12 ms·

Travis Kalanick made an succinct observation on ridesharing's future yesterday: "If we are not tied for first [in autonomous vehicle rollout], then the person

by aresant 10y ago

Travis Kalanick made an succinct observation on ridesharing's future yesterday: "If we are not tied for first [in autonomous vehicle rollout], then the person who is in first. . . rolls out a ride-sharing network that is far cheaper or far higher-quality than Uber's, and Uber is no longer a thing," Kalanick said."(1) Lyft has raised ~$2b at a recent $5.5b valuation, Uber has raised ~$9b at a $85b valuation. Lyft is able to somewhat compete with Uber on today's ground war of drivers & customer acquisition, but unlikely to compete in tomorrow's war of autonomous without a partner. The recent $500m round Lyft got from GM clearly has GM positioned as takeout partner - GM brings the autonomous / Lyft brings the customers. What I bet happened here is that Lyft tried to power move GM with some large stalking-horse bids, the tactic backfired, and now GM is leaking to put pressure on Lyft to accept a diminished offer. (1) http://www.businessinsider.com/travis-kalanick-interview-on-self-driving-cars-future-driver-jobs-2016-8 http://www.businessinsider.com/travis-kalanick-interview-on-...

berberous 10y ago
Just FYI, it's stalking horse, not stocking horse.
- aresant 10y ago
  Updated! Learned something today, thanks
  - samstokes 10y ago
    Along similar lines, I think you meant "astute observation" [1], not "succinct observation" [2]. The latter is accurate, since he didn't use too many words to get his point across, but probably not what you intended to point out :) [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/astute http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/astute [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/succinct http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/succinct
MichaelApproved 10y ago
I believe that everything will reset when automated cars come out. Whomever is in the lead now will not matter because automated rides will be such a game-changer that it'll reset the entire market.
- rhizome 10y ago
  What are some historical examples of markets that have rebooted in the wake of the availability of a single product?
  - fernandopj 10y ago
    Fax machines. PC Word processors (vs. typewriters).
  - niftich 10y ago
    Phones. Horse-drawn carriages.
  - nostrademons 10y ago
    Transportation is actually a huge one. Clipper ships dominated up through the mid-1800s; when steam power became reliable enough to cross the Atlantic, all the major sailing ship companies went under, and were replaced by Cunard, White Star, and Inman, all of which were founded within a decade or two of the development of reliable steam power. Then when airliners became reliable enough to cross the Atlantic, all the major steamship lines went under (Cunard is now a division of Carnival Cruises) and were replaced by air service. Ditto with the transition from propeller to jet aircraft. The major aircraft manufacturers before WW2 were companies like Curtis, Wright, Hughes, Douglas, Grumman etc. After the jet age, the companies that successfully developed jet aircraft (Boeing, McDonnell, Lockheed, Grumman, etc.) survived, while those that didn't were bought up in firesales by their replacements. You also see examples of competitive industries that are entirely replaced by a single monopolist because of new technology. For example, tobacco was the cash crop of the south, lucrative enough to start a war over, with several numerous wealthy plantation owners forming the backbone of the South's social structure. When American Tobacco adopted the tobacco-rolling machine, they soon ended up with >90% of the market, the most thorough monopoly ever (even moreso than Standard Oil). It was broken up via antitrust legislation on the same day as Standard Oil; descendants include R.J. Reynolds and Liggett group, and still account for a significant portion of the tobacco industry.
seibelj 10y ago
People are way, way, WAY underestimating how long it will be before "self driving car picks you up, takes you to location". If we don't have self-driving cars everywhere on highways moving cargo, then we won't have self-driving taxi cabs for many years after whenever that happens. City driving, where Uber can actually make money with the density of people, is the hardest driving of all, and will be the last place where self-driving cars without any human operator take over.
- chubot 10y ago
  YES. This is the difference between LEVEL 3 autonomy and LEVEL 4 autonomy, which I didn't know about until this week. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car#Classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car#Classification Level 4 still a LONG time coming. That was underscored for me by this interview: http://thisweekinstartups.com/george-hotz-commaai/ http://thisweekinstartups.com/george-hotz-commaai/ George is kind of arrogant and brash... but even he says "I don't know anything about level 4". Everyone thinks level 3 and 4 are the same thing, but now that I've heard him dismiss level 4, that actually gives me more confidence in his startup. Those are two completely different things!!! Google has been working on self-driving cars since 2009, and the DARPA challenges were around 2005-2007. We're not even at level 3. Level 4 might not come for decades after that.
