8 ms·

I'm surprised we don't hear more about Mercedes. I don't know how much of a story they have when it comes to self-driving car, but they already build cars, and

I'm surprised we don't hear more about Mercedes. I don't know how much of a story they have when it comes to self-driving car, but they already build cars, and they already have a well established rent-by-the-minute business: car2go.com. If and when they figure out self-driving cars all they have to do is slowly replace the people driven car2go by self-driven ones and they'll become a leader of that market without any fuss!

M_Grey 10y ago
As a rule, Mercedes tends to keep mum on tech they're not ready to roll out (at least to the S-Class), and they like it be pretty near perfect at that piont.
matt4077 10y ago
Every single carmaker will offer self-driving as an option at first, then as a standard feature. They'll also come with software that allows you to flip a switch and see your car take off to earn some money whenever you tell it – or it is reasonably sure from experience - that you won't need it for a while. The manufacturer will take care of billing and insure you against vandalism for a 30% cut. Meanwhile, Uber is but the faint memory of a bro-themed ponzi scheme. They have nothing that would allow them to remain relevant: no reputation, no technology, and -50 billion in capital. All they got to scale was the one part that's irrelevant: managing drivers. And groping women, of course.
- stormbrew 10y ago
  I think it's far more likely you'll just be able to lease a timeshare on a car than this complicated scenario people bring up where a company sells you a car and then rents it back from you. Like, the tax implications of this scheme are pretty obnoxious alone for someone who isn't doing it for primary or even secondary income.
  - btown 10y ago
    But this way it's the car buyer who assumes the risk in case the timesharing model is less lucrative. The manufacturer doesn't want to hold any more inventory than it already has to.
    - baumandm 10y ago
      Probably other companies will step in to manage the inventory and match cars to users, just like existing rental car companies. Although in the short term, I can see the appeal of selling cars with a built-in ride-share mode. Many current car owners are likely to continue to want to own their own cars. If manufacturers can provide this feature out-of-the-box, it may help drive car sales to people who want to own cars and get "free money".
- AJ007 10y ago
  There seems to be a big jump from what could happen to what definitely will happen. I would say highly likely that whatever car companies are left standing, one or more of them will have fairly good margins. How the ownership ends up working out remains to be seen. May be cities will cut deals with a specific company and all non-commercial vehicles will be controlled by that municipality. May be Google Maps will turn in to a transport marketplace and operators will bid based on destination. Likely Uber is going to have a very tough time. Likely they can cut a lot of the excess and operating expenses and be profitable for a while but at the loss of growth and new markets. Uber paved the way for a lot of this. There is no way Google, Apple, Tesla or definitely an established car company would have been able to plow their way in to these local markets, bypassing and ignoring regulations until the point that cities became dependent on Uber. Now it is done, and it isn't particular a moat for Uber. But they fucking did it, they are the ones who need the recognition for it.
  - k-mcgrady 10y ago
    >> Uber paved the way for a lot of this. There is no way Google, Apple, Tesla or definitely an established car company would have been able to plow their way in to these local markets, bypassing and ignoring regulations until the point that cities became dependent on Uber. Now it is done, and it isn't particular a moat for Uber. But they fucking did it, they are the ones who need the recognition for it. I don't understand or like this attitude. A company creating a moat by breaking the law to gain an advantage over people following the law is not something to be admired or celebrated. (If I've misunderstood your tone I apologise but your final sentence gives me this impression).
    - aianus 10y ago
      The point is they didn't create much of a moat but they did bust the regulations. So competitors are free to pop up and consumers win at the expense of taxi drivers and taxi medallion owners (usually separate people).
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      > A company creating a moat by breaking the law to gain an advantage over people following the law is not something to be admired or celebrated There are two wrong assumptions in this statement. First, the OP said that Uber didn't create a moat, they just paved the way. These days, after Uber moves into an area, other ride sharing services are able to enter the market without Uber being able to abuse their market position to push them out. That's definitely a positive. Second, Uber did not break the law in most situations. They re-interpreted a formerly gray area of the law, by asserting that their services shouldn't be regulated by taxi laws as they were not a taxi company. This was a legal battle that none of the entrenched players were willing to fight for various reasons, and with that legal precedent, that opened the way also for other ride sharing services to operate.
