a) tire wear is going to be a bitch.
b) hydroplanning will be common and extremely dangerous
c) the surface area of the tire on the road is likely smaller than that of a normal tire which means reduced handling, traction, and braking.
d) how much power does it require to levitate the vehicle above the spheres?
e) what's the maximum speed this can go before the spheres escape their magnetic constraints?
f) vehicles have a lot of interior space because of how little space the tires occupy--that won't be the case with spheres.
Goodyear may have designed an awesome tire for a vehicle that doesn't exist. 99% of the technology is in the vehicle itself and, as far as I know, no one is interested in conceptualizing it nor manufacturing it.
You seem to lack creativity in this matter. Let's go point by point.
1) Not really. You've got a sphere, and you can rotate said sphere however you'd like. Just like with the write leveling in an SSD, you simply need to change the wear surface. This could be done automatically, by having the spherical tires move in something other than a circle. As long as fricative force on each side equals zero when summed, you travel in a straight line. This would have to be done by complex equations, but it's not unreasonable when you consider the magnetic control system that this is going to require. In fact, given the same tread depth that sphere will have a greater surface area than a wheel of the same diameter, leading to a longer lifetime if wear leveling is done properly.
2) No more so than normal. I'm really not sure where you're getting this. The same surface area, and the same coefficient of friction are being experienced. This is dependent upon vehicle mass, and contact surface properties. If you can somehow demonstrate that the sphere would have less surface area I'd agree, but assuming tire pressure and car mass are the same simple physics demonstrates contact area would be the same.
3) Again, this is a mystery of logic. In a traditional tire the surface area of contact is a function of the air pressure inside it. Put simply, air pressure must equal pressure applied by the mass of the car. The same principle applies here. This is why you release tire air when you want to go off road, and why you increase it on pavement (think fuel efficiency).
4) None. The point is repulsion. Two stationary magnetic fields can repel one another sufficiently to have the car levitate indefinitely. The catch, or course, is the strength of those fields and the fact that the vehicle would have a hard maximum in loading capacity. It's likely that there will be a combination of static and dynamic fields, in order to provide power savings with increased loading capacity. That sort of thing isn't going to be covered in this sort of a promotional video.
5) You're missing the design work. The spheres are enclosed in a casing that covers more than half of them. Think ball bearings, and the races they reside in. The only danger of "escape" is if the cage was made out of a weak material.
6) I'm flummoxed here. Either you don't get the concept, or entirely miss the point. A modern car has the engine, transmission, axle, steering assembly, braking, and various other systems. Remove all of that. What you need is an electronic control system, some magnets, and electromagnets. Your tires take up more space, but you suddenly don't have 80% of the bulky items. It's all controlled by magnetic fields, which are all driven off of a computer control system. Let's find an analog to describe it. How much room does a Tesla lose by having motors in the wheels? Each drive motor is a rather substantial use of space, yet because there's no transmission and central engine the actual body of a Tesla is more roomy than one would imagine (given its styling).
In short, this is the tire of a very far future. One in which the computers in our cars have to be significantly better than anything we've got today. While this is interesting, and surprisingly practical, it's a PR piece. I'm not sure how they plan on dealing with road debris (a steel nail or screw sucks today, but magnets that strong will turn a nail into a bullet). I'm not convinced they've developed a simplified algorithm for three dimensional wear leveling. I'm not even sure if they've got the hardware to make this happen reasonably (read: copper is surprisingly expensive). All of this is feasible from an engineering perspective, but likely a pipe dream from a cost perspective.
Edit:
If these things have air in them to provide cushion and extend the life of the tire, one would have to be able to field-replace them with a spare just like we do with spare wheels today. Imagine the design of the socket to allow field replacement. That same design consideration is what potentially makes the sphere escape the socket.
Neodymium could be used to suspend the vehicle from the sphere but it would not provide momentum. Electromagnets are required. Let's also not forget that neodymium magnets are dangerous which translates to more money to service the vehicle.
You seem to have missed the other "tires of the future" designs. The field servicing is a reasonable issue, but remove the air filled inner tube. You replace the air with a honeycomb of rubber, such that the tire is now directly connected to the magnetic core of the sphere. No more problems (and the earlier comments I made involving pressure still sand, even if that's from mechanical loading rather than pneumatic forces).
You no longer have flats, and truly incompetent drives, the ones who don't pay attention to tread depth, get a reminder that it's time to replace tires whenever there's a constant vibration (due to a patch wearing through, without having the tires fail.
Yes, self-maintenance is no longer possible with a design like this. Between the enclosed shell, and the strong magnets, you need to employ a mechanic. Of course, that'd be a given with the entire vehicle having to be converted into a massive electronic control though.
a) it would be expensive and require a trip to the garage. Though I'm sure they wouldn't have to throw the whole thing in the trash, just send it back for recycling.
b) That would be dependant on a lot of things. They would have to go through plenty of testing to find the general coefficient of kinetic friction, etc vs. tire pressure. At the end of the day it'd be a non-issue
c) This is the same as point b
d) More than if they were resting on axles. Yet, maglev trains work on the same principle and are feasible.
e) light-speed. Braking may be a problem though.
f) yup
While we agree, you're off on some of your statements.
a) The concept is from a rubber company. Their recycling would likely be similar to that of a starter, or alternator today. The item has two prices, one when you buy it new and one where you turn the old one in and get a core charge reimbursement. The core would be the magnets and metal, stripped out of the rubber by a chemical or physical process. Please refer to above though, because the original concern was invalid.
b) This is a valid idea, applied oddly. The video makes no mention of the surfaces, so it's pretty odd to assume that the surface will be something other than vulcanized rubber (good wear, high coefficient of friction, and relatively low cost). As such, the initial question was invalid. Consider that this is Good Year, a company highly invested in continuing to produce the products they're already tooled to make.
d) Completely different application. Maglev is allowed to pull large amounts of energy, and it only moves on tracks. Both of these limitations make the comparison unsuitable for parity. What you should be citing is magnetic bearings. They work with two magnetic fields constantly repelling one another, allowing for minimal friction.
e) No. Just no. You're applying forces via a magnetic field. Said field generates hysterical losses, not to mention the fact that your brakes are entirely based upon hysteresis. These wheels will likely be specified to run at the same speeds cars do today, for the simple reason that rubber to road is still the limiting factor. I understand you falling back on the theory here, but it's too fantastic to be of practical use.
f) Wrong for so many reasons. You lose volume with the tire, but gain it back with everything else that doesn't need to be included. There is absolutely no reason that competent design would produce a car that has appreciably less interior space with a spherical wheel.
This would put a lot of wheel and tire thieves out of business. 
>>>>>