  - fastball 10y ago
    Pretty sure we are at level 3 already. Tesla has "good enough" L3 already on the road, and I highly doubt Tesla's Autopilot is anywhere near as sophisticated as what Google is working on in their labs.
  - latortuga 10y ago
    Doesn't Tesla's Summon feature qualify as Level 4?
    - dmoy 10y ago
      Not really, no. L4 is talking about the whole trip.
Tarrosion 10y ago
Interesting, my intuition is the exact opposite. With human driven vehicles, you have a chicken and egg problem. Drivers only come if there are riders, and riders only come if there are drivers. Having the biggest user base is a big plus. With driverless vehicles, a company can solve the supply side of the market making problem by buying a few cars in one market. If I'm in city A, I just want an app that summons a driverless car to me. Do I care if the company behind that app is also in 200 other cities? Is there any cost to me to having multiple apps on my phone? My intuition would have been that uber is way overvalued because once driverless cars are mainstream, it's easy for a competitor (possibly local government!) to break into any given market.
- Normal_gaussian 10y ago
  This is beyond a doubt the biggest problem with these valuations. However, it is obvious that in the short and medium term the largest company wins. It is also noteworthy that the battles they win against each cities taxi mafia will be one less battle for autonomous cabs. We could see a surprisingly smooth roll out whebever it happens
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
nostrademons 10y ago
It's interesting that Google decided early on that fully autonomous was the only way to go (because half-awake driver + imperfect computer = accidents), but Tesla, BMW, and Uber are bringing to market semi-autonomous vehicles first. It occurs to me that their incentives aren't exactly aligned, and aren't aligned with the public. If Tesla or Uber brings out a semi-autonomous vehicle and then lots of accidents occur, it poisons the well for self-driving vehicles. People start associating them with fatal crashes, they shy away from them out of fear, and the status quo reigns. In the status quo, Uber is on top for ridesharing and Tesla/BMW/GM/etc are on top for conventional car purchases, so it all works out for them. By contrast, Google only succeeds if autonomous vehicles become a real thing that people trust for their everyday transportation needs. They don't have a horse in today's race; either they build a fully-autonomous vehicle or they get nothing. Methinks we'll see a big PR campaign from Google to make a big public distinction between semi-autonomous and fully-autonomous driving, along with a lobbying campaign to ban semi-autonomous driving. They have to get out ahead of public opinion before lots of accidents happen, otherwise the whole category will be ruined.
- pulse7 10y ago
  The best would be "fully autonomous cars" with the ability to take over the control from the automation.
  - nilved 10y ago
    That is the only logical choice. Compare and contrast with autopilot.
kinofcain 10y ago
He might be right, but it would require allowing cars to drive around on roads without anyone in them. Using a shared, limited resource in that way is such a prototypical "tragedy of the commons" that I can't see any government allowing it. Traffic will be insane if people can send their cars on errands without having to sit in the resulting traffic, or if hired cars can drive halfway across the city to pick up the next fare with no impact to the car's owner besides wear and fuel. No amount of incremental improvements in capacity due to "better" robot drivers will make up for that.
- fastball 10y ago
  What errands do you imagine a car will be able to do by itself?
  - kinofcain 10y ago
    There's somewhere around 60 million kids in the US alone. Picking them up and dropping them off from school, soccer practice, ukulele lessons, birthday parties, etc. is a large amount of time as a parent. Ask anyone with kids if they'd buy a car that would take their kids to dance rehearsals on its own. People will love these things, and they'll want to use them all the time, and the traffic will be horrendous.
- hx87 10y ago
  > I can't see any government allowing it What if they could apply a "time on the streets" tax?
  - kinofcain 10y ago
    That's the only solution I can think of other than an outright ban. It could also coincide with the last gasps of the gasoline tax. It might still not be enough, however, and it would be highly regressive without some sort of heavy scaling based on income: The disparity between the value that people at different income levels place on their time is staggering. That disparity is the entire reason Uber (and the rest of the service industry) are thriving.
__derek__ 10y ago
From last Friday: "Lyft Said to Rebuff GM Takeover Bid".[1] [1]: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-08-12/lyft-said-to-nix-gm-takeover-bid-the-information http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-08-12/lyft-said-to...

