Google Launches Sidewalk Labs

https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LarryPage/posts/M1twDYHaui3

by resmi • 11 years ago

258 179 11 years ago

plus.google.com

So they targeting companies like Siemens now? They do not make public transportation systems, they do not make energy systems, they do not build houses.

http://w3.siemens.com/topics/global/en/intelligent-infrastru...

http://w1.siemens.com.cn/sustainable-city-en/sustainable-cit...

minthd2• 11 years ago

I don't think the word "Targeting" is correct. Google has unique innovation skills, and they are willing to use them to collaborate with others who are willing to innovate. Only unless said companies(say ISP's) aren't willing to innovate, they'll be a threat.

At least that seems the general theme at Google.

Dwolb• 11 years ago

Not sure you really addressed why 'Targeting' isn't correct. Just because they have unique skills doesn't mean they can't target someone's business.

smtddr2• 11 years ago

> So they targeting companies like Siemens now? They do not make public transportation systems, they do not make energy systems, they do not build houses.

Am I missing something? That first link you provided: http://i.imgur.com/URR2MJK.png

The text I circled in red looks very similar to the 3 things you mentioned and looks like exactly like the kinds of issues sidewalkinc.com would be tackling.

mcphage• 11 years ago

Am I missing something?

"They" in that sentence might be referring to Google?

shalmanese• 11 years ago

I think there's more than enough room in the market of making better cities for every company to thrive.

curiouscat321• 11 years ago

At what point is Google going to officially become a consulting company?

Right now, they seem to be playing arbitrage with engineering talent. They buy up engineers with large salaries and fancy perks. Those people, who now span almost every industry, are then used on projects like these. This has nothing to do with Google's core business or any branch of it at all.

It seems like Google is designing all sorts of products outside of its core competency (medicine, cars, now this?) with the hopes of either spinning it off, selling to the highest bidder, or...? I can't see shareholders liking Google trying to enter every market in the world.

robzyb2• 11 years ago

I can't see shareholders liking Google trying to enter every market in the world.

Maybe the shareholders aren't investing in an advertising company and app store, but they're investing in the company that succeeds to a higher degree than it fails.

But maybe they like Google's brand power and unique company ethos?

How many other companies worth $350Bn+ with 50k+ employees have Google's operating style?

VikingCoder• 11 years ago

Right now, they seem to be playing arbitrage with engineering talent.

I think the actual problem is that very few other companies know how to make appropriate use of engineers.

"Robert, you said this sprint that you would move the logo image 2 pixels to the left. Can you PLEASE come to the morning stand-up, listen to 26 people report their status, and then tell us if you have any roadblocks? kthx."

mariojv• 11 years ago

I laughed really hard at this. Have been in some hour-long "standups." :) IRC standups are pretty nice.

jfoster• 11 years ago

My impression is that the fraction of Google that works in these types of ventures is tiny. I don't mean to suggest they won't produce anything of value. These small ventures that Google launches are all about having a big impact with a (relatively) small investment. In terms of headcount, though?

I don't think shareholders of Google should be concerned about this; they should stick to being interested in ARPU, CPC trends, etc.

robotresearcher• 11 years ago

I think Page and Brin can do lots of (relatively at Google scale) small-stakes things just because they want to, as long as the money keeps rolling in.

For example, the self-driving cars are a genuine passion of Page's as I understand it, and came about from his relationship with Thrun. They really do want to make the world a better place by preventing thousands of deaths and many more injuries a year, among other benefits.

I don't think that is hopelessly naive of me. These are youngish, bright billionaire geeks who have made a lot of people very good money. They can do things just because, at least while the gravy flows.

That doesn't mean that these projects are not good strategic business, just that they can be risky since the organization is prepared to tolerate a loss.

JonathonW• 11 years ago

I don't see how Google designing "outside of its core competency" is a problem, though. Lots of companies span large numbers of only tangentially-related verticals-- go take a look at Hitachi or Sony or Samsung, for example.

slykat• 11 years ago

I think you are buying into the marketing/PR hype. The majority of headcount actually works on core products like advertising & search. The headcount in fringe areas like things like X is a very small % of total engineers. This basically is a huge boost for recruiting because every engineer hopes to work on these moonshot teams.

minthd2• 11 years ago

That depends how you define Google's core competencies. Some of their main core competencies(where they lead the world probably) are AI/machine-learning and high-speed software development. Those skills are now the core of every business("software is eating the world"), so Google has lots of options. Another core competency is long-time investment in high-risk projects - which basically nobody does.

