6 ms·

Smart phones when launched cost less than $1200 which a majority of people could afford. Cars that have this technology onboard would cost upwards of $65000 whi

Smart phones when launched cost less than $1200 which a majority of people could afford. Cars that have this technology onboard would cost upwards of $65000 which almost no one can afford comparatively. This is not going to be a fast rollout.

russh 5y ago
Think driverless Uber.
jatone 5y ago
businesses can afford it though. 65K to replace a very large, yearly, expense of a driver? you bet your ass they are going to switch and fast. That is what is going to cause most of the fallout. the ROI is basically 1 year, 2 tops.
gibolt 5y ago
The economics of a robotaxi are insane. Main cost now are the driver, and then fuel, and then vehicle wear/tear/depreciation. An autonomous EV taxi makes all three of those comparatively negligible. Profit per year per vehicle could be $25k+, meaning it is in their best interest to produce as many cars as possible. In addition, each taxi will be replacing at least 10 cars, if it is sufficiently cheap and convenient.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- at-fates-hands 5y ago
  Just looking at some data on Tesla's: According to RepairPal, the average Tesla maintenance cost is $832 per year. That compares to an average of $652 per year for all car models sold in the United States. Depending on which services your Tesla needs, you may end up spending much more than the average car owner on yearly maintenance needs. Also, Tesla's aren't known for their reliability: Though not much information exists yet about the overall reliability of Tesla models, early results aren’t encouraging. In the J.D. Power 2021 U.S. Vehicle Dependability StudySM, Tesla ranked 30th of 33 car brands for overall reliability. That’s better than only Jaguar, Alfa Romeo, and Land Rover among all automakers across the country. J.D. Power reported an average of 176 mechanical issues per 100 Tesla vehicles, compared to an industry average of 121 issues. The organization notes, though, that it doesn’t rank the electric car brand with other major automakers because it doesn’t meet the study’s criteria. What can be known is that Tesla models break down relatively regularly and that Tesla maintenance costs are pretty steep. https://jalopnik.com/advisor/tesla-maintenance-cost/ https://jalopnik.com/advisor/tesla-maintenance-cost/ Unreliable cars and a pretty steep per year cost to maintain them, along with steep repair costs (a broken door handle will run you about 1K plus labor)? This doesn't sound like the pipedream you're selling me here.
  - gibolt 5y ago
    Their reliability score does not take into account severity. Most things reported are super minor, and all are within the first year. Luxury cars are the 'worst' in these surveys, because owners are pickier. True reliability metrics are average years on the road and miles driven.
    - unregistereddev 5y ago
      Tesla ranks behind Lexus, Acura, BMW, Cadillac, Lincoln, and many other luxury cars in the same reliability studies. Even if most things are minor, they still have significantly more problems than the established automakers. I wonder whether the average amount spent on non-warranty repairs would be a good metric to add to "average years on the road and miles driven". That would hopefully remove initial defects from the first few years and also remove defects that are so minor that most people won't pay to have them fixed.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      > Their reliability score does not take into account severity. Therefore Tesla's reliability might be even worse.
  - robocat 5y ago
    > Tesla maintenance cost is $832 per year. That compares to an average of $652 per year I would be very careful before relying on those maintenance cost figures - they are very dependant upon the age of the vehicles and neither figure sounds realistic, if you look at the following information. https://www.yourmechanic.com/article/the-most-and-least-expensive-cars-to-maintain-by-maddy-martin https://www.yourmechanic.com/article/the-most-and-least-expe... The link shows the cheapest average cost to maintain a vehicle over 10 years was $550/annum for a Toyota in 2016, and the most expensive was $1780/annum for BMW. More importantly, further down, the article shows the cost increase over time for maintenance is about +$150/annum. At age 10 years the average maintenance is $1500, and it plateaus at about $2000/annum (because people retire vehicles when they get too expensive to maintain). A Tesla doesn’t have oil changes or combustion engine problems, so some maintenance costs are reduced. However the battery eventually needs replacing, which is a large expense, so you must know whether the battery replacement is included in average yearly maintenance costs or not, before the figure is useable over the long term.
- mdoms 5y ago
  I am convinced people who believe "wear and tear" on electric cars is "negligible" have never owned a vehicle. I worked as a mechanic at a bunch of small mum and pop businesses. Other than oil changes and brake pads (which will be less of a concern with electrics) nothing changes. The bulk of work in shops like that is suspension and steering (bushings, shocks, hydraulics), running gear (wheel bearings, hubs), AC problems (pumps and clutches mainly) and failing electrical parts (bulbs, starter motors, coil packs, wiring gremlins). Electric cars are heavy, so expect more suspension failures. Running gear doesn't really change. AC is identical but with electric motors (prone to failure). Electrics will be worse if anything.
  - gibolt 5y ago
    Suspension failures are not particularly common, EVs aren't that much heavier, and maintenance can still be done. While EVs are somewhat heavier, there are plenty of crazy heavy ICE vehicles that work without issue. Tire wear may increase, but a robotaxi can also optimize driving style to reduce it. None of those costs matter, compared to ICE. EVs just have less things that can break, and even less things that result in EOL or catastrophic failure. The more miles a taxi runs for, the more money it makes. Even if costs increased, the profit would easily make up for it.
    - mdoms 5y ago
      > Suspension failures are not particularly common Only because we regularly service them by replacing bushings, CV joints and ball joints regularly. And shock absorber failures are still commonplace. > EVs aren't that much heavier They're much heavier. It's obviously hard to make a direct comparison because there's no such thing as "equivalent but with an ICE engine" but a Golf E weighs about 250kg more than a Golf GTI. > there are plenty of crazy heavy ICE vehicles that work without issue And they have heavier duty components which require more servicing and are more expensive to replace. > None of those costs matter, compared to ICE. Can you show me some evidence for this? I am not making the claim that EVs are more expensive to maintain than ICE cars, but you made the claim that wear and tear costs (aka maintenance costs) on EVs are "negligible". You will need to show some receipts for a claim like that.
