5 ms·

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 swit

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.

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.