Honda had an existing partnership with GM to develop fuel cells. The Detroit automaker has its Chevrolet Bolt EV in showrooms and has developed a battery pack that will be used in 20 new EVs globally by 2023. In June, the companies announced a deal that would have Honda using GM’s cells and battery pack. GM’s battery not only had good range, but by working together the two automakers figured they could lower costs.
The thing about companies like Honda and GM -- they have a lot of momentum. That means they aren't likely to be on the forefront of innovation, but when they turn towards a new target, they will hit with massive resources and established global production capacity that a start-up can only dream of.
>The thing about companies like Honda and GM -- they have a lot of momentum. That means they aren't likely to be on the forefront of innovation, but when they turn towards a new target, they will hit with massive resources and established global production capacity that a start-up can only dream of.
Exactly. It's the difference between a handful of dudes in a speedboat with some explosives and an aircraft carrier. Once the latter is aware of the former you can be reasonably assured who of will win. At most the former can hope to land a good sucker punch before the latter knows they're even fighting.
The core competency of GM, Honda, etc. is building cars. Once they decide what kind of cars they want to build they will do a good job building them as they intend to build them. They don't make rookie mistakes, especially in the logistics of spinning up production lines to build what they want to build. They've re-tool their factories every time a new generation or a new model comes out. They know how to do it right the first time, knowledge that comes from experience.
They are good at building cars, but I would argue they are not good at building tech. Self driving is a technology issue. If the tech superstars at Waymo/Apple/whoever aren't even close to solving it, why would the software people at GM/Honda be?
"Hi, this Jane from the procurement department of GM North America. We might be interested in licensing your software. Please give me a call back so we can set up a meeting."
They don't need to build tech. They can buy it. GM can write some pretty big checks. They flat out bought Cruise just to cover their butts.
When I was an intern at a defense contractor ~1/10th the size of GM my cube was across from procurement. I think a lot of people here don't understand the kind of scale companies like this play at. Your problem isn't "how do we pay for this" it's "will anyone sell me all this all at once or sign a contract to provide it all over the timetable we want". You make bets on how many times around the earth the welding wire you'll buy next quarter will go. GM shipped ~10 million vehicles in 2017. That means they had to sign a contract with someone to supply approximately an Exxon Valdez worth of motor oil and another of ATF just for their factories.
Waymo is far the best self driving tech and nobody has the money to buy it, as Alphabet is not selling (it's the first real diversification from ads revenue). GM is few years behind, but hopefully those few years are not enough for Waymo to create a monopoly.
Having the best tech isn't a predictor of success. Just ask BetaMax and LaserDisk...
What matters more is the business strategy, and articles like this are suggesting that Waymo's business plan will keep it from dominating the market.
It turns out that trying to compete with your suppliers is very, very expensive, especially if you try to make them shoulder the risks without sharing the upsides. And very expensive business plans require very good execution, which Waymo hasn't managed so far. They've already been rejected by 3 automakers (Ford, GM, and Honda).
Supposedly. I am skeptical that Waymo will ever execute a major deal. It's a real shame, the tech is really good, but Waymo just isn't very good at business (this is true about Alphabet in general; beyond ads, and maybe cloud).
Looking at the current news cycle, I think their huge lead is eventually going to get squandered away. George Hotz said Waymo is like Xerox PARC of Autonomous Tech. I think it's somewhere in between.They're somewhat like Fairchild Semiconductor. A lot of their great engineers have gone on to found their own companies. Be it Anton or Chris.
Tesla already has the brand firepower on its side, to unknowingly create the perception that they're self-driving tech pioneers.
Perhaps overlooked is that Waymo also is coming at self-driving from a very different angle than the car companies. Waymo, based on everything they've said and done, is focused on full autonomy even if that takes quite a few years to roll out broadly.
The auto makers are more than fine with incremental tech so long as it sells more cars. In some ways they may actually prefer it to the degree it accelerates upgrade cycles. Yes, there are issues with intermediate ~ Level 3 stages. But, in general, the car companies don't really care all that much about full self-driving and, arguably, would actually prefer if it hits the streets later rather than sooner.
I'm in total agreement. I told everybody at Waymo (back when it was part of X) that the car companies are fully incremental- they roll features out over years and push them down from the luxury models to the cheapies. They would far prefer to gain knowledge through incremental improvements each year.
