Mercedes to introduce Siri in its vehicles | Hacker News Reader

Mercedes to introduce Siri in its vehicles

psfk.com

34 pointsdr_37 comments

First reaction upon reading that title: "That's AWESOME!" Seriously, I feel like I am living in the future. Combine that with the self driving cars in Nevada:

"Siri. Take me to the nearest donut shop."

"Yes Zack, right away, Sir."

And the car just drives off by itself, taking me to the nearest pastry haven.

I don't think Siri will take orders from you and give them to a Nevada self-driving car - at least not for a very long time. I think Google's voice software will much more likely be the one taking and giving the orders if we're talking about the domain of self-driving cars.

But yes. I can't wait :D

I'm not trying to bang a wrong tune here, but in reality - what is the difference between telling Siri "take me to nearest donuts shop" and telling the same to the taxi driver? In the latter, I most likely will enjoy the conversation with crazy taxi driver. Or I can drive myself based on my knowledge or GPS and having pleasure from driving a car. Or again take a cab if Im drunk or too tired to drive. I just don't find the "awesomeness" here.

Besides; although I am not the type of a "kill internet to safe libraries" guy, same time we all know where this is going, right? 3.5 million truck-drivers in US alone [1] plus quarter of million limo/taxi in US (as of 2000) [2], most likely another 10 million in driving-related jobs, all gone within a reasonable period of time needed to implement self-driving cars (year, two?). Hmmm... just wondering - where all this people will go to work?! Thank God, at least in the US alone we maintain a healthy 1% of unemployment rate... oh no, wait!

[1] http://www.truckinfo.net/trucking/stats.htm [2] http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxidriver.pdf - page 3.

Everything is give and take. Having self-driving cars would be an absolute godsend for the environmental impact of automobiles. Automated driving can easily be made more fuel-efficient than human drivers (especially when/if most cars are automated and can coordinate traffic plans), and would also open up much more radical car-sharing plans to minimize the number of cars on the road. Transportation might not be the biggest producer of CO2 emissions, but it's a pretty hearty slice, and unless we do something quickly our planet's pretty screwed.

I agree that creating technology for the sake of technology isn't necessarily good, especially if there are negative ramifications in other areas (like job security). But this isn't a black and white "automated cars give us no tangible benefit other than cool factor" situation.

I'm in agreement with you, but I still worry about second order effects. To me, the big one is that if driving becomes significantly less of a hassle will there be a corresponding increase in commuting / long car rides for vacations, etc.

Sure, let me send check to Al Gore.

So far I haven't seen any reliable research that would reasonably explain how self driving cars navigated by central algorithms would help to unclog the streets. I for once would be upset if my car decided to put additional 15 miles to get me to work or wherever I want to go just "for a sake of common good of all other automobiles and streets being unclogged".

Henry Ford II: Walter, how are you going to get those robots to pay your union dues?

Walter Reuther: Henry, how are you going to get them to buy your cars?

Many of the factors affecting traffic jams are a result of human drivers. This animation demonstrates two causes of traffic jams - 'waves' and zip merging:

http://trafficwaves.org/tanim.html

I think it is rather easy to see how a central algorithm would be much better at a) maintaining a safe distance from the car in front, and b) merging quickly and fairly.

Route selection is just one of the things an algorithm could do.

Traffic, by Tom Vanderbilt, has many interesting things to say on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/03072...

Also, the 'safe distance from the car in front' could be dramatically decreased. Reaction times of computers are way lower than those of humans, and also less variable. A car could signal that it is going to brake to a car following it with a meter of space between them, and brake a ms later, trusting the following car to do follow its speed decrease.

Lower inter-car distance on highways will also mean lower air resistance, and hence, higher mpg.

I doubt that the net effect on fuel consumption will be substantial, though. Chances are that people will want their driverless cars to drive faster, so that they can live farther away from work. IMO, the only thing that will help there is pricing (fuel, road use, etc)

should be a good read, thanks!

technology does not kill jobs. our technology has been steadily improving ever since the stone age, and unemployment levels have not appreciably changed. tech increases our quality of life, and the jobs shift away from menial, repetitive, or labour-intensive tasks.

think about how much smaller the portion of our population is who works in manufacturing jobs now compared to during the industrial revolution. now think about how big the entertainment industry is now compared to then. coincidence?

ok then, so in this example, explain me or give me some good ideas on how 15 million US drivers all of sudden being obsolete can find employment in all the fields that self driving cars will create?

This change won't happen overnight. It would take decades to change all the automobiles over to a new technology. They still drive cars from the 1950's in Cuba!

It's more like the cab driver's son won't also become a cab driver, he will have a different type of job. He will be more educated from online resources and most likely work in a field that has been expanded due to technology.

You could even say that cab drivers themselves are benefactors of automobile technology. Their jobs would not exist without the internal combustion engine. But that invention consumed the jobs of rickshaw runners and horse buggy drivers.

The reason behind driving a 1950's car in Cuba is the fact they don't break that often (otherwise they wouldn't be driven would they?) and most likely some weird Cuban embargos on new imports/production. I don't find this example helpful.

I don't see a problem for a rickshaw runner or horse buggy driver becoming a truck driver or UPS delivery guy. They just changed the media that makes them possible to do their job. In this self driving cars scenario, we are replacing drivers with... noone! Unless, self driving cars will be breaking down so often and need so much maintenance that it will create a 15 million workers strong industry to fix or maintain those cars. But I highly doubt that.

edit: other than that, talking only about employment numbers, I don't see how cleaner air or less traffic or getting 15 minutes earlier to work would help 15 million unemployed get the job/create new positions.