Also one criteria of choosing projects for X - is projects in areas where there's little competition. Once you start from that point, maybe the analysis framework of "core competencies" is less useful.

Animats3• 11 years ago

"At what point is Google going to officially become a consulting company?"

That could happen. It happened to IBM[1] and HP[2], both of which were once product companies.

[1] http://ibm.com/consulting [2] http://www8.hp.com/us/en/business-services/it-services/it-se...

ohitsdom• 11 years ago

selling to the highest bidder

Have they ever done this? Or even shown any interest to sell a business unit they own?

outside1234• 11 years ago

I wonder how much Google does this just to get positive PR to hire for their main businesses. It gives the impression that you'll be working on cool stuff like this when you join Google instead of the rest of the 99% that drives the ad hive (which is where you'll really end up).

scotth2• 11 years ago

It certainly didn't happen that way for me. I'm doing exactly the kind of work that I love to do. You're afforded quite a bit of mobility inside the company.

rictic3• 11 years ago

That also has been my experience. I've moved three times in five years and every time it's been because I heard about what a team was doing and wanted to join them.

davidcgl• 11 years ago

Positive PR is probably a side effect, not the main reason.

mvgoogler• 11 years ago

I don't know where you are getting this from - do you have any personal experience to draw from?

It doesn't match my experience. In almost seven years at Google I've worked on amazingly interesting projects - from hardware to user-facing products.

I've never once, in my entire time, had any level of management tell me that I should be worrying about selling ads or monetizing my projects. The consistent message has been "build great products".

So the notion that 99% (or really any majority) of developers at Google "drive the ad hive" is completely untrue - at least in my experience.

mvnoogler3• 11 years ago

I have the personal experience!

I'm a new hire, and I got assigned to somewhere that doesn't align with my interests, at all... other than the fact that it's "not front end."

Hoping switching is as easy as everyone says!

NN88• 11 years ago

Google is going to start building infrastructure. Rail, fiber, cable, etc.

All the things the US Government should have been doing

nulltype3• 11 years ago

Why should the government be doing it?

derefr• 11 years ago

There's no reason the government actually needs to build the infrastructure itself—but since infrastructure is a natural monopoly (only room for one set of roads, one EM spectrum, etc) the government needs to "regulate it into existence", setting laws to incentivize cooperative building of neutrally-owned infrastructure by interested players, rather than the natural monopoly leading to a real monopoly/oligopoly.

egru• 11 years ago

So that they are public infrastructure that everyone has the ability to access.

GFK_of_xmaspast• 11 years ago

Falls under 'general welfare', Article I Section 8.

bluthru• 11 years ago

Because we the people should be owners of our own infrastructure.

rokhayakebe2• 11 years ago

I am not sure why you are getting down-voted but this is very legitimate question.

The role of government is to provide for the infrastructure a society needs to prosper. Roads are a primary part of that infrastructure. If I could see how fast and conveniently goods and people are moving within a country, state, I could tell you how developed it is. I believe this has always been true. The old nations which had better ways of moving goods also had great power to some extent.

Other parts of this basic infrastructure the government should provide include: a legal system, protection, education and healthcare. Perhaps beyond this the government can keep clear and let private markets handle.

sytelus• 11 years ago

There are some infrastructure Governments must do because it provides equal opportunity setting the level playing field for all. For instance, Govt must fund schools otherwise all the great schools would eventually set their prices according to supply/demand so that bottom population can't afford them. This translates to situation where you can realize your potential only if you were lucky enough to be born to right parents.

Consider another scenario: A country has cities A, B and C. Assume that the govt doesn't do infrastructure like building roads. So a private company comes in and builds road between A and B because there is a net profit for them. One problem is obviously, now everyone must pay to use this road. If you are poor and can't pay then you can't use that road even if you need it go to hospital or send your kids to school or start your new business. Again, the result is that lack of infrastructure puts poor people at the severe disadvantage from making progress.

