4 ms·

- Google's recently revised goal for their program is to license to existing manufacturers vs. building a car. (1) - It's unlikely that whichever automotive co

by aresant 10y ago

- Google's recently revised goal for their program is to license to existing manufacturers vs. building a car. (1) - It's unlikely that whichever automotive company achieves autonomy first is going to immediately get into the ride sharing game, except perhaps Tesla but they don't have enough manufacturing capability (yet, or anytime soon) to be a global threat to Uber. - Uber is never going to be a manufacturer but they have partnered with Volvo and Daimler (2) recently who seem very amenable to licensing / leveraging third party tech to continue to be competitive in selling automobiles. - Why does Uber need to build autonomous tech vs license it? Are they concerned that the Google / Ford partnership is going to leave them out / decimated? (1) http://www.techtimes.com/articles/188654/20161213/alphabet-lowers-goals-for-google-self-driving-car-project-plan-for-no-steering-wheels-and-pedals-in-vehicles-put-on-hold.htm http://www.techtimes.com/articles/188654/20161213/alphabet-l... (2) http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/31/14453704/uber-daimler-partnership-self-driving-cars-mercedes-benz-volvo http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/31/14453704/uber-daimler-part...

Eridrus 10y ago
> - It's unlikely that whichever automotive company achieves autonomy first is going to immediately get into the ride sharing game I think GM shows clear signs of interest of being in the ride sharing game if they have an advantage there. Would you rather be the first self-driving ride sharing company, and use that to displace Uber in high margin areas, or would you rather try to make a little bit of money off the premium segment buying these cars and then be a fast follower? The main argument for being a fast follower would be to let someone else deal with regulation for you, but otherwise being able to undercut everyone in rich markets seems like a no brainer that would bring a tonne of revenue and experience to the project very quickly.
- csours 10y ago
  The buzzword is "mobility", and yes GM is already in the game, through pilot programs (Maven), Lyft and Cruise Automation. Disclaimer - I work for GM, but not on any of these things.

by aresant 10y ago

Eridrus 10y ago

> - It's unlikely that whichever automotive company achieves autonomy first is going to immediately get into the ride sharing game I think GM shows clear signs of interest of being in the ride sharing game if they have an advantage there. Would you rather be the first self-driving ride sharing company, and use that to displace Uber in high margin areas, or would you rather try to make a little bit of money off the premium segment buying these cars and then be a fast follower? The main argument for being a fast follower would be to let someone else deal with regulation for you, but otherwise being able to undercut everyone in rich markets seems like a no brainer that would bring a tonne of revenue and experience to the project very quickly.

csours 10y ago
The buzzword is "mobility", and yes GM is already in the game, through pilot programs (Maven), Lyft and Cruise Automation. Disclaimer - I work for GM, but not on any of these things.