The first Tesla I ever saw was stripped down to the chassis, a bare-metal incarnation of the company’s flagship electric Roadster on display at an event in Silicon Valley. Without the need for an internal combustion engine, the two-seater’s petite frame was dominated by a huge battery. My first thought: “This looks like a giant cell phone on wheels.”
As it turns out, I was more right than I realized.
This week, years after that first sighting, Tesla announced plans for what it calls the “Gigafactory,” a 10-million-square-foot plant for making car batteries. The company hopes that the sheer scale of the operation, combined with the inventiveness of its engineers, will bring battery prices down far enough to finally bring its electric cars into the mainstream.
But it’s not just the prospect of a gasoline-free future that has sparked such excitement about the Gigafactory. The same basic lithium-ion tech that fuels Tesla’s cars also runs most of today’s other mobile gadgets, large and small. If Tesla really produces batteries at the scale it’s promising, cars could become just one part of what the company does. One day, Tesla could be a company that powers just about everything, from the phone in your pocket to the electrical grid itself.
Earlier this month, as rumors swirled that Apple might want to buy Tesla, San Francisco Chronicle reported that Tesla CEO Elon Musk had indeed met with the iPhone maker. Musk later confirmed that Tesla and Apple had talked, but he wouldn’t say what about.
Now that Tesla has announced the Gigafactory, Gartner auto industry analyst Thilo Koslowski thinks it would make more sense for Tesla to talk with Apple about something other than an acquisition. “Depending on the capacity of the factory and who the other investors will be, Tesla could start selling its batteries for other products besides cars,” Koslowski tells WIRED. “This could actually mean Tesla might build batteries for Apple.”
Better Batteries for Less Money
To begin erecting its factory, Tesla said it would seek $1.6 billion in debt financing — money that Apple itself could easily supply from its massive cash reserves. In fact, the world’s biggest company could easily put up the money for the entire Gigafactory, which Tesla estimates will ultimately cost between $4 billion and $5 billion. Though industry analysts say the global manufacturing capacity for consumer electronics batteries is already considerable, the economies of scale that Tesla is promising could give Apple access to a whole different level of efficiency, sophistication, and control.
Unlike many parts of the consumer electronics industry, battery-making factories are, in general, highly automated, which means that labor doesn’t factor significantly into production costs. As anyone who has seen Tesla’s car-making robots in action can attest, factory automation is something the company does really, really well. Deep involvement in the project from the start — say, as an investor — could give Apple exactly the kind of intimate involvement with a key supplier that it relishes. This sort of control defines its approach to products. For consumers, that could mean Apple getting better batteries for its devices for less money, just like Tesla wants to do for its cars.
Even if the Gigafactory never makes a battery for a single iPhone, however, its impact on the future of energy storage could be huge. The company says that, once fully operational, the plant will more than double the volume of lithium ion batteries produced in the world today. Sam Jaffe, a battery industry analyst with Navigant Research, says the price drops predicted by Tesla are in line with his firm’s forecasts, and that the cheaper batteries will bring Tesla closer to achieving its primary mission of making a widely affordable electric car, what Tesla is calling its “Gen III” mass market vehicle, or Model E. “The whole point of that model and the whole point of the company was to make that car,” Jaffe says. “It wasn’t to make sports cars or luxury cars. It was to make a family car comparable in price to a gasoline model.”
To reach that mass market, Tesla hopes to be cranking out batteries for 500,000 cars per year by 2020, supported by the Gigafactory. That’s compared to the 35,000 Model S sedans Tesla expects to make this year. Reaching that goal would mean not only a lot more electric cars on the road but a lot more batteries that would need to be replaced. The batteries that power Teslas are a lot like smartphone batteries: Eventually, they start losing their strength. Unlike smartphone batteries, getting down to 60 or 70 percent of their full capacity isn’t just inconvenient. It could leave drivers stranded. Tesla says it plans to fully integrate battery recycling into the Gigafactory’s operations, which could add to the cost savings.
Powering the Grid
But Koslowski says those old batteries could also become part of a robust secondary market. They could, for instance, store energy generated by home solar grids, which can make use of less-than-full strength cells because they don’t have to go anywhere. Already Tesla is supplying battery packs to SolarCity, the solar installer of which Musk serves as chairman, and the company believes that one day its batteries could even serve as backup energy sources for utilities themselves. Bullish Wall Street analysts even predict that, in addition to buttressing the renewable energy grid, Tesla could combine its expertise in cars, batteries, and digital technology to become a leading maker of self-driving vehicles.
Any of this coming to pass, of course, depends on whether the Gigafactory will actually accomplish what Tesla says it will. To bring prices down, battery industry consultant K.M. Abraham says, Tesla will have to figure out how to make its batteries without pushing up costs for component suppliers who would have to increase their output to meet the car maker’s demands. “Unless you come out with new low-cost materials, the battery prices will remain pretty much the same,” says Abraham, who is also a professor of renewable technology at Northeastern University.
Though details from Tesla are scant, a diagram released by the company suggests it does plan to bring as much of the battery making process as possible within the Gigafactory’s walls. Tesla is also pledging to power much of the plant with its own wind and solar energy, a potential testing ground for using its batteries as part of the electrical grid. Diversifying into different uses could be especially crucial if demand for Tesla’s cars doesn’t hit the company’s own projections. Building a factory on such a massive scale is a huge risk if it only makes one thing, but that risk diminishes if Tesla has the ability to use its expertise to make batteries for many uses. If nothing else, Tesla is creating an unprecedented space just to see what’s possible when energy becomes mobile.
“It’s breathtaking, just the sheer size of it,” Jaffe says of the Gigafactory. “This is so beyond anything by comparison.”
