7 ms·

Driverless Startup Zoox Suddenly Removes CEO

120 points by kuusisto 8y ago

asadlionpk 8y ago
Truly driverless.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
sambroner 8y ago
I don't have a strong opinion on Zoox, this CEO, or even this story, but there sure does seem to be a lot of frustration in the self-driving world. Leaves me with two thoughts: * There's a lot more runway for these bike sharing startups then I thought there'd be. * Self driving is hard. (^^ Copied from a duped post)
- ben_jones 8y ago
  * There's limits to current AI/ML technology that create a hard ceiling and extends timelines long beyond the current hype cycle and nobody wants to admit it or else funding might stop coming in.
  - maym86 8y ago
    Exactly this. The hype was all in the prototyping phase of the technology, going as far as you can get to make a demo and impress some investors. Progress looked like it was happening quickly because a controlled demo could be made with existing technology. Now that it's time to build full production systems the hardest problems and edge cases need to be addressed, which could be ignored for demo systems, and the solutions aren't available without some new research developments.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
theCricketer 8y ago
"Without a warning, cause or right of reply the board fired me".. There is more from Tim Kentley's twitter: https://twitter.com/TimKentleyKlay https://twitter.com/TimKentleyKlay He just posted a bunch of messages he got from his team at Zoox. Seems like a lot of employees really liked him and his leadership.
- sofon 8y ago
  "Kentley-Klay, 43, is an improbable entrant into the crowded race to develop self-driving cars. He has no engineering degree, no background in computer science. Through his early 30s, he was a successful artist and designer—creating music videos and ads for major companies like McDonald’s and Birds Eye frozen vegetables." https://www.forbes.com/feature/zoox-autonomous-cars-taxis/#13a46f515755 https://www.forbes.com/feature/zoox-autonomous-cars-taxis/#1... "In a move that some will call devious and others will call ingenious, Kentley-Klay reached out to some of the biggest names in the field and told them he was making a documentary on the rise of self-driving cars. The plan was to mine these people for information and feel out potential partners." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-07-17/robot-taxi-startup-zoox-has-800-million-and-a-wild-pitch https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-07-17/robot-tax... The whole thing seems insane to me. I don't understand why you would fund someone with no tech or business background... I'm sure he hired some good people, but it still doesn't make sense. As to why the investors booted him? Investors generally don't kick out the CEO unless they did something crazy. It doesn't look good for the investor, and it makes it investment look bad (and follow on investment less likely).
  - Fricken 8y ago
    Tim has lots of experience in business and tech. From scratch he built a self driving car company valued at $3.2 billion, whose autonomous OS is outperforming efforts from major automakers and tech companies and with a fraction of the resources. Zoox has gotten to where they are now on about $300 million. Others have spent far more and have a lot less to show for it.
    - askafriend 8y ago
dawhizkid 8y ago
The story that came out earlier this summer in Bloomberg was pure HBO Silicon Valley-esque hyperbole -> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-07-17/robot-taxi-startup-zoox-has-800-million-and-a-wild-pitch https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-07-17/robot-tax... The degree I take a company seriously is inversely related to the hype spewed by these articles (see pre 10/2015 Theranos press)
- KKKKkkkk1 8y ago
  But hype is part of the culture. I mean, there's a company whose motto was "do no evil".
  - zamfi 8y ago
    I hate to be that guy, but it was “don’t be evil” not “do no evil”. Basically meant “don’t be like Microsoft” back in those days. Very different meaning than people often assume, and not about hype. More about not letting success get to your head and using it to crush everyone else.
    - Piskvorrr 8y ago
      Glad that worked out, right? *this post best viewed in Google Chrome
      - zamfi 8y ago
        Companies change over time. Microsoft also isn't the same "evil empire" it was in the late '90s and early '00s.
- ForHackernews 8y ago
  > "Rather than working through the issues in an epic startup for the win, the board chose the path of fear," Is this a real person or a Markov chain trained on internet memes and Chicken Soup for the Soul books? Board should've chosen the path of love: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vivEzQUGHOQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vivEzQUGHOQ
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
hendzen 8y ago
post-Theranos the attitude towards "fake it 'till you make it" is a bit different.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  Just as likely that ye olde skeleton has come a-knocking.
ikeboy 8y ago
You might say the startup is now without its ... driver. Sorry.
artemisyna 8y ago
Of what I've heard of Zoox (admittedly 2nd or 3rd hand), there definitely has been some precidence for "engineering to fit design goals" rather than "fitting design around engineering realities". Wouldn't surprise me if this non-technical CEO was part of this.
- alphakappa 8y ago
  I fail to understand the issue here - Successful companies do often stretch the limits of engineering to fit design goals (assuming that the design is an informed one to begin with). If design was always fitted around what is known to be possible with engineering, we would have much less innovation around.
- edshiro 8y ago
  Also, wasn't this practice (i.e. engineering to fit design goals) what made Apple successful in releasing the iPod, iPhone, etc? I am an engineer but welcome the perspective of designers and believe anyway that both need to work hand in hand. In the case of driverless vehicles however, I am not sure the focus should overly be on design because this is a very hard problem that has yet to be solved, and maybe there was a way of designing a vehicle that was evolutionary rather than revolutionary, while mostly focusing on the technical challenges that must be overcome to get us to autonomy.
  - shriver 8y ago
    The key is that if your design goals are ambitious but achievable then you end up with a killer product. If your design goals are unrealistic or unachievable you tank what's achievable chasing a dream. Being frank the difference is probably that Steve Jobs had 30 years being a hands on expert in his field, and this guy was just some bloke who fancied building a self driving car. All too often I've seen people set design goals when they don't understand the underlying problem. If jobs had targeted building an iPod that was physically smaller than the current smallest hard disk available he'd have been in this position.
okonomiyaki3000 8y ago
Zoox? Those "Web 2.0 Name Generators" are fine if your company makes games or some nerdy stuff but I don't know how comfortable most people would be turning operation of their vehicle over to something that sounds like it was invented by Dr Seuss.
- dullgiulio 8y ago
  When I was a kid, almost every company name ended on "tec", "tech" or "tek". Every generation will be shamed by the next.
- tim333 8y ago
  >It’s an abbreviation of zooxanthellae, the algae that helps fuel coral reef growth For what it's worth
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    I think I'd have gone with Zooxa ("zuza"). How do they pronounce Zoox, "zooks"?
shriver 8y ago
You don't just get rid of the founder and CEO for shits and giggles. I'd love to know what it was that prompted this, although I'm not sure if we'll ever find out.
- lbriner 8y ago
  Since he doesn't claim to know why, by far the most likely reason is that they don't believe he has what it takes to take the company further, whether technically or in terms of management or industry experience. This is the cold hard world of business which is why founders should keep some decent equity to make sure they don't get stiffed like the guys at Fanduel: http://uk.businessinsider.com/fanduel-founders-likely-to-lose-out-from-paddy-power-acquisition-2018-7 http://uk.businessinsider.com/fanduel-founders-likely-to-los...
  - shriver 8y ago
    Well he says he doesn't know why, but that seems disingenuous. If they had said they don't have confidence in his abilities to take the company forward that would be a reason - he could disagree but he would absolutely know why. So either they genuinely didn't tell him - which indicates it's something they think would cause trouble, or he does know why but won't tell us.

