software to control off-the-shelf sensors and motors, there is less that can be patented compared to other areas of automotive engineering.
Algorithms cannot be patented, so advances can be "acquired" by hiring people who understand how it works---you can get the knowledge without paying to discover it yourself.
With physical products, you protect that research investment with a patent. Since software is copyrighted rather than patente
Why pay for R&D .. (Score:1)
.. when other companies will take the risk and expense for you?
But at least Ford knows that they better jump on the train (by not concentrating on individual car sales) or risk getting run over.
Self Driving Cars? Never! (Score:2)
Simple example: Suppose an AI driver gets into a position where it has to hit either a young kid, or an old lady. Who does it hit? Should it hit the old lady since she's already lived a full
Re: (Score:2)
What a tiresome argument. Human drivers aren't capable of quickly and ethically trolley problems while controlling a vehicle, and we don't expect them to be. Sure, you may think to yourself "Well I know what one *I'd* pick," but in an emergency you're not gonna react the way you imagine your super-rational brain to.
The car is programmed "Go the speed limit," "maintain a safe following distance," "obey laws," and "Avoid hitting people," and that's about as far as it goes.
You don't need to rank human life to
Re: (Score:2)
What a tiresome argument. Human drivers aren't capable of quickly and ethically trolley problems while controlling a vehicle, and we don't expect them to be. Sure, you may think to yourself "Well I know what one *I'd* pick," but in an emergency you're not gonna react the way you imagine your super-rational brain to.
The car is programmed "Go the speed limit," "maintain a safe following distance," "obey laws," and "Avoid hitting people," and that's about as far as it goes.
You don't need to rank human life to have a car that avoids collisions.
The problem with SDCs isn't going to be the hardware, it's the software. The problem is, software advances are very deceptive. People who don't write software don't get this. Most of the Musk/Tesla/SDC hopers don't get this either. Either their experience is with electrical/electronic engineering or something similar. Most people who've read Horrowitz and Hill don't get this. Most people who've read things like Abelson and Sussman *do* get this. Software progress is deceptive, hardware progress is visible a
Re: (Score:2)
They would if they could. less nth-degree regulation and a greater acceptance that nothing in life is certain would be best..
Re: (Score:2)
Simple example: Suppose an AI driver gets into a position where it has to hit either a young kid, or an old lady. Who does it hit? Should it hit the old lady since she's already lived a full life? Should it hit the kid because they bounce better than old ladies, and the overall chance of saving them both is higher?
But what if the kid has late stage terminal Leukemia? And the old lady has just come back from winning the gold medal in the triathlon at the World Masters games?
Which one should the AI choose to mow down? How can it tell? Think about the poor AI, don't put it in this position!!! It's all too hard!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
..and you trust computers to do that safely while it is obvious they can't even fill the corner cases for much simpler problems (eg: fully automated trains)? Old farts have experience with life that you lack.. You may want to reconsider what you consider reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose an AI driver gets into a position where it has to hit either a young kid, or an old lady. Who does it hit?
Current sensors can't determine age. This isn't a problem because in an emergency situation most human drivers can't make that distinction either.
The best answer is: whichever human it would strike with the lowest impact energy. This minimizes the trauma, and it is a factor that normal drivers cannot consider consciously in an emergency.
Who is liable for the vehicular homicide?
As long as it's the manufacturer or your insurance company, who cares? Let the courts sort it out.
If self-driving cars are actually safer, insurance rates should drop anyway
Re: (Score:2)
Automakers are just hedging their bets (Score:2)