Google announced an experimental Android-powered smartphone with powerful 3D sensors called Project Tango on Thursday. The phone is the latest project out of Google’s Advanced Technology and Projects (ATAP) group.
„The goal of Project Tango is to give mobile devices a human-scale understanding of space and motion,“ Johnny Lee, ATAP’s technical program lead, wrote in a Google+ post announcing the project.
The 5-inch phone will run Android and be equipped a series of 3D sensors capable of taking more than a quarter of a million measurements each second. Google envisions these sensors will have a number of applications from gaming to indoor navigation.
The phone is still in early stages of development, and the first prototypes will only be available to a limited group of developers. The first 200 prototypes, which Google expects to be distributed by mid-March, will go to a group of developers hand-picked by Google.
Google says many of those first devices will go to companies focusing on creating gaming, data processing and navigation and mapping application, but some units have been set aside for „applications we haven’t thought it yet,“ Google said. Interested developers can sign up on Project Tango’s website for a chance at getting one of the early prototypes.
Project Tango, though experimental, will likely play a big role in the upcoming Google I/O Developer Conference, which will take places from June 25 to 26.
A new mobile application called Impala is picking up where Everpix left off, in terms of automatically categorizing your photo collections using computer vision technology. Once installed, the app works its way through your entire photo library on your iPhone, sorting photos into various categories like “outdoor,” “architecture,” “food,” “party life,” “friends,” “sunsets,” and more. But there’s a key difference between what Impala does and how Everpix worked. Impala’s mobile app has no server-side component – that is, your photos aren’t stored in the cloud. The software that handles the photo classification runs entirely on your device instead.
Impala is not a polished and professional app like Everpix was, of course, and photo classification is its only trick, while Everpix did much more. But its classification capabilities aren’t terrible. In tests, it ran through thousands of my iPhone photos over the course of some 20 minutes or so, placing photos into various albums, some more accurate than others. For example, it did well as gathering all the “food” and “beach” photos, and could easily tell the difference between “men,” “women,” and “children,” but it classified some beach scenes as “mountains,” and photos of my dog under “cats.”
But that latter one is by design, laughs Harro Stokman, Impala’s creator and CEO at Euvision Technologies, which develops the software. “We don’t like dogs,” he says.
The app, in its present form, is not meant to be a standalone business at this time, but more of an example of the technological capabilities of the company’s software.
Euvision Technologies, Stokman explains, was spun out from the University of Amsterdam where he earned his PhD in computer vision. The technology that makes Impala possible has been in development for over 10 years, he tells us. Today, many of Euvision eight-person team also work at the university, which owns a 15% stake in the company.
Meanwhile, Euvision has the rights to commercialize the technology, but doesn’t have outside funding. Instead, it licenses its software, which until today was only available as a server technology used by nearly a dozen clients ranging from the Netherlands police department (for tracking down child abuse photos), to a large social media website, which uses the technology for photo moderation on its network.
By putting Impala out there on the App Store, the hope is now to introduce the technology to even more potential licensing customers.
Stokman notes that the mobile version is not as accurate as the company’s core product, though. But it’s still a technological feat in and of itself. “We don’t have venture capital, so we couldn’t afford paying for the bandwidth and for the compute power,” he explains as to why there’s no cloud component. “We were forced to think of something that could run on the mobile phone.”
That’s especially interesting in light of Everpix’s recent shut down of its photo storage and sharing platform this week. At the time, one of the reasons the company cited was the high cost involved with hosting user photos on Amazon Web Services. An unsustainable cost, as it turned out.
Impala ditches the idea of using the cloud, and instead worked to compress its software to be under 100 MB in size, down from the 600 MB it was when they first began working on the app. “The memory the software needs that stores the models that allow us to recognize babies from cars from friends and so on took the most work to compress down,” admits Stokman.
Like other image classification systems, Impala uses artificial intelligence and computer vision to “see” what’s in the photo. The system is trained using thousands of images from clients and elsewhere on the web, including both those that are like the category (e.g. “sunsets” or “indoor,” etc.) that are being taught, as well as those that are different.
To make the system run on mobile, the company had to create a stripped-down version of its classification engine. When it runs on a server, for comparison’s sake, it takes four times as much compute power. “The more compute power, the more memory, the better the results,” Stokman says.
In other words, the resulting albums in Impala may be hit or miss, as the case may be. And the app is fairly basic, too. After it runs through your photos, you can tap a button to save the images to your iPhone’s photo gallery. Each album also has a section where photos it wasn’t sure of are listed, but there’s not currently a way to manually approve or re-organize these items by moving them elsewhere.
As for the dogs that get listed as cats? It’s nothing personal, it’s just that the Impala engineers are more cat people. “We don’t like dogs, so we didn’t put the category in there,” jokes Stokman. “You can take pictures of dogs, and it won’t recognize them as dogs. It will be cats,” he says.
If the app takes off, that’s something that may change with future improvements over time. For now, the company is working on its next creation: a camera app that can instantly identify 1,000 objects – like sunglasses or keyboards, for example – as you shoot. They’ll be submitting it in a contest at an upcoming conference, and may consider integrating that technology into Impala at some later date.
Amsterdam-based Euvision Technolgoies, co-founded by Prof. Arnold Smeulders, Ph. D., M.Sc., is bootstrapped with investment from Stokman and Chief Commercial Officer, Jan Willem F. Klerkx, M.Sc.
If your car was powered by thorium, you would never need to refuel it. The vehicle would burn out long before the chemical did. The thorium would last so long, in fact, it would probably outlive you.
That’s why a company called Laser Power Systems has created a concept for a thorium-powered car engine. The element is radioactive, and the team uses bits of it to build a laserbeam that heats water, produces steam, and powers an energy-producing turbine.
