"King Ginger, not writing for Business Insider" (king-ginger)
10/13/2013 at 22:07 • Filed to: Self Driving Cars
0
3|
"King Ginger, not writing for Business Insider" (king-ginger)
10/13/2013 at 22:07 • Filed to: Self Driving Cars | 0
| 3 |
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!
The false assumptions that a) car companies are not massively complex "tech" companies and b) that any of the isolated variables are specifically attributed to a "tech" company instead of the automotive field leave me shaking my head.
People...sigh.
TheOnelectronic
> King Ginger, not writing for Business Insider
10/13/2013 at 22:12 |
|
But let's be honest: Google is much, MUCH more invested in computer systems than Chevy.
But don't worry, I've dedicated the next five minutes of my life to hacking driverless cars so that they are never a viable option.
Driva La Revolucion!
GhostZ
> King Ginger, not writing for Business Insider
10/13/2013 at 22:23 |
|
I like how they consider "handling" a technical aspect, as if it was something that autonomous cars could control, or was only tied to the software of the car.
Outside of people who are intelligent about cars, the general consensus is that a car is tires bolted onto an axle that spins, maybe with a spring to hold it up. Most people don't realize the sheer absurd complexity in modern suspension systems. If 'handling' is your main concern, you should research what type of suspension geometries do which type of changes to the way a car moves, not the software that controls it.
They also don't control for media attention. Most people think that Google is the only one researching self-driving cars, so of course they're going to want one from Google. It's like applying analysis under the assumptions that the people you survey know everything that you do.
Basically, they asked for opinions from a general audience, but instead of making
public opinion
conclusions, which they can, they made
management and value
conclusions about certain technologies and companies, which they can't. It's no better than asking someone whose political preference boils down to 'red vs blue' about some very complex budgeting bill. They aren't going to be able to adequately explain the details, so you can't make a statement about the quality of the bill, or the direction it should go, you can only conclude what people think about it, and try to show that what they believe is right or wrong. Instead, the paper takes the opinions as a matter of "this is what should be done". The market is not that simple, and if car companies did their R/D based off of consumer demand/want, most cars would probably be pretty terrible, because most people do not know what they really want until they get it/experience it.
|
GhostZ
> King Ginger, not writing for Business Insider
10/13/2013 at 22:46 |
|
Also, how can you make any compulsive study with such a small sample size. Look at the cars that are driven by the people they surveyed: BMW 5 series, Nissan Murano, Honda CRV, Toyota Prius, and a Camry. They were all 2-3 years old, except for the Camry, which is 5 years old.
How is that, in any way, indicative of the entire driving public?! Not only did they completely ignore trucks, utility vehicles, MPVs, or basically anything that's not a crossover or a sedan, but the entire conclusion is based of circumstantial, superficial, not expert knowledge.