- nathanvanfleet 10y ago
  I think it's funny that you're seeing people as still wanting to buy a car in that scenario.
  - dogecoinbase 10y ago
    If anything, people will want cars more as they transition from necessity to status symbol.
    - sjwright 10y ago
      What planet do you live on? Cars have been a major status symbol for, what, a hundred years now? There's no significant untapped well of car ownership to be found from self-driving cars. But the market for commuter-grade cars will plummet.
      - toast0 10y ago
        > There's no significant untapped well of car ownership to be found from self-driving cars. At what age might you be comfortable letting your child self-drive to school, but not walk alone to school?
        sjwright 10y ago
        That doesn't increase the number of cars a family needs, it just automates a previously manual task.
        toast0 10y ago
        It doesn't increase the number of vehicles needed, but it may increase the number of vehicles wanted. If a family of four has two kids that attend different schools, and two jobs in different locations, and everything starts at 8 am (because, life); each person can most delay leaving the house if there is one vehicle per person.
        10y ago
- untog 10y ago
  At that point, why would I own a car? Insuring against vandalism is all very well financially, but if my car needs to be repaired after a random person takes a ride in it I'm still going to be without my car for a few days. At that point, why wouldn't I just pay the car manufacturer for "car use on demand"? Suddenly I don't have to care about having a garage at home, repairs, upgrades, etc. etc. I can see the argument for still owning your own car, but owning it and renting it out seems like a half way measure that will satisfy no-one.
  - frik 10y ago
    Assume you want to go to work at 9am and all your neighbours too. Is it okay for you to wait an hour until a car is free to drive you to work? Or imagine in previous times you bought a car when you got a bonus payment, now you pay the car-service each months - imagine you get sick and now can't afford to pay for the monthly car service, if you owned the car you wouldn't have to worry about that, as it would have been your asset without a fixed monthly payment. Renting might be convenient, but in the long term owning something is cheaper and more convinient.
    - untog 10y ago
      Why would the rental company not just scale up to match morning demand? Even if a car is only used for an hour a day the cost of having it parked up somewhere for the rest of the day would be very low. And you're talking about a car as if buying it is a one-off expense that'll never be added on to. That's not true at all - insurance, maintainence and repairs are all ongoing costs that you'd be similarly unable to afford if you lost your job.
      - frik 10y ago
        Re: morning demand: The same could be said for public transport or taxis. And do they increase to match the morning demand? Often not, you have to squeeze in to catch the public transport and wait for a taxi. Insurance, maintenance and repairs are not monthly fixed costs. You can pay insurance e.g. once a year. And maintenance/repair really depends.
heisenbit 10y ago
Both Mercedes and BMW (DriveNow as a co-venture with Sixt) run car sharing businesses. In terms of cities served Uber beats them hands down. Mercedes has 14.000 and BMW 4000 cars on the streets (wikipedia). That is a fraction of what Uber can mobilize. For Uber to be taken on they would need to scale up a magnitude or even two. At that scale it would affect their existing business and their now increasing engagement is an indication how serious the companies are taking this shift. Transportation as a service is clearly something. Car ownership is not always the best economic solution for an individual. The sharing demand exists but no one has established a large scale sustainable enterprise around it. What is needed? - Capital first and foremost as cars are not cheap. Two models so far: -- Uber leveraging car owner capital. That area is really opaque but one can assume individuals capital cost is higher than manufacturers especially as Uber drivers likely have not the best credit ratings. The volume Uber can leverage here is - assuming 500.000 drivers with cars worth $20.000 then this is 10 Billion USD. -- Car manufacturer and car rental companies (in the past often linked to manufacturers). There is some synergy in the vertical integration e.g. through manufacturing capacity management, tailored car features and marketing. - Fleet servicing. Uber has managed to shift that to drivers. - Driver. Uber has an individual driving. There may be autonomous vehicles. Then there is the person renting assuming driving license. - Critical mass. There is a focus on serving cities. I suspect autonomous vehicles may be vital to serve the wider area. - Insurance. Liability needs to be clarified and forms of insurance found if autonomous cars are allowed.