- zepearl 5y ago
  > In addition, each taxi will be replacing at least 10 cars, if it is sufficiently cheap and convenient. Maybe the demand would be even higher than that - I'm thinking of all people that cannot drive (e.g. because of age in a few years for my parents & other relatives), the ones that don't own a car (too costly, don't want it, whatever), introverted people that don't like driving in a taxi/uber (that's me! hehe), etc... . Of course alternatives exist already now but often they lack something (e.g. bus to remote location X drives only once every few hours and/or only up to a certain time, taxi is very expensive and/or availability is unreliable) => a cheap robotaxi would be a game changer, there would be many indirect consequences (and in my opinion many would be positive, like less parking spaces needed, more mobility for old people, more flexibility about where-to-go-for-what, room in the trunk, etc...). > Main cost now are the driver, and then fuel, and then vehicle wear/tear/depreciation Especially thinking about an idle taxi vs. robotaxi (waiting for somebody wanting a ride): unbeatable, as the driver's cost not generating any revernue would not exist anymore (only vehicle deprecation based on time and cost of capital used to buy the vehicle, which are both very low) => the difference related to fixed costs would be incredible (but I assume that some additional/new cost will show up, e.g. some data-exchange-service to keep maps/routes extremely up-to-date, coverage for remote-assisted driver in the case that the car would get stuck, etc..., but that would probably still not increase costs a lot).
  - jfim 5y ago
    > Maybe the demand would be even higher than that - I'm thinking of all people that cannot drive (e.g. because of age in a few years for my parents & other relatives), the ones that don't own a car (too costly, don't want it, whatever), introverted people that don't like driving in a taxi/uber (that's me! hehe), etc... . Another thing that would increase demand would be the cheaper cost of AI driven miles compared to human driven ones. Today, it's somewhat expensive to get anything delivered from local shops, due to how expensive it is to do local point to point delivery. But if the local bakery or restaurant could deliver for a dollar or two, that would change a lot of behaviors.
- tintor 5y ago
  "each taxi will be replacing at least 10 cars" Two cars maybe, but not ten cars. Ten of us can't commute to work in the morning, and return back with the same taxi. Two round trips might fit during rush hour.
  - Teever 5y ago
    One of the easy things that we could do to improve quality of life and reduce waste would be to increase WFH and also to simply stagger work place start times somthat were not all hammering infrastructure at the same time twice a day.
    - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
      There's reasons to do that already to avoid rush hour, but somehow many people still end up getting stuck in rush hour traffic twice a day.
    - SturgeonsLaw 5y ago
      Normalise starting at 10:00am! Night owls rise up!
  - BurningFrog 5y ago
    Even assuming that rigid pattern, the cars can do other things between the rush hours. Like deliveries. Also, if there is an unused resource for most of the day, capitalism will find a use for it!
  - gibolt 5y ago
    Not all people commute. Rush hour isn't all at once, but distributed over several hours. Not all cars will be replaced right at the start, but those who use their cars the least will probably be the first to go taxi only.
- native_samples 5y ago
  You appear to be ignoring development costs. Waymo has to be one of the most fantastically expensive projects in corporate history. Even if they ramped up massively tomorrow, they'd still be charging taxi-like prices and it will take a long, long time to break even on that initial investment. But of course, they aren't ramping up tomorrow.
  - bushbaba 5y ago
    I often wonder how much higher googles stock price would be if they used that money to buy back shares.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > Main cost now are the driver, and then fuel, and then vehicle wear/tear/depreciation. An autonomous EV taxi makes all three of those comparatively negligible. How does autonomy reduce fuel consumption and wear?
  - sgerenser 5y ago
    EV reduces fuel consumption compared to ICE. I don’t think it necessarily reduces depreciation, especially if the price is much higher than a regular taxi to start with. Notwithstanding the recent year or two where cars have actually appreciated due to inflation, in general more expensive cars with more tech depreciate faster than more basic cars.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      We can have EVs without AI, and we do.
  - LandR 5y ago
    Less moving parts to wear out ?
tintor 5y ago
"Majority of people can afford $1200 smart phone" What? Majority lives on <$8 a day.
- rejor121 5y ago
  Of course they mean that the majority of people (who) can afford ( a ) 1200 smart phone ( exist )
satronaut 5y ago
i disagree with the 65,000 figure. A baseline tesla model 3 is 38000 dollars, which has a computer that can handle full self driving beta. I can see the price going down TBH
- dzhiurgis 5y ago
  Cheapest Tesla atm is 47k "FSD" is another 12k IIRC Total 59k
- nrclark 5y ago
  Tesla's FSD is really far from actually being full self-driving. There's a lot of computer required to get from 85% perfect to 99%. Uber and Cruise also both have lidar which is spendy.
- FireBeyond 5y ago
  You cannot buy a TM3 for less than $47K. And you'll be waiting a long time for it if you don't pay $12K for FSD.
- sgerenser 5y ago
  Tesla FSD isn’t what we’re talking about here, that’s a level 2 system. Robotaxis would have to be level 5, or at least level 4.
copperx 5y ago
> Cars that have this technology onboard would cost upwards of $65000 which almost no one can afford comparatively. I don't understand this line of thought. Ownership will be relegated to ultra-luxury status if cars can drive themselves.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  If I wanted to pay uber-level fares instead of owning a car, that's already a possibility. Most people will continue to own an older ICE car.