Thorium is one of the most dense materials on the planet. A small sample of it packs 20 million times more energy than a similarly-sized sample of coal, making it an ideal energy source.
The thing is, Dr. Charles Stevens, the CEO of Laser Power Systems, told Mashable that thorium engines won’t be in cars anytime soon.
„Cars are not our primary interest,“ Stevens said. „The automakers don’t want to buy them.“
He said too much of the automobile industry is focused on making money off of gas engines, and it will take at least a couple decades for thorium technology to be used enough in other industries that vehicle manufacturers will begin to consider revamping the way they think about engines.
„We’re building this to power the rest of the world,“ Stevens said. He believes a thorium turbine about the size of an air conditioning unit could more provide cheap power for whole restaurants, hotels, office buildings, even small towns in areas of the world without electricity. At some point, thorium could power individual homes.
Stevens understands that people may be wary of Thorium because it is radioactive — but any such worry would be unfounded.
„The radiation that we develop off of one of these things can be shielded by a single sheet off of aluminum foil,“ Stevens said.“ „You will get more radiation from one of those dental X-rays than this.“
Pioneers Festival: Two founders, a palace and startups galore
Hofburg, Imperial Palace combined history and future technologies
Babywatch won this year’s Pioneers challenge
The Pioneers Festival provides a significant contribution to the Austrian business location”, Brigitte Jank, President of the Chamber of Commerce Vienna
Vienna, 31 October 2013 – Gathering together 2,500 international guests and speakers, including Charles Adler (Kickstarter co founder), Adam Cheyer (Siri founder) and Chris Barton (Shazam co founder), Pioneers successfully pulled off another Pioneers Festival, the second event of its kind. Pioneers Festival kicked off at the House of Industry on Tuesday with its infamous Investors Day, while the actual Festival combined history and technology at the Imperial Palace the following two days.
The Investors Day The Investors Day on Tuesday, 29 October 2013 in the House of Industry was devoted to the Top 50 startups of the Pioneers Challenge and key investors including Sequoia Capital, Earlybird, and Accel Partners. Each startup was given three minutes to pitch their company to high class a jury. More than 670 startups from around the globe had applied to take part. At the end of the day, only 16 were chosen to present their ideas on the conference days.
History and technology come together in the Imperial Palace On Wednesday morning the Imperial Palace opened its doors for more than 2,500 tech enthusiasts in an environment combined with history and future technologies. After the official welcome by the two founders Andreas Tschas and Juergen Furian, the program was officially kicked off. “It’s nice to get to know new people, find new stories, learn things from lots of people with lots of experience. It’s great for me to absorb their information and their know–‐how,” said festival attendee Nadim El Gawhary of Egypt. It was up to the participants to decide what their individual Pioneers Experience should be. While inspiring talks and technology demonstrations by speakers like Phil Libin (Evernote) or Charles Adler (Kickstarter) captured the audience in the Arena, the Academy provided the school lessons for entrepreneurs they were asking for. Supported by Konica Minolta, high caliber mentors such as Dave McClure (500startups) and Chris Barton (Shazam) taught attendees what daily business really looks like.
Nobody can beat Babywatch, the finest of the Top 50 Startups The Startup Challenge Finale topped off the last day as the Top 8 startups took the stage and presented their companies. The young entrepreneurs battled it out in the Pioneers Challenge – in the end Babywatch, the home ultrasound device startup from Croatia took home the victory prize, winning the Pioneers World Tour sponsored by Coca Cola with stops in Shenzhen, Singapore, Atlanta, New York and San Francisco, and the Pioneers Award 2013.
Some impressions:
Brigitte Jank explains the constant growth of the startup scene in Vienna and acknowledges the Pioneers Festival as one of its reasons:
“The Pioneers Festival provides a significant contribution here, being a platform bridging the contact between startups and potential investors, and turning Vienna into Europe’s creative capital city,”, explains Brigitte Jank, President of the Chamber of Commerce Vienna.
Christoph Leitl, WKO President was impressed by this year’s event and pointed out the importance of the entrepreneurial spirit for Austria’s economy regarding the valuable contribution of domestic founders to Austrian business location: “Even in challenging times Austria remains an attractive business location. This is clearly proven by recent numbers on newly created companies: 114 start ups per day contribute significantly to the employment record in Austria. That brings great dynamism to our country!”
Andreas Tschas reflects on this year’s Festival: “I am extremely happy about our results after one year of hard work and would like to express my sincere thanks to everyone who supported us. There are too many people to name, however I would like to point out Konica Minolta and Pro7Sat1Puls4 as our Global Partners and their support of young entrepreneurs as a part of their corporate responsibility, as well as the Federal Ministry of Economy, Family and Youth, the Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology, the Austria Wirtschaftsservice, the Chamber of Commerce as well as the Vienna Business Agency.”
About Pioneers Festival: Pioneers Festival brings together national and international founders, startups, pioneers, investors, tech enthusiasts and media representatives once per year in Vienna to celebrate entrepreneurship and future technologies, to inspire and to educate. During the two day festival in the Vienna Hofburg, quality content by renowned speakers is discussed, the winners of the Pioneers Challenge are crowned, and a framework for a positive festival atmosphere is provided. Pioneers Festival was founded in the year 2012, making 30–‐31 October 2013 the second event.
Carmakers are developing vehicles that have an increasing ability to autonomously drive themselves, potentially reducing accidents and traffic congestion.
