/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>877356
Tell me a robot manufacturing company that is publically traded and isn't on the same level as 2 brothers working in their basement.

>>877514
Honda ... Asimo, and Google ... Boston Dynamics

>>877518
Done. OP, go invest in them.
there are lots of people investing in them.

>>877514
ROBO is a robotics ETF.

>>877356
Hasn't done as well as I'd like since I bought it, but then I bought it earlier this year...

mercedes bring ot self drive truck 2017 wonder how it will go

>>877356
ABB

>>877356

> automation guys!

no.

u sound like those 1950's videos where they said by the year 2000 we would have colonies on the moon.

>>878893
Except we literally jave self driving cara on public roads right now and truckers earn an average of 40k a year (and thats them only driving 12 hour shifts) so thats a terrible comparison

We have the tech. We are using the tech. Financial incentive / health reasons exist to advance it a little more.

5.4 million us jobs revolve around driving, consider them non existent in 10 years.

YOU sound like one of those guys who said the internet or computers were just a fad.

For anyone interested the big players are google , apple tesla and uber , I expect uber to get scooped up by one of the other 2 if they make a breakthrough

>>878938
The biggest problem with driverless cars is whether thet aren't legislated out of existance. How is the government going to deal with losing all traffic fine revenue?

The second biggest, somewhat more solveable problem, will be how driverless cars interact with real drivers on the road. Driverless cars can interact with eachother and proactively maneuver, instead of reactively driving. A human driver has to react to other vehicles and does not always do so in a predictable manner. If the roadways were deluded with driverless cars doing 65mph on I-5 blocking up both lanes, how would you react?

>>878893
except this is like saying we will have men on the moon within several days after the rocket with men on their way to the moon had already been launched...

TO THE MOON

but seriously don't most indexes already have like 20% tech? It's not some new guys-in-their-shed company that's going to make the robots, it's going to be companies that already have the infrastructure like auto companies, google etc.

>>878941
>The second biggest, somewhat more solveable problem, will be how driverless cars interact with real drivers on the road

I think you misunderstand how driverless cars work (as for now). They don't all communicate and move as one hive, they simply drive how a human drives, by looking around, looking where other cars are going, reading speed limits, reading alternate direction signs at construction sites etc. The thing is though that they do it 10x better than humans. No 0.2 second response time, 360 view, laser distance determination etc.

>>878953
You completely dodged my main point about traffic fines.

And I think you missed my second point altogether. Ever been 5 minutes late and get stuck behind the "perfect" driver doing the exact fucking speed limit and making 3 second stops at every sign? What stops you from running that car off the road? The fact that there's another person in it who will retaliate in some way. What if there is no person in control of that car? Now what if you have the knowledge that when you swerve around and near the rear quarterpanel, the driverless car will avoid the accident and pull off the road into the shoulder? Now every human driver who wants to pass a driverless car swerves and passes. I don't see it working well once we get a good number of these things on the road.

>>878893
niggers ruined progress

>>877356
>they will replace a lot of drivers and slave labour in the next 10 years

That's what they said 10 years ago.

They will not replace any drivers. The companies that are developing autonomous driving technology has even said so. Autonomous driving is only coming to highways and interstates. There will still need to be drivers for cities and loading docks. Airplanes have been 90% autonomous for years and you don't see pilots losing their jobs do you? God this bait is weak.

>>878963
Cameras thats what.

Ticketing revenue will come from regular inspections of your driverless car's maintenance logs.

>>878963
shit man you sound like an insufferable driver. Not everyone will burst out into road rage just because someone sticks to the speed limit.

And as to fines: they're meant to encourage safe driving, not necessarily function as an income source. Rebalancing into other taxes could be done. Not to mention the government will more likely save 10x that amount on medical expenses, emergency service etc. due to less accidents.

>>878953
>reading speed limits
inb4 mad unemployed drivers sabotage the speed limits somehow and create the first robot on human mass murder accident

>>879003
The cars have speed limit info from both built-in maps but verify by reading signs. With conflicting info they'll stick to the lowest I believe

>>878999
>>878996
You both vastly underestimate traffic fine revenue.

California issues 20 million tickets a year. At $200 each (which is low considering DUIs run $2k and light violations are $500), that is $4 billion a year.

