Ford, VW-Backed Argo AI Is Shutting Down (techcrunch.com) 23
Argo AI, an autonomous vehicle startup that burst on the scene in 2017 stacked with a $1 billion investment, is shutting down -- its parts being absorbed into its two main backers: Ford and VW, according to people familiar with the matter. TechCrunch reports: During an all-hands meeting Wednesday, Argo AI employees were told that some people would receive offers from the two automakers, according to multiple sources who asked to not be named. It was unclear how many would be hired into Ford or VW and which companies will get Argo's technology. [...] Ford said in its third-quarter earnings report (PDF) released Wednesday that it made a strategic decision to shift its resources to developing advanced driver assistance systems, and not autonomous vehicle technology that can be applied to robotaxis. The company said it recorded a $2.7 billion non-cash, pretax impairment on its investment in Argo AI, resulting in an $827 million net loss for the third quarter.
That decision appears to have been fueled by Argo's inability to attract new investors. Ford CEO Jim Farley acknowledged that the company anticipated being able to bring autonomous vehicle technology broadly to market by 2021. "But things have changed, and there's a huge opportunity right now for Ford to give time -- the most valuable commodity in modern life -- back to millions of customers while they're in their vehicles," said Farley. "It's mission-critical for Ford to develop great and differentiated L2+ and L3 applications that at the same time make transportation even safer." Farley also insinuated that Ford would be able to buy AV tech down the line, instead of developing it in house. "We're optimistic about a future for L4 ADAS, but profitable, fully autonomous vehicles at scale are a long way off and we won't necessarily have to create that technology ourselves," he added. Ford also stated that the "development and customer enthusiasm for benefits of L2+ and L3 ADAS warrant dialing up the company's near-term aspirations and commitment in those areas."
That decision appears to have been fueled by Argo's inability to attract new investors. Ford CEO Jim Farley acknowledged that the company anticipated being able to bring autonomous vehicle technology broadly to market by 2021. "But things have changed, and there's a huge opportunity right now for Ford to give time -- the most valuable commodity in modern life -- back to millions of customers while they're in their vehicles," said Farley. "It's mission-critical for Ford to develop great and differentiated L2+ and L3 applications that at the same time make transportation even safer." Farley also insinuated that Ford would be able to buy AV tech down the line, instead of developing it in house. "We're optimistic about a future for L4 ADAS, but profitable, fully autonomous vehicles at scale are a long way off and we won't necessarily have to create that technology ourselves," he added. Ford also stated that the "development and customer enthusiasm for benefits of L2+ and L3 ADAS warrant dialing up the company's near-term aspirations and commitment in those areas."
You know... (Score:2, Insightful)
Tesla's self driving AI has certainly taken forever. I'm not sure if their cameras are actually high enough resolution, it tends to miss large ish objects if they're too far away. I'm not sure if temporal super resolution can work with the need to track moving objects in realtime.
Google's "solution" of mass detailed road surveillance doesn't seem like a solution at all. How much does that cost to have giant holes in where your cars can even drive, what failure sta
Re: (Score:3)
Google's "solution" of mass detailed road surveillance doesn't seem like a solution at all. How much does that cost to have giant holes in where your cars can even drive, what failure states are going to occur because of this reliance rather than a generalized solution like Tesla's?
Tesla's solution is mass detailed road surveillance. They are already doing it. Google's solution is mass detailed road surveillance. They are already doing it. I fail to see the difference here.
But seeing this "self driving cars are a long way off" comment from Ford, when I can drive to SF and see multiple self driving cars just wandering the streets generally fine, is hilarious.
Those self-driving cars are having serious problems where the network is automatically routing them down side streets they don't need to take, and humans are having to take control of them and get them out of their special cases. They are not fully self-driving, they are mostly self driving with occasional human con
Re: (Score:2)
Google's cars aren't level 4 automation.
Re: (Score:3)
Tesla's self driving AI has certainly taken forever.