by aresant 10y ago

berberous 10y ago

Just FYI, it's stalking horse, not stocking horse.

aresant 10y ago
Updated! Learned something today, thanks
- samstokes 10y ago
  Along similar lines, I think you meant "astute observation" [1], not "succinct observation" [2]. The latter is accurate, since he didn't use too many words to get his point across, but probably not what you intended to point out :) [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/astute http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/astute [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/succinct http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/succinct

MichaelApproved 10y ago

I believe that everything will reset when automated cars come out. Whomever is in the lead now will not matter because automated rides will be such a game-changer that it'll reset the entire market.

rhizome 10y ago
What are some historical examples of markets that have rebooted in the wake of the availability of a single product?
- fernandopj 10y ago
  Fax machines. PC Word processors (vs. typewriters).
- niftich 10y ago
  Phones. Horse-drawn carriages.
- nostrademons 10y ago
  Transportation is actually a huge one. Clipper ships dominated up through the mid-1800s; when steam power became reliable enough to cross the Atlantic, all the major sailing ship companies went under, and were replaced by Cunard, White Star, and Inman, all of which were founded within a decade or two of the development of reliable steam power. Then when airliners became reliable enough to cross the Atlantic, all the major steamship lines went under (Cunard is now a division of Carnival Cruises) and were replaced by air service. Ditto with the transition from propeller to jet aircraft. The major aircraft manufacturers before WW2 were companies like Curtis, Wright, Hughes, Douglas, Grumman etc. After the jet age, the companies that successfully developed jet aircraft (Boeing, McDonnell, Lockheed, Grumman, etc.) survived, while those that didn't were bought up in firesales by their replacements. You also see examples of competitive industries that are entirely replaced by a single monopolist because of new technology. For example, tobacco was the cash crop of the south, lucrative enough to start a war over, with several numerous wealthy plantation owners forming the backbone of the South's social structure. When American Tobacco adopted the tobacco-rolling machine, they soon ended up with >90% of the market, the most thorough monopoly ever (even moreso than Standard Oil). It was broken up via antitrust legislation on the same day as Standard Oil; descendants include R.J. Reynolds and Liggett group, and still account for a significant portion of the tobacco industry.

seibelj 10y ago

People are way, way, WAY underestimating how long it will be before "self driving car picks you up, takes you to location". If we don't have self-driving cars everywhere on highways moving cargo, then we won't have self-driving taxi cabs for many years after whenever that happens. City driving, where Uber can actually make money with the density of people, is the hardest driving of all, and will be the last place where self-driving cars without any human operator take over.

chubot 10y ago
YES. This is the difference between LEVEL 3 autonomy and LEVEL 4 autonomy, which I didn't know about until this week. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car#Classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car#Classification Level 4 still a LONG time coming. That was underscored for me by this interview: http://thisweekinstartups.com/george-hotz-commaai/ http://thisweekinstartups.com/george-hotz-commaai/ George is kind of arrogant and brash... but even he says "I don't know anything about level 4". Everyone thinks level 3 and 4 are the same thing, but now that I've heard him dismiss level 4, that actually gives me more confidence in his startup. Those are two completely different things!!! Google has been working on self-driving cars since 2009, and the DARPA challenges were around 2005-2007. We're not even at level 3. Level 4 might not come for decades after that.
- fastball 10y ago
  Pretty sure we are at level 3 already. Tesla has "good enough" L3 already on the road, and I highly doubt Tesla's Autopilot is anywhere near as sophisticated as what Google is working on in their labs.
- latortuga 10y ago
  Doesn't Tesla's Summon feature qualify as Level 4?
  - dmoy 10y ago
    Not really, no. L4 is talking about the whole trip.