The problem isn't really whether that money would be replaced by savings in other areas. The problem lies in department funding and bureaucracy. Police unions aren't going to want to lose funding and will lobby at the local levels to ban driverless cars on local roads to keep up ticket revenue. Gas tax will absolutely have to go up. How many politicians are going to put there necks on the line for a huge gas tax increase? What about lost tax revenue from the entire custom auto industry? No more accidents = no more autobody shops? What happens to the insurance industry?

>Tldr: driverless cars are a novelty, but they create more problems than they solve. Successful inventions solve problems, not create them.

>>879020
All of those organizations are equivalent to the guilds of the middle ages, yes they're powerful now but they're about to get steamrolled by the new industrialists.

>>879020
>>Tldr: driverless cars are a novelty, but they create more problems than they solve. Successful inventions solve problems, not create them.
Doesn't that just mean that cars are an unsuccessful invention, since they create so many problems (dead drivers/bystanders, requiring repairs, the above so need to fine people into using them correctly, etc.)

I mean by your logic we should just increase needless bureaucracy since it would be great for the economy and make jobs.

>>877356
>they will replace a lot of drivers and slave labour in the next 10 years
They will replace most service industry and white collar jobs as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

>>879065
Cars solved the problem of traveling from place to place quickly. The world then adapted around how revolutionary the idea of moving crosscountry in a matter of hours conveniently was. I don't see the same problem solving coming from removing the driver.

Driverless cars aren't being marketed as a solution to driver safety anyway, since I believe most individuals still trust their own driving over that of a machine.

You're being very idealistic about how society actually works, but remember that if Henry Ford hadn't gone up against the entire auto industry, violated patents, disregarded the courts, and eventually won out in the court of public opinion, not everyone might even own a car today. It took such a massively revolutionary idea as your average everyday citizen being able to move around the country at will to change our infrastructure. Does simply removing the driver from the equation benefit the average person enough that it will inspire the masses to sign on?

>>879073
>Does simply removing the driver from the equation benefit the average person enough that it will inspire the masses to sign on?
I don't know about most people, but the fact that a machine is actually a better driver paired with the idea of working and sleeping during commutes and never needing a designated driver any more are pretty damn appealing to me.

Imagine your car dropping your kids of at school or picking them up at night without you. Imagine the elderly who are scared to drive regaining their mobility. Imagine going to sleep in your car and waking up at your holiday destination. Imagine going on a road trip with friends while playing poker, smoking cigars and drinking whiskey in lounge chairs around a central table. Or just snuggling with your gf in your car bed with the curtains drawn and fucking and watching movies on the highway on the way to the seaside cottage you rented for the weekend. Sounds good to me.

>>879089
That all sounds fucking amazing. This cannot happen soon enough.

>>879073
If you look at time spent driving as time which could be spent working, the world's economy potentially loses billions of hours of productive work every year; literal trillions of dollars.

>>878993

The thing about these so called "driverless" cars is that you're still in the drivers seat and you do have the option to take control of the vehicle with almost all of them.

The funniest thing about the Google driverless car is that it's still having tons of wrecks, but not because of the car. They're having tons of problems with the fact that it obeys all traffic laws and always takes such extreme precaution, that they're getting hammered by other people.

>>877356
i dont want to invest cause it will only speed up the process. it wont matter if i have money invested in them i will still lose a job.

>>879108
>If you look at time spent driving as time which could be spent working, the world's economy potentially loses billions of hours of productive work every year; literal trillions of dollars.
This is true, and from a different perspective: People are losing years of free time driving places. Imagine having an hour commute, but instead of having to drive home you pop in the back seat with a cold beer and put on the TV. It's likely what most people would do at home anyway.

Shit, imagine living in a self-driving RV.

>>878884
I remember a post on /b/ in about 2008 by a guy who said he was from the future. He said, specifically, that ABB, Google, and one or two other companies (can't remember which) were going to be at the forefront of the next industrial revolution.

7 years later and we've yet to see any kind of industrial revolution. Perhaps it's just such a slow process that the incremental improvements are imperceptible.

nasa they build robots

Your average driver is not going to see the driverless option as beneficial. Most of us want the option to break the speed limit available and just trust ourselves more than the machines. Also, I know a couple who bought a car with collision-avoidance. It almost killed them 3 times so they took it back and had it removed.

I just don't see the benefit of having to follow all traffic laws at all times and not getting the enjoyment of driving.