The Waymo folks absorbed this, agreed, and said they would proceed towards full autonomy- I kind of get this, for example I don't even use cruise control and don't plan on using L3 autonomous because I worry about losing attentiveness and getting in an accident.
Whether (and you say 'arguably') they are actively preferring to slow down the rollout of full self-driving is hard to say; I think they're just cautious and don't want a few dramatic events to scuttle this promising area of research.
If they can crack that nut, they’ll have a crazy moat for a coupl years. And if they scale like hell in that moment, they might have a real brand on their hands.
And there’s no guarantee at all that the incremental approach will lead to the same place in a reasonable timeframe.
So, risks all around. And people playing to their strengths.
They can hire the right people but the problem might be trust. IMO, no major car company wants to deal with Google, they'll be enslaved to Google who will tighten the screws little by little.
There is truth to it. A friend of mine used the HUGE opportunity Alphabet os missing by failing to offer a service that allows to buy from vendors through Google only ising your Goovle account. Combine that with dropship and you have a potential Amazon-Killer in your pocket.
Self Driving is not only a technical problem, it will be a people/marketing/legal/political problem. By the time these will be solved, GM/Tesla/Toyota should have competing solutions.
But they have the problem of getting solutions adapted to Waymo's strategy. They'll likely push for safety tests and requirements that they can pass; others will have to adapt to that.
They will license/sell it eventually when/if they will get it to work. What else would they do with that tech ? Last time I've checked Alphabet did not produce any cars or had any infrastructure to do that on scale.
They don't need to be interested in selling off Waymo, because as we see in this very article they are interested in licensing Waymo tech to established players like Honda.
'Tech' as a commonly applied label typically involves widgets and software. Not large manufacturing and supply chains that involves world trade, weather, regionalism, human resources in the hundreds of thousands and years of planning to work with many similarly configured partners.
Tesla for all it's glory isn't the greatest endorsement for Tech as some (not necessarily you) like to claim and I like Tesla.
Everyone that says car companies don't move fast seems to be picking and choosing the facts that suit their own bias towards 'traditional' industries.
Car companies only look slow on the outside, but they really aren't when you look at the totality of their products scope.
For example car companies go through millions of dollars in just testing alone with nearly every country operating their own testing center. They need to be weather tested in so many different environments, they need to meet regulatory hurdles that are different from state to state to State. It's just massive what goes into what they need to do just to get the right to sell their product in a region or country.
Yet they do all this with significant upgrades to models that are now coming nearly every 3 years. I remember when it went from 10 years to 5 years. Wow!
I remember when the assembly got so complicated that cars were squeaking due to the materials rubbing against each other. So in comes material science guys trying to get that sorted in all weather conditions.
I think Waymo is far more likely to be in the sidelines than people think, but we'll see; I could be wrong.
I fully agree. There's tons of stuff moving fast when you look on the inside. Everyone aware of what the cutting edge is in their field and working to implement that within their own little niche of responsibility. From the outside it's like watching a large military cargo plane. It's so big that it looks slow no matter how fast it's going.
That said, GM (or any other BigCo) realizes when it doesn't have a capability and either decides to not pursue it, spin it up themselves internally (like in the case of EVs), license it, or buy someone who has it (e.g. Cruise).
>I remember when the assembly got so complicated that cars were squeaking due to the materials rubbing against each other. So in comes material science guys trying to get that sorted in all weather conditions.
Was that back when you could look at a picture of a Saturn and tell what temperature it was when the picture was taken? ;)
Cruise Automation was cofounded by Kyle Vogt, a YC alum who cofounded, built Justin.TV, which became Twitch, and sold to Amazon for a billion dollars before starting Cruise with Daniel Kan, which was acquired in early 2016 by GM. It's a tech company. It employs it's share of tech superstars. Vogt himself participated in the Darpa challenges as a robotics undergrad at MIT, before dropping out to do Justin.TV.
The only logical outcome is that the big car companies continue to build the majority of cars when (if) self-driving cars are ready for the mass market. Waymo is not going to build millions of cars a year like GM and Ford and Toyota.
Big car companies can buy startups in the self driving space, which is what GM did with Cruise. Or they can license the software from Waymo or other companies who are working on it.
Self-driving software can be just another thing car companies buy from suppliers, like transmissions and brakes.