- ghaff 10y ago
  > The sharing demand exists but no one has established a large scale sustainable enterprise around it. Zipcar et al? I guess my question is the following: If you don't want exclusive ownership and use of your vehicle, why would you want the hassles of ownership at all? I do get the some money on the side argument but I really wonder if it makes sense with cars given that a lot of depreciation/costs is because of mileage. It's a bit different from the AirBnB situation.
- dorfsmay 10y ago
  Exactly. Today Uber relies on the owner/driver for the capital behind the vehicle, the vehicle acquisition, servicing, insurance, etc... Current car-sharing business (car2go, zipcar, etc...) already had to figure out all those parts, the only piece missing for them, like for everybody else so far, is the self-driving technology. > That is a fraction of what Uber can mobilize I don't understand your point. You're saying Uber will have random people buy self-driving car for them, service it etc... and let Uber use it? They'd effectively become a pico-bank in a very risky investment... Or am I missing something here?
Strom 10y ago
Mercedes released a video [1] back in 2013 showing pretty decent driving. I imagine they didn't stop with progress and have even more capable systems today. Mercedes-Benz has successfully completed the first autonomous long-distance drive ever, involving both town and cross-country traffic, using near-production-standard sensor systems. The Mercedes-Benz S 500 INTELLIGENT DRIVE research vehicle covered 100 kilometers from Mannheim to Pforzheim, Germany, under real traffic conditions and complex situations including traffic lights, roundabouts, pedestrians, cyclists and trams. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AihC5flC-38 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AihC5flC-38
- manmal 10y ago
  I read an article couple months ago in a RL car magazine where they test-drove a Mercedes prototype. They had the impression that it drove almost perfect, even dealing with complicated highway construction sites without proper safety lines.
- saddlerustle 10y ago
  Keep in mind that the technology Mercedes is actually shipping today is said to be worse than Honda's and significantly worse than Tesla's [1] [1] http://www.thedrive.com/tech/5707/the-war-for-autonomous-driving-part-iii-us-vs-germany-vs-japan http://www.thedrive.com/tech/5707/the-war-for-autonomous-dri...
- frik 10y ago
  Mercedes show cased a self driving van in the 1980s, with stereo black/white cameras, and a big computer in the back. But can you buy a Merc Maybach S class with self driving comparable to Tesla S autopilot 2? No. That's why you see more and more Tesla S these days, plus it is all electric too.
- thinkingthingy 10y ago
  My husband takes casual carpool most mornings to SF from Berkeley, and last week got a ride in one of the Mercedes Intelligent Drive cars (he mentioned the model, but I forgot). He said the driver didn't have to handle the car at all once he was picked up. The car drove itself onto the freeway, all the way over on the Bay Bridge, navigated the exit into SF and drove several blocks in the city. He said the driver took over only at the very end, when he pulled to the side of the road to drop my husband and the other passenger off. Pretty incredible!
anigbrowl 10y ago
Mercedes comes from a tradition of 'keep your mouth shut and then deliver a premium product.' Self-driving cars are not a market where 'move fast and break things' is an acceptable consumer philosophy and Uber demonstrates how tricky it is to reposition your brand from naughty to trustworthy. Mercedes, by contrast, can just run an ad in a year or two announcing that the new Z-Class or whatever it's called can drive you around in any weather and be believed by the vast majority of consumers.
- noir_lord 10y ago
  Absolutely agreed and the kind of credibility Mercedes has in the market takes decades of excellent execution to accrue and a few years to fritter it away. Given that the gap between Mercedes and run of the mill saloon has been closing in real terms rapidly (when I was a kid cars where serviced every 5-12,0000 miles, these days it's not unusual for service periods to be more than twice that with 7 year warranties and the generally higher build/reliability across the board) their brand of understated excellence is a key part of why they can still charge so much.
qume 10y ago
I worked with a guy who had previously interned at Daimler (Mercedes) in Germany working on self driving cars, although it wasn't called that - I don't remember the phrase he used. This was in 2005.