This isn't going to happen overnight. It will take a decade or two under even the most optimistic projections.

In 1790, ~90% of the U.S. population lived on farms. By 1900, it was down to 38%. Today, it's about 2%.

15 million US drivers won't all of a sudden become obsolete, any more than hundreds of thousands of airline pilots have suddenly become obsolete now that we can build reliable unmanned aircraft.

I dont think you will fly an unmanned aircraft anytime soon. Heck, I don't think even if, arguendo, they would be available, I would still choose a living pilot!

ok, I guess "all of sudden" means 24 months. how about that?

The fact that I probably won't fly in an unmanned aircraft anytime soon rather supports my argument that these transitions don't happen overnight, no?

24 months is still way too quick. If and when driverless cars start being sold, I'd guess 10-20 years before they make up a solid majority of what's on the road.

Taxi drivers don't wait all day in a parking space next to my house, charge more money, and tend to pull amusing tricks like writing down my fare in their log while swerving all over a three-lane highway.

Good. I'm still not convinced of the utility of Siri to a person walking down the street- perhaps I'm alone, but I don't want to talk to my phone. I find typing to be less conspicuous and not significantly more difficult.

In a car, however, things are different. I think Siri would be a great fit in a hands-free environment.

I agree that it is a little strange to be talking to your phone as you walk down the street, but in other cases it is really useful. Siri's voice recognition is so good that many times it is faster than the alternative. It's much easier to say "Remind me to call John at 3pm" and have Siri automatically create the reminder and alarm than it is to go through the steps to manually add the item to your calendar.

As this technology becomes more and more prevalent the social acceptance of it may go up as well. Not sure if that is a good or bad thing though — instead of having millions of people walking around looking at their phone and typing, we'd have millions walking around barking orders into it.

My older BMW had voice commands and it was terrible.

My new Audi has voice commands that get sent to Google to be parsed back into commands. It works really well for address book and navigation.

It's not Siri, but it's pretty close. I can't say "remind me in 10 minutes to do X" but I can say "Online Destination ... [ pause ] ... In and Out Burger" and it'll find me the directions to the nearest In and Out.

Does anyone see the source of information? I assume this article is not original reporting.

I followed the link to Mercedes' site, and I didn't find "siri" or "apple" anywhere on the page. I can't watch the video right now, though.

That was my first thought, too. Google News search for Siri and Mercedes turns up a couple of sites reporting this, and I found the original press release here:

http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-658451-1-1464474-1-0-0-0-0-...

Necessary. Here's the pathetic voice assistant they used to use on the S-Class : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bateVoomrTY

I've only skimmed the article, but it looks like they're not actually integrating Siri so much as introducing an easy way to interface an iPhone 4S with the car.

Using Siri in the car is it's best use case.

I use her daily to send text messages when driving (have iPhone docked on air conditioning vent). Also to get directions and to phone local businesses.

Though outside of driving I rarely use the function.

I don't mean to flame Siri (or maybe I do?), but am I the only person who thought, "Uh-oh... get ready for lots of lost Mercedes drivers"?

Listen... I appreciate the concept of Siri, but the implementation still has much to be desired. The other day my wife and I were driving down the road searching for somewhere to eat, and I asked Siri for a Chinese Buffet. Her only response was "Are you looking for Chinese food or a Buffet?" As someone with a hankering for all-I-could-eat, lukewarm General Tso's Chicken, that answer was simply unacceptable.

Does this mean the Benz's in-car computer will run OS X?

I wouldn't be surprised if this was some kind of web service, rather than running fully within the car.

"The program, called the Drive Kit Plus will work in conjunction with Mercedes-Benz’ Digital DriveStyle App to translate the iPhone’s screen onto the in-car system screen."

Sounds to me like it is more of a "hook your iPhone into the car" system ... and that basically they are just making it easier for you to use your phone with the car's controls, microphone, speakers, etc.

This has nothing to do with the car per say. I am surprised the discussion went to "Oh get me to the shop". This is only an interface to take to iPhone apps.

Is there a developer API for Siri? I was not aware that one had been released.

My best guess is that it is using the Siri keyboard speed-to-text feature and the app just does its own interpretation on the text?

I'd venture to say they got access to the API for this, similar to how some software companies were developing apps before the sdk was released to the world. Just a guess, based on the fact the article says they're the first car maker to integrate with the new apple technology.

I highly doubt that there will be an API for Siri. Nuance licenses their voice recognition sdk and they want to keep that revenue stream.

The first thought I have is the echo of Steve Jobs, cursing Google for getting into the smartphone business. The whole "We did not enter the search business" quote in particular comes to mind.

We're seeing Android@Home and in the car and I wondered where Apple was going to slide in. And here it is. Make no mistake – going to the high-end car and then slowly make available to the general public is a smart, but classic Apple approach. This is where Apple creeps in without really announcing anything specific.

I don't know if Apple acknowledged this, but this method is a way to get into a market (smartcar) without the pitchforks and conversations about who did what first.

I'm not exactly sure why I was down voted. I am open to criticism, but I don't see anything overtly negative nor misleading. If you don't agree, please state why.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com