[bro1999]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-way-to-the-front-of-the-driverless-car-pack

GM flexing its muscle in the one key thing Tesla doesn't have: $$$$$
Money well spent, I think, since GM is now the leader of the pack.

 

[Steverino]

Why do you feel compelled to slam Tesla in a positive post on GM, bro1999? You seem to have an unhealthy fixation on Tesla. The nonstop anti-Tesla crusade is not needed, is unhelpful, and tiring.

 

[bro1999]

Why do you feel compelled to slam Tesla in a positive post on GM, bro1999? You seem to have an unhealthy fixation on Tesla. The nonstop anti-Tesla crusade is not needed, is unhelpful, and tiring.

Point out anything incorrect in my post and I'll happily fix it. You don't like the tone of my posts? Unless I'm violating some forum rule, suck it up, buttercup.

edit: in fact, you're the one that helped "create the monster" so to speak, with your suggestion I start the Bad News Bro Tesla network. I took that idea and ran with it.

 

[fotomoto1]

You seem to have an unhealthy fixation on Tesla.

Steve, there are fans and then there are fanatics (aka fanboys). The former are like most folks on a forum with a healthy interest in the subject but the latter are the ones who not only drank the kool-aid, they knocked over the women and children in line in front of them to chug the whole pitcher!

 

[DonC]

I somewhat disagree with the underlying premise of the article. The stated point is that GM used a bag of money to buy technology. That's absolutely true. And it's not just Cruise with software, it's also lidar and no doubt other pieces of technology going forward. No argument there.

But the underlying premise seems to be that this was a one-off where one car company bought one company. That's not really the case. Car companies are buying software companies -- and not the other way around -- because it has become clear that it's easier to do the software part than the car part. Ultimately you have to integrate all these technologies into a vehicle, and car manufacturers are uniquely positioned to do this. Hence software companies like Apple can't really compete. Plus it's a numbers game. You have way more companies doing the brains for autonomy than you have companies building vehicles. So the law of supply and demand means higher prices for the car companies and lower prices for the start ups. GM may have spent $500M for Cruise Automation, which was a nice payday for the founders and employees (past and present), but its market cap went up by something like $9B as Wall Street decided it was well positioned in autonomy.

 

[DonC]

GM flexing its muscle in the one key thing Tesla doesn't have: $$$$$

Don't think money is really the issue. Tesla lost more than GM paid for Cruise IN THE LAST QUARTER. For Tesla the problem is Musk decided that it was possible to do autonomy with cameras, which is way cheaper than using lidar and mapping. Would be fantastic if it worked. However, it hasn't worked out -- turns out cameras alone are not sufficient -- but Musk is now committed to being right. As a consequence it lost its connection to Mobileye, setting back AP, and hasn't been able to keep top engineering talent on the autonomy side. So more a case of "not invented here" than anything, an affliction which GM has been known to have as well (though obviously less lately).

Note that Tesla is at least in the game. It has an electric program -- Duh -- and it has an autonomy program. If you want to look at the truly forlorn, you might want to mention FCA. Now there is a company which appears hapless at the moment.

Why do you feel compelled to slam Tesla in a positive post on GM, bro1999? You seem to have an unhealthy fixation on Tesla. The nonstop anti-Tesla crusade is not needed, is unhelpful, and tiring.

Agree with the sentiments.

 

[bro1999]

I somewhat disagree with the underlying premise of the article. The stated point is that GM used a bag of money to buy technology. That's absolutely true. And it's not just Cruise with software, it's also lidar and no doubt other pieces of technology going forward. No argument there.

But the underlying premise seems to be that this was a one-off where one car company bought one company. That's not really the case. Car companies are buying software companies -- and not the other way around -- because it has become clear that it's easier to do the software part than the car part. Ultimately you have to integrate all these technologies into a vehicle, and car manufacturers are uniquely positioned to do this. Hence software companies like Apple can't really compete. Plus it's a numbers game. You have way more companies doing the brains for autonomy than you have companies building vehicles. So the law of supply and demand means higher prices for the car companies and lower prices for the start ups. GM may have spent $500M for Cruise Automation, which was a nice payday for the founders and employees (past and present), but its market cap went up by something like $9B as Wall Street decided it was well positioned in autonomy.