M_Grey 10y ago

As a rule, Mercedes tends to keep mum on tech they're not ready to roll out (at least to the S-Class), and they like it be pretty near perfect at that piont.

matt4077 10y ago

Every single carmaker will offer self-driving as an option at first, then as a standard feature. They'll also come with software that allows you to flip a switch and see your car take off to earn some money whenever you tell it – or it is reasonably sure from experience - that you won't need it for a while. The manufacturer will take care of billing and insure you against vandalism for a 30% cut. Meanwhile, Uber is but the faint memory of a bro-themed ponzi scheme. They have nothing that would allow them to remain relevant: no reputation, no technology, and -50 billion in capital. All they got to scale was the one part that's irrelevant: managing drivers. And groping women, of course.

stormbrew 10y ago
I think it's far more likely you'll just be able to lease a timeshare on a car than this complicated scenario people bring up where a company sells you a car and then rents it back from you. Like, the tax implications of this scheme are pretty obnoxious alone for someone who isn't doing it for primary or even secondary income.
- btown 10y ago
  But this way it's the car buyer who assumes the risk in case the timesharing model is less lucrative. The manufacturer doesn't want to hold any more inventory than it already has to.
  - baumandm 10y ago
    Probably other companies will step in to manage the inventory and match cars to users, just like existing rental car companies. Although in the short term, I can see the appeal of selling cars with a built-in ride-share mode. Many current car owners are likely to continue to want to own their own cars. If manufacturers can provide this feature out-of-the-box, it may help drive car sales to people who want to own cars and get "free money".
AJ007 10y ago
There seems to be a big jump from what could happen to what definitely will happen. I would say highly likely that whatever car companies are left standing, one or more of them will have fairly good margins. How the ownership ends up working out remains to be seen. May be cities will cut deals with a specific company and all non-commercial vehicles will be controlled by that municipality. May be Google Maps will turn in to a transport marketplace and operators will bid based on destination. Likely Uber is going to have a very tough time. Likely they can cut a lot of the excess and operating expenses and be profitable for a while but at the loss of growth and new markets. Uber paved the way for a lot of this. There is no way Google, Apple, Tesla or definitely an established car company would have been able to plow their way in to these local markets, bypassing and ignoring regulations until the point that cities became dependent on Uber. Now it is done, and it isn't particular a moat for Uber. But they fucking did it, they are the ones who need the recognition for it.
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  >> Uber paved the way for a lot of this. There is no way Google, Apple, Tesla or definitely an established car company would have been able to plow their way in to these local markets, bypassing and ignoring regulations until the point that cities became dependent on Uber. Now it is done, and it isn't particular a moat for Uber. But they fucking did it, they are the ones who need the recognition for it. I don't understand or like this attitude. A company creating a moat by breaking the law to gain an advantage over people following the law is not something to be admired or celebrated. (If I've misunderstood your tone I apologise but your final sentence gives me this impression).
  - aianus 10y ago
    The point is they didn't create much of a moat but they did bust the regulations. So competitors are free to pop up and consumers win at the expense of taxi drivers and taxi medallion owners (usually separate people).
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    > A company creating a moat by breaking the law to gain an advantage over people following the law is not something to be admired or celebrated There are two wrong assumptions in this statement. First, the OP said that Uber didn't create a moat, they just paved the way. These days, after Uber moves into an area, other ride sharing services are able to enter the market without Uber being able to abuse their market position to push them out. That's definitely a positive. Second, Uber did not break the law in most situations. They re-interpreted a formerly gray area of the law, by asserting that their services shouldn't be regulated by taxi laws as they were not a taxi company. This was a legal battle that none of the entrenched players were willing to fight for various reasons, and with that legal precedent, that opened the way also for other ride sharing services to operate.
nathanvanfleet 10y ago
I think it's funny that you're seeing people as still wanting to buy a car in that scenario.
- dogecoinbase 10y ago
  If anything, people will want cars more as they transition from necessity to status symbol.
  - sjwright 10y ago
    What planet do you live on? Cars have been a major status symbol for, what, a hundred years now? There's no significant untapped well of car ownership to be found from self-driving cars. But the market for commuter-grade cars will plummet.
    - toast0 10y ago
      > There's no significant untapped well of car ownership to be found from self-driving cars. At what age might you be comfortable letting your child self-drive to school, but not walk alone to school?
      - sjwright 10y ago
        That doesn't increase the number of cars a family needs, it just automates a previously manual task.
        toast0 10y ago
        It doesn't increase the number of vehicles needed, but it may increase the number of vehicles wanted. If a family of four has two kids that attend different schools, and two jobs in different locations, and everything starts at 8 am (because, life); each person can most delay leaving the house if there is one vehicle per person.
        10y ago
untog 10y ago
At that point, why would I own a car? Insuring against vandalism is all very well financially, but if my car needs to be repaired after a random person takes a ride in it I'm still going to be without my car for a few days. At that point, why wouldn't I just pay the car manufacturer for "car use on demand"? Suddenly I don't have to care about having a garage at home, repairs, upgrades, etc. etc. I can see the argument for still owning your own car, but owning it and renting it out seems like a half way measure that will satisfy no-one.
- frik 10y ago
  Assume you want to go to work at 9am and all your neighbours too. Is it okay for you to wait an hour until a car is free to drive you to work? Or imagine in previous times you bought a car when you got a bonus payment, now you pay the car-service each months - imagine you get sick and now can't afford to pay for the monthly car service, if you owned the car you wouldn't have to worry about that, as it would have been your asset without a fixed monthly payment. Renting might be convenient, but in the long term owning something is cheaper and more convinient.
  - untog 10y ago
    Why would the rental company not just scale up to match morning demand? Even if a car is only used for an hour a day the cost of having it parked up somewhere for the rest of the day would be very low. And you're talking about a car as if buying it is a one-off expense that'll never be added on to. That's not true at all - insurance, maintainence and repairs are all ongoing costs that you'd be similarly unable to afford if you lost your job.
    - frik 10y ago
      Re: morning demand: The same could be said for public transport or taxis. And do they increase to match the morning demand? Often not, you have to squeeze in to catch the public transport and wait for a taxi. Insurance, maintenance and repairs are not monthly fixed costs. You can pay insurance e.g. once a year. And maintenance/repair really depends.