russh 5y ago

Think driverless Uber.

jatone 5y ago

businesses can afford it though. 65K to replace a very large, yearly, expense of a driver? you bet your ass they are going to switch and fast. That is what is going to cause most of the fallout. the ROI is basically 1 year, 2 tops.

gibolt 5y ago

The economics of a robotaxi are insane. Main cost now are the driver, and then fuel, and then vehicle wear/tear/depreciation. An autonomous EV taxi makes all three of those comparatively negligible. Profit per year per vehicle could be $25k+, meaning it is in their best interest to produce as many cars as possible. In addition, each taxi will be replacing at least 10 cars, if it is sufficiently cheap and convenient.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
at-fates-hands 5y ago
Just looking at some data on Tesla's: According to RepairPal, the average Tesla maintenance cost is $832 per year. That compares to an average of $652 per year for all car models sold in the United States. Depending on which services your Tesla needs, you may end up spending much more than the average car owner on yearly maintenance needs. Also, Tesla's aren't known for their reliability: Though not much information exists yet about the overall reliability of Tesla models, early results aren’t encouraging. In the J.D. Power 2021 U.S. Vehicle Dependability StudySM, Tesla ranked 30th of 33 car brands for overall reliability. That’s better than only Jaguar, Alfa Romeo, and Land Rover among all automakers across the country. J.D. Power reported an average of 176 mechanical issues per 100 Tesla vehicles, compared to an industry average of 121 issues. The organization notes, though, that it doesn’t rank the electric car brand with other major automakers because it doesn’t meet the study’s criteria. What can be known is that Tesla models break down relatively regularly and that Tesla maintenance costs are pretty steep. https://jalopnik.com/advisor/tesla-maintenance-cost/ https://jalopnik.com/advisor/tesla-maintenance-cost/ Unreliable cars and a pretty steep per year cost to maintain them, along with steep repair costs (a broken door handle will run you about 1K plus labor)? This doesn't sound like the pipedream you're selling me here.
- gibolt 5y ago
  Their reliability score does not take into account severity. Most things reported are super minor, and all are within the first year. Luxury cars are the 'worst' in these surveys, because owners are pickier. True reliability metrics are average years on the road and miles driven.
  - unregistereddev 5y ago
    Tesla ranks behind Lexus, Acura, BMW, Cadillac, Lincoln, and many other luxury cars in the same reliability studies. Even if most things are minor, they still have significantly more problems than the established automakers. I wonder whether the average amount spent on non-warranty repairs would be a good metric to add to "average years on the road and miles driven". That would hopefully remove initial defects from the first few years and also remove defects that are so minor that most people won't pay to have them fixed.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > Their reliability score does not take into account severity. Therefore Tesla's reliability might be even worse.
- robocat 5y ago
  > Tesla maintenance cost is $832 per year. That compares to an average of $652 per year I would be very careful before relying on those maintenance cost figures - they are very dependant upon the age of the vehicles and neither figure sounds realistic, if you look at the following information. https://www.yourmechanic.com/article/the-most-and-least-expensive-cars-to-maintain-by-maddy-martin https://www.yourmechanic.com/article/the-most-and-least-expe... The link shows the cheapest average cost to maintain a vehicle over 10 years was $550/annum for a Toyota in 2016, and the most expensive was $1780/annum for BMW. More importantly, further down, the article shows the cost increase over time for maintenance is about +$150/annum. At age 10 years the average maintenance is $1500, and it plateaus at about $2000/annum (because people retire vehicles when they get too expensive to maintain). A Tesla doesn’t have oil changes or combustion engine problems, so some maintenance costs are reduced. However the battery eventually needs replacing, which is a large expense, so you must know whether the battery replacement is included in average yearly maintenance costs or not, before the figure is useable over the long term.
mdoms 5y ago
I am convinced people who believe "wear and tear" on electric cars is "negligible" have never owned a vehicle. I worked as a mechanic at a bunch of small mum and pop businesses. Other than oil changes and brake pads (which will be less of a concern with electrics) nothing changes. The bulk of work in shops like that is suspension and steering (bushings, shocks, hydraulics), running gear (wheel bearings, hubs), AC problems (pumps and clutches mainly) and failing electrical parts (bulbs, starter motors, coil packs, wiring gremlins). Electric cars are heavy, so expect more suspension failures. Running gear doesn't really change. AC is identical but with electric motors (prone to failure). Electrics will be worse if anything.
- gibolt 5y ago
  Suspension failures are not particularly common, EVs aren't that much heavier, and maintenance can still be done. While EVs are somewhat heavier, there are plenty of crazy heavy ICE vehicles that work without issue. Tire wear may increase, but a robotaxi can also optimize driving style to reduce it. None of those costs matter, compared to ICE. EVs just have less things that can break, and even less things that result in EOL or catastrophic failure. The more miles a taxi runs for, the more money it makes. Even if costs increased, the profit would easily make up for it.