GM definitely sees a future revenue stream ripe for tapping (autonomous vehicles and ride sharing) and its going for the jugular to make sure it is at the forefront of that market. Ride sharing/autonomous vehicles are a threat to all car manufacturers primary business (moving metal off lots), as gains in popularity of ride sharing/AVs will ultimately lead to fewer people buying cars. GM is positioning itself so that if such a shift occurs, it won't be caught with its pants down reacting after the fact.

 

[Loboc]

... software companies like Apple can't really compete.

I wouldn't rule out Apple or Waymo. They've both got VERY deep pockets and have the software geeks to make a robotic car. Waymo especially has loads of AI engineers.

They could buy a company like FCA (with pocket change), sell off the truck division and make whatever they want out of it. Or, just have their Chinese minions make the vehicles.

 

[DonC]

I wouldn't rule out Apple or Waymo. They've both got VERY deep pockets and have the software geeks to make a robotic car. Waymo especially has loads of AI engineers.

They could buy a company like FCA (with pocket change), sell off the truck division and make whatever they want out of it. Or, just have their Chinese minions make the vehicles.

No argument really. I wasn't thinking about Waymo. It's in an entirely different class than the software startups, both because of how long it has been working on autonomy and because it has a very financially well off parent. But yes, Alphabet has the financial muscle to buy a auto manufacturer, though that would require a seismic shift in the corporate mind set. Even a wireless handset is a big deal on the hardware front for Alphabet. Just too much uncertainty about the margins for Waymo.

Startups like Cruise really don't have the resources to even think about acquisitions like this. So in their case it doesn't matter what the thinking is.

 

[Upper5Percent]

And ride sharing component is getting interesting...

https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/18/gm-self-driving-cruise-program-uber/

https://www.theinformation.com/gms-cruise-talks-to-uber-as-lyft-relationship-fades

https://www.recode.net/2017/11/30/16720994/gm-cruise-cto-susan-fowler

 

[Mister Dave]

I somewhat disagree with the underlying premise of the article. The stated point is that GM used a bag of money to buy technology. That's absolutely true. And it's not just Cruise with software, it's also lidar and no doubt other pieces of technology going forward. No argument there.

But the underlying premise seems to be that this was a one-off where one car company bought one company. That's not really the case. Car companies are buying software companies -- and not the other way around -- because it has become clear that it's easier to do the software part than the car part. Ultimately you have to integrate all these technologies into a vehicle, and car manufacturers are uniquely positioned to do this. Hence software companies like Apple can't really compete. Plus it's a numbers game. You have way more companies doing the brains for autonomy than you have companies building vehicles. So the law of supply and demand means higher prices for the car companies and lower prices for the start ups. GM may have spent $500M for Cruise Automation, which was a nice payday for the founders and employees (past and present), but its market cap went up by something like $9B as Wall Street decided it was well positioned in autonomy.

Don't think money is really the issue. Tesla lost more than GM paid for Cruise IN THE LAST QUARTER. For Tesla the problem is Musk decided that it was possible to do autonomy with cameras, which is way cheaper than using lidar and mapping. Would be fantastic if it worked. However, it hasn't worked out -- turns out cameras alone are not sufficient -- but Musk is now committed to being right. As a consequence it lost its connection to Mobileye, setting back AP, and hasn't been able to keep top engineering talent on the autonomy side. So more a case of "not invented here" than anything, an affliction which GM has been known to have as well (though obviously less lately).

Note that Tesla is at least in the game. It has an electric program -- Duh -- and it has an autonomy program.

Subtitle:

42 companies are now testing 285 self-driving cars in the Golden State

Autonomous cars without human drivers will be allowed on California roads starting next year

There's going to be more M&A in this field. Blah blah blah..... who cares really? GM has been doing M&A since the early 1900s. It's like arguing if I could dye my hair purple and what meaning that would have. At best it would mean I had some purple dye.

What matters is who puts cars on the road. Who is in a position to do that in numbers that matter?

Tesla is busting out at the seams as it is and their AV program is weak at best. I'm not clear on who else has a package that works and that they can mass produce. Heck, we're not even sure GM's package really works yet.

They could buy a company like FCA (with pocket change), sell off the truck division and make whatever they want out of it. Or, just have their Chinese minions make the vehicles.

Better off buying Tesla IMO. Both are poorly run, but at least Tesla doesn't have the decades long crap cars reputation - yet, and in Tesla's case it's not too late to fix that.

 

[volt spain]

I have to say that the first time I heard about autonomous driving was from the mouth of Musk...I though was science fiction !!!.