Further, private companies may decide never to build any road between B and C because their analysis shows C only has 1000 people and they can never recover their cost. Now, you can argue that 1000 people needs to suffer for making a bad choice about where to live and should not expect other people to pay up. However if you go in that line of thought, I bet most of the cities would never could have been connected. The crux of the issue is we as humans are only good at finding "local optimums" and it's impossible to see for us what could be "global optimum". What that means in nutshell is that we need to allow possibilities even though it may look venture of loss and foolishness because sometime those possibilities are what leads to huge outcomes.

sixothree• 11 years ago

Pretty sure all road work in my state is done by private companies.

abalone3• 11 years ago

I don't understand the desire to do vague announcements. Why bother announcing at all until you have something more concrete?

What does "time to get to work" even mean here? Doing what?

robzyb2• 11 years ago

What does "time to get to work" even mean here? Doing what?

Sometimes the first challenge is to figure that out.

Sometimes it makes sense to note the problem in the early stages.

I think its kinda cool that Google is exploring this.

archlight• 11 years ago

what about if you already start working during the commute? it is "shortening time" travelling to work.

reagency• 11 years ago

They are recruiting for staffand ideas. All they have is seed funding and a famous guy

eggie5• 11 years ago

nice pun!

sidcool3• 11 years ago

This is a huge undertaking where public support and co-operation is paramount. They cannot come out one day and tell people what they have done and what to do. They need to give a heads up.

Is it only me or does HN take all announcements cynically?

david927• 11 years ago

This wasn't an announcement. It was the announcement of an announcement.

TeMPOraL3• 11 years ago

Is it only me or does HN take all announcements cynically?

Given that most announcements turn out not to be worth the space they take on server HDD, it's hardly surprising.

burkaman3• 11 years ago

Because starting something like this is exciting, and there is no reason to keep it secret. I can't think of a good reason to not announce. It's not like they called a huge press conference or brought this out at a trade show, it's a quick blog post. Do you not tell your friends when you start some cool new project? People like talking about this stuff.

Also, more practically, ideas for this kind of venture can come from anywhere. Maybe someone reading this has a brilliant idea for improving city life, but doesn't have the money or entrepreneurial ability to make it happen. Maybe some startup has a great product in this area, and could really benefit from a partnership with a company with Google's resources. Maybe some city government wants to commission a project to track and optimize their energy usage, I don't know. Why would you intentionally work in isolation when there are potentially great ideas out there?

abalone3• 11 years ago

There is no such thing as an insignificant "quick blog post" when you are the CEO of a $365B company.

And it is unlikely that the goal of the post was to solicit ideas given that it didn't solicit any ideas.

harigov• 11 years ago

It's interesting that Google chooses to create new companies for problems orthogonal to its core purpose, instead of choosing to diversify itself as a company into multiple industries. Is this a common phenomenon or is it something that is new?

colinbartlett• 11 years ago

That is interesting indeed. You didn't see Apple Computer, Inc. spinning up Apple Mobile Technologies, Inc. after the iPod and iPhone success. They simply pivoted (to use a maligned term) their company and mission to Apple, Inc.

CardenB• 11 years ago

I would also love to read about some similar companies, but I don't even know how to go about finding them.

bsbechtel• 11 years ago

So if you choose to live in X urban area, could you potentially be forced into using Google technology because of where you live?

filiwickers3• 11 years ago

That is probably already true of other companies. The systems that run the traffic lights may be run by IBM, train routes may be overseen by Cisco, etc.

vowelless• 11 years ago

Sorry for OT but why is google plus not responsive?!?

Sometimes I have to increase the size of the page to ease my reading. This is what I get:

http://puu.sh/iklL3/08aa3d3563.png

And I can't even scroll to the right! Is there something wrong with my chrome configuration (maybe a plugin not playing nice)? Or can someone else repro this on their mac?

jeremydw• 11 years ago

I can reproduce it. In order to fix it, I have to refresh the page. Happens on my Mac all the time when accessing G+ from a browser window that may be a different size from the browser window I previously used to access G+ in another session.

EarthLaunch• 11 years ago

Funny, the fact it was on Plus made me subconsciously averse to clicking it. Turns out there was a good reason for that feeling.

yalogin• 11 years ago

When Google killed off a lot of its technology projects the assumption was Page and Brin listened to the Jobs' advice to focus on fewer products. But then they started announcing a bunch of these other projects that are not directly related to their core products.

