Skip to main content

Good Enough - Driving Technology Growth, Not For Driving Technology

Remember when the HTC G1 launched back in 2008? It wasn't a patch on the iPhone 3G that was driving smartphone adoption at the time. Less than nine years later and Android is the most popular computing platform in the world.

Wind back not quite so many years to the launch of the Samsung Galaxy S. Here was a phone that looked too much like an iPhone and didn't work particular well. Now Samsung is the biggest vendor of smartphones worldwide. 

What happened was both companies learned to get to good enough. Good enough to steal sales from 'better' but more expensive competitors. Huawei have followed the same path in recent years, and other Chinese OEMs are breaking out of their home market by doing exactly the same thing, being good enough.

In the near future we'll probably see the iPad become good enough to replace a MacBook, we've already seen the Surface Pro become good enough to be your only computer and we'll one day soon find the right combination of smartphone and docking station to make the 'phone as a PC' dream feasible.

There's one area where being good enough isn't going to be good enough, self-driving cars. The consequences of taking a risk-consequence approach to automation in cars will go horribly wrong. I'm not talking about the 'aided' driving systems which are currently being pushed by Tesla and Volvo, amongst others. 

No, at the point when car manufacturers begin offering fully automated self driving cars which require no human interaction or intervention, that's when we need better than good enough. When we need faultless, and I don't see us reaching that point anytime soon. Despite claims from some car manufacturers that they'll be ready for end users within two to three years, I see the technical, moral and legal hurdles being serious obstacles to that happening.


Popular posts from this blog

F1: Robert Kubica Impresses In Renault Test Run

The car may be old but its the performance of the driver that's the story here. Robert Kubica returned to F1, after a fashion, earlier this week with an extensive test run in a 2012 Lotus Renault F1 car at Valencia.
The age of the car and the circuit were likely determined by F1's current rules which ban testing, but the reason for Kubica being in the car is far more interesting. Considered by many to be a potential World Champion and certainly one of the fastest drivers of his generation, Kubica's F1 career seemed to be over after a 2011 crash whilst driving in the Rally of Andora. His Skoda Fabia was penetrated by a guardrail in the high speed accident partially severing his right arm.
Up until last year Kubica has been competing in rallying, with the expectation that the limited movement in his repaired arm would prohibit a return to single seater racing.
So this week's test is both interesting and confusing. Interesting because Kubica completed 115 laps of the ret…

F1: Robert Kubica's Williams Test Asks More Questions Than It Answers

Comparing driver's times at a tyre evaluation test like last week's Abu Dhabi event is difficult at the best of times, but when trying to assess the performance of a driver who has been out of the sport for six years, that difficulty level is raised even higher.
On the face of it Robert Kubica's test for Williams was a success. Fastest of the three Williams drivers present the headlines look promising. However, taking into consideration the different tyres used to set those times muddies the water considerably.
Kubica ran a three lap qualifying simulation on the new 'hyper-soft' tyre - which should have given him a two-second advantage. Correcting for tyres it would appear that Kubica was significantly slower than Sergei Sorotkin - who was on the harder 'soft' tyre - and marginally quicker than Lance Stroll, the team's only contracted driver.

Stroll's family fortune currently funds Williams, so there' no chance that he will be anywhere but in a…

Panos Panay's Defence Of Microsoft Surface Hardware Sounds Eerily Familiar

This weekend I went out with my ten year old daughter to select a laptop for her school year beginning in January. The schools requirements are quite specific, requiring a Windows 10 device, with a preference for a touchscreen and a stylus. She chose a Surface Pro, after trying a large number of different options. Having seen the way I use my own Surface Pro - and tried it herself there was only ever going to be two options - and the other was a Surface Laptop.
I tell you this so that you understand I am a buyer of Microsoft's products through choice, not compulsion. I'm on my third Surface device now. 
So when Panos Panay dismissed reports of the death of the Surface hardware line, I was very interested to see exactly how strong these denials were. Especially how they reflect what has gone before. To whit: Windows 10 Mobile.
Panay claimed that Microsoft is in hardware for the long haul. Almost exactly mirroring the words of Terry Myerson, when he claimed Windows Mobile was g…