5 ms·

A lot of people here are balking on the price for consumers. Looking it at another way is that the Bolt will be sold to ride sharing companies at 100k each and

A lot of people here are balking on the price for consumers. Looking it at another way is that the Bolt will be sold to ride sharing companies at 100k each and they would buy it in a heartbeat.

oh_sigh 10y ago
100k is the most generous interpretation of "6 figures". Would ride sharing companies still buy them at 350k each? At that point it may take 5 years to break even compared to having a human driving a 35k car
- cbhl 10y ago
  Ride sharing companies probably won't break even on the first few thousand self-driving cars, but they don't currently break even with humans either. But once the tech is figured out, then you can start optimizing the marginal cost of each car, and spreading out capital costs over more cars, both of which reduce the cost.
- cortesoft 10y ago
  Even if they are losing money, it is still a great deal - being the first to offer fully automated self driving ride sharing is going to be a HUGE competitive advantage, even if the cars are too expensive to be profitable right now.
- IanCal 10y ago
  Probably, people are expensive. Minimum wage + employer taxes for a 25 year old in the UK is roughly £78,000 for 24 hour coverage assuming no overlap and no illness, no hiring cost, no management. I'd be interested to see what TCO they'd need to have to no longer be cheaper.
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    Uber doesn't necessarily need 24-hour coverage though, because demand peaks during commute hours. However, self-driving vehicles can end up being a 'base load' that runs 24/7, and then Uber just pays drivers to appear during peak times, so they can avoid paying for (labor + driver's car) during unnecessary times.
    - IanCal 10y ago
      And as the cars become cheaper, the trade-off shifts until it's easier and cheaper to have self driving cars at all times. I think there's a reasonable level of demand that would mean that even at several hundred thousand pounds/dollars, they'd still sell quite well. Every £50000 is an absolute maximum of 710 eight hour shifts.
  - sib 10y ago
    TIL: Minimum wage for a 25-year-old is ~30% higher than for a 20-year-old in the UK.
    - IanCal 10y ago
      It's a fairly recent addition, announced at the same time as a cut to in-work benefits that were mostly targeted at over 25s and a cut to corporation tax.
    - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
      I've never understood this. Hour does a under-25 need less as a basic income. They have the same costs and are giving up the same time. It's really wrong IMO to value 16-25yo lower when considering minimum wages.
- jonknee 10y ago
  What's your math for that? It really all depends on the financing deals and Uber/Lyft seem to have no problem getting money at favorable terms. It would create a huge boost to revenue since drivers get ~75% with Uber. If they drove the same schedule it would be 4x the revenue, but autonomous vehicles don't have to sleep or see their families so the revenue difference in switching 1 human into 1 robot should be at least 6x.
  - HappyTypist 10y ago
    False. Gross Driver Payout in most US cities is ~45% (Leaked financials) This is mainly because: - the booking fee goes 100% to Uber, which can be another 25% on short trips - UberPool arbitrates rider fares and driver are paid the lower of (75% of per mile, per min, OR 75% of rider quoted fares). This accounting hack, on average, increases Uber's take to 35% - Upfront Fares is weighed to give Uber, on average, an extra 5% to compensate for "variance".
    - jonknee 10y ago
      OK, but it's still safe to say their revenue will surge.
      - jsjohnst 10y ago
        Why would revenue surge? You assuming that rides will dramatically increase? I think you meant profit, but considering that Uber/Lyft combined are losing billions a year (Uber alone I think was over -$4B in 2016), I'm not sure a surge will be noticed.
        jonknee 10y ago
        Uber likes to keep the illusion that they aren't employing drivers, part of this means they don't record the full fare as revenue. Uber's revenue is just their take of the ride. The full amount of money is "gross bookings" which probably won't change a ton at first, but money actually going to Uber (revenue) will definitely surge. http://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2016/01/12/leaked-ubers-financials-show-huge-growth-even-bigger-losses/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2016/01/12/leaked-u... > However, gross bookings is not the same as net revenue, which came in at $663.2 million in the first half of 2015, compared to $495.3 million in all of 2014. That's the amount Uber actually receives before costs but after it pays drivers their cut and accounts for promotions, driver incentives, and more. For example, Uber paid out $2.72 billion to driver contractors in the first half of 2015, just under 75% of bookings. So in the first half of 2015 they had $3.63b in gross bookings, but just $663.2m in revenue. If you magically switched out all the drivers to robots revenue would match bookings which is a 5.5x boost.
nerfhammer 10y ago
Which is exactly what the article says - these cars are not going to be sold to the public but will all go to Lyft, which GM owns a stake of.
- petra 10y ago
  At that point, they might as well start their own ride-sharing business. Why would they really need lyft ?
  - refurb 10y ago
    That question comes up a lot with big companies. The usual response is "GM is good at building cars. We have no experience building a ride sharing company. The probability of success is much higher if we just buy a company that is already successful."
  - Klathmon 10y ago
    Just because a taxi company needs gas doesn't mean it makes sense for them to start drilling. Some things are better left to those with more experience and expertise.
  - prostoalex 10y ago
    Fleet management is a different industry. Someone needs to wash and clean out the cars between the rides, maintain them, park them for the night as well as provide occasional repairs (i.e. have a few spare parts and bumpers on hand).
    - rhino369 10y ago
      They should be partnering with Hertz.

