5 ms·

Are they investing in Didi the ride sharing company or investing in Didi, Uber's arch rival in China? The chess game afoot in the autonomous vehicle battle is

by aresant 10y ago

Are they investing in Didi the ride sharing company or investing in Didi, Uber's arch rival in China? The chess game afoot in the autonomous vehicle battle is attracting some strange bedfellows between Apple, Google, tesla, ford, Mercedes, Uber, Lyft, Volvo, Nvidia, etc. The end game is outrageously big, generationally big, and it's going to be a treat to watch the Titans lock horns.

laluser 10y ago
It's the same company.
- stdgy 10y ago
  I believe aresant is questioning the motivation behind the investment. That is: - Is Apple investing in Didi in order to see a straightforward return on investment? Or - Is Apple investing in Didi in order to counter Uber's global expansion, so that they can begin to control the ride-share market themselves? Their motivation for the investment would say a lot about their intent regarding their automotive plans (Project Titan). If they are doing this simply because they have a mountain of spare change sitting around and would like to put it somewhere to see larger gains while rubbing elbows with China's establishment, it might not signal much about their automotive intent. But if they are making the investment to staunch Uber's expansion into Asia (And maybe India, given Didi's investors' related holdings) in order to secure a spot for themselves at the global table to cash in on autonomous auto service, that's a whole different ballgame. Edit: Formatting
- ihsw 10y ago
  The question is framed to imply that they would not invest in Didi were Uber to not also be vying for power -- aka this is a swipe at Uber rather than a strategic investment in China. The actions may be identical but the intent is different.
nostrademons 10y ago
It'd be hilarious if we get viable telepresence before we get autonomous vehicles, and then the automobile market massively shrinks because nobody commutes to work anymore.
- chatmasta 10y ago
  We already have close to perfect telepresence. Is a hologram really that much better than video? Real business will always be done face to face. When you're closing a $100m deal, you want to look the other person in the eye and shake their hand. Transportation cost is negligible at that level.
  - csallen 10y ago
    You answered your own question. Telepresence today isn't good enough to let you look the another person in the eye and shake hands. But it will be at some point.
    - chatmasta 10y ago
      At some point this becomes a philosophical argument, so we can't have a very nuanced debate on it, but my personal opinion is that telepresence will never match real presence. If you're "shaking hands" with someone, the haptic feedback can never be more than a simulation. In no scenario short of teleportation will the molecules of your hand touch those of the other person's hand. If teleportation arrives, business meetings will be the last thing any car company needs to worry about.
      - hguant 10y ago
        > At some point this becomes a philosophical argument, so we can't have a very nuanced debate on it... This sentiment saddens me. The thought that philosophy - which begins with the examination of our beliefs and personal opinions through the lens of reason - could be considered impossible to talk about with nuance seems deeply wrong to me. If that's your experience, you've been exposed to some very wrong, or very modern, philosophers. Philosophy is just talking about being, and a conversation about simulated versus 'actual' reality is the best place for it.
  - nostrademons 10y ago
    For telepresence to work, you need to feel like your coworkers are in the same room, such that you think nothing about turning around to them and asking them a question. Video doesn't do this; something about the screen makes you feel like you need to present a performance, and that destroys the spontaneity that builds trust in person-to-person interactions. Will a hologram do it? I don't know; real-time holography isn't good enough to evaluate it. Would VR/AR, ocular implants, direct brain stimulation, just a giant wraparound screen, whatever? Also don't know. I do know that given the choice between having a car drive me to work for a half hour vs. being able to conduct business with anyone in the world without leaving my house, I'd much rather have the latter.

by aresant 10y ago

laluser 10y ago

It's the same company.

stdgy 10y ago
I believe aresant is questioning the motivation behind the investment. That is: - Is Apple investing in Didi in order to see a straightforward return on investment? Or - Is Apple investing in Didi in order to counter Uber's global expansion, so that they can begin to control the ride-share market themselves? Their motivation for the investment would say a lot about their intent regarding their automotive plans (Project Titan). If they are doing this simply because they have a mountain of spare change sitting around and would like to put it somewhere to see larger gains while rubbing elbows with China's establishment, it might not signal much about their automotive intent. But if they are making the investment to staunch Uber's expansion into Asia (And maybe India, given Didi's investors' related holdings) in order to secure a spot for themselves at the global table to cash in on autonomous auto service, that's a whole different ballgame. Edit: Formatting
ihsw 10y ago
The question is framed to imply that they would not invest in Didi were Uber to not also be vying for power -- aka this is a swipe at Uber rather than a strategic investment in China. The actions may be identical but the intent is different.

nostrademons 10y ago

It'd be hilarious if we get viable telepresence before we get autonomous vehicles, and then the automobile market massively shrinks because nobody commutes to work anymore.

chatmasta 10y ago
We already have close to perfect telepresence. Is a hologram really that much better than video? Real business will always be done face to face. When you're closing a $100m deal, you want to look the other person in the eye and shake their hand. Transportation cost is negligible at that level.
- csallen 10y ago
  You answered your own question. Telepresence today isn't good enough to let you look the another person in the eye and shake hands. But it will be at some point.
  - chatmasta 10y ago
    At some point this becomes a philosophical argument, so we can't have a very nuanced debate on it, but my personal opinion is that telepresence will never match real presence. If you're "shaking hands" with someone, the haptic feedback can never be more than a simulation. In no scenario short of teleportation will the molecules of your hand touch those of the other person's hand. If teleportation arrives, business meetings will be the last thing any car company needs to worry about.
    - hguant 10y ago
      > At some point this becomes a philosophical argument, so we can't have a very nuanced debate on it... This sentiment saddens me. The thought that philosophy - which begins with the examination of our beliefs and personal opinions through the lens of reason - could be considered impossible to talk about with nuance seems deeply wrong to me. If that's your experience, you've been exposed to some very wrong, or very modern, philosophers. Philosophy is just talking about being, and a conversation about simulated versus 'actual' reality is the best place for it.
- nostrademons 10y ago
  For telepresence to work, you need to feel like your coworkers are in the same room, such that you think nothing about turning around to them and asking them a question. Video doesn't do this; something about the screen makes you feel like you need to present a performance, and that destroys the spontaneity that builds trust in person-to-person interactions. Will a hologram do it? I don't know; real-time holography isn't good enough to evaluate it. Would VR/AR, ocular implants, direct brain stimulation, just a giant wraparound screen, whatever? Also don't know. I do know that given the choice between having a car drive me to work for a half hour vs. being able to conduct business with anyone in the world without leaving my house, I'd much rather have the latter.