3 ms·
It's a dollar or two more expensive than the corresponding Uber (non-shared) fare in my experience, so a bit less after tips. Keep in mind that the "true" price
by AlotOfReading 3y ago
It's a dollar or two more expensive than the corresponding Uber (non-shared) fare in my experience, so a bit less after tips. Keep in mind that the "true" price of these services probably isn't the biggest pricing factor right now. The cost is a way to manage demand, get some additional income, and investigate what the market will bear.
- bko 3y agoI doubt they're profitable though. From Bing: > As of the latest available information, Waymo is not yet profitable. Alphabet’s Q2 2023 earnings report indicated that its “Other Bets” category, which includes Waymo, had revenues of $285 million and an operating loss of $813 million. This was a decrease in operating loss from $1.34 billion in the second quarter of 2022, but still significant. Over the last five years, “Other Bets” has generated $3 billion in cumulative revenue but incurred $20 billion in operating losses, with Waymo constituting the bulk of these losses. I just don't see the end game. Are marginal rides not profitable even at Uber fates? Uber for instance was losing money because they were taking rev from profitable cities to give incentives and build up drivers in the new markets. But Waymo doesn't have that problem. Is it just GPU spend that they can eventually stop?
- suzakus 3y agoNothing about that quote indicates that waymo loses money on marginal rides, rather that it loses money in aggregate which is not particularly surprising considering low overall volume , r&d overhead of both head count and things like cars and facilities to store said cars
- AlotOfReading 3y agoI suspect it's vaguely near gross profit, that is excluding almost all the expensive engineers, marketing, R&D costs, new silicon development costs, etc. It's not remotely operationally profitable though, you're right. The business model is pretty simple. Robotaxis can operate much cheaper than humans and simultaneously provide a better service. Competing at the same cost as existing services makes them massively profitable. You can unlock additional efficiencies through things like fleet management, not supporting unprofitable cities the way Uber has to, vehicles designed for longer service lives and so on. Most companies plan to use that market (and closely associated ones like food delivery) as a profitable beachhead to scale down the technology to the point where it can be applied more ubiquitously in things like consumer vehicles. Some are more vocal about this than others.
- jackcosgrove 3y agoI wonder if anyone has done an analysis looking at a set of tasks and ordering them according to the ease of automating them compared to the cost of labor. Self-driving cars seem like a poor choice of market, since the task is very complex and there are also many people worldwide who are willing to work as drivers. The sweet spot would be a task that is easy to automate and also doesn't have much human competition. Obviously the OG automation case of assembly lines fits this. LLMs can occupy this space since there are probably more people who can drive a car than can write grammatically correct natural language. I would put self-driving trains in this category as well but that's an outsider's perspective.