Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

Cruise Employees 'Blindsided' By GM's Plan To End Robotaxi Program (techcrunch.com) 70

An anonymous reader shares a report: The news came by Slack message. Cruise CEO Marc Whitten, who took the top post in June, posted a message Tuesday afternoon in the company's announcements channel along with a link to a press release entitled "GM to refocus autonomous driving development on personal vehicles."

GM, which acquired the self-driving car startup in 2016, would no longer fund the company, ending a mission that hundreds of Cruise engineers had worked on for years. Minutes later, during an all-hands meeting, Cruise employees learned a few more details. The self-driving car company would be absorbed into parent company GM and combined with the automaker's own efforts to develop driver assistance features -- and eventually fully autonomous personal vehicles. Whether their jobs would be safe or cut was, and still is, unclear.

That meeting was short and unsatisfactory, according to one source, who noted that the senior leadership team was also surprised by this turn of events. Whitten, president and chief technology officer Mo Elshenawy, and chief administrative officer Craig Glidden, led the all-hands. Several Cruise employees who spoke to TechCrunch on condition of anonymity said they were "surprised" and "blindsided" by the decision. One source told TechCrunch that employees learned about GM's plans the same time the media did.

Cruise Employees 'Blindsided' By GM's Plan To End Robotaxi Program

Comments Filter:
  • People are stupid (Score:5, Informative)

    by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday December 11, 2024 @04:16AM (#65004985)

    "One source told TechCrunch that employees learned about GM's plans the same time the media did." - No shit Sherlock. This is standard practice which prevents the risk of insider trading. Literally every employee in every company that wasn't primarily involved in such a decision finds out at the same the the media does. In fact the media often has a statement in advance with a legal moratorium applied. This applies to every announcement which may affect the share price.

    I did actually once work somewhere where we found out from the media before we found out ourselves. Turns out no one figured the head office for the media businesses were in another state and they didn't specify if the moratorium expired at Standard Time or Daylight Savings Time. End result we were watching at 10am the news during lunch that we'd all lose our jobs ... before the 11am all hands meeting on site.

    "That meeting was short and unsatisfactory" - No shit Sherlock. What meeting have you ever where you were told suddenly what you were working on the past few years is cancelled and you left thinking "I'm really satisfied".

    • by 2TecTom ( 311314 )

      yes people are stupid and it's driven by greed

      classism leads to corruption, which breeds incompetency

    • by necro81 ( 917438 )

      This is standard practice which prevents the risk of insider trading. Literally every employee in every company that wasn't primarily involved in such a decision finds out at the same the the media does.

      The appropriate thing would have been to put out the press release a minute or two after the all hands meeting began, not a few minutes before. Risk of insider trading still avoided, and you show at least a modicum of respect for your employees.

      • by ls671 ( 1122017 )

        Even the announcement of the employee meeting would trigger speculations.

        • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          Even the announcement of the employee meeting would trigger speculations.

          Not if you regularly have employee all-hands meetings. It will just be expected to be another annoying time waster.

      • No one here is talking about minutes and no one would feel any different if it moved a few minutes either way. This story is not about people who found out *from* the media, though presumably those who missed the all hands meeting did.

    • by mjwx ( 966435 )
      I think the point is, there was no discussion... period.

      Which is normal for a US company. In a responsible company, important information is disseminated, if a company or department is struggling it is usually communicated to employees so that they can help identify things to improve, to improve overall productivity. American companies are the opposite, as workers are treated like dirt, the dirt will jump ship at the first sign of trouble rather than stick around and try to improve things.

      In my jobs i
      • I think the point is, there was no discussion... period.

        Well yes that is *MY* point. You can't openly discuss something that has the ability to move a share price widely.

        Which is normal for a US company. In a responsible company, important information is disseminated, if a company or department is struggling it is usually communicated to employees so that they can help identify things to improve, to improve overall productivity.

        You are begging the question. Where does it say anything about the change being due to the department struggling? This looks like a strategic shift, the kind of thing that is made by senior leadership behind closed doors at literally every company on earth.

        In my jobs in Australia and the UK, when there's been a termination coming I've generally known about it except for the one time the GFC happened and even then, we all really knew it would only be a matter of days until the cuts came.

