This guy might know his shit, but he misses a GIANT point when he says:

Unfortunately, disruptive innovation can upend even the most well-conceived incremental strategies. Just look at Blackberry, Blockbuster, Borders, DEC, IBM, Kodak, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia, Sears, Yahoo and most of the TV, newspaper and publishing industries—to name just a few bankrupt or struggling former industry leaders. They all bet that non-incremental approaches would not pan out, and struggled with the consequences when those bets went sour.

Look at the picture of the "Google" car. It's not a Google car. It's a Prius which Google has retrofitted with its technology. That's a non-trivial difference. If anything, this technology should strengthen car manufacturers when all is said and done. It's easy to get Foxxcon to manufacture your new smart phone to unseat BB. It's no easy task to build a car. The car process starts in an art studio and continues its journey for sometimes up to a decade to make it to production. It's a complicated, global logistics nightmare that can't be pulled off by a technology company, no matter how big and rich (for example, just the engine of your car probably has components from at least three continents and parts form a dozen different [specialized] companies). Unless Google is planning on buying one of the major players, they will never be more than a supplier, and it will be in everyone's interest to cooperate. Sure, as a supplier Google is going to command a lot more than some company that raw casts engine blocks, or molds plastic for your bumper, but they will still need manufacturers as much as they're needed in turn.

And anyway all this rests upon people not wanting to be autonomous, which is still far from clear. Google is betting that people don't want autonomy, but the automakers' market research suggests otherwise. Market research can, obviously, be incorrect, because consumers don't always know what they want until they have it. But for now, all indications are that people like driving, and want the option to drive when they feel like it. There's a reason that GM has four brands, and each brand has a bunch of offerings, and that GM is just one company among a dozen major players internationally: people like choice. It's a sad world if Google takes over, and we're all forced to drive Model T's again.

Maybe I'm a luddite (and in full disclosure I'm also a person who is deeply invested in the auto industry both financially and personally), but I just don't think that monopoly is a viable direction for the industry. And I think that especially in the US, it will be a very difficult sell to get people to completely abandon autonomy.