3 ms·

There’s no evidence that this is even going to be a viable business model, commercially or technically. There’s no “moat” around it or obvious first mover advan

There’s no evidence that this is even going to be a viable business model, commercially or technically. There’s no “moat” around it or obvious first mover advantage. It seems very early to worry about competition.

Shawnj2 2y ago
I mean Waymo already has competitors, Uber, Lyft, and regular taxis. Right now Uber and Lyft are typically strategically priced to be slightly cheaper than taxis are but I think Uber has enough margin to cut costs to compete with Waymo as they enter more markets, and Waymo needs to get people on board to make robotaxis a real thing people use and to offset their dev costs.
dpe82 2y ago
First mover advantages: a) Early technology adopters are more forgiving of minor problems and are your free word-of-mouth marketers. The company benefits from lowered GTM costs. b) Fast, reliable service depends on density; there needs to be enough cars on the road that there's always one available within a few minutes when you open the app; users will develop a habit of choosing whichever provider is reliably faster and that habit will become ingrained, making market entry for later movers more costly. First movers also have the advantage of their early adopters helping pay for their fleet as it's built up; later movers have to flood new markets with subsidized capacity to get to equivalent density. That works (Uber did it for rideshare) but it's expensive. So again: lower GTM costs. Regarding whether this will be a viable market - Lyft/Uber have already demonstrated there's tons of demand for on-demand transportation services, and Waymo in SF is already very popular. One can back-of-the-envelope whether the economics work but generally speaking any time you replace labor with automation in a large market, it does. In the long run though you're right that there isn't a moat that can't be solved with massive capital investment. But you could say the same about many markets; turns out one can have a successful company within a competitive market the old fashioned way.. by just being really good. It's harder, but it works.

Shawnj2 2y ago

I mean Waymo already has competitors, Uber, Lyft, and regular taxis. Right now Uber and Lyft are typically strategically priced to be slightly cheaper than taxis are but I think Uber has enough margin to cut costs to compete with Waymo as they enter more markets, and Waymo needs to get people on board to make robotaxis a real thing people use and to offset their dev costs.

dpe82 2y ago

First mover advantages: a) Early technology adopters are more forgiving of minor problems and are your free word-of-mouth marketers. The company benefits from lowered GTM costs. b) Fast, reliable service depends on density; there needs to be enough cars on the road that there's always one available within a few minutes when you open the app; users will develop a habit of choosing whichever provider is reliably faster and that habit will become ingrained, making market entry for later movers more costly. First movers also have the advantage of their early adopters helping pay for their fleet as it's built up; later movers have to flood new markets with subsidized capacity to get to equivalent density. That works (Uber did it for rideshare) but it's expensive. So again: lower GTM costs. Regarding whether this will be a viable market - Lyft/Uber have already demonstrated there's tons of demand for on-demand transportation services, and Waymo in SF is already very popular. One can back-of-the-envelope whether the economics work but generally speaking any time you replace labor with automation in a large market, it does. In the long run though you're right that there isn't a moat that can't be solved with massive capital investment. But you could say the same about many markets; turns out one can have a successful company within a competitive market the old fashioned way.. by just being really good. It's harder, but it works.