        That's ironic. The example I gave was literally from working at a plant in Australia owned by a UK overlord hahahaha. And with that informati

    • by Teckla ( 630646 )

      This is standard practice which prevents the risk of insider trading.

      Only Congress is allowed to legally do insider trading. :-\

    • by dbialac ( 320955 )

      No shit Sherlock. What meeting have you ever where you were told suddenly what you were working on the past few years is cancelled and you left thinking "I'm really satisfied".

      The self-driving car feature is hardly cancelled. GM wouldn't be absorbing the company where that the case. IMO, Cruise wasn't ever going to have a huge demand. People in the US want their own cars and the convenience the cars offer. Cruise is mostly a transportation service for people who want to use a taxi, for example for a ride to the airport, or people who don't have a driver's license or a car. Also, a large number of companies are pursuing this, so it's better to get out of the market now and use the

      • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        No shit Sherlock. What meeting have you ever where you were told suddenly what you were working on the past few years is cancelled and you left thinking "I'm really satisfied".

        The self-driving car feature is hardly cancelled. GM wouldn't be absorbing the company where that the case. IMO, Cruise wasn't ever going to have a huge demand. People in the US want their own cars and the convenience the cars offer. Cruise is mostly a transportation service for people who want to use a taxi, for example for a ride to the airport, or people who don't have a driver's license or a car. Also, a large number of companies are pursuing this, so it's better to get out of the market now and use their tested technology elsewhere.

        This. Robotaxis owned by fleet companies are a dystopian future for most people. Why? Because it will always be cheaper to own a car than to rent one from someone else trying to make a profit off of you. Car companies that focus on fleet programs and don't acknowledge that their tech also has to find its way into the hands of individual car buyers are clearly detached from reality.

        The real question mark in my mind is Waymo. I don't know what they hope to achieve. At this point, they're the last compan

        • "it will always be cheaper to own a car than to rent one from someone else trying to make a profit off of you."

          Unless they change the registration fee and insurance premium structures to benefit fleet operators and fuck the rest of us.

          • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

            "it will always be cheaper to own a car than to rent one from someone else trying to make a profit off of you."

            Unless they change the registration fee and insurance premium structures to benefit fleet operators and fuck the rest of us.

            Most insurance companies are nonprofits, so they have no real incentive to make their rate structure deviate significantly from actuarial tables and their vehicular equivalents, and fleet vehicles with high mileage are more likely to have an accident than individual cars, assuming all else is equal (i.e. similarly capable AI doing the driving), so barring any surprises, for-profit robotaxis should cost more per year to insure than individual cars, though to be fair, that's spread over dozens of people inste

            • Most insurance companies are nonprofits, so they have no real incentive to make their rate structure deviate significantly from actuarial tables and their vehicular equivalents

              You're thinking the old way, before we had a King.

        • Why would you need to own a car? Right now, services like Lyft/Uber are so expensive that the break-even point of owning a car is around 400-500 miles a month. Between my wife and I, we put on about 1500 miles per month but that includes school transportation. If the price of Waymo is such that the break even is around 1000 miles a month, I probably won't own a car. And, at some point (far in the future, I hope), we will be too old to drive. At that point, even if Waymo is more expensive, we will use i
          • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

            Why would you need to own a car? Right now, services like Lyft/Uber are so expensive that the break-even point of owning a car is around 400-500 miles a month. Between my wife and I, we put on about 1500 miles per month but that includes school transportation. If the price of Waymo is such that the break even is around 1000 miles a month, I probably won't own a car.

            The only way Uber stays in business is because they trick people into charging less than the depreciation on their car. At some point, that model is going to come crashing down like a house of cards, because it is absolutely not sustainable in the long term.

            Still, I question whether the break-even point really is that high unless you're basing it on an ICE car with oil changes and other high secondary costs. It costs me up to $30 each way to take Uber from my house to the airport, which is a 7.5-mile driv

            • You can do Uber/Lyft with a $2k car so I don't think that the depreciation part is entirely true. (I know because we gave my wife's old car to a friend who does Uber with it.) But yes if you use a $20k or $30k car for Uber/Lyft you probably won't make money.