A silver BMW 5 Series is weaving through traffic at roughly 120 kilometers per hour (75 mph) on a freeway that cuts northeast through Bavaria between Munich and Ingolstadt. I’m in the driver’s seat, watching cars and trucks pass by, but I haven’t touched the steering wheel, the brake, or the gas pedal for at least 10 minutes. The BMW approaches a truck that is moving slowly. To maintain our speed, the car activates its turn signal and begins steering to the left, toward the passing lane. Just as it does, another car swerves into the passing lane from several cars behind. The BMW quickly switches off its signal and pulls back to the center of the lane, waiting for the speeding car to pass before trying again.Putting your life in the hands of a robot chauffeur offers an unnerving glimpse into how driving is about to be upended. The automobile, which has followed a path of steady but slow technological evolution for the past 130 years, is on course to change dramatically in the next few years, in ways that could have radical economic, environmental, and social impacts.The first autonomous systems, which are able to control steering, braking, and accelerating, are already starting to appear in cars; these systems require drivers to keep an eye on the road and hands on the wheel. But the next generation, such as BMW’s self-driving prototype, could be available in less than a decade and free drivers to work, text, or just relax. Ford, GM, Toyota, Nissan, Volvo, and Audi have all shown off cars that can drive themselves, and they have all declared that within a decade they plan to sell some form of advanced automation—cars able to take over driving on highways or to park themselves in a garage. Google, meanwhile, is investing millions in autonomous driving software, and its driverless cars have become a familiar sight on the highways around Silicon Valley over the last several years.The allure of automation for car companies is huge. In a fiercely competitive market, in which the makers of luxury cars race to indulge customers with the latest technology, it would be commercial suicide not to invest heavily in an automated future. “It’s the most impressive experience we can offer,” Werner Huber, the man in charge of BMW’s autonomous driving project, told me at the company’s headquarters in Munich. He said the company aims to be “one of the first in the world” to introduce highway autonomy.
Thanks to autonomous driving, the road ahead seems likely to have fewer traffic accidents and less congestion and pollution. Data published last year by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a U.S. nonprofit funded by the auto industry, suggests that partly autonomous features are already helping to reduce crashes. Its figures, collected from U.S. auto insurers, show that cars with forward collision warning systems, which either warn the driver about an impending crash or apply the brakes automatically, are involved in far fewer crashes than cars without them.
More comprehensive autonomy could reduce traffic accidents further still. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that more than 90 percent of road crashes involve human error, a figure that has led some experts to predict that autonomous driving will reduce the number of accidents on the road by a similar percentage. Assuming the technology becomes ubiquitous and does have such an effect, the benefits to society will be huge. Almost 33,000 people die on the roads in the United States each year, at a cost of $300 billion, according to the American Automobile Association. The World Health Organization estimates that worldwide over 1.2 million people die on roads every year.
Meanwhile, demonstrations conducted at the University of California, Riverside, in 1997 and experiments involving modified road vehicles conducted by Volvo and others in 2011 suggest that having vehicles travel in high-speed automated “platoons,” thereby reducing aerodynamic drag, could lower fuel consumption by 20 percent. And an engineering study published last year concluded that automation could theoretically allow nearly four times as many cars to travel on a given stretch of highway. That could save some of the 5.5 billion hours and 2.9 billion gallons of fuel that the Texas Transportation Institute says are wasted by traffic congestion each year.
If all else fails, there is a big red button on the dashboard that cuts power to all the car’s computers. I practiced hitting it a few times.
But such projections tend to overlook just how challenging it will be to make a driverless car. If autonomous driving is to change transportation dramatically, it needs to be both widespread and flawless. Turning such a complex technology into a commercial product is unlikely to be simple. It could take decades for the technology to come down in cost, and it might take even longer for it to work safely enough that we trust fully automated vehicles to drive us around.
German engineering Much of the hype about autonomous driving has, unsurprisingly, focused on Google’s self-driving project. The cars are impressive, and the company has no doubt insinuated the possibility of driverless vehicles into the imaginations of many. But for all its expertise in developing search technology and software, Google has zero experience building cars. To understand how autonomous driving is more likely to emerge, it is more instructive to see what some of the world’s most advanced automakers are working on. And few places in the world can rival the automotive expertise of Germany, where BMW, Audi, Mercedes-Benz, and Volkswagen are all busy trying to change autonomous driving from a research effort into a viable option on their newest models.
Shortly after arriving in Munich, I found myself at a test track north of the city getting safety instruction from Michael Aeberhard, a BMW research engineer. As I drove a prototype BMW 5 Series along an empty stretch of track, Aeberhard told me to take my hands off the wheel and then issued commands that made the car go berserk and steer wildly off course. Each time, I had to grab the wheel as quickly as I could to override the behavior. The system is designed to defer to a human driver, giving up control whenever he or she moves the wheel or presses a pedal. And if all else fails, there is a big red button on the dashboard that cuts power to all the car’s computers. I practiced hitting it a few times, and discovered how hard it was to control the car without even the power-assisted steering. The idea of the exercise was to prepare me for potential glitches during the actual test drive. “It’s still a prototype,” Aeberhard reminded me several times.
After I signed a disclaimer, we drove to the autobahn outside Munich. A screen fixed to the passenger side of the dashboard showed the world as the car perceives it: three lanes, on which a tiny animated version of the car is surrounded by a bunch of floating blue blocks, each corresponding to a nearby vehicle or to an obstacle like one of the barriers on either side of the road. Aeberhard told me to activate the system in heavy traffic as we rode at about 100 kilometers per hour. When I first flicked the switch, I was dubious about even removing my hands from the wheel, but after watching the car perform numerous passing maneuvers, I found myself relaxing—to my astonishment—until I had to actually remind myself to pay attention to the road.