The software people at GM aren't a part of GM's existing tech groups. They went and bought a (YC-backed) self-driving startup, Cruise Automation, to get this effort going.
I think the combination of Cruise's expertise on self-driving tech combined with GM's on cars makes for a pretty serious competitor, assuming the two can work together effectively.
FWIW, Honda builds more two-wheeled vehicles (scooters and motorcycles) than it does cars. About 19 million motorcycles a year vs about 5 million cars.
Their core competency is probably engines, especially small engines. They make more engines than anyone else globally.
(I agree with your point generally on momentum. Just saying because I was somewhat surprised to learn it.)
The thing is - self-driving cars fundamentally change the structure of the automobile market in a way that negates many of the advantages of existing automakers. Instead of private ownership of cars, they encourage ride-sharing services, because the car can pick up a different passenger on the return trip and no longer has to park. Instead of internal combustion engines, they encourage EVs, both because of the power-draw of the self-driving hardware and because refueling becomes the responsibility of the service, which can program them to return to base and not pick up any new passengers once they're getting low on charge. Instead of servicing being a huge pain that encourages buyers to put a premium on reliable cars, maintenance is handled by a centralized maintenance department full of professionals. Instead of family cars, they encourage small motorcycle-like "pods" sized for a single occupant (with a smaller number of family cars or trucks available for family trips).
Already, that negates the advantages of consumer brand, reliability, dealer networks, internal combustion engines, ergonomics, and bodywork. There's not all that much left to the auto industry, once all that changes.
Even if you are right with everything you predicted (some of it, all of it is doubtfull), that does not negate the core competencies of traditional car makers.
You still need someone to buold cars -> existing car makers
EVs are actually easier to built than EVs -> inceeasing the advantage they have on production
Maintenance -> to be done locally, there is no way to centralize it on a full continent, car makers and their existing network are king
Fleet management -> see above, plus existing fleet mgt serives, only real competition are large rental car companies
Ride sharing -> acquisitions, mytaxi in the case of Mercendes, drivenow and car2go in the case of Mercedes and BMW, VW with an in-house solution
Self-driving -> acquisition of the provider (GM and Cruise) or sourcing the tech, alternative is a partnership (Jaguar)
Traditional car makers slept into these developments, a few years ago I would have bet a lot on disruptors in that industry. Now that changed, the only "tech" (as in software) companies that can compete are the likes of Google and maybe Uber as long as VC money doesn't run out. The same is true for certain smaller manufacturers of automobiles, but this market cleaning is gling on for while now so they are used to it. And let's fave it, the automotive sector is well entrenched in politics (Europe, Japan and the US, Chine, too) and money generally is not a rwal problem. So, yeah, now I would say Google / Wymo might become a major Tier one supplier. But hardly more.
Google was the top place to work for six straight years and so they were getting the cream of the crop. They then get to triage those engineers and send the cream of the crop of the cream of the crop to Waymo.
Then there is the massive infrastructure that Google has to leverage.
SDC is an software engineering exercise. Who is better at software engineering?
How is the power draw even a factor for the fuel? A sedan is using 10 or 20 kW just driving around, 2 kW to power a computer isn't going to require fundamentally rethinking anything, just a correctly sized alternator (or whatnot these days).
That electricity is cheaper is the big factor, especially for a service doing shorter runs. Whether it's used for traction or steering doesn't really matter.
It's a somewhat infamous tactic used by a US leader in a war game simulation of war with a hypothetical mid east enemy (Iran of course), he used first a wave of cruise missiles, then a follow up attack of many small boats on suicide runs to overwhelm a carrier force (hypothetically) and won a two week planned exercise in one day, so the folks in charge re-ran the simulation and barred the tactics he used.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
The point of a simulation is to find vulnerabilities. When something works the correct thing is to rerun it with the assumption that you have mitigated that attack to see what your next vulnerability is. You of course also make sure the mitigation actually happens.
Lawyers run practice trials all the time, if their opponent in practice comes up with an argument they can't destroy on the spot they know where they need to focus.
Yes, they should have at least tried once again with no restrictions to see if the assymetric warfare worked with the Blue team prepared for it by the first run experience, the barring the tactic totally seems to be the opposite of what they should have done.