Tarrosion 10y ago

Interesting, my intuition is the exact opposite. With human driven vehicles, you have a chicken and egg problem. Drivers only come if there are riders, and riders only come if there are drivers. Having the biggest user base is a big plus. With driverless vehicles, a company can solve the supply side of the market making problem by buying a few cars in one market. If I'm in city A, I just want an app that summons a driverless car to me. Do I care if the company behind that app is also in 200 other cities? Is there any cost to me to having multiple apps on my phone? My intuition would have been that uber is way overvalued because once driverless cars are mainstream, it's easy for a competitor (possibly local government!) to break into any given market.

Normal_gaussian 10y ago
This is beyond a doubt the biggest problem with these valuations. However, it is obvious that in the short and medium term the largest company wins. It is also noteworthy that the battles they win against each cities taxi mafia will be one less battle for autonomous cabs. We could see a surprisingly smooth roll out whebever it happens
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

nostrademons 10y ago

It's interesting that Google decided early on that fully autonomous was the only way to go (because half-awake driver + imperfect computer = accidents), but Tesla, BMW, and Uber are bringing to market semi-autonomous vehicles first. It occurs to me that their incentives aren't exactly aligned, and aren't aligned with the public. If Tesla or Uber brings out a semi-autonomous vehicle and then lots of accidents occur, it poisons the well for self-driving vehicles. People start associating them with fatal crashes, they shy away from them out of fear, and the status quo reigns. In the status quo, Uber is on top for ridesharing and Tesla/BMW/GM/etc are on top for conventional car purchases, so it all works out for them. By contrast, Google only succeeds if autonomous vehicles become a real thing that people trust for their everyday transportation needs. They don't have a horse in today's race; either they build a fully-autonomous vehicle or they get nothing. Methinks we'll see a big PR campaign from Google to make a big public distinction between semi-autonomous and fully-autonomous driving, along with a lobbying campaign to ban semi-autonomous driving. They have to get out ahead of public opinion before lots of accidents happen, otherwise the whole category will be ruined.

pulse7 10y ago
The best would be "fully autonomous cars" with the ability to take over the control from the automation.
- nilved 10y ago
  That is the only logical choice. Compare and contrast with autopilot.

kinofcain 10y ago

He might be right, but it would require allowing cars to drive around on roads without anyone in them. Using a shared, limited resource in that way is such a prototypical "tragedy of the commons" that I can't see any government allowing it. Traffic will be insane if people can send their cars on errands without having to sit in the resulting traffic, or if hired cars can drive halfway across the city to pick up the next fare with no impact to the car's owner besides wear and fuel. No amount of incremental improvements in capacity due to "better" robot drivers will make up for that.

fastball 10y ago
What errands do you imagine a car will be able to do by itself?
- kinofcain 10y ago
  There's somewhere around 60 million kids in the US alone. Picking them up and dropping them off from school, soccer practice, ukulele lessons, birthday parties, etc. is a large amount of time as a parent. Ask anyone with kids if they'd buy a car that would take their kids to dance rehearsals on its own. People will love these things, and they'll want to use them all the time, and the traffic will be horrendous.
hx87 10y ago
> I can't see any government allowing it What if they could apply a "time on the streets" tax?
- kinofcain 10y ago
  That's the only solution I can think of other than an outright ban. It could also coincide with the last gasps of the gasoline tax. It might still not be enough, however, and it would be highly regressive without some sort of heavy scaling based on income: The disparity between the value that people at different income levels place on their time is staggering. That disparity is the entire reason Uber (and the rest of the service industry) are thriving.

__derek__ 10y ago

From last Friday: "Lyft Said to Rebuff GM Takeover Bid".[1] [1]: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-08-12/lyft-said-to-nix-gm-takeover-bid-the-information http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-08-12/lyft-said-to...