Tag: innovation

  • Profiting from Self Driving Cars

    I believe a huge amount of money will be made due to self driving cars. Figuring out who will make that money is not easy.

    The value of being able to use the time you are moving to your destination instead of concentrating on driving is huge. And the reduction in deaths, serious injuries, injuries, damages, frustration and waste of time caused by accidents will be a huge benefit to society. Many people attempting to focus on phone calls or whatever else instead of driving create lots of that damage due to accidents.

    There will also be big restructuring in how the economy works. Car sharing (such as Zipcar) will greatly increase I think and Uber and Lyft will likely be big players in a move to driverless cars. It sure seems like fewer cars will be needed. Space wasted on parking cars should be greatly reduced. Deliveries will likely see big changes. The impact on the economy will be huge. Even the health care system may see billions in savings.

    Toyota is an amazingly well managed company. They should capitalize on any important shifts in the auto industry. But will they do so for driverless cars? Will there be a decrease in demand for cars so large that Toyota losses more than it wins? My guess is the decrease in demand globally will not be huge for the next 10 years (of course I could be wrong). My guess is Toyota will do well, but may be caught a bit behind, but then will come back strongly.

    For those that don’t think Toyota can innovate, remember the Prius. Also they have been big investors in robots. That they haven’t turned robots into a big business yet though may be a sign of weakness (related to turning innovation into business profits).

    I think Toyota will do the best of the large traditional car companies at taking advantage of this opportunity. Honda would be my second pick.

    Google has been at the forefront of the driverless car efforts; I first wrote about self driving cars in 2010 about Google’s efforts (on my Curious Cat Engineering Blog). They are willing to take big gambles. They have a very good engineering culture. They are very profitable. They haven’t done much at creating profitable businesses outside of search and ads though. Still I think they may be huge winners in this area. I would guess by licensing technology to others, but things are involving quickly we will see how it plays out.

    Tesla has a great engineering culture with a priority given on innovation and customer focus. They are in the car industry though I don’t lump them with the “traditional car companies.” I give weight to the value Elon Musk will bring them. They have big potential to be one of the big winners in a self driving car future. But they have yet to create much profit. Will they be able to turn promising engineering and leadership into a huge business? I think the odds are good but that is still a difficult challenge. Others have much more money than Tesla. Apple has so much money they could even buy Tesla easily.

    Elon Musk recently spoke about the current state and near term future:

    “maybe five or six years from now I think we’ll be able to achieve true autonomous driving where you could literally get in the car, go to sleep and wake up at your destination,” Musk said. He added that it may take a few years beyond the point when the technology is ready for regulators to sign off on it.

    Musk also stressed that the new Tesla autopilot system, which uses radar, ultrasonic sensing and cameras to create a sort of super-smart cruise control, obstacle avoidance and lane-keeping system, is not the same as a self-driving car.

    Apple seems like a long shot to me. It doesn’t seem like the type of business Apple has gone into in the past. The argument for doing so is the huge pile of cash they have (over $170 billion which is an absolutely huge number – it is also a bit fake in that they have started borrowing tens of billions instead of spending that cash). The moves with the cash are based on 2 circumstances. First they would have to pay large amounts of taxes to use that cash in the USA (taxes are delayed as long as they hold it overseas). And second interest rates are so low, borrowing money hardly costs them anything.

    (more…)

  • Career Flexibility

    I think we could use some innovation in our model of a career. I have thought retirement being largely binary was lame since I figured out that is mainly how it worked. You work 40 hours a week (1,800 – 2,000 hours a year) and then dropped to 0 hours, all year long, from them on.

    It seems to me more gradual retirement makes a huge amount of sense (for society, individuals and our economy). That model is available to people, for example those that can work as consultants (and some others) but we would benefit from more options.

    Why do we have to start work at 22 (or 18 or 26 or whenever) and then work 40 or so straight years and then retire? Why not gap years (or sabbaticals)? Also why can’t we just go part time if we want.

    The broken health care system in the USA really causes problems with options (being so tightly tied to full time work). But I have convinced employers to let me go part-time (while working in orgs that essentially have 0 part time workers). And I am now basically on gap year(s)/sabbatical now. It can be done, but it certainly isn’t encouraged. You have to go against the flow and if you worry about being a conventional hire you may be nervous.

    Related: Working Less: Better Lives and Less UnemploymentWhy don’t we take five years out of retirement and spread them throughout your working life?Retiring Overseas is an Appealing Option for Some RetireesLiving in Malaysia as an Expat67 Is The New 55

  • Y-Combinator’s Fresh Approach to Entrepreneurship

    Four Lessons from Y-Combinator’s Fresh Approach to Innovation

    Y Combinator’s basic approach is to give promising ideas a small amount of seed capital (the average investment is less than $25,000), then house those startups for a short period of time. The startups get the capital, strategic input from the Y Combinator team (Graham and his wife), access to a robust network of potential investors, and the opportunity to learn from other Y Combinator–funded startups. In return Y Combinator gets a slice of the business.

    Tight windows enable “good enough” design. Most Y Combinator–funded companies are expected to release a version of their idea in less than 3 months. That tight time frame forces entrepreneurs to introduce “good enough” software packages that can then iterate in market. This approach contrasts to efforts by many companies to endlessly perfect ideas in a laboratory, only to fail the real test of being exposed to real market conditions.
    Business plans are nice, not necessary. Y Combinator doesn’t obsess over whether entrepreneurs have detailed business plans. Again, the focus is getting something out in the market to drive iteration and learning. After all, if you are trying to create a market, most of the material in a business plan is assumption-based anyway.

    Y-combinator is very interesting. I have posted about them several times: Find Joy and Success in Business, Build Your Business Slowly and Without Huge Cash Requirements. Investors can learn a great deal about how to grow businesses from their model. Brains, effort, customer focus, the ability to learn and business savvy can do huge things with little cash in information technology. The opportunities are available today. Y-combinator’s support of the businesses with knowledgeable resources and education (startup school) are far more important than the money they provide.

    Related: Small Business Profit and Cash FlowInnovation StrategySome Good IT Business IdeasGoogle and Paul Graham’s Latest EssayMIT Launches Initiatives in Innovation and India