https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/media/videos/13...
Now it's possible they have since hired some experts, but a good 80%+ of all the well-known AI/Machine learning people I know of are working for Google.
Google have got the guys who literally wrote the book on AI.
And if 80% of the well known people in AI/machine learning are employed by Google then I assume that no interesting work is being done outside there. Pretty sure there are a few companies around who would disagree with you there.
Because they can hire expers in machine learning just fine. Just how they progressed from dumb cars in the 50's to modern cars full of real-time OSes, micro-computers and sensors and stuff.
Plus, I don't see Google as any kind of "experts in machine learning", with perhaps the exception of search.
Google having access to my email and web habits and showing me BS unrelated ads doesn't boost my confidence in their machine learning capabilities either.
Google is focusing on a self driving car at NHTSA level 4 and plans to have such a vehicle available to the public between 2017-2020, while these other companies are focusing on level 3 and have no solid plans for level 4.
It is all about sensors, algorithms, telemetry and maps. And pretty sure the car companies that participate in F1 would have a pretty good understanding of how to get all of those working together nicely. Not that it is a problem that only Google is qualified to solve.
Google, aside from a few select areas (Search, Mail, Android) has a big track record of conceptual BS and half-baked products that get pulled back or fail in the market (Chromebook, Motorola phones, Glass, Wave, Plus, etc).
Company age has nothing to do with its ability to innovate (if anything, you'd want to squeeze the last penny out of your existing tech/products before offering something new).
Tesla sells in less than a handful of countries and given the amount of money they are losing with questionable success. Toyota, Nissan and GM have been selling electric cars en masse in almost all countries in which they operate i.e. most of them.
So yes. The existing car companies are best positioned to bring autonomous driving to fruition. They have already been doing it now with auto parking and accident avoidance. And let's not forget that have the supply chain, regulatory and marketing aspects sewn up.
However, that doesn't mean the big car companies won't make cars that are just as good - the point is that now they HAVE to and that's good. Same with self-driving cars.
... ads, maps, cloud computing, cloud document storage & editing, analytics, fiber optics...
Be fair. They're doing a lot of things, so obviously not everything will pan out, but the products that do are usually not just market successes, they become the market.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/haydnshaughnessy/2013/02/04/why-...
Auto-makers want to do smaller R&D projects that they can deliver to consumers within a few years of start (instead of a decade+). Things like adaptive cruise control or self-braking. These are things that were just a few years of R&D and are shipping now.
They are different paths to the same goal. We don't know the outcome yet, Google or the auto-makers may get there first. But we do know that auto-makers will have sellable features in the mean time while Google just has pretty marketing videos and demos.
What Google is bringing (that the article mentions) is the discussion about fully self-driving cars. This discussions means laws are being passed to facilitate the technology. It also means that the NTSB, insurance companies, and others involved in the auto industry are talking about the impacts of what a self-driving car means within our current system. So hopefully by the time they arrive, the rules and laws will be caught up with it. It also means consumers are talking about it and becoming aware of the possibility, which helps motivate others to work on the same projects. It may also mean that consumers are less wary of the technology when it actually does arrive.
Open-loop driving is a terrifying idea. Not because it wont work 99% of the time; but because it will fail catastrophically 1% of the time which is way, way too often.
Of course, I'm sure the data's culled a thousand ways to Sunday to make it manageable, but it's going to be like a self-contained industrial process, which can generate positively stupid amounts of data.