The car looked normal from the outside. There’s no place on a sleek luxury sedan for the huge rotating laser scanners seen on the prototypes being tested by Google. So BMW and other carmakers have had to find ways to pack smaller, more limited sensors into the body of a car without compromising weight or styling.
Concealed inside the BMW’s front and rear bumpers, two laser scanners and three radar sensors sweep the road before and behind for anything within about 200 meters. Embedded at the top of the windshield and rear window are cameras that track the road markings and detect road signs. Near each side mirror are wide-angle laser scanners, each with almost 180 degrees of vision, that watch the road left and right. Four ultrasonic sensors above the wheels monitor the area close to the car. Finally, a differential Global Positioning System receiver, which combines signals from ground-based stations with those from satellites, knows where the car is, to within a few centimeters of the closest lane marking.
Several computers inside the car’s trunk perform split-second measurements and calculations, processing data pouring in from the sensors. Software assigns a value to each lane of the road based on the car’s speed and the behavior of nearby vehicles. Using a probabilistic technique that helps cancel out inaccuracies in sensor readings, this software decides whether to switch to another lane, to attempt to pass the car ahead, or to get out of the way of a vehicle approaching from behind. Commands are relayed to a separate computer that controls acceleration, braking, and steering. Yet another computer system monitors the behavior of everything involved with autonomous driving for signs of malfunction.
Impressive though BMW’s autonomous highway driving is, it is still years away from market. To see the most advanced autonomy now available, a day later I took the train from Munich to Stuttgart to visit another German automotive giant, Daimler, which owns Mercedes-Benz. At the company’s research and development facility southeast of the city, where experimental new models cruise around covered in black material to hide new designs and features from photographers, I got to ride in probably the most autonomous road car on the market today: the 2014 Mercedes S-Class.
A jovial safety engineer drove me around a test track, showing how the car can lock onto a vehicle in front and follow it along the road at a safe distance. To follow at a constant distance, the car’s computers take over not only braking and accelerating, as with conventional adaptive cruise control, but steering too.
Using a stereo camera, radar, and an infrared camera, the S-Class can also spot objects on the road ahead and take control of the brakes to prevent an accident. The engineer eagerly demonstrated this by accelerating toward a dummy placed in the center of the track. At about 80 kilometers per hour, he took his hands off the wheel and removed his foot from the accelerator. Just when impact seemed all but inevitable, the car performed a near-perfect emergency stop, wrenching us forward in our seats but bringing itself to rest about a foot in front of the dummy, which bore an appropriately terrified expression.
Uncertain road With such technology already on the road and prototypes like BMW’s in the works, it’s tempting to imagine that total automation can’t be far away. In reality, making the leap from the kind of autonomy in the Mercedes-Benz S-Class to the kind in BMW’s prototype will take time, and the dream of total automation could prove surprisingly elusive.
For one thing, many of the sensors and computers found in BMW’s car, and in other prototypes, are too expensive to be deployed widely. And achieving even more complete automation will probably mean using more advanced, more expensive sensors and computers. The spinning laser instrument, or LIDAR, seen on the roof of Google’s cars, for instance, provides the best 3-D image of the surrounding world, accurate down to two centimeters, but sells for around $80,000. Such instruments will also need to be miniaturized and redesigned, adding more cost, since few car designers would slap the existing ones on top of a sleek new model.
Cost will be just one factor, though. While several U.S. states have passed laws permitting autonomous cars to be tested on their roads, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has yet to devise regulations for testing and certifying the safety and reliability of autonomous features. Two major international treaties, the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic and the Geneva Convention on Road Traffic, may need to be changed for the cars to be used in Europe and the United States, as both documents state that a driver must be in full control of a vehicle at all times.
Most daunting, however, are the remaining computer science and artificial-intelligence challenges. Automated driving will at first be limited to relatively simple situations, mainly highway driving, because the technology still can’t respond to uncertainties posed by oncoming traffic, rotaries, and pedestrians. And drivers will also almost certainly be expected to assume some sort of supervisory role, requiring them to be ready to retake control as soon as the system gets outside its comfort zone.
Despite the flashy demos, I sometimes detected among carmakers a desire to hit the brakes and temper expectations.
The relationship between human and robot driver could be surprisingly fraught. The problem, as I discovered during my BMW test drive, is that it’s all too easy to lose focus, and difficult to get it back. The difficulty of reëngaging distracted drivers is an issue that Bryan Reimer, a research scientist in MIT’s Age Lab, has well documented (see “Proceed with Caution toward the Self-Driving Car,” May/June 2013). Perhaps the “most inhibiting factors” in the development of driverless cars, he suggests, “will be factors related to the human experience.”
In an effort to address this issue, carmakers are thinking about ways to prevent drivers from becoming too distracted, and ways to bring them back to the driving task as smoothly as possible. This may mean monitoring drivers’ attention and alerting them if they’re becoming too disengaged. “The first generations [of autonomous cars] are going to require a driver to intervene at certain points,” Clifford Nass, codirector of Stanford University’s Center for Automotive Research, told me. “It turns out that may be the most dangerous moment for autonomous vehicles. We may have this terrible irony that when the car is driving autonomously it is much safer, but because of the inability of humans to get back in the loop it may ultimately be less safe.”
An important challenge with a system that drives all by itself, but only some of the time, is that it must be able to predict when it may be about to fail, to give the driver enough time to take over. This ability is limited by the range of a car’s sensors and by the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of a complex situation. “Maybe the driver is completely distracted,” Werner Huber said. “He takes five, six, seven seconds to come back to the driving task—that means the car has to know [in advance] when its limitation is reached. The challenge is very big.”
