>The customer is trying to solve a problem. The customer is trying to solve a problem by signing up for something that is, essentially, a beta program and comp

>The customer is trying to solve a problem. The customer is trying to solve a problem by signing up for something that is, essentially, a beta program and complaining that it's not capable of doing things that a non-beta program with ostensibly different functionality, and different federal/state regulations, is capable of doing. >Also, the limitations discussed above are not inherent to self driving. We have good reason to expect eventual parity or even general superiority to conventional taxis. ... that's great and all, but "eventual" is doing some heavy lifting there, to the point where I just want to go, "... so?". You then follow it up with a strong "If" statement and talk more about a potential future state. Right now, they are functionally different products even though the customer need they're trying to service is the same. That is an apples/oranges comparison - apples and oranges both provide sustenance and nutrition (read: getting a car-less individual from point A to point B), but the experience of eating them (read: riding Uber vs Waymo) is different from one another. >The existence of apples does not put oranges into existential crisis. It's at this point that I'm starting to get the suspicion that you're taking my comments a bit further than I've intended them to be taken. I've made no argument about the long-term existence of Waymo here, just a quick observation about how it's odd to "complain" about brand new technology that is still being ironed out. >If Waymo brings their price down and can take better routes, customers will also wonder why even choose Uber or Lyft, and it won't be due to ignorance that they make this vice versa comparison. Again, "if" something happens in the future. I'm talking about current state.