True that, if could with the pants down a carrier is nothing more than a big target. There is alo an example (no source, sorry) of a German sub surfacing next to a US carrier, within the inner defense ring, suring an exercise.
But all that only works of the carrier is caught flat footed. To stay in the metaphor, the carrier "automotive industry" is no longer flat footed. Partol aircraft and choppers are deployed and the defenses are up.
By the way, I like that image, fits the business world much bettwr than the proverbial tanker vessel for big co.
Sweden produces short range diesel electric subs that were able to sink a US carrier in a similar war game so the US Navy leased one to learn how to adapt to the previously unknown weakness. IIRC China was making these kinds of subs but they have pretty short range, compared to most attack subs.
I had a reply written for that poster, but decided against posting, but yeah, look up the USS Cole. The ship was ruined, people killed. Not talking about some military exercise, but about reality.
Edit: wow, still reading comments, everyone talking about exercises and not about when a speedboat actually went up against a warship. Maybe a perfect analogy, all theory, no real world with some crowds.
> I had a reply written for that poster, but decided against posting, but yeah, look up the USS Cole. The ship was ruined, people killed. Not talking about some military exercise, but about reality.
I think the GGP had that covered:
>>> At most the former can hope to land a good sucker punch before the latter knows they're even fighting.
The USS Cole attack was the sucker punch. Now that the US Navy knows they're fighting, they reprogrammed their robot guns to attack speedboats:
It's necessary to have the sentence following even try to make sense.
>> Once the latter is aware of the former you can be reasonably assured who of will win.
What does it even mean to "win" in the context of the EV market? Or even just the car market generally? Markets may be competitive but that doesn't translate into the competitiveness of a battle. It's a wonder the world finds a place for variety of so many products and goods at all, given people's obsession over "the winner", somehow creating a monopoly, and fear of losing some "battle" that isn't actually happening.
saved you a click:
Waymo didn't want to share any of its software with Honda... Honda may not have been ready to provide EVs on the scale Waymo needed.
Seems like Honda dumped Waymo due to the tech sharing issue (that was presented as the breaking point, I guess you could say Waymo dumped Honda because they demanded sharing Waymo was never going to give, but it was Honda that signed a new deal with another company.) Perhaps Waymo would have been willing to bend on sharing if Honda were geared up and ready to provide EVs. It's not clear.
>One person familiar with the talks said that Waymo wanted Honda to supply electric vehicles -- an area where the automaker is just beginning to establish itself. All of Waymo’s existing partnerships supply EVs or plug-in hybrids because its autonomous driving system needs more power than the puny 12-volt batteries in conventional cars.
I hope they realize that there is an alternator generating power.
> I hope they realize that there is an alternator generating power
The power output of an alternator is a function of the engine RPM, so it can't be relied on to provide consistent power, even when the engine isn't running, as needed by autonomous driving systems. You need a sufficiently specced battery (capacity, power output,etc) in between the ultimate power source (alternator, grid) and the autonomous system, something that EVs and PHEVs provide by default.
Most electrical functions in a car (radio, windows, fans) are designed to operate within the power output of the battery, not the maximum output of the alternator.
The functions that can't fit within that capacity (i.e A/C compressor) are mechanically coupled to the engine output, and therefore shut off when the engine shuts off.
If you're choosing a car to build into a self driving test fleet electrical capacity is a really low priority because it's so easy to fix yourself if need be. There's nothing preventing Waymo from bolting a group 31 (big, cheap battery sized used in commercial trucks) down beside whatever over-engineered enclosure holds your self driving computer.
Waymo presumably already has ways of modifying vehicles used for autonomous driving tech development, perhaps with big cheap batteries.
But for a self driving taxi service fleet, you wouldn't want your customers rolling around in vehicles with a big cheap truck battery bolted inside it.
You need a battery that is well integrated into the vehicle, for safety and to optimize the customer experience.
But 12V alternators are less efficient than the 48-Volt starter/generators used in modern "mild hybrids". Volvo, Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz and PSA plan on introducing these in every new model moving forward, so that doesn't seem like much of an ask from Waymo.
What is startup time? People get into their car, start the engine, buckle their seat belt, put the car in gear and go - from the time the engine is running until the car is moving is < 5 seconds. In some cases the alternator is setup to not start charging for 1 minute (so the engine doesn't see as much load until it has warmed a little).
