5 ms·

It's sustainable because we're on the cusp of the autonomous vehicle revolution. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/technology/driverless-cars-california-rules.

It's sustainable because we're on the cusp of the autonomous vehicle revolution. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/technology/driverless-cars-california-rules.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/technology/driverless-car... This is similar to how the huge army of people stuffing DVDs into envelopes at Netflix is going away. It might be slow, but I don't think there will be tons of people watching DVDs from them in 2030... https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/23/netflix-dvd-business-still-alive-what-is-it-like-to-work-there.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/23/netflix-dvd-business-still-a...

astrodust 9y ago
I hope you realize that ripping DVDs and putting them up for streaming is pretty easy, everyone was doing it before Netflix was, compared to having a fleet of autonomous vehicles that can safely operate in a multitude of urban environments, something nobody has ever done before. You have to question the leadership of a company that's willing to throw untold billions and counting on a long-shot bet that they'll eventually have these magical cars and everything will be fine. Once Uber can do it, soon afterwards everyone can, and what makes you think Uber will do it better when they've already had to give up so much to invent their own self-driving car solution? Their business model is completely ridiculous.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- felixk42 9y ago
  Self driving cars have nothing to do with what Uber has been up to, and having a lot of cash isn't really a competitive advantage when your competitors are Google, Tesla and other car manufactures.
  - astrodust 9y ago
    Uber has a lot of cash by taxi standards, but nothing compared to car manufacturer standards.
Steeeve 9y ago
> It's sustainable because we're on the cusp of the autonomous vehicle revolution. We still have drivers on subway trains. When those drivers lose jobs to autonomy, maybe we can think about being on the cusp. Until then, I see it as a fantastic story that can be used to milk VCs for cash. At <$4/hour, it's a better investment to automate a fast food restaurant like McDonald's or Burger King. They pay twice as much for labor. Pouring a coke and cooking burgers and fries should be a pretty straightforward challenge. They've already done Pizzas.
- raducu 9y ago
  I think Paris subway is driverless (at least some lines I traveled on). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_subway_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_...
- MarkMc 9y ago
  Subway trains carry hundreds of people, so the cost of the driver for each passenger is low. Also, subway systems are monopolies with strong drivers' unions. Subway managers have no strong financial incentive to reduce costs because the taxpayer foots the bill. In contrast, if Uber doesn't produce a driverless taxi service soon its management will be fired and will miss out on billions of dollars in bonuses. I think we'll see driverless public taxis in Phoenix before we see driverless subway trains in New York. Self-driving trains are technically easier to develop, but self-driving cars will win thanks to the efficiencies of the free market.
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    Automation on subway trains is almost never about saving costs - even well paid drivers make up a very small percentage of the operational costs of a subway. The vast majority goes on maintenance. In most cases the costs imposed by a wave of city-crippling strikes will far outstrip the minor cost gains from automating the rail line, so it only makes sense to actually automate and fire the drivers if the goal is actually political. Subway drivers comprise a strong component of a country's labor power (because of their power to shut down critical infrastructure) and the alliances they typically hold with other unions and their political donations cement that. They don't just offset the power of the government they work under, they offset the power of executive/shareholder power in general. Since labor and union power is largely what held income inequality in check until the 80s, the political goal behind crushing them is pretty clearly about increasing the wealth and income inequality chasm still further.
shard972 9y ago
The problem i have seeing this comparison is netflix was making good money in their original mail business as far as i remember. Their venture into digital was ahead of the curb, allowing them to be even more successful and expand their business beyond distribution. If the self-driving-taxi is right around the corner i guess that can save uber, but it's not like netflix was on a timer to like uber is to transition their business model.
Noos 9y ago
Heh, Netflix if anything probably is desperately relying on DVDs still...this time selling them. All their original series, $20/30 a season; I doubt the revenue solely from streaming could even pay for the production costs otherwise. And Uber...their whole point was being an annoying, even predatory middleman who shunt all their costs onto their "workforce"...you think they are going to thrive when they need to bear all the risk and expense themselves, as well as be unable to break laws?
prostoalex 9y ago
The driverless revolution (whenever it takes place) seems to favor fleet management companies, not dispatch companies. It lowers the barrier for entry to pretty much anybody, with fleet manager taking care of car washes, interior clean-ups, refueling, parking at idle hours, ongoing maintenance and fixing occasional flat tires. What part of Uber/Lyft business model makes them more sustainable when compared to Hertz, Avis, Budget, Alamo, Dollar, Fox Rent-a-car, ZipCar, Tesla Driving Network, any local car dealer with excess inventory, Ford- or Mercedes- or any other maker-branded service, or a small mom-and-pop operation with just a couple vehicles in their fleet?
- chris11 9y ago
  I'd say that Uber/Lyft would be better positioned to take advantage of driverless vehicles. The hard part is the tech, personal for fleet management is a cost center. They have already mastered outsourcing low-skill cost center type jobs to large numbers of poorly paid contractors. And both companies have business relationships with fleet management companies. So once either company successfully develops proprietary IP that enables fully autonomous cars they should have a clear road to profitably. They can use their existing relationships with fleet management companies to handle that part. And that is a mature industry, so the presence of a lot of capable competitors will keep costs down for Uber/Lyft. If they do need to do a bunch of hiring for new low-skill positions they can probably outsource it easily. I think the major winners will be tech companies and car makers. I don't think the fleet management industry will capture the majority of the profits, but they will probably get a minor portion.