Before traveling to Germany, I visited John Leonard, an MIT professor who works on robot navigation, to find out more about the limits of vehicle automation. Leonard led one of the teams involved in the DARPA Urban Challenge, an event in 2007 that saw autonomous vehicles race across mocked-up city streets, complete with stop-sign intersections and moving traffic. The challenge inspired new research and new interest in autonomous driving, but Leonard is restrained in his enthusiasm for the commercial trajectory that autonomous driving has taken since then. “Some of these fundamental questions, about representing the world and being able to predict what might happen—we might still be decades behind humans with our machine technology,” he told me. “There are major, unsolved, difficult issues here. We have to be careful that we don’t overhype how well it works.”
Leonard suggested that much of the technology that has helped autonomous cars deal with complex urban environments in research projects—some of which is used in Google’s cars today—may never be cheap or compact enough to be employed in commercially available vehicles. This includes not just the LIDAR but also an inertial navigation system, which provides precise positioning information by monitoring the vehicle’s own movement and combining the resulting data with differential GPS and a highly accurate digital map. What’s more, poor weather can significantly degrade the reliability of sensors, Leonard said, and it may not always be feasible to rely heavily on a digital map, as so many prototype systems do. “If the system relies on a very accurate prior map, then it has to be robust to the situation of that map being wrong, and the work of keeping those maps up to date shouldn’t be underestimated,” he said.
Near the end of my ride in BMW’s autonomous prototype, I discovered an example of imperfect autonomy in action. We had made a loop of the airport and were heading back toward the city when a Smart car, which had been darting through traffic a little erratically, suddenly swung in front of me from the right. Confused by its sudden and irregular maneuver, our car kept approaching it rapidly, and with less than a second to spare I lost my nerve and hit the brakes, slowing the car down and taking it out of self-driving mode. A moment later I asked Aeberhard if our car would have braked in time. “It would’ve been close,” he admitted.
Despite the flashy demos and the bold plans for commercialization, I sometimes detected among carmakers a desire to hit the brakes and temper expectations. Ralf Herttwich, who leads research and engineering of driver assistance systems at Mercedes, explained that interpreting a situation becomes exponentially more difficult as the road becomes more complex. “Once you leave the highway and once you go onto the average road, environment perception needs to get better. Your interpretation of traffic situations, because there are so many more of them—they need to get better,” he said. “Just looking at a traffic light and deciding if that traffic light is for you is a very, very complex problem.”
MIT’s Leonard, for one, does not believe total autonomy is imminent. “I do not expect there to be taxis in Manhattan with no drivers in my lifetime,” he said, before quickly adding, “And I don’t want to see taxi drivers out of business. They know where they’re going, and—at least in Europe—they’re courteous and safe, and they get you where you need to be. That’s a very valuable societal role.”
I pondered Leonard’s objections while visiting BMW and Mercedes. I even mentioned some of them to a taxi driver in Munich who was curious about my trip. He seemed far from worried. “We have siebten Sinn—a seventh sense,” he said, referring to the instinctive road awareness a person builds up. As he nipped through the busy traffic with impressive speed, I suspected that this ability to cope deftly with such a complex and messy world could prove useful for a while longer.
Data gathered from Google’s self-driving Prius and Lexus cars shows that they are safer and smoother when steering themselves than when a human takes the wheel, according to the leader of Google’s autonomous-car project.
Chris Urmson made those claims today at a robotics conference in Santa Clara, California. He presented results from two studies of data from the hundreds of thousands of miles Google’s vehicles have logged on public roads in California and Nevada.
One of those analyses showed that when a human was behind the wheel, Google’s cars accelerated and braked significantly more sharply than they did when piloting themselves. Another showed that the cars’ software was much better at maintaining a safe distance from the vehicle ahead than the human drivers were.
“We’re spending less time in near-collision states,” said Urmson. “Our car is driving more smoothly and more safely than our trained professional drivers.”
In addition to painting a rosy picture of his vehicles’ autonomous capabilities, Urmson showed a new dashboard display that his group has developed to help people understand what an autonomous car is doing and when they might want to take over. “Inside the car we’ve gone out of our way to make the human factors work,” he said.
Although that might suggest the company is thinking about how to translate its research project into something used by real motorists, Urmson dodged a question about how that might happen. “We’re thinking about different ways of bringing it to market,” he said. “I can’t tell you any more right now.”
Urmson did say that he is in regular contact with automakers. Many of those companies are independently working on self-driving cars themselves (see “Driverless Cars Are Further Away Than You Think”).
Google has been testing its cars on public roads since 2010 (see “Look, No Hands”), always with a human in the driver’s seat who can take over if necessary.
Urmson dismissed claims that legal and regulatory problems pose a major barrier to cars that are completely autonomous. He pointed out that California, Nevada, and Florida have already adjusted their laws to allow tests of self-driving cars. And existing product liability laws make it clear that a car’s manufacturer would be at fault if the car caused a crash, he said. He also said that when the inevitable accidents do occur, the data autonomous cars collect in order to navigate will provide a powerful and accurate picture of exactly who was responsible.
Urmson showed data from a Google car that was rear-ended in traffic by another driver. Examining the car’s annotated map of its surroundings clearly showed that the Google vehicle smoothly halted before being struck by the other vehicle.
“We don’t have to rely on eyewitnesses that can’t act be trusted as to what happened—we actually have the data,” he said. “The guy around us wasn’t paying enough attention. The data will set you free.”
DieIdee InnovationsAgentur fragt in der Presseabteilung von Drei nach:
Können „alte“ SUPERSIM Wertkarten, auch noch in der kommenden Woche im SuperSIM XXL (Telefonie) und SuperSIM Flat (Internet) zu „alten Preisen“ angemeldet werden, sofern man ein solches Package in der letzten Woche gekauft, aber noch nicht aktiviert hat.