Waymo gets 5 seconds to start moving from the time someone gets in the seat - this includes time to programs the route (you have don't need the full destination, until you get out of the garage). Most computers need longer than this to start. However if you have good batteries you can cheat - go to warm shutdown and keep memory active even when the car is off for example.
> For one, Waymo wasn’t willing to share the substantial technology it had already developed to run autonomous vehicles, and was seeking to cut a deal that would focus on Honda providing the cars
Oddly enough, what they walked away from is exactly what I want! I want Google to be the OS for the car, not some snowflake solution from each car manufacturer.
Waymo seems to be linked with FCA right now. They've picked their auto company for this round and they are headed for first operational vehicles with no safety driver around the end of 2018. Dealing with Honda would be a distraction at this moment, just before shipping product.
Why do you think Waymo chose FCA (Fiat Chrysler Automobiles) since they are only the 8th world's largest car maker? Is Waymo really the leader in the field (valuation over $100 billion vs Cruise at ~$15 billion)? Should they be partnering more with car companies ala Cruise / Argo?
FCA is somewhat infamous for not funding R&D so it's likely that in order to stay in the game they gave Waymo extremely generous terms with respect to IP and data.
No hardware manufacturer should partner with Alphabet unless they have exclusivity contract or equity in tech, otherwise Alphabet would just use to subsidize proof of concept first production relationship to sign up more manufacturers.
It seems to me that Waymo is following a model similar to Android albeit charging for it instead of giving it away for free. Anyone with basic understanding of technology knows that its not a sustainable model, in the long term. I wouldn't blame Honda for thinking for itself.
"Anyone with basic understanding of technology knows that its not a sustainable model" -> Please explain this. I have a basic understanding of technology and this is not obvious to me.
Right now, Waymo looks like it wants other companies (Honda, Chrysler, Jaguar) to provide it with dumb boxes on wheels. Waymo wants to play different dumb-box-on-wheels providers against each other so it can get the cheapest box-on-wheels.
Waymo then installs it's fancy software on these boxes and uses it's Google connection (Maps, Waze, etc) to put people in those boxes and charge them a hefty profit, at least for a few years while it's the only provider. Waymo wants to be in control and collecting profits, while manufacturers subsist on small margins.
Obviously, this isn't a good situation to be in for Honda etc
This is a great description of what Waymo is doing, and why Honda/GM etc. don't want to become a commodity provider (thus letting Waymo capture most of the value).
From Waymo's perspective, that's exactly the scenario they want. Focus all your resources on developing a tech advantage that others can't match, and have others in the ecosystem serve the lower-margin stuff.
If this sounds familiar, recall Google Search and Web Content.
It doesn't seem that unreasonable for waymo to expect that car companies would want to sell cars - that's what Honda has been doing for the last 60 years.
If you fast forward, and assume that at some point most cars would be self driving, then you can see why Honda would want to sell more than just the dumb parts.
Cars today have 10's of microprocessors in them and hundreds of millions of lines of code. Not exactly "dumb", but I take your meaning to be "absent AI features".
I'm thinking what sells will be different when most cars are self-driving. For one, most people probably won't own a car. The buyers will be companies like Waymo, Uber, and Lyft. That's a very different dynamic. Basically saying Honda doesn't want to sell a commodity with small margins.
If you're just hailing a ride, you care a lot less about the brand of car and it's amenities. You care more about the overall ride share service, price, etc. Very little of which Honda would have any effect on if they don't have some skin in the self-driving tech.
True, it might squeeze the profits from some car manufacturers.
I do see a future in very high end & privately owned cars, which will quite possibly generate even higher margins for some manufacturers. Plus there will be a whole new world of innovative design opportunities in the self driving cars realm, in which the self driving part might end up being be the boring and somewhat commodity part.
The model being described is one where the company at the center of the network eventually captures ~100%+ of the profits deriving from the products that OEMs build on that platform. The reason is that the traits that define the product for the consumer are all controlled (or eventually co-opted) by the platform, leaving OEMs (what Google wanted Honda to be in this example) no room to differentiate. This leaves the OEMs with very little pricing power, which drives margins lower. Lower margins lead to less innovation. This is why it's hard to sustainably be an OEM in a market like this.
Examples:
-- Wintel --> Microsoft + Intel financially did much better financially than the legions of PC makers who designed, built, and sold products using the Wintel foundation
-- Android --> Similar, with Google reaping the profits.