astrodust 9y ago

I hope you realize that ripping DVDs and putting them up for streaming is pretty easy, everyone was doing it before Netflix was, compared to having a fleet of autonomous vehicles that can safely operate in a multitude of urban environments, something nobody has ever done before. You have to question the leadership of a company that's willing to throw untold billions and counting on a long-shot bet that they'll eventually have these magical cars and everything will be fine. Once Uber can do it, soon afterwards everyone can, and what makes you think Uber will do it better when they've already had to give up so much to invent their own self-driving car solution? Their business model is completely ridiculous.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
felixk42 9y ago
Self driving cars have nothing to do with what Uber has been up to, and having a lot of cash isn't really a competitive advantage when your competitors are Google, Tesla and other car manufactures.
- astrodust 9y ago
  Uber has a lot of cash by taxi standards, but nothing compared to car manufacturer standards.

Steeeve 9y ago

> It's sustainable because we're on the cusp of the autonomous vehicle revolution. We still have drivers on subway trains. When those drivers lose jobs to autonomy, maybe we can think about being on the cusp. Until then, I see it as a fantastic story that can be used to milk VCs for cash. At <$4/hour, it's a better investment to automate a fast food restaurant like McDonald's or Burger King. They pay twice as much for labor. Pouring a coke and cooking burgers and fries should be a pretty straightforward challenge. They've already done Pizzas.

raducu 9y ago
I think Paris subway is driverless (at least some lines I traveled on). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_subway_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_...
MarkMc 9y ago
Subway trains carry hundreds of people, so the cost of the driver for each passenger is low. Also, subway systems are monopolies with strong drivers' unions. Subway managers have no strong financial incentive to reduce costs because the taxpayer foots the bill. In contrast, if Uber doesn't produce a driverless taxi service soon its management will be fired and will miss out on billions of dollars in bonuses. I think we'll see driverless public taxis in Phoenix before we see driverless subway trains in New York. Self-driving trains are technically easier to develop, but self-driving cars will win thanks to the efficiencies of the free market.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  Automation on subway trains is almost never about saving costs - even well paid drivers make up a very small percentage of the operational costs of a subway. The vast majority goes on maintenance. In most cases the costs imposed by a wave of city-crippling strikes will far outstrip the minor cost gains from automating the rail line, so it only makes sense to actually automate and fire the drivers if the goal is actually political. Subway drivers comprise a strong component of a country's labor power (because of their power to shut down critical infrastructure) and the alliances they typically hold with other unions and their political donations cement that. They don't just offset the power of the government they work under, they offset the power of executive/shareholder power in general. Since labor and union power is largely what held income inequality in check until the 80s, the political goal behind crushing them is pretty clearly about increasing the wealth and income inequality chasm still further.

shard972 9y ago

The problem i have seeing this comparison is netflix was making good money in their original mail business as far as i remember. Their venture into digital was ahead of the curb, allowing them to be even more successful and expand their business beyond distribution. If the self-driving-taxi is right around the corner i guess that can save uber, but it's not like netflix was on a timer to like uber is to transition their business model.

Noos 9y ago

Heh, Netflix if anything probably is desperately relying on DVDs still...this time selling them. All their original series, $20/30 a season; I doubt the revenue solely from streaming could even pay for the production costs otherwise. And Uber...their whole point was being an annoying, even predatory middleman who shunt all their costs onto their "workforce"...you think they are going to thrive when they need to bear all the risk and expense themselves, as well as be unable to break laws?

prostoalex 9y ago

The driverless revolution (whenever it takes place) seems to favor fleet management companies, not dispatch companies. It lowers the barrier for entry to pretty much anybody, with fleet manager taking care of car washes, interior clean-ups, refueling, parking at idle hours, ongoing maintenance and fixing occasional flat tires. What part of Uber/Lyft business model makes them more sustainable when compared to Hertz, Avis, Budget, Alamo, Dollar, Fox Rent-a-car, ZipCar, Tesla Driving Network, any local car dealer with excess inventory, Ford- or Mercedes- or any other maker-branded service, or a small mom-and-pop operation with just a couple vehicles in their fleet?

chris11 9y ago
I'd say that Uber/Lyft would be better positioned to take advantage of driverless vehicles. The hard part is the tech, personal for fleet management is a cost center. They have already mastered outsourcing low-skill cost center type jobs to large numbers of poorly paid contractors. And both companies have business relationships with fleet management companies. So once either company successfully develops proprietary IP that enables fully autonomous cars they should have a clear road to profitably. They can use their existing relationships with fleet management companies to handle that part. And that is a mature industry, so the presence of a lot of capable competitors will keep costs down for Uber/Lyft. If they do need to do a bunch of hiring for new low-skill positions they can probably outsource it easily. I think the major winners will be tech companies and car makers. I don't think the fleet management industry will capture the majority of the profits, but they will probably get a minor portion.