4 ms·

The quality of the article isn't that great. But it made me think about this anyway. If Uber can achieve Kalanick's stated end game goal of driverless cars, i

by PakG1 10y ago

The quality of the article isn't that great. But it made me think about this anyway. If Uber can achieve Kalanick's stated end game goal of driverless cars, it will absolutely last. A lot of Uber's pressures come with having to deal with drivers. I don't know what percentage, but it's significant. Variable costs, legal issues, ride quality, and so on. If all of that disappears, Uber is playing an entirely different game that it is much better poised to stick around for long-term. That the OP criticizes Uber's Pittsburgh efforts is disingenuous because it's only a beta-phase pilot. Of course, it's that simple right now. You'd want them to go through this careful pilot phase because the concept released on the streets without full testing is so dangerous. It's an extremely tough nut to crack. But IF they crack it, they're in for the long haul. "Big Taxi" as he calls it doesn't have the desire, technical expertise, freedom, or guts to achieve the self-driving car vision. For one thing, the business is structured too much around drivers paying franchise fees. In the meantime, Uber has already multiple times shown a willingness to throw a big FU at its own drivers, so it's not actually that hard to see them one day discarding their drivers for self-driving cars and keeping all of the profit rent.

pfarnsworth 10y ago
It's the opposite. Once fully self-driving cars are completely actualized, then ridesharing companies like Uber will collapse, because the entire thing becomes a commodity. Right now, there's a lot more to Uber and ride-sharing than just matching cars and riders. There are layers of complexities that are created because you need to deal with real humans on both ends. Once you get rid of human drivers, anyone can build a ride-sharing system. It just takes enough money to buy enough cars, and the ride sharing app, and that's it. Uber would then be competing against anyone and everyone, and then it's a race to $0, maybe even it turns into a free ride if you watch ads all drive long.
- PakG1 10y ago
  Yeah, but the self-driving tech is a proprietary trade secret. Tesla's not sharing their self-driving tech. GM is not sharing their self-driving tech. Uber is not sharing their self-driving tech. If that moat is not easily surmountable, Uber has a long-term fighting chance. Uber does not have a long-term fighting chance if they stick with traditional drivers. It's like ISPs, no? Back in the day, anyone could become an ISP, just lease various telephone lines for running 33.6kbps to customers, and if you wanted to go fancy, T1. At the end of the day, telecom providers found it much nicer to keep their lines and become the ISPs themselves. It wasn't profitable for 3rd parties to lease those lines and try to be an ISP. Ridesharing companies similarly don't have their own cars and tech, they need to use someone else's cars and tech. Car manufacturers are making a similar switch as what ISPs did; they see a logical road that leads to becoming ridesharing companies. Uber is trying to flip the game and develop their own technology to become an ISP that owns its own lines. They're not trying to manufacture the cars though. They're just trying to manufacture the tech that goes on top of the cars, since they don't have manufacturing expertise. It'll be enough to just buy the cars from someone else and put their tech on top.
  - jacques_chester 10y ago
    > Tesla's not sharing their self-driving tech. GM is not sharing their self-driving tech. Uber is not sharing their self-driving tech. Tesla, GM et al will gladly share their tech, in the form of a car. Vertically-integrated self-driving-with-app companies will be slaughtered by Google and others setting up auction sites for such services.
- taxicabjesus 10y ago
  > Once you get rid of human drivers, anyone can build a ride-sharing system. It just takes enough money to buy enough cars, and the ride sharing app, and that's it. Cars have to be cleaned. A small percentage of people leave trash behind. A driverless car won't know or care that the last passenger left their odor in the back seat...

by PakG1 10y ago

pfarnsworth 10y ago

It's the opposite. Once fully self-driving cars are completely actualized, then ridesharing companies like Uber will collapse, because the entire thing becomes a commodity. Right now, there's a lot more to Uber and ride-sharing than just matching cars and riders. There are layers of complexities that are created because you need to deal with real humans on both ends. Once you get rid of human drivers, anyone can build a ride-sharing system. It just takes enough money to buy enough cars, and the ride sharing app, and that's it. Uber would then be competing against anyone and everyone, and then it's a race to $0, maybe even it turns into a free ride if you watch ads all drive long.

PakG1 10y ago
Yeah, but the self-driving tech is a proprietary trade secret. Tesla's not sharing their self-driving tech. GM is not sharing their self-driving tech. Uber is not sharing their self-driving tech. If that moat is not easily surmountable, Uber has a long-term fighting chance. Uber does not have a long-term fighting chance if they stick with traditional drivers. It's like ISPs, no? Back in the day, anyone could become an ISP, just lease various telephone lines for running 33.6kbps to customers, and if you wanted to go fancy, T1. At the end of the day, telecom providers found it much nicer to keep their lines and become the ISPs themselves. It wasn't profitable for 3rd parties to lease those lines and try to be an ISP. Ridesharing companies similarly don't have their own cars and tech, they need to use someone else's cars and tech. Car manufacturers are making a similar switch as what ISPs did; they see a logical road that leads to becoming ridesharing companies. Uber is trying to flip the game and develop their own technology to become an ISP that owns its own lines. They're not trying to manufacture the cars though. They're just trying to manufacture the tech that goes on top of the cars, since they don't have manufacturing expertise. It'll be enough to just buy the cars from someone else and put their tech on top.
- jacques_chester 10y ago
  > Tesla's not sharing their self-driving tech. GM is not sharing their self-driving tech. Uber is not sharing their self-driving tech. Tesla, GM et al will gladly share their tech, in the form of a car. Vertically-integrated self-driving-with-app companies will be slaughtered by Google and others setting up auction sites for such services.
taxicabjesus 10y ago
> Once you get rid of human drivers, anyone can build a ride-sharing system. It just takes enough money to buy enough cars, and the ride sharing app, and that's it. Cars have to be cleaned. A small percentage of people leave trash behind. A driverless car won't know or care that the last passenger left their odor in the back seat...