I think Elon's doing amazing thing on the space side of things, but if it wasn't for his rockets I would definitely put him in the scam artist category around what he's said when it comes to driverless cars. The turning point for me was the AI day keynote back in 2019 (when he said robotaxis would be available later in the year). They spent a huge amount of time talking about their AI engine (matrix convolution processor) that they'd developed. At the time I just thought - that's awesome as a way to get cos
Re: (Score:3)
While both rockets and FSD cars are hard problems, I think rockets are the simpler of the two by far. The flight path is pre-programmed; you launch only in good weather; there are no unpredictable obstacles; you have very few customers to deal with, and they're extremely well-trained (not dumbasses doi
$2.7 billion in one year (Score:3)
What in God's name did they spend the money on? FFS, i somebody gave me that much cash, I'll give you not only a autonomous car but it'll come with a fembot chauffeur.
Re:$2.7 billion in one year (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you will not. That's what the CEOs thought, just throw money at the problem and it will be solved. That is not this kind of problem. It's like thinking, let's throw money at the unified gravity theory to solve it finally, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
On one hand you're right, this is a harder problem than a lot of people thought it was. On the other hand, we're talking about some of the planet's largest automakers, they probably spend $2.6B on office spaces and contracts to try to fuck each other over forever and ever amen.
Re: (Score:2)
I completely agree that blowing through $2.6B is mind boggling. I would not be surprised a lot of this went to upper management salaries and bonuses and the rest to pouch top engineers from other companies. All to nough.
Re: (Score:2)
What in God's name did they spend the money on?
I bet you it was lots of things peripheral to the actual driverless bit. I've seen this before, where you'd have some group of talented hardware engineers busy super optimising the design of, say, the camera pod module, doing an exceptional job on reliability and design for manufacturer. Multiply this over a whole bunch of other systems, then throw in lots of support people working on continually redeveloping project management systems, personal recruitment and training systems, business management systems,
It's probably the right decision. (Score:3)
This seems like the only smart move. Ford and VW are obvious also-rans in the autonomous vehicle race, and there was going to be a very steep climb for them to bring their technology to market. One possibility would be to do it in half-steps like Tesla has, but it looks like Tesla might get sued for calling its tech "Full Self Driving" when it's obviously not. Then there's the fact that it's not at all clear that the regulatory climate will ever allow car owners to let the vehicles drive themselves without a human's hands on the wheel, which kind of defeats the whole purpose. Every player in the game is going to need to insure itself against the inevitable lawsuits, which will be for a lot of money. Not to mention that there's probably a metric boatload of patents that need to be licensed. No thanks, I think "advanced driver assistance" is the smart play and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
Re: (Score:3)
How did it take so long? (Score:1)
Translation effort (Score:2)
>That decision appears to have been fueled by Argo's inability to attract new investors.
Read: Argo burned trough its investment capital, somehow
>Farley also insinuated that Ford would be able to buy AV tech down the line, instead of developing it in house.
Read: Based on market research and QA, the tech won't arrive this decade. If it do arrive, we will be caught with our pants down
>development and customer enthusiasm for benefits of L2+ and L3 ADAS warrant dialing up the company's near-term aspirat
Re: (Score:2)
It's unlikely they got any decent patents from this.
Wrong layer dude. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No, look at what he said:
"customer enthusiasm for benefits of L2+ and L3 ADAS warrant dialing up the company's near-term aspirations and commitment in those areas"
People are pretty excited about getting data links and IP packets. Understandably, I've been wanting to be plugged in for a long time.
Re: (Score:1)
To the investors... (Score:2)
Neither automaker could afford it (Score:2)
Bad timing. VW Russian portfolio could have triggered its decision. That might’ve forced FORD’s hand to fallback on ADAS.
VW looks dead here, going forward. A rescue, bankruptcy and restructure are imminent. FORD split GAS/elec so the impending doom is managed differently. It has until 2026 to save its marque.
I guess I'm still wondering... (Score:2)
...who shows up, says "hey here's an idea of something we can't do today, but I think we can" and has A BILLION DOLLARS shoveled at them.
I'm clearly missing a step here.
Because I don't understand how C-suites that make those decisions (someone had to sign off on that) are still employed much less (apparently) getting raises and bonuses.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, you never heard of research and development? The whole point of R&D is to take ideas you can't do today and make them real. It costs a lot of money.
There are many well-known examples of companies basically 'betting the company' on the success of 'we can't do it today but think we can' ideas. IBM with the S/360 and Boeing with the 747 immediately spring to mind.
The alternative is to sit on your ass and let your competitors take the risks and drive you out of the market. THOSE are the C-suites t