Die Pressesabteilung klärt auf:
Mit alten SIM-Karten können die bisherigen Tarife (egal ob Voice oder Data) weiterhin aktiviert werden.
Der Vertrag kommt eigentlich bereits mit dem Kauf des SuperSIM-Start Sets zustande. Schließlich kaufst du damit ein bestimmtes Wertkarten-Tarifangebot und kein Überraschungsei.
Wenn du die SIM-Karte aktivierst und eine entsprechende Tarifoption wählst, werden diese Informationen zusätzlich in allen technischen Systemen bei Drei hinterlegt (vom HLR bis zum Billingsystem). Damit bist du aktiver Kunde und kannst alle von Drei im Rahmen dieses Tarifs angebotenen Dienste tatsächlich nutzen. Um an die im Tarif inkludierten Freieinheiten zu kommen, ist es notwendig, (genügend) Guthaben aufzuladen. Wenn du das heute machst, bekommst du die Freieinheiten heute. Wenn du das in x Wochen machst, dann werden die Freieinheiten eben erst in x Wochen aktiviert. Wie du willst.
Das gilt auch für alle SuperSIM-Start Sets die als Restposten während der nächsten Wochen noch verkauft werden. Damit können auch nach dem 19.08. die bekannten SuperSIM-Wertkartentarife aktiviert werden.
Ein Umsteigen von den SuperSIM-Wertkartentarifen auf die entsprechenden Vertragstarife wird nach dem 19.08. mit sehr hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit nicht mehr möglich sein. Und da spielt es dann auch keine Rolle, wann der Wertkartentarif aktiviert worden ist.
Am Montag, den 19. August 2013, 07.00 geht die neue Website des österreichischen Mobilfunkers Drei live.
DieIdee InnovationsAgentur berichtet ausführlich von kommenden Neuerungen, eventuellen neuen Tarifen und allem Wissenswerten – wenn aus Orange und 3 das „neue Drei“ wird.
Motorola engineer Martin Cooper made telecommunications history when he placed the first cellphone call 40 years ago. And who did he call, you ask? His rivals at Bell Labs, of course. Oh snap!
Still, it took another decade for the mobile phone to reach the masses, because Motorola didn’t make the DynaTAC available until March 1983. And in an example of just how quaint the tech business was back then, Motorola had a press event 10 years before the phone was on sale.
Which brings us to April 3, 1973, when the company that eventually brought us the Razr and Droid introduced the mobile phone. Forty years later, we’re still dropping calls like bad habits and struggling to get a signal inside a supermarket. Not that it matters, because we rarely use our phones to make phone calls. Instead, they’re a gateway to our digital lives, a means of doing everything from sending texts to updating our status to posting photos and listening to music.
Thousands of phones have come and gone, and most of them seem to run on Android. But the number of handsets that could be called truly groundbreaking is surprisingly small. Here they are.
Yeah, yeah, we’ve probably missed your favorite. And you’ll probably tell us about it in a comment typed on your phone.
Above: Motorola DynaTAC 8000X — 1983
The DynaTAC was the first commercially available cellphone and the culmination of all the research Cooper had done since joining Motorola in 1954.
The phone resembled those the military used in the field. The svelte handset weighed 28 ounces and was 10 inches tall, not including the antenna nearly as long as the phone. It wasn’t exactly something you could shove in a pocket or purse. Still, it wasn’t attached to a car and you could walk around with it, so there was that.
Such mobility wasn’t cheap. The DynaTAC would dig a $4,000 hole into your bank account. But that didn’t stop early adopters from diving into the swanky world of mobile calling. The phone had a cameo alongside Gordon Gekko in Wall Street and with über-preppy Zack Morris on the teen drama Saved By the Bell.
Photo: Motorola
Motorola MicroTAC — 1989
The MicroTAC introduced the flip-phone form factor that would eventually be adopted by the StarTAC. Beyond setting the standard for phones, it popularized the idea of being able to put a mobile phone in your pocket.
The phone, billed as the “MicroTAC Pocket Cellular Telephone,” was the smallest available when it was released. It was a lilliputian 9 inches long when open and weighed a mere 12.3 ounces. For the sake of comparison, the enormous Galaxy Note II is just shy of 6 inches long and weighs 6.4 ounces.
Still, the “little” phone packed a lot of amazing features, including security codes, currency calculator, hands-free operation and, perhaps most conveniently, a phone book to store names and numbers. It was the beginning of the end of having to actually remember anyone’s number.
Photo: Motorola
Nokia 3210 — 1999
The Nokia 3210 was, for many people, the gateway drug of phones. It also was among the first to tuck the antenna inside the handset. (The Toshiba TCP-6000 was the first, but that was the phone’s only claim to fame.) The little Finnish candybar phone was the first mobile communication device of the masses.
Its monochromatic screen did more than give you a heads up about incoming calls. It introduced a generation to the greatest mobile-phone game ever: Snake. The addictive game, based on computer game from the 1970s, featured a snake that grew as it consumed pixels. The object was to make the longest snake possible without having it eat itself.
And you thought Angry Birds was silly.
Nokia sold 160 million T9-enabled 3210s before replacing it with 3310 in late 2000.
Photo: Nokia
Sony Ericsson T68I — 2002
The T68i was the bridge between dumb phones and smartphones and, it could be argued, the most awesome cellphone ever. It included such groundbreaking features at Bluetooth, two-way MMS, simple WAP browsing and e-mail. And it had a cool color screen, a first for Ericsson.
The phone was so far ahead that it appeared in the Bond film Die Another Day. If it was good enough for 007, it was good enough for you. And it proved that people wanted more from their phones than calls and texts. Although the phone never saw the sales numbers of the Nokie 3210, it enjoyed a cultlike following.
