4 ms·

Car companies doesn't make their own airbags, they buy them from Autoliv. They don't make their own brakes, they buy them from Brembo. They buy transmissions fr

Car companies doesn't make their own airbags, they buy them from Autoliv. They don't make their own brakes, they buy them from Brembo. They buy transmissions from ZF, tires from Michelin, ECUs from Bosch, etc. Why should car manufacturers develop their own self driving technology instead of letting others, like Bosch [1] or Veoneer [2], do that and buy it from them? Spread the investment over more cars, it makes sense. [1] https://www.bosch-mobility-solutions.com/ https://www.bosch-mobility-solutions.com/ [2] https://www.veoneer.com/ https://www.veoneer.com/

ghayes 6y ago
To answer your question: presumably it's easier for a self-driving car company to offer "ride sharing" than a ride sharing company to offer self-driving cars. The power imbalance could be an existential threat to Uber or Lyft if it were realized.
- cyrux004 6y ago
  Exactly, if a OEM or partner figured out how to solve self-driving; they would go to market first. I know people like to say its hard to build a market for drivers and passengers like Uber and Lyft; but if you solved self driving, then you should have a good price advantage to build a new market like Waymo is doing
  - ghayes 6y ago
    Plus the market would no longer be two-sided, which significantly reduces Uber, et al.’s moat.
bgee 6y ago
Another angle for car companies to develop their own tech might be (claimed) competitive edge. Not many car manufacturer would market the airbags, breaks or tires as superior. However, car makers that develop their own engine constantly brag about how efficient or powerful their cars are compared to their competitors (e.g. Mazda and their Skyactiv, Toyota and their Hybrid).
mumblemumble 6y ago
Car companies do that for the really standard, commoditized stuff. But they try to do it on their own for the cutting edge stuff. Toyota developed their own hybrid technology, and it paid off for them big time. Having a better hybrid system than anyone else gave the Prius a serious leg up in the competition. Honda's done similar work with variable valve timing, GM did it with automatic transmissions, etc. I think, though, that that's a tangential point, because Uber is not a car company. As others have theorized, Uber has an interest in developing it themselves because self-driving represents an existential threat. They have absolutely no defense against someone else using self-driving to do to them what they used gig economy labor pricing to do to taxi companies.
LoSboccacc 6y ago
because they have something tangible on their books producing value: the line for the cars. without the self driving vertical promises, uber is a middleman with a booking app, and they're one squeeze away from tesla or waymo into irrelevance.
reader_mode 6y ago
Having used Bosch software I sincerely doubt that organisation has the capability to innovate in anything software related.
WatchDog 6y ago
That model really only makes sense if there are multiple compelling autonomous driving products. If a company builds an autonomous driving capability and is able to hold on to a monopoly over it, they would either simply drive uber out of business, or license the tech to them in a way that would leave them with very thin margins.

ghayes 6y ago

To answer your question: presumably it's easier for a self-driving car company to offer "ride sharing" than a ride sharing company to offer self-driving cars. The power imbalance could be an existential threat to Uber or Lyft if it were realized.

cyrux004 6y ago
Exactly, if a OEM or partner figured out how to solve self-driving; they would go to market first. I know people like to say its hard to build a market for drivers and passengers like Uber and Lyft; but if you solved self driving, then you should have a good price advantage to build a new market like Waymo is doing
- ghayes 6y ago
  Plus the market would no longer be two-sided, which significantly reduces Uber, et al.’s moat.

bgee 6y ago

Another angle for car companies to develop their own tech might be (claimed) competitive edge. Not many car manufacturer would market the airbags, breaks or tires as superior. However, car makers that develop their own engine constantly brag about how efficient or powerful their cars are compared to their competitors (e.g. Mazda and their Skyactiv, Toyota and their Hybrid).

mumblemumble 6y ago

Car companies do that for the really standard, commoditized stuff. But they try to do it on their own for the cutting edge stuff. Toyota developed their own hybrid technology, and it paid off for them big time. Having a better hybrid system than anyone else gave the Prius a serious leg up in the competition. Honda's done similar work with variable valve timing, GM did it with automatic transmissions, etc. I think, though, that that's a tangential point, because Uber is not a car company. As others have theorized, Uber has an interest in developing it themselves because self-driving represents an existential threat. They have absolutely no defense against someone else using self-driving to do to them what they used gig economy labor pricing to do to taxi companies.

LoSboccacc 6y ago

because they have something tangible on their books producing value: the line for the cars. without the self driving vertical promises, uber is a middleman with a booking app, and they're one squeeze away from tesla or waymo into irrelevance.

reader_mode 6y ago

Having used Bosch software I sincerely doubt that organisation has the capability to innovate in anything software related.

WatchDog 6y ago

That model really only makes sense if there are multiple compelling autonomous driving products. If a company builds an autonomous driving capability and is able to hold on to a monopoly over it, they would either simply drive uber out of business, or license the tech to them in a way that would leave them with very thin margins.