  - mdoms 5y ago
    > Suspension failures are not particularly common Only because we regularly service them by replacing bushings, CV joints and ball joints regularly. And shock absorber failures are still commonplace. > EVs aren't that much heavier They're much heavier. It's obviously hard to make a direct comparison because there's no such thing as "equivalent but with an ICE engine" but a Golf E weighs about 250kg more than a Golf GTI. > there are plenty of crazy heavy ICE vehicles that work without issue And they have heavier duty components which require more servicing and are more expensive to replace. > None of those costs matter, compared to ICE. Can you show me some evidence for this? I am not making the claim that EVs are more expensive to maintain than ICE cars, but you made the claim that wear and tear costs (aka maintenance costs) on EVs are "negligible". You will need to show some receipts for a claim like that.
zepearl 5y ago
> In addition, each taxi will be replacing at least 10 cars, if it is sufficiently cheap and convenient. Maybe the demand would be even higher than that - I'm thinking of all people that cannot drive (e.g. because of age in a few years for my parents & other relatives), the ones that don't own a car (too costly, don't want it, whatever), introverted people that don't like driving in a taxi/uber (that's me! hehe), etc... . Of course alternatives exist already now but often they lack something (e.g. bus to remote location X drives only once every few hours and/or only up to a certain time, taxi is very expensive and/or availability is unreliable) => a cheap robotaxi would be a game changer, there would be many indirect consequences (and in my opinion many would be positive, like less parking spaces needed, more mobility for old people, more flexibility about where-to-go-for-what, room in the trunk, etc...). > Main cost now are the driver, and then fuel, and then vehicle wear/tear/depreciation Especially thinking about an idle taxi vs. robotaxi (waiting for somebody wanting a ride): unbeatable, as the driver's cost not generating any revernue would not exist anymore (only vehicle deprecation based on time and cost of capital used to buy the vehicle, which are both very low) => the difference related to fixed costs would be incredible (but I assume that some additional/new cost will show up, e.g. some data-exchange-service to keep maps/routes extremely up-to-date, coverage for remote-assisted driver in the case that the car would get stuck, etc..., but that would probably still not increase costs a lot).
- jfim 5y ago
  > Maybe the demand would be even higher than that - I'm thinking of all people that cannot drive (e.g. because of age in a few years for my parents & other relatives), the ones that don't own a car (too costly, don't want it, whatever), introverted people that don't like driving in a taxi/uber (that's me! hehe), etc... . Another thing that would increase demand would be the cheaper cost of AI driven miles compared to human driven ones. Today, it's somewhat expensive to get anything delivered from local shops, due to how expensive it is to do local point to point delivery. But if the local bakery or restaurant could deliver for a dollar or two, that would change a lot of behaviors.
tintor 5y ago
"each taxi will be replacing at least 10 cars" Two cars maybe, but not ten cars. Ten of us can't commute to work in the morning, and return back with the same taxi. Two round trips might fit during rush hour.
- Teever 5y ago
  One of the easy things that we could do to improve quality of life and reduce waste would be to increase WFH and also to simply stagger work place start times somthat were not all hammering infrastructure at the same time twice a day.
  - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
    There's reasons to do that already to avoid rush hour, but somehow many people still end up getting stuck in rush hour traffic twice a day.
  - SturgeonsLaw 5y ago
    Normalise starting at 10:00am! Night owls rise up!
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  Even assuming that rigid pattern, the cars can do other things between the rush hours. Like deliveries. Also, if there is an unused resource for most of the day, capitalism will find a use for it!
- gibolt 5y ago
  Not all people commute. Rush hour isn't all at once, but distributed over several hours. Not all cars will be replaced right at the start, but those who use their cars the least will probably be the first to go taxi only.
native_samples 5y ago
You appear to be ignoring development costs. Waymo has to be one of the most fantastically expensive projects in corporate history. Even if they ramped up massively tomorrow, they'd still be charging taxi-like prices and it will take a long, long time to break even on that initial investment. But of course, they aren't ramping up tomorrow.
- bushbaba 5y ago
  I often wonder how much higher googles stock price would be if they used that money to buy back shares.
wolverine876 5y ago
> Main cost now are the driver, and then fuel, and then vehicle wear/tear/depreciation. An autonomous EV taxi makes all three of those comparatively negligible. How does autonomy reduce fuel consumption and wear?
- sgerenser 5y ago
  EV reduces fuel consumption compared to ICE. I don’t think it necessarily reduces depreciation, especially if the price is much higher than a regular taxi to start with. Notwithstanding the recent year or two where cars have actually appreciated due to inflation, in general more expensive cars with more tech depreciate faster than more basic cars.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    We can have EVs without AI, and we do.
- LandR 5y ago
  Less moving parts to wear out ?