120 points by kuusisto 8y ago

asadlionpk 8y ago

Truly driverless.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

sambroner 8y ago

I don't have a strong opinion on Zoox, this CEO, or even this story, but there sure does seem to be a lot of frustration in the self-driving world. Leaves me with two thoughts: * There's a lot more runway for these bike sharing startups then I thought there'd be. * Self driving is hard. (^^ Copied from a duped post)

ben_jones 8y ago
* There's limits to current AI/ML technology that create a hard ceiling and extends timelines long beyond the current hype cycle and nobody wants to admit it or else funding might stop coming in.
- maym86 8y ago
  Exactly this. The hype was all in the prototyping phase of the technology, going as far as you can get to make a demo and impress some investors. Progress looked like it was happening quickly because a controlled demo could be made with existing technology. Now that it's time to build full production systems the hardest problems and edge cases need to be addressed, which could be ignored for demo systems, and the solutions aren't available without some new research developments.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

theCricketer 8y ago

"Without a warning, cause or right of reply the board fired me".. There is more from Tim Kentley's twitter: https://twitter.com/TimKentleyKlay https://twitter.com/TimKentleyKlay He just posted a bunch of messages he got from his team at Zoox. Seems like a lot of employees really liked him and his leadership.

sofon 8y ago
"Kentley-Klay, 43, is an improbable entrant into the crowded race to develop self-driving cars. He has no engineering degree, no background in computer science. Through his early 30s, he was a successful artist and designer—creating music videos and ads for major companies like McDonald’s and Birds Eye frozen vegetables." https://www.forbes.com/feature/zoox-autonomous-cars-taxis/#13a46f515755 https://www.forbes.com/feature/zoox-autonomous-cars-taxis/#1... "In a move that some will call devious and others will call ingenious, Kentley-Klay reached out to some of the biggest names in the field and told them he was making a documentary on the rise of self-driving cars. The plan was to mine these people for information and feel out potential partners." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-07-17/robot-taxi-startup-zoox-has-800-million-and-a-wild-pitch https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-07-17/robot-tax... The whole thing seems insane to me. I don't understand why you would fund someone with no tech or business background... I'm sure he hired some good people, but it still doesn't make sense. As to why the investors booted him? Investors generally don't kick out the CEO unless they did something crazy. It doesn't look good for the investor, and it makes it investment look bad (and follow on investment less likely).
- Fricken 8y ago
  Tim has lots of experience in business and tech. From scratch he built a self driving car company valued at $3.2 billion, whose autonomous OS is outperforming efforts from major automakers and tech companies and with a fraction of the resources. Zoox has gotten to where they are now on about $300 million. Others have spent far more and have a lot less to show for it.
  - askafriend 8y ago

dawhizkid 8y ago

The story that came out earlier this summer in Bloomberg was pure HBO Silicon Valley-esque hyperbole -> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-07-17/robot-taxi-startup-zoox-has-800-million-and-a-wild-pitch https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-07-17/robot-tax... The degree I take a company seriously is inversely related to the hype spewed by these articles (see pre 10/2015 Theranos press)

