Hacker News Reader

Comment by manticore_alpha | Hacker News Reader

Unfortunately, these things just don't have a cool factor. Here's to hoping Tesla moves forward much more quickly (and regular car manufacturers as well.)

It's something Google probably just doesn't "get" - but a lot of people's identities are tied to their cars. It's why we have colors, shapes, brands, options.

This car may be "perfect" algorithmically, but it doesn't mean it stirs the soul.

View on HN

Google is not a car company. They don't want to compete with professional car designers.

What Google wants to do is create a car that is not aggressive in it's design because they want other road users to feel comfortable around a self driving car.

I think they learnt from their mistake with Glass, where it was far too alien/futuristic and hence a lot of people rejected it. Whilst this car isn't futuristic at all but rather cute.

It's boring. This car says you have no imagination, no spontaneity, you're extremely practical, possibly OCD, with a German sense of humor.

In < 5 years, when someone opens up his or her Uber by Google app, they won't care about what the vehicle looks like on the outside (much like an Uber customer today!). All that matters is that it shows up promptly, and that it takes them to wherever they want to go safely, quickly, and comfortably. The focus will be on the interior - WiFi, power outlets, cup holders, leather seats - so that the passenger can pleasurably remain nose deep in his or her smartwatch / smartphone / tablet. The emotional attachment won't exist - it's just another service on demand. Not until the market becomes stratified will the luxuriousness of the autonomous vehicle come into play.

I disagree. I think we find identity in our car because we a pilot them in a similar way we pilot our bodies. As we get less involved in the control of the vehicle, we will care less about how it looks/feels. Taxi cabs are a good example of this.

I disagree. Most people driving around are not racing drivers so they're not "one with the car" so they don't treat it like there bodies. They're more likely to treat it as an accessory.

More over, I quite enjoy driving so I'm not interesting in relinquishing control of the vehicle.

Tesla doesn't quite have the R&D for this yet. They have "autopilot", but it isn't quite as complete/competent. They might want to buy that technology from Google.

Either way, the point of Google's self-driving clown car isn't to look cool, it's to get people used to the idea of robotic cars driving around on the streets, successfully not killing people. It's largely PR. They're really doing everyone a favor.

It's a taxi. Google doesn't need the design to appeal to individuals, because they aren't selling it to individuals. Instead, they want it to appeal to the cities that they want to partner with. For that purpose, the design is fine. I'd love to see a fleet of these driving around our streets here.

Yes, it's almost like they're designed to be a business solution where "cool" doesn't matter. You know, like to get you from the airport to long-term parking. Maybe a solution for an Uber/Lyft to enter smaller markets?

Autos will never be sold to consumers. At least the general public. Or at least average people will never buy one.

It is a tremendous, insane, unacceptable waste to have autos parked all day. The only way these things make sense is through subscription services where you can summon a car from a fleet whenever you want, so that you can maximize utilization.

However, the reason for that is that the majority of people keep roughly the same hours. And the current system at least has the advantage that cars are generally near their owners rather than driving additional miles to get to centralized locations. Given various assumptions, utilization could certainly be increased--though we already have the ZipCar and taxi options--but I'm unconvinced that the pay-per-use economics are going to be as compelling as you think.

Except it is a self managing fleet. Autos would not just stay in central locations, they will use current parking infrastructure to distribute themselves. People will have drive ways for a hundred years even if everyone gets rid of the cars - and you'll get 5% off your subscription to let them park autos in your drive way.

And the majority is just maximal utilization. Even then, it is drastically less than the total number of vehicles in the system, and the reuse of those vehicles every other hour of the day besides peak hour is only a utilization gain.

It will be much cheaper to subscribe to an auto service than own one. In the best case one auto could possibly represent the vehicle usage of a dozen or more people if their driving times align properly. And the worst case is that it is still two or three times the utilization.

If prices sink low enough during off-peak hours (and surge high enough during peak), people will alter their behaviour.

Eg I'd be happy to send a car on an autonomous grocery run during the day.

Tesla doesn't have any technology to speak of. They sell a sled filled with thousands of flashlight batteries. The only thing Tesla has is their car looks cool.

So Google doesn't have cool, and Tesla doesn't have technology. Could be some synergy maybe.

Single gear electric motor? Revolutionary battery technology? Nope; no technology here.

Have you actually driven or in fact spent any time in a Tesla?

I own two.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com