heisenbit 10y ago

Both Mercedes and BMW (DriveNow as a co-venture with Sixt) run car sharing businesses. In terms of cities served Uber beats them hands down. Mercedes has 14.000 and BMW 4000 cars on the streets (wikipedia). That is a fraction of what Uber can mobilize. For Uber to be taken on they would need to scale up a magnitude or even two. At that scale it would affect their existing business and their now increasing engagement is an indication how serious the companies are taking this shift. Transportation as a service is clearly something. Car ownership is not always the best economic solution for an individual. The sharing demand exists but no one has established a large scale sustainable enterprise around it. What is needed? - Capital first and foremost as cars are not cheap. Two models so far: -- Uber leveraging car owner capital. That area is really opaque but one can assume individuals capital cost is higher than manufacturers especially as Uber drivers likely have not the best credit ratings. The volume Uber can leverage here is - assuming 500.000 drivers with cars worth $20.000 then this is 10 Billion USD. -- Car manufacturer and car rental companies (in the past often linked to manufacturers). There is some synergy in the vertical integration e.g. through manufacturing capacity management, tailored car features and marketing. - Fleet servicing. Uber has managed to shift that to drivers. - Driver. Uber has an individual driving. There may be autonomous vehicles. Then there is the person renting assuming driving license. - Critical mass. There is a focus on serving cities. I suspect autonomous vehicles may be vital to serve the wider area. - Insurance. Liability needs to be clarified and forms of insurance found if autonomous cars are allowed.