KKKKkkkk1 8y ago
But hype is part of the culture. I mean, there's a company whose motto was "do no evil".
- zamfi 8y ago
  I hate to be that guy, but it was “don’t be evil” not “do no evil”. Basically meant “don’t be like Microsoft” back in those days. Very different meaning than people often assume, and not about hype. More about not letting success get to your head and using it to crush everyone else.
  - Piskvorrr 8y ago
    Glad that worked out, right? *this post best viewed in Google Chrome
    - zamfi 8y ago
      Companies change over time. Microsoft also isn't the same "evil empire" it was in the late '90s and early '00s.
ForHackernews 8y ago
> "Rather than working through the issues in an epic startup for the win, the board chose the path of fear," Is this a real person or a Markov chain trained on internet memes and Chicken Soup for the Soul books? Board should've chosen the path of love: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vivEzQUGHOQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vivEzQUGHOQ

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

hendzen 8y ago

post-Theranos the attitude towards "fake it 'till you make it" is a bit different.

maxerickson 8y ago
Just as likely that ye olde skeleton has come a-knocking.

ikeboy 8y ago

You might say the startup is now without its ... driver. Sorry.

artemisyna 8y ago

Of what I've heard of Zoox (admittedly 2nd or 3rd hand), there definitely has been some precidence for "engineering to fit design goals" rather than "fitting design around engineering realities". Wouldn't surprise me if this non-technical CEO was part of this.

alphakappa 8y ago
I fail to understand the issue here - Successful companies do often stretch the limits of engineering to fit design goals (assuming that the design is an informed one to begin with). If design was always fitted around what is known to be possible with engineering, we would have much less innovation around.
edshiro 8y ago
Also, wasn't this practice (i.e. engineering to fit design goals) what made Apple successful in releasing the iPod, iPhone, etc? I am an engineer but welcome the perspective of designers and believe anyway that both need to work hand in hand. In the case of driverless vehicles however, I am not sure the focus should overly be on design because this is a very hard problem that has yet to be solved, and maybe there was a way of designing a vehicle that was evolutionary rather than revolutionary, while mostly focusing on the technical challenges that must be overcome to get us to autonomy.
- shriver 8y ago
  The key is that if your design goals are ambitious but achievable then you end up with a killer product. If your design goals are unrealistic or unachievable you tank what's achievable chasing a dream. Being frank the difference is probably that Steve Jobs had 30 years being a hands on expert in his field, and this guy was just some bloke who fancied building a self driving car. All too often I've seen people set design goals when they don't understand the underlying problem. If jobs had targeted building an iPod that was physically smaller than the current smallest hard disk available he'd have been in this position.

okonomiyaki3000 8y ago

Zoox? Those "Web 2.0 Name Generators" are fine if your company makes games or some nerdy stuff but I don't know how comfortable most people would be turning operation of their vehicle over to something that sounds like it was invented by Dr Seuss.

dullgiulio 8y ago
When I was a kid, almost every company name ended on "tec", "tech" or "tek". Every generation will be shamed by the next.
tim333 8y ago
>It’s an abbreviation of zooxanthellae, the algae that helps fuel coral reef growth For what it's worth
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  I think I'd have gone with Zooxa ("zuza"). How do they pronounce Zoox, "zooks"?

shriver 8y ago

You don't just get rid of the founder and CEO for shits and giggles. I'd love to know what it was that prompted this, although I'm not sure if we'll ever find out.

lbriner 8y ago
Since he doesn't claim to know why, by far the most likely reason is that they don't believe he has what it takes to take the company further, whether technically or in terms of management or industry experience. This is the cold hard world of business which is why founders should keep some decent equity to make sure they don't get stiffed like the guys at Fanduel: http://uk.businessinsider.com/fanduel-founders-likely-to-lose-out-from-paddy-power-acquisition-2018-7 http://uk.businessinsider.com/fanduel-founders-likely-to-los...
- shriver 8y ago
  Well he says he doesn't know why, but that seems disingenuous. If they had said they don't have confidence in his abilities to take the company forward that would be a reason - he could disagree but he would absolutely know why. So either they genuinely didn't tell him - which indicates it's something they think would cause trouble, or he does know why but won't tell us.