Isn't Google better off just running and maintaining those other projects they killed?

I am not saying these are bad but from an investor point of view only a small number of them make sense.

exacube• 11 years ago

I don't think Larry and Sergey are interested in upping their $$$ status to $$$$. They are pure technology enthusiasts and want to change the world with it, and they use their money printing machine as the enabling engine.

sharp11• 11 years ago

This is visionary. We are becoming a predominantly urban species and there are incredible tech opportunities both from a business and from a social benefit perspective. Walkscore, Bikewise and Open311 are a few examples that come to mind, but that's just tip of the iceberg. After the internet-of-things, the internet-of-habitat is coming. It's brilliant that Google wants to help invent it.

sidcool3• 11 years ago

People comparing Apple and Google on everything forget that both companies are very different in their missions. It's not about right and wrong, it's just different.

skidoo2• 11 years ago

Making money is agenda number one for both companies regardless of what their respective PR departments say.

rokhayakebe2• 11 years ago

If you must make money to pay for your living and take care of your spouse and kids so that they may have a better future than the life you have lived, is your agenda number one to make money regardless of what you tell your friends you are working for?

lern_too_spel• 11 years ago

Google's founders hold enough of the voting shares to make Google's agenda whatever they feel like making it that day.

Animats3• 11 years ago

Someone needs to develop a public toilet that's self-cleaning but doesn't cost more than some houses. The problem is making it homeless and drug dealer proof. SF has had major problems with their self-cleaning toilets.[1] Portland succeeded, but theirs is armored to contain a velociraptor and provides limited privacy.[2]

[1] http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/occupied-san-francisco-... [2] http://www.citylab.com/design/2012/01/why-portlands-public-t...

rough-sea• 11 years ago

it's called starbucks

avar2• 11 years ago

Hasn't this already been invented? With the problem being that most westerners don't like the solution because it looks unfamiliar:

    * You install a squat toilet
    * It's cleaned by flooding the entire
      toilet area with water, which once
      turned off all washes down into the
      toilet
    * No toilet paper, you clean yourself
      with water

jacobolus• 11 years ago

The biggest problem is not even that it looks unfamiliar, but that the majority of “westerners” have insufficient ankle flexibility to squat, due to a lifetime of sitting in chairs and no experience squatting.

You might be able to build a squat toilet where the feet rested on a ramp (i.e. raised at the heel side), though I suspect most Americans would still refuse to use it.

vetler• 11 years ago

Sounds like a waste of water, though.

sorbits• 11 years ago

That’s how many public toilets work in China.

Many of those I saw were pretty disgusting, and my travel companion reported that it also applied to the toilets for the opposite sex.

alexnking• 11 years ago

Homeless proof - I'm really hoping the problems that Sidewalk Labs is working on don't include making sure homeless people don't have access to public bathrooms. I'm honestly not thinking of a lot of reasons for public bathrooms to exist aside from making sure people without houses have someplace they can use (whether that be as a bathroom, washing laundry, shaving, etc.)

aggie• 11 years ago

If you read the linked article you will find that he means it is resistant to non-bathroom activities such as using it for washing clothes. I'm not sure why that would be a big problem, but the design isn't intended to prevent the homeless from using it as a bathroom.

Rainymood• 11 years ago

Amsterdam has these:

http://www.street-art.nl/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/1-1.jpg

and

https://pinkylightsaber.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/public-t...

while useful, they usually are quite smelly though.

avar2• 11 years ago

Something that only works for one gender, and only for urinating is not solving the problem of public toilets.

_nedR• 11 years ago

I don't know whether i would call that a toilet. They're literally doing their business in the street.

askmike• 11 years ago

The second ones are not permanent toilets, on that same spot we do have permanent ones now that stay in the ground for most of the day and come out at night (in a nightlife area):

http://f00.inventorspot.com/images/urilift-public-pop-up-toi...

stephenr7• 11 years ago

What is "homeless proof"?

If you have so many homeless people, maybe you should solve that problem first?

mootothemax• 11 years ago

If you have so many homeless people, maybe you should solve that problem first?

Solving homelessness isn't an on/off switch; people are still going to need a toilet while homelessness is being "fixed".