              The US IRS considers the cost of operating your car to be $0.50/mile. I'm in no way saying that's a perfect number but it's the only one that we can really use for cost analysis. Given that I pay $200/month in insurance and probably $400 month in

  • by monkeyxpress ( 4016725 ) on Wednesday December 11, 2024 @04:26AM (#65005007)

    The automotive industry is in a massive spiralling crisis right now. The price of new vehicles before COVID were artificially propped up by all the people able to get 0% interest financing deals on them. Those don't exist now. Then during COVID automakers got greedy and jacked their prices, while cutting low end models to push up revenues. The car markers are now facing a profit collapse. On top of that, many of them loaded up on cheap debt during the 2010's and now those debts have to refinanced at much higher interest rates.

    Finally, almost all of them have completely failed the transition to EVs. If they do have a decent EV to sell, they are generally having to sell them at a loss, while their main domestic competitor - Tesla - still has room to cut further. And this is with Chinese EV's being held back by large tariffs in the US and EU. While these tariffs can protect their local market, it doesn't help them compete in the largest automotive market in the world - China. So they have basically lost that market now. There are also plenty of other countries which do not make cars, and will happily buy from China if they are cheaper, so they may also lose most of their other export markets as well.

    The whole industry is rotten, and the current crop of CEOs are going back to the only playbook they know - cut costs, cut investment, lobby for government support, and hope that they can boost the share price in a year or two and then bail out with a golden parachute, letting the next guy take over.

    Having said that, if they made me CEO, I don't know that I'd do anything different. What alternative do they have? Tell investors that their companies suck, wipe billions off their valuations, possibly have to go through bankruptcy protection and get a bailout, and then at the end of that still have to figure out how to actually make an EV that can compete with the Chinese?

    • by Miles_O'Toole ( 5152533 ) on Wednesday December 11, 2024 @05:45AM (#65005079)

      I agree with you on every point but one: it may be true at the moment that tariffs are preventing companies from accessing the Chinese car market. However, the Chinese government has a long history of finding ways to ensure that the Chinese people have very limited access to products and services from outside the country. Specifically when it comes to manufactured goods, you can be sure they're always the dumper rather than the dumpee.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      If you think the price of cars was high during Covid- just wait there's more.

      When the tariffs come, it won't have an immediate effect. Though after 6 to 9 months h13 steel, which is used in most tool and die product, is going to be very expensive.

      That's the first bump in price. And it will get worse as the tooling wears out for particular car models. Machine tools are expensive to design, test, and manufacture

      Then comes the the second fun part:.

      Forget about sourcing steel to actually make the car. That will

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by 2TecTom ( 311314 )

        which should be the incentive to redevelop local industry

        • by Ksevio ( 865461 )

          Yes, but for one, that would take years or decades if it happens and for another, the local industries will charge as much (or just undercut) foreign industries

          • by 2TecTom ( 311314 )

            so? it took years to get it this way and it will take years to pay for the damages already done

            sadly, we're doubling down on unsustainable and irresponsible development mostly driven by upper class greed

            • by Ksevio ( 865461 )

              So the point is the economy will suffer and prices go up just so we can...regress our economy?

              Many of the components will also need to be imported from the same places that we're taxing so it might still not be profitable to do the manufacturing in the country if any company were even considering it

        • by AvitarX ( 172628 )

          The US steel energy hasn't been particularly competitive for decades.

          Are you going to make an investment in steel production that will take a years to repay on the off chance multiple administrations are down with that type of inflation?

          Or are you going to reap the windfall profits while they're available?

      • "The high end fabs in Taiwan will be gone. This will also tank the auto industry."

        Nope. I agree with much of what you said but you only need high end chips for self driving or really high end infotainment with high resolution 3D navigation rendering. As such the automakers could continue selling cars without that just fine.

        If steel is hard to get (we produce a lot of virgin steel in the US still, though) perhaps they will switch to using more aluminum, which is superior in most ways and also saves on toolin

    • Even the 2nd hand/stolen IC market is doomed. Many countries import old cars from North America and Europe, but new Chinese electric cars are now cheaper than old/stolen IC cars. Somebody please think of the poor car thieves!
      • by Viol8 ( 599362 )

        What use is cheap if you can't charge it anywhere or you do a lot of long distance and don't want the PITA of finding a working charger often on some convoluted diversion off your route.