ghaff 10y ago
> The sharing demand exists but no one has established a large scale sustainable enterprise around it. Zipcar et al? I guess my question is the following: If you don't want exclusive ownership and use of your vehicle, why would you want the hassles of ownership at all? I do get the some money on the side argument but I really wonder if it makes sense with cars given that a lot of depreciation/costs is because of mileage. It's a bit different from the AirBnB situation.
dorfsmay 10y ago
Exactly. Today Uber relies on the owner/driver for the capital behind the vehicle, the vehicle acquisition, servicing, insurance, etc... Current car-sharing business (car2go, zipcar, etc...) already had to figure out all those parts, the only piece missing for them, like for everybody else so far, is the self-driving technology. > That is a fraction of what Uber can mobilize I don't understand your point. You're saying Uber will have random people buy self-driving car for them, service it etc... and let Uber use it? They'd effectively become a pico-bank in a very risky investment... Or am I missing something here?

Strom 10y ago

Mercedes released a video [1] back in 2013 showing pretty decent driving. I imagine they didn't stop with progress and have even more capable systems today. Mercedes-Benz has successfully completed the first autonomous long-distance drive ever, involving both town and cross-country traffic, using near-production-standard sensor systems. The Mercedes-Benz S 500 INTELLIGENT DRIVE research vehicle covered 100 kilometers from Mannheim to Pforzheim, Germany, under real traffic conditions and complex situations including traffic lights, roundabouts, pedestrians, cyclists and trams. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AihC5flC-38 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AihC5flC-38

manmal 10y ago
I read an article couple months ago in a RL car magazine where they test-drove a Mercedes prototype. They had the impression that it drove almost perfect, even dealing with complicated highway construction sites without proper safety lines.
saddlerustle 10y ago
Keep in mind that the technology Mercedes is actually shipping today is said to be worse than Honda's and significantly worse than Tesla's [1] [1] http://www.thedrive.com/tech/5707/the-war-for-autonomous-driving-part-iii-us-vs-germany-vs-japan http://www.thedrive.com/tech/5707/the-war-for-autonomous-dri...
frik 10y ago
Mercedes show cased a self driving van in the 1980s, with stereo black/white cameras, and a big computer in the back. But can you buy a Merc Maybach S class with self driving comparable to Tesla S autopilot 2? No. That's why you see more and more Tesla S these days, plus it is all electric too.
thinkingthingy 10y ago
My husband takes casual carpool most mornings to SF from Berkeley, and last week got a ride in one of the Mercedes Intelligent Drive cars (he mentioned the model, but I forgot). He said the driver didn't have to handle the car at all once he was picked up. The car drove itself onto the freeway, all the way over on the Bay Bridge, navigated the exit into SF and drove several blocks in the city. He said the driver took over only at the very end, when he pulled to the side of the road to drop my husband and the other passenger off. Pretty incredible!

anigbrowl 10y ago

Mercedes comes from a tradition of 'keep your mouth shut and then deliver a premium product.' Self-driving cars are not a market where 'move fast and break things' is an acceptable consumer philosophy and Uber demonstrates how tricky it is to reposition your brand from naughty to trustworthy. Mercedes, by contrast, can just run an ad in a year or two announcing that the new Z-Class or whatever it's called can drive you around in any weather and be believed by the vast majority of consumers.

noir_lord 10y ago
Absolutely agreed and the kind of credibility Mercedes has in the market takes decades of excellent execution to accrue and a few years to fritter it away. Given that the gap between Mercedes and run of the mill saloon has been closing in real terms rapidly (when I was a kid cars where serviced every 5-12,0000 miles, these days it's not unusual for service periods to be more than twice that with 7 year warranties and the generally higher build/reliability across the board) their brand of understated excellence is a key part of why they can still charge so much.

qume 10y ago

I worked with a guy who had previously interned at Daimler (Mercedes) in Germany working on self driving cars, although it wasn't called that - I don't remember the phrase he used. This was in 2005.