(It's a problem with saying why not solve X instead? You end up with neither fixed, and everybody loses. I mean, why solve homelessness when there are hungry kids that need feeding? And so the cycle continues.)

As an aside, I'm not convinced that it's homeless people per se that are the problem; it's people with issues that abuse public toilets, whether through drugs, alcohol or being a general malcontent, and "the homeless" get blamed as convenient name.

It's not like corporate headquarters are invulnerably to toilet abuse, least of all from the execs.

w-m• 11 years ago

Paris has over 400 of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanisette

They're free to use, not drug dealer proof, and close at night. I'd say they work well, but they're rather ugly.

plumeria• 11 years ago

They need to improve them by using antimicrobial copper: http://antimicrobialcopper.org/

Sir_Substance• 11 years ago

The biggest culture shock of visiting the UK was paying to use toilets. Do you want people pissing against walls? Because that's how you get people pissing against walls.

agumonkey2• 11 years ago

Weird, always assumed they weren't free. Seeing so many people "not seeking" for one late at night reinforced that idea.

pierre• 11 years ago

Lausanne have transparent self cleaning toilets that are drug dealer / homeless proof :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WL2ZnE1vAU

acdha2• 11 years ago

I realize we're all programmers but why does this have to be a complex self-cleaning toilet rather than, say, hiring a few people to clean them? It's not like there aren't plenty of people looking for steady work and humans have the advantage of being really flexible when something breaks in a novel manner.

aphexairlines• 11 years ago

Because within half an hour of being cleaned those toilets will be unusable again.

angdis2• 11 years ago

Yes, hire cleaners to staff the restrooms and charge a small amount to use them. Its not rocket science, it works (see European train stations), and it puts people to work. Its a shame we don't have more of that here in the USA.

chvid• 11 years ago

From their homepage: "By 2050, the population in cities will double, intensifying existing socioeconomic, public health and environmental problems."

Yes.

People move into a few big cities because companies companies like Google congregate there, ultimately creating problems such as skyrocketing rents, congestion, declining real living standards, homelessness.

Google holds an obvious solution in its hand. By altering their way of working they could support remote working, creating clusters of specialized work forces and communities online rather than in a narrow physical location.

apendleton• 11 years ago

Are you suggesting that an industry driving people into cities is new? It isn't. It goes all the way back to the industrial revolution, and the main alternative before us at present (suburban living) only dates back to the '50s.

And it's not a panacea: the car-oriented nature of suburban life is environmentally pretty terrible (not to mention that detached single-family dwellings are less efficient to climate control, and more expensive to provide services to for municipalities). And suburban life brings with it the long commute, the length of which is a better predictor of happiness (negatively, of course) than almost any other demographic factor, including income, marital status, house size, or any of the other things people think make their hour and change in a car every day worth it.

manacit• 11 years ago

I doubt I'm in the minority here when I say I wouldn't move to a 'specialized and remote' community inhabited by people who are all affiliated with the same company. I don't live to work, and I don't want to be surrounded solely by people who are affiliated with the company I work for.

While one of the reasons I live in Manhattan is because the job market is very good, I also enjoy it precisely because there is diversity. I can walk down the street or take the train and see hundreds of people working hundreds of different jobs in dozens of industries. That's why people are moving to cities - they're exciting. There's things to do and people to meet.

stephenr7• 11 years ago

I wouldn't move to a 'specialized and remote' community inhabited by people who are all affiliated with the same company.

Re-read the sentence again.

By altering their way of working they could support remote working, creating clusters of specialized work forces and communities online rather than in a narrow physical location.

The concept is that if you encourage remote working via online workplaces, you can solve the "big city" issue for a percentage of the population by allowing them to live further away from the densely populated areas "because of work".

vlasev4• 11 years ago

If you look at settlements from a scaling point of view you will inevitably find that not only are larger cities more efficient structures but they lead to an improved quality of life. This is not just because of "companies like Google". Here are some slides (http://www.complexcity.info/files/2011/12/BATTY-Scaling-Laws...) and a TED talk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyCY6mjWOPc).

filiwickers3• 11 years ago

Yes, large cities make humans more productive! It's not necessarily intuitive but more interactions leads to more innovations.

(Shameless Plug) You can read a bit more about the research in the TED talk here: http://santafe.edu/research/cities-scaling-and-sustainabilit...