tintor 5y ago

"Majority of people can afford $1200 smart phone" What? Majority lives on <$8 a day.

rejor121 5y ago
Of course they mean that the majority of people (who) can afford ( a ) 1200 smart phone ( exist )

satronaut 5y ago

i disagree with the 65,000 figure. A baseline tesla model 3 is 38000 dollars, which has a computer that can handle full self driving beta. I can see the price going down TBH

dzhiurgis 5y ago
Cheapest Tesla atm is 47k "FSD" is another 12k IIRC Total 59k
nrclark 5y ago
Tesla's FSD is really far from actually being full self-driving. There's a lot of computer required to get from 85% perfect to 99%. Uber and Cruise also both have lidar which is spendy.
FireBeyond 5y ago
You cannot buy a TM3 for less than $47K. And you'll be waiting a long time for it if you don't pay $12K for FSD.
sgerenser 5y ago
Tesla FSD isn’t what we’re talking about here, that’s a level 2 system. Robotaxis would have to be level 5, or at least level 4.

copperx 5y ago

> Cars that have this technology onboard would cost upwards of $65000 which almost no one can afford comparatively. I don't understand this line of thought. Ownership will be relegated to ultra-luxury status if cars can drive themselves.

HWR_14 5y ago
If I wanted to pay uber-level fares instead of owning a car, that's already a possibility. Most people will continue to own an older ICE car.