A lot of people here are balking on the price for consumers. Looking it at another way is that the Bolt will be sold to ride sharing companies at 100k each and they would buy it in a heartbeat.

oh_sigh 10y ago

100k is the most generous interpretation of "6 figures". Would ride sharing companies still buy them at 350k each? At that point it may take 5 years to break even compared to having a human driving a 35k car

cbhl 10y ago
Ride sharing companies probably won't break even on the first few thousand self-driving cars, but they don't currently break even with humans either. But once the tech is figured out, then you can start optimizing the marginal cost of each car, and spreading out capital costs over more cars, both of which reduce the cost.
cortesoft 10y ago
Even if they are losing money, it is still a great deal - being the first to offer fully automated self driving ride sharing is going to be a HUGE competitive advantage, even if the cars are too expensive to be profitable right now.
IanCal 10y ago
Probably, people are expensive. Minimum wage + employer taxes for a 25 year old in the UK is roughly £78,000 for 24 hour coverage assuming no overlap and no illness, no hiring cost, no management. I'd be interested to see what TCO they'd need to have to no longer be cheaper.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  Uber doesn't necessarily need 24-hour coverage though, because demand peaks during commute hours. However, self-driving vehicles can end up being a 'base load' that runs 24/7, and then Uber just pays drivers to appear during peak times, so they can avoid paying for (labor + driver's car) during unnecessary times.
  - IanCal 10y ago
    And as the cars become cheaper, the trade-off shifts until it's easier and cheaper to have self driving cars at all times. I think there's a reasonable level of demand that would mean that even at several hundred thousand pounds/dollars, they'd still sell quite well. Every £50000 is an absolute maximum of 710 eight hour shifts.
- sib 10y ago
  TIL: Minimum wage for a 25-year-old is ~30% higher than for a 20-year-old in the UK.
  - IanCal 10y ago
    It's a fairly recent addition, announced at the same time as a cut to in-work benefits that were mostly targeted at over 25s and a cut to corporation tax.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    I've never understood this. Hour does a under-25 need less as a basic income. They have the same costs and are giving up the same time. It's really wrong IMO to value 16-25yo lower when considering minimum wages.
jonknee 10y ago
What's your math for that? It really all depends on the financing deals and Uber/Lyft seem to have no problem getting money at favorable terms. It would create a huge boost to revenue since drivers get ~75% with Uber. If they drove the same schedule it would be 4x the revenue, but autonomous vehicles don't have to sleep or see their families so the revenue difference in switching 1 human into 1 robot should be at least 6x.
- HappyTypist 10y ago
  False. Gross Driver Payout in most US cities is ~45% (Leaked financials) This is mainly because: - the booking fee goes 100% to Uber, which can be another 25% on short trips - UberPool arbitrates rider fares and driver are paid the lower of (75% of per mile, per min, OR 75% of rider quoted fares). This accounting hack, on average, increases Uber's take to 35% - Upfront Fares is weighed to give Uber, on average, an extra 5% to compensate for "variance".
  - jonknee 10y ago
    OK, but it's still safe to say their revenue will surge.
    - jsjohnst 10y ago
      Why would revenue surge? You assuming that rides will dramatically increase? I think you meant profit, but considering that Uber/Lyft combined are losing billions a year (Uber alone I think was over -$4B in 2016), I'm not sure a surge will be noticed.
      - jonknee 10y ago
        Uber likes to keep the illusion that they aren't employing drivers, part of this means they don't record the full fare as revenue. Uber's revenue is just their take of the ride. The full amount of money is "gross bookings" which probably won't change a ton at first, but money actually going to Uber (revenue) will definitely surge. http://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2016/01/12/leaked-ubers-financials-show-huge-growth-even-bigger-losses/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2016/01/12/leaked-u... > However, gross bookings is not the same as net revenue, which came in at $663.2 million in the first half of 2015, compared to $495.3 million in all of 2014. That's the amount Uber actually receives before costs but after it pays drivers their cut and accounts for promotions, driver incentives, and more. For example, Uber paid out $2.72 billion to driver contractors in the first half of 2015, just under 75% of bookings. So in the first half of 2015 they had $3.63b in gross bookings, but just $663.2m in revenue. If you magically switched out all the drivers to robots revenue would match bookings which is a 5.5x boost.

nerfhammer 10y ago

Which is exactly what the article says - these cars are not going to be sold to the public but will all go to Lyft, which GM owns a stake of.

petra 10y ago
At that point, they might as well start their own ride-sharing business. Why would they really need lyft ?
- refurb 10y ago
  That question comes up a lot with big companies. The usual response is "GM is good at building cars. We have no experience building a ride sharing company. The probability of success is much higher if we just buy a company that is already successful."
- Klathmon 10y ago
  Just because a taxi company needs gas doesn't mean it makes sense for them to start drilling. Some things are better left to those with more experience and expertise.
- prostoalex 10y ago
  Fleet management is a different industry. Someone needs to wash and clean out the cars between the rides, maintain them, park them for the night as well as provide occasional repairs (i.e. have a few spare parts and bumpers on hand).
  - rhino369 10y ago
    They should be partnering with Hertz.