      • by dbialac ( 320955 )
        Stolen cars are quite cheap at $0.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by dbialac ( 320955 )
      Ugh. Most people don't want EVs. They have friends who tried them out and realized they're a terrible experience. "Let me recharge my vehicle. There's a charging station nearby... Oh, wait. It doesn't work." I was at a hotel in Brunswick, GA when a Tesla charging station blew out power for the entire area. Fortunately I'd already had breakfast. Anyway, much of the growth at this point is in on the commercial side, not the consumer side. If you're uncertain about that... [letmegooglethat.com]
    • Good luck with them getting a bailout, no way Elon would allow Trump to do that.

    • It's all about the battery; not the car. CATL and BYD dominate and the USA has no good EV plants. However several new battery plants will be coming online over the next few years. The USA also has several advanced batteries under development. A few of them could easily bring world class batteries to market. It is very early in the EV game.
    • You make many good points, but nobody got a 0% financing deal on a car. In a 0% financing deal, the dealer just pays the interest on your behalf.
  • Not to pick on the wrong thing, but when it comes to information that impacts a division or a workforce, I have to assume that the only way the meeting would be sufficient and satisfactory would be for them to say, "Oops. Our bad. We're reversing course. Ignore what we said."

    Seems like they let them continue for eight years. This can't be a complete surprise - acquisitions almost always result in the collapsing of reduntsncy.

  • If you want selfdriving capabilities for your personal cars, you need as much data as possible, and the only way to get as much data as possible is using real life data. That kind of data can only be gotten using cars on the streets 24/7 which is what Cruise is providing. Looking at all the daily problems these Cruise cars run into it is clear they still have a long way to go, so yanking these Cruise cars off the street is the most stupid idea possible. So for suggesting something stupid as that the CEO of
    • If you want selfdriving capabilities for your personal cars, you need as much data as possible ... That kind of data can only be gotten using cars on the streets 24/7 which is what Cruise is providing.

      If they went the Tesla route and put the necessary hardware on their production cars, they'd have that data coming out of their ears. The miles driven by GM's customers dwarf anything that the Cruise unit could possibly bring to the table.

      That's just to say that you don't need robotaxis to develop self driving. But that's a moot point. I think we can take this as a sign that GM isn't seriously pursuing the technology.

      • I didn't specify it good enough, you can collect road data, but also having the system actually interpret and use that data is another thing, and that's what the Cruise robotaxi's provide, the practical use of the data in a system and how it should react to situations. So recording driving data is one thing, but having the system use it is another, and what I meant to say was the practical usage of the data..
      • by TWX ( 665546 )

        Tesla works as a special case because its customers were willing to accept that they were stepping into what amounts to being a mobile telescreen, reporting on everything going on the whole time, with basically no privacy.

        GM strangely used to use Buick and Oldsmobile for its technological development prototyping sort of thing. The Toronado was their first FWD car and the Riviera had their first touchscreen interface back when it was an honest to goodness cathode ray tube display.

        But GM got rid of Oldsmobil

    • GM could buy/lease someone elses self driving system. All car makers need not reinvent it
      • Yep, you're right. But at the moment there isn't a specific system already available. And at this stage I'd rather have multiple companies trying to get selfdrivingcar systems working, so different type of systems are tested and in the end we'll see which system works best or a hybrid of those systems will work the best and legislation can make a certain type of system mandatory.
    • You also need to be at every change in the road.. every snow clearing, every construction site, every new intersection, merge lane, roadblock, on ramp off ramp etc etc before anyone else with one of your cars gets there.
  • You just posted about this 10 hours prior:

    https://tech.slashdot.org/story/24/12/10/2318201/gm-exits-robotaxi-market

  • Like what happened to that lady in San Francisco by a Cruise vehicle?

    Too soon?

    • Like what happened to that lady in San Francisco by a Cruise vehicle?

      Too soon?

      *RIMSHOT*

  • They lost $10 billion on Cruise. I doubt this came as a surprise. "We'll turn things around in 2025, I just know it!"

  • The employees would be the first to know their one and only product they sell is dangerous, defective garbage that does not work as intended. They also would have to never watch the news or see a financial report or go to a meeting to talk to anyone in order to get blindsided by this.

"In my opinion, Richard Stallman wouldn't recognise terrorism if it came up and bit him on his Internet." -- Ross M. Greenberg

Working...