Seems like a fad like FB and Google's VA program. They have to compete with each other to give shareholders something to ogle. Remember when Segways were going to replace the bicycle? Lol

>>879296
*VR

>>879278
Nah man. One of the big univsity labs just came out with a 3d printer that cost 7k and prints in 10 different materials. It also use a laser scanner to self correct and you can add materials to it and itll print around them (so were just a smidge away from 3d printers that can print circuit boards)

Your sense of how fast things advance is being skewed by your internet addiction (instant gratification dopamine rushes)

Hell their fine uning vr as we speak , in less than 5 ears we might be discussing this with vr headsets on

>>879020
The problem isn't really whether that money would be replaced by savings in other areas. The problem lies in department funding and bureaucracy. Stable owners aren't going to want to lose funding and will lobby at the local levels to ban horseless carriages on local roads to keep up boardind revenue. Feed tax will absolutely have to go up. How many politicians are going to put there necks on the line for a huge horse feed tax increase? What about lost tax revenue from the entire custom buggy industry? No more horses = no more veterinarians? What happens to the racing industry?

See how stupid that sounds?

Face it grandpa, no matter how much impotent rage you show on a Zambian potato peeling forum, technology will always move forward and economics will force it to do so. Drivers will soon be a thing of the past. Truck drivers, taxis, public transit... It will all be automated, because computers are cheaper and better in every way.

>>879321
I was saying that removing the driver from the transportation method is not all that revolutionary. It's not even a noticeable improvement to the average consumer. If you come up with an insane new technology that renders cars obsolete (like cars did to horse drawn carriages) then, yes, society will adapt.

But just auto driving a car is Roomba-tier. Almost all of us still use vacuumcleaners

>>878938

> we have self driving cars right now.

Oh cool. Where can I buy one!? I'd like to get one pronto.

>>878938

Just consider (for about 60 seconds) every little thing that goes into driving a vehicle from one point to another. Then consider whether a computer and some cameras could perform the function.

planes aren't even automated you idiot. they still need pilots. And there's no fuckin traffic lights, potholes or deer in midair.

Google
Irobot
Raytheon
Lockheed Martin
Amazon

>>879487
>I can't buy a nuke therefore they don't exist

>>879489
>Then consider whether a computer and some cameras could perform the function.

The answer is yes. Yes they can. Dude this is happenig right now. In reality.

I know its 2025 and you may have been led to believe otherwise by the way politicians and the media act but I assure you that objective facts about reality are not up for debate.

Self driving cars already exist and are driving on public roads right now.

>>879535
>implying any of them have been sold
Stop trying to create demand where none exists.

New technology isn't just "adopted." It has to be sold to consumers. Ask around. No one wants a robot taking control of their car

>>879541
It may take them some time to get used to, but they will eventually. People were scared to death of early trains as well, but there are not many left to go travel on horseback instead because new things make them feel irrationally icky. People were scared of flying to, but not many take the boat across the Atlantic instead any more.

Self-driving cars have enough benefits to be inevitable as a new standards of transportation.

>>879535
what a degenerate picture

>>879588
What benefits are these? I still get where I'm going if I drive myself. Arguably faster.

>>879600

>>879089
>>879108
>>879227

For example.

>>879487
>>879588
implying you will own the cars.

http://theantimedia.org/car-companies-want-to-make-it-against-the-law-to-modify-your-own-vehicle/

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/05/20/general-motors-says-owns-your-car-software/

>>879796
That goes for all cars, not merely self-driving ones.

>>877518
>Honda
Shit
>Asimo
Shit
>Google
They're going under, which is why the co-founders started Alphabet.
>BD
Owned by google. So you buy google stock.
There aren't robot companies yet. The big boom will come when the DOD starts funneling a shitton of money to robotic companies for military purposes.

>>879851
>They're going under,
what makes you think that

>which is why the co-founders started Alphabet.
they started Alphabet to deal with the European Union suing them for having too much power and using it for their own benefit for years now. Which is pretty damn funny because if there's one organization with too much power and using it for their own benefit it's the European Union.

>Speed limits can't be changed to reflect new, safer cars
>People don't want to be able to commute while reading/watching tv/doing work
>People don't want a car that will get you home from a pub without killing yourself/others
The fucking Luddites here.

ups uses a lot of robots people are to slow they do over 1.5millon packages a day

Self-driving cars are like chauffeurs.
I like being chauffeured around so I can be more efficient with my time.
If I want to drive myself, it'd be for fun, not work.

>>879851
>says google going under
>says to buy google stock

>says to not invest in robot companies until there is demand
>doesn't buy low before the masses

good advice anon

once they learn how to make graphene processors robots should take off .graphene company's be good investment too