3 ms·

> Hertz, Avis et al are not seen as competitors They aren't: you have to go and fetch the car at their shop, which is very impractical compared to having your

by fab13n 10y ago

> Hertz, Avis et al are not seen as competitors They aren't: you have to go and fetch the car at their shop, which is very impractical compared to having your car parked on your driveway. The most radical change with autonomous cars isn't that they drive themselves with passengers in it: it's that they'll drive themselves empty in order to pick up passenger wherever they want, whenever they want. That's what makes not owning a car practical. > There is no network-effect moat here. There might not be a natural monopoly, but there is a pretty big critical mass: to reliably serve cars fast enough at predictable prices, a fleet must be pretty large. And whenever you go from city A to city B, you need the operator to be present in both cities. You're right that everyone's allowed to compete on this new market, including Chevy. Just as Blackberry and Nokia and Microsoft were allowed to compete in the post-iPhone smartphone market. But have they got a critical advantage to help them succeed? They've got plenty of legacy that will be more of an hindrance: dealership networks (that's another thing Tesla is fighting tooth and nail not to get entrapped with), many engineers and engineers-turned-executive who can't let go of a dead culture (ICE, driving as a dangerous-but-exhilarating activity, cars marketed as phallic substitutes), syndicated workers on their assembly chains... Twice in my career I've seen incumbents lose their market, because it took them too long to embrace inevitable change: Unix workstations killed by Linux on beefed-up PC in the early 00's, and cell phone makers deprecated by iPhone and Android in the late 00's. I'd be surprised if GM and Ford proved smarter and more adaptable that HP or Sun in the good old days, or Nokia and RIM a decade later. When the paradigm shifts, you're better off with a clean slate than with a legacy.

jacques_chester 10y ago
> They aren't: you have to go and fetch the car at their shop, which is very impractical compared to having your car parked on your driveway. Precisely. Some people will still want to own their car, even if it's autonomous. I imagine that over time folk will become accustomed to living more like New Yorkers -- renting car time -- but it might not be a big bang. > And whenever you go from city A to city B, you need the operator to be present in both cities. Or you have a service acting as middleman. Like AirBNB, or Amazon, or Google. > Unix workstations killed by Linux on beefed-up PC in the early 00's This process has already played out in the car market. It's what Ford did to the dozens of small manufacturers who existed previously. Unix vendors had high margins that couldn't be sustained as mass-market technology caught up. Sheer manufacturing power (and let's not forget Windows here) did them in. New car manufacturers are not entering a market of Unices. They are entering a market of Intels. > cell phone makers deprecated by iPhone and Android in the late 00's This one is due to genuine product improvement, in my view. The iPhone was actually usable, it wasn't just random options stuffed any old where the engineers found a gap in the menus. But again, cars are a rather more sophisticated product. They already compete on design. There might be some more competition on usability. > I'd be surprised if GM and Ford proved smarter and more adaptable It occurs to me that I ought to have disclosed that I work for Pivotal, in which Ford recently invested a lot of money. It didn't occur to me because I don't work with any Ford teams myself, though some colleagues in the company do. What I can see is that neither Ford, nor GM, are just sitting around waiting to be replaced. The lessons of the technology industry are now widely diffused. Applying them uncritically means assuming incumbents will rest on their laurels, because that's what happened in tech. Except everyone else has gotten to observe what happened in tech. Incumbents understand the perils of laurel-resting. > When the paradigm shifts, you're better off with a clean slate than with a legacy. iOS is based on a technology that is nearly 50 years old. Android is based on a technology that's 25, inspired by the technology that is nearly 50.

by fab13n 10y ago

jacques_chester 10y ago

> They aren't: you have to go and fetch the car at their shop, which is very impractical compared to having your car parked on your driveway. Precisely. Some people will still want to own their car, even if it's autonomous. I imagine that over time folk will become accustomed to living more like New Yorkers -- renting car time -- but it might not be a big bang. > And whenever you go from city A to city B, you need the operator to be present in both cities. Or you have a service acting as middleman. Like AirBNB, or Amazon, or Google. > Unix workstations killed by Linux on beefed-up PC in the early 00's This process has already played out in the car market. It's what Ford did to the dozens of small manufacturers who existed previously. Unix vendors had high margins that couldn't be sustained as mass-market technology caught up. Sheer manufacturing power (and let's not forget Windows here) did them in. New car manufacturers are not entering a market of Unices. They are entering a market of Intels. > cell phone makers deprecated by iPhone and Android in the late 00's This one is due to genuine product improvement, in my view. The iPhone was actually usable, it wasn't just random options stuffed any old where the engineers found a gap in the menus. But again, cars are a rather more sophisticated product. They already compete on design. There might be some more competition on usability. > I'd be surprised if GM and Ford proved smarter and more adaptable It occurs to me that I ought to have disclosed that I work for Pivotal, in which Ford recently invested a lot of money. It didn't occur to me because I don't work with any Ford teams myself, though some colleagues in the company do. What I can see is that neither Ford, nor GM, are just sitting around waiting to be replaced. The lessons of the technology industry are now widely diffused. Applying them uncritically means assuming incumbents will rest on their laurels, because that's what happened in tech. Except everyone else has gotten to observe what happened in tech. Incumbents understand the perils of laurel-resting. > When the paradigm shifts, you're better off with a clean slate than with a legacy. iOS is based on a technology that is nearly 50 years old. Android is based on a technology that's 25, inspired by the technology that is nearly 50.