Our research group (started by Geoffrey West & Luis Bettencourt) is also trying to understand (and help address) the issues of growing cities in the developing world, where the biggest issue are slums: http://santafe.edu/research/informal-settlements/

relet• 11 years ago

Living space and roads are severely limited resources, but in most cases the proximity to resources is more important. That's why people move into cities, not just because of jobs. Think hospitals, shopping, culture, friends, child care, inspiration, work, face-to-face interaction, play, love.

Unless you find a cost-efficient way to decentralize all of this, people will be attracted to each other.

klipt• 11 years ago

People move into a few big cities because companies companies like Google congregate there

Actually in big cities like New York, Google's office doesn't make a dent - most Googlers can just take the subway. The Mountain View office is only 4 times bigger, but because Mountain View wants to be a suburb and not a city, it now enjoys gridlocked roads every day.

filiwickers3• 11 years ago

Most of that doubling will not be in the US (or other developed countries). It will mostly be in India & China with Africa following not far behind.

gull2• 11 years ago

From http://www.sidewalkinc.com/: "By 2050, the population in cities will double"

Is the best solution a frontal attack? Or could it be moving away from existing cities?

Could one design a new city from scratch?

stephenr7• 11 years ago

If you pack a lot of people in to smaller/denser living spaces like rats, they will still live like rats, regardless of of whether the bus shelter is able to wish them a happy birthday.

jarek2• 11 years ago

Could one design a new city from scratch?

Yes, but the result is Milton Keynes.

gull2• 11 years ago

Thanks for Milton Keynes but that can't be the only result in the whole world.

One proposal is Arcosanti, an urban laboratory focused on innovative design, community, and environmental accountability. https://arcosanti.org/

dasmoth3• 11 years ago

Milton Keynes clearly isn't the only possible result. Even I kind-of like Letchworth, and I'm really not a town/city person.

vlasev4• 11 years ago

Maybe you will find the following TED talk interesting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyCY6mjWOPc) and perhaps reconsider your position.

pjc50• 11 years ago

They mention public transport. Does this mean "google buses" for everyone, or is that still going to be a sore point in SF?

vuyani• 11 years ago

Google: Serving you ads, in every corner of the city.

steeples• 11 years ago

Without attacking Google, the consensus is that Google Launches {Project} is not anymore news than it is a long sigh and a jaded response of "Oh Google just launched another project, go Google. Now to work on my side project".

Swannie• 11 years ago

Microsoft, IBM, GE, Siemans, and even companies like Cisco, Rockwell and others have all been making moves here.

Nice to see Google finally joining the rest of the tech industry ;-) I have to assume this was prompted by the sort of standards work Nest were doing, and the sort of impact that Google Maps is having on traffic.

peter303• 11 years ago

Google is bassically just five products- search, ads, gmail, youtube and android. Anything else is just roundoff error, even though they may be very interesting.

JCordeiro• 11 years ago

and Google Maps

vicpara• 11 years ago

*Larry Page said: “By improving urban technology, it’s possible to significantly improve the lives of billions of people around the world. With Sidewalk, we want to supercharge existing efforts in areas such as housing, energy, transportation and government to solve real problems that city-dwellers face every day. Every time I talk with Dan I feel an amazing sense of opportunity because of his passion for all the ways technology can help transform cities to be more livable, flexible and vibrant. And when you combine that with his experience as an investor, in NYC government, and as CEO of the large information company Bloomberg LP, I can’t imagine a better person to lead these efforts.”

Let's get serious. This initiative is not about toilets, smart flushing and homeless.

I'm fine with it as long as I don't have to have anything always connected to internet, sync data in the cloud and be forced to agree/manage/monitor gazillions of privacy changes, terms and conditions where companies decide to update and change their data protection acts, the ways the share, store and manipulate my data.

Maybe we should firmly keep big technology companies, already in tune with the NSA friends, get closer to our families and private lives. The last thing I'd want is Google, Bloomberg, IBM, Facebook and Cisco circulating all my activities (toilet flushes including) for the sake of my children, future nephews and my neighbours to NSA, have my own cars or my own house lock me out because Palantir discovered about my passion for Moroccan tea or my kid flies a Chinese quadcopter in the backyard.

Google Launches Sidewalk Labs

Related Stories