4 ms·

article points out that 62 companies are licensed to test self-driving cars in California currently. (testing is not the same as offering autonomous rides.) so

article points out that 62 companies are licensed to test self-driving cars in California currently. (testing is not the same as offering autonomous rides.) so, if i judge by analogy to what's happened in the human-driven space (e.g. Uber, Lyft, and ? i don't even know who else), i'll go out on a limb and say that roughly 60 of these 62 will eventually just go away.

speedplane 8y ago
> i'll go out on a limb and say that roughly 60 of these 62 will eventually just go away. Don't think you have to go out on a limb to say that. In the early 20th century there were hundreds of car manufacturers in the US, but only three really survived. The low chances of success are already pretty well understood.
Fricken 8y ago
The list includes most of the world's major automakers, a bunch of tier 1s, several major chipmakers, and Apple. Things would have to get pretty bad for all but 2 to go away. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/permit https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/permi...
- LoSboccacc 8y ago
  They will all license from the winner of the autonomous race. Regulation will come at them fast as failure modes get discovered. Wouldn't surprise me if they'd get faa level of certification required within the following two decade. That will strangle newcomers and stragglers, cementing the working solution in the market
  - ghaff 8y ago
    >faa level of certification required within the following two decade If that's the case (and I'm not saying it isn't), you then probably need maintenance and update processes on par with commercial aviation. And that probably implies certified organizations renting/leasing vehicles only. And, at that point, you're probably cheaper just to have a minimum wage human driver. Mainstream self-driving implies that people can buy cars at a similar price point that they can today and maintain them in the same loosey goosey way that many people also do today.
    - LoSboccacc 8y ago
      Well yes, it is certainly going to be a retirement, a even just a dirty sensor is going to be a showstopper issue or a security risk, so I imagine those vehicles are going to need significant maintenance
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  ah. good point. thank you. that list contains lots and lots of established companies which definitely aren't going away. i stand corrected. not sure how long "Phantom AI" will be around though ...
randomacct3847 8y ago
well the reason there’s only Uber and Lyft is because there are significant barriers to entry into ridesharing at this point. Yes, anyone could launch an Uber-like app fairly easily, but the barrier to entry is the supply of drivers. You wouldn’t be able to onboard enough fast enough to create a service with low ETAs that would be competitive with either in a mature market unless you had a ton of capital to incentivize them to drive for you with bonuses. With self driving you don’t necessarily have a supply issue assuming you can deploy as many vehicles as you need in a market to achieve ETAs on par with or lower than Uber/Lyft. It’s all going to come down to ETAs, price, and marketing. I don’t think there will be 60 services in a single market but I can see more than the 2 today operating successfully.
- toast0 8y ago
  I think the barrier to entry in unlicensed taxis is that there are two large companies currently committed to losing money doing it. Attracting drivers may be hard, but it's not zero sum; drivers can be and are active in Uber and Lyft simultaneously, it's not inconceivable to swap one of those for a different app or add a third. But it would need to be compelling in some way, preferably a not so monetary way, because a race to the bottom doesn't usually benefit a small company.

speedplane 8y ago

> i'll go out on a limb and say that roughly 60 of these 62 will eventually just go away. Don't think you have to go out on a limb to say that. In the early 20th century there were hundreds of car manufacturers in the US, but only three really survived. The low chances of success are already pretty well understood.

Fricken 8y ago

The list includes most of the world's major automakers, a bunch of tier 1s, several major chipmakers, and Apple. Things would have to get pretty bad for all but 2 to go away. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/permit https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/permi...

LoSboccacc 8y ago
They will all license from the winner of the autonomous race. Regulation will come at them fast as failure modes get discovered. Wouldn't surprise me if they'd get faa level of certification required within the following two decade. That will strangle newcomers and stragglers, cementing the working solution in the market
- ghaff 8y ago
  >faa level of certification required within the following two decade If that's the case (and I'm not saying it isn't), you then probably need maintenance and update processes on par with commercial aviation. And that probably implies certified organizations renting/leasing vehicles only. And, at that point, you're probably cheaper just to have a minimum wage human driver. Mainstream self-driving implies that people can buy cars at a similar price point that they can today and maintain them in the same loosey goosey way that many people also do today.
  - LoSboccacc 8y ago
    Well yes, it is certainly going to be a retirement, a even just a dirty sensor is going to be a showstopper issue or a security risk, so I imagine those vehicles are going to need significant maintenance
HillaryBriss 8y ago
ah. good point. thank you. that list contains lots and lots of established companies which definitely aren't going away. i stand corrected. not sure how long "Phantom AI" will be around though ...

randomacct3847 8y ago

well the reason there’s only Uber and Lyft is because there are significant barriers to entry into ridesharing at this point. Yes, anyone could launch an Uber-like app fairly easily, but the barrier to entry is the supply of drivers. You wouldn’t be able to onboard enough fast enough to create a service with low ETAs that would be competitive with either in a mature market unless you had a ton of capital to incentivize them to drive for you with bonuses. With self driving you don’t necessarily have a supply issue assuming you can deploy as many vehicles as you need in a market to achieve ETAs on par with or lower than Uber/Lyft. It’s all going to come down to ETAs, price, and marketing. I don’t think there will be 60 services in a single market but I can see more than the 2 today operating successfully.

toast0 8y ago
I think the barrier to entry in unlicensed taxis is that there are two large companies currently committed to losing money doing it. Attracting drivers may be hard, but it's not zero sum; drivers can be and are active in Uber and Lyft simultaneously, it's not inconceivable to swap one of those for a different app or add a third. But it would need to be compelling in some way, preferably a not so monetary way, because a race to the bottom doesn't usually benefit a small company.