This article is more than 1 year old

'Disruptive innovation' is nonsense? Not ALWAYS, actually

Check out Google v Big Auto, eggheads, then come back to me

Google, Big Auto, digital maps and driverless cars

All of which brings us to the next technological wave about to engulf us, the driverless car. There's much muttering about how Google isn't getting much joy out of trying to cooperate with the behemoths of Detroit.

Disruptive: Driverless cars will DESTROY DETROIT. No, really

The latter would like to see small and incremental additions of useful technology to current cars (aid with parking, for example) and the former wants to go all out for entirely autonomous vehicles.

One can see this from both sides and in doing so it's possible to divine why there's unlikely to be much agreement between them.

Detroit obviously wants to continue with the current model of each adult (more or less) having their own car which gets used for perhaps 90 minutes a day and then rusts quietly the rest of the time. That's what supports their unit sales, after all. The important thing here is maintaining the idea of individual ownership of a vehicle.

Google, on the other hand, is clearly interested in the idea of near-public fleets that are in use almost all of the time. This would, of course, kill off the volume of sales. The two business cases (or “use models” if you prefer) are clearly in conflict. So it's not at all surprising that Google and Big Auto are not getting very far in cooperating. One is trying to offer a disruptive technology, something that will entirely upend the economics of the extant industry. The other is the extant industry which would really prefer not to be upended, thank you very much.

Thus, if Google's model of driverless cars does come to pass, it's going to be through a new entrant to the marketplace, not via one of the incumbents volunteering to be taken out behind the woodshed.

True disruption: finding a guaranteed revenue stream

Another potential sticking point is the maps which were developed by Google and are essential for its robo-cars to operate, says Sven Strohband, a robotics expert who worked at Volkswagen until 2006 and who was not involved in the discussions.

That data, compiled by Google, can be extraordinarily detailed, down to the height of kerbs or location of signs. “The question is who owns the data,” he said. "You need to have frequent map updates and your car can only go where you have really accurate map data."

This answers the question of what Google might be able to get out of their work on these cars. If the technology depends upon those accurate maps, maps which need continual updating, then Google can (perhaps should, or could) charge an ongoing fee to everyone using said technology. For road layouts do change gradually over time and so you'll need to have today's maps in order to be able to get to places.

$20 a month would produce a very good revenue stream indeed if every car, even the reduced number of shared vehicles, simply had to have such a subscription simply to remain in operation. ®

More about

TIP US OFF

Send us news


Other stories you might like