All of the auto companies have watched the mobile phone market going from a situation where the companies that build mobile phones (Nokia, LG, Ericsson) etc. had high margins to a situation where almost the entire market has been commodified by Android (Google). They don't want the situation to repeat itself with cars, so they are heavily investing in software and technology development to prevent it.
Android didn't commodify phone hardware. There are Android phones in different price ranges, from $1000 ones like Galaxy Note 9 and Pixel to $100 ones.
Android is not "given away for free". AOSP is, but that's pretty unusable / unsalable as is, outside of China. Google Play Services and the google apps cost real money, and include a license to the "Android" name and logo. A phone that just has AOSP cannot be called an Android phone.
interesting. so hardware manufacturers like Samsung are actually paying Google to put Google Play Services and various Google apps onto their phones? how much do they pay (is that a known value)?
The Oracle trial exposed Android revenue to the public. "Google's Android operating system has generated revenue of about $31 billion and profit of $22 billion since its release, an Oracle Corp lawyer told a U.S. court hearing the software company's copyright lawsuit against Google.Jan 21, 2016"
Some of that was from the Play Store and some from Ads, but it seems likely most of that was from licensing.
Seems right. I bet Honda wants an actual piece of the action in exchange for its world class quality control and production line expertise, not just a role as a commoditized car manufacturer.
The article you just linked retracts itself by calling data collection "utter bullshit". It seems that your desire to attack Google overrode actually reading what you post.
>Steering this story straight - we take privacy very seriously and do not collect the data the Motor Trend article claims such as throttle position, oil temp and coolant temp. Users opt in to share information with Android Auto that improves their experience, so the system can be hands-free when in Drive, and provide more accurate navigation through the car’s GPS.
"pretty much bullshit" (not "utter bullshit") is AP's characterization of Google's response to the article. It was not retracted.
Do not think so. Waymo is rolling out their own robot taxi service in Arizona right now.
It was leaked they will roll out in San Fran and Mount View next.
They have up to 82k cars on order. It sounds more like they want to buy smartphones from others and then add their chip and then "rent" use of the phone.
> a deal announced this week in which Honda pledged to put $2.75 billion into Cruise in exchange for a 5.7 percent stake, valuing the company at about $14.5 billion.
"Honda will take a stake in GM Cruise for $750 million and spend $2 billion more over 12 years to develop a self-driving vehicle for the GM unit that can be "manufactured at high volume for global deployment"
Although 750/14500 isn't 5.7% either, but at least in the ballpark.
thanks for clarifying that. so, the equity stake was at a much more reasonable price than i initially thought.
elsewhere in the article they mention that JP Morgan valued Waymo at something like $100 billion. also they say that Alphabet has plenty of cash. so, it seems reasonable to assume that Waymo didn't need cash from Honda.
more interestingly, Waymo doesn't seem to place much value on Honda's production capabilities and other expertise.
is Waymo embracing a sort of scorched-earth business plan? does Waymo have any true equity partners?
Its pretty obvious that Waymo wants to make car hardware a commodity, and car companies don't like that and want autonomy to be a commodity.
I don't really know where Cruise is at, but it's not crazy to believe that both things will become commodified and competition will be on cost of rides, at least in rich urban markets.
At that point, the question becomes: who survives that transition?
I think sure, there might have been a better deal between GM and Honda, but I think at a deeper level it's probably different industries trying to "circle the wagons" so to speak.
My guess is only outsiders in the auto industry will create deep partnerships with big tech. I think big tech will probably end up being forced to move into manufacturing through grass roots efforts or acquisitions if they truly want to compete in this space.
That may be a bit naive on my part, but perhaps automakers should form some kind of alliance and develop self-driving tech together instead of buying it from another company.
Normally with new technology, I'd expect hungry entrepreneurs to jump in the fray and develop alternatives to these huge established companies, but with self-driving cars, it seems that the barriers to entry would be too high. I'm hoping I'm wrong though and we see more Elon Musks types out there in the next decade giving us self-driving cars and competing with these giants.
The thing about companies like Honda and GM -- they have a lot of momentum. That means they aren't likely to be on the forefront of innovation, but when they turn towards a new target, they will hit with massive resources and established global production capacity that a start-up can only dream of.