Photo: Sony Ericsson
Danger Hiptop/Sidekick — 2002
While the suits and salesmen went nuts for RIM’s BlackBerry, the rest of us typed texts on our own QWERTY keyboard six-shooter, the Danger Hiptop. The phone, aka the T-Mobile Sidekick, was just as connected as a BlackBerry sans BBM, but didn’t make you look like a dork.
The Hiptop had online connectivity and a huge (for the time) 2.6-inch screen that flipped out, making it the swtichblade of the truly connected nerd. It came with a monochrome screen to start, but that soon gave way to color.
Designed by Danger, the Hiptop’s OS supported apps and could communicate not only via SMS but also with instant messaging services like AOL’s AIM. Adored by nerds and teenage girls alike, the Hiptop was the first real smartphone to hit the market.
Photo: Danger
BlackBerry 6210 — 2003
While the T68i put e-mail in your pocket, and the Hiptop made nerds drool, it was the BlackBerry 6210 that made cellphones indispensable to the business world by giving us instant, always-on access to our e-mails.
Little did we know that blessing would become a curse.
Its QWERTY keyboard and solid ability to actually, you know, make phone calls introduced the world to the modern BlackBerry experience of web browsing, e-mails, BlackBerry Messenger and SMS. It jump-started the smartphone market and spawned a class of humans known as crackberry addicts.
The combination of leading-edge technology and an excellent keyboard allowed RIM to utterly dominate the smartphone sector until a small company in Cupertino, California, decided to join the party.
Photo: BlackBerry
Treo 600 — 2003
After filling the pockets of nerds with its PDA (personal digital assistants), Palm set its sights on the mobile phone market with the Treo brand. The phone set the standard for smartphone features that followed.
The Treo 600 came with a camera, an MP3 player and an OS that would influence the iOS dock and the Android homescreen. Apps? Mappable keys? Everything laid out in a neat grid? Yeah, the Treo had all that, with a QWERTY keyboard.
The Treo’s 2.5-inch screen held a world of possibilities. Unfortunately, Palm was slow to update its OS and couldn’t keep up with the competition, even after releasing the Palm Pre with WebOS.
Photo: PalmOne
Motorola RAZR — 2004
The Razr was the first must-have phone. The thin flip phone was stylish and, if the commercials were to believed, would stick like a knife if dropped onto the floor.
While throwing the phone at walls like a knife was a bad idea, the Razr had a great four-year run, selling 130 million units. Is there any wonder why?
The Razr looked like it was straight out of the future. The numerical keyboard was cut from a single piece of metal. Its clamshell aluminum body and colored glass screen were gorgeous. And the damn thing worked like a charm. It was the last dumb phone that truly mattered.
Never mind that it also was the last Motorola phone that truly mattered.
Photo: Ariel Zambelich/Wired
Motorola Rokr — 2005
The Rokr was the first phone to play nicely with iTunes, and it was such a big deal that Steve Jobs himself introduced the phone to the public. Too bad it was a horrible, horrible phone.
Sure it worked with iTunes, but it held no more than 100 songs. And getting them onto the phone was as quick and comfortable as a root canal without anesthesia. And then there was the UI. Dear god, the UI. Sluggish doesn’t begin to describe it.
Still, the Rokr was a milestone because it opened the door to the phone as a media player. It could have been the iPhone. Instead, it inspired Apple to make the iPhone.
Photo: Motorola
Nokia N95 — 2007
The N95 expanded on ideas first seen in the T68i, with features usually found in smartphones and without the gigantic physical QWERTY keyboard form factor. It was stylish and functional, two things sorely missing in the smartphone world.
The N95 wasn’t the first to feature GPS with optional turn-by-turn navigation, a 5-megapixel camera that shot video, or a radio tuner. But it packaged those features in a gorgeous phone. It made design matter. The front of the phone slid up to reveal a numeric keyboard and slid down to reveal media buttons that controlled the onboard MP3 player.
It looked good, had a ton of functions and, thanks to the camera flash, those late-night photos at the club actually looked good.
Photo: Nokia
Apple iPhone — 2007
This is the phone that changed everything. It was the first smartphone with features people wanted, even if they didn’t know it yet. It was different in every way, from its stunning design to its ease of use to the things it would allow us to do.
Of course, we didn’t see that at first. All we could do was gripe about an app store with empty shelves, a single button on the bezel and the fact we couldn’t cut-and-paste anything. It seems so quaint now, when so much of what iOS pioneered has become the norm for smartphones.
No less important was how Apple changed how handset makers dealt with carriers. The balance of power shifted from the likes of AT&T and Verizon to Apple and Samsung.
Nearly six years and five iterations later, the iPhone still sets the standard.
Photo: Ariel Zambelich/Wired
HTC Dream — 2008
The Dream, marketed as the T-Mobile G1 here in the United States, was the first Android phone when it hit the market in 2008. That made it the first phone to challenge the iPhone in the touchscreen smartphone wars.
At first, it was a QWERTY-only affair, but the update to Android 1.5 introduced an onscreen keyboard so you no longer had to slide the screen up to tap out messages. The 3.2-inch screen showcased the operating system that Google purchased from Android Inc.
While the HTC Dream and the first version of Android were a bit of a dud next to the iPhone, the operating system and phones that ran it became more and more impressive as the years passed. Now Android devices are on par, or better than, the phone from Cupertino.
But as we’ve seen before, all of this could change. Like Apple did before, a company with zero history in the phone market could emerge with a new and exciting way to call your friends and tell them, “Hey, guess what I’m doing,” and change the industry again.