6 ms·

Waymos will get cheaper to make as they scale up. The Ioniq version [1] costs less to build. All the sheet metal and mechanical mods for Waymo are done at the H

Waymos will get cheaper to make as they scale up. The Ioniq version [1] costs less to build. All the sheet metal and mechanical mods for Waymo are done at the Hyundai factory in Georgia.[2] Waymo just mounts the electronics. Jobs at the Hyundai factory start at $23.66/hour, with reasonably good benefits.[3] [1] https://waymo.com/blog/2024/10/waymo-and-hyundai-enter-partnership/ https://waymo.com/blog/2024/10/waymo-and-hyundai-enter-partn... [2] https://www.hmgma.com/ https://www.hmgma.com/ [3] https://careers-americas.hyundai.com/hmgma/job/Ellabell-Production-Team-Member-%281st-Shift%29-GA-31308/1277384600/ https://careers-americas.hyundai.com/hmgma/job/Ellabell-Prod...

passwordoops 1y ago
>Waymos will get cheaper to make as they scale up. Meaning their profits will rise as they inevitably increase prices
- elcritch 1y ago
  Exactly, capitalism isn't about putting capital to work doing things. It's only concern is share holder profit!
- silvr 1y ago
  Minority view here I'm sure but maybe profits are a just reward for inventing the future - this is literally science fiction come to life
  - owebmaster 1y ago
    Facebook was once inventing the future, too
  - MegaButts 1y ago
    Self-driving cars are cool but I'd rather have good public transit. These vehicles clearly have utility beyond just public transit, but I'd rather they be an edge case rather than considered a main solution. So yeah, from my perspective the problem is being focused on profits instead of trying to solve the real problem with solutions that have already existed for decades. If you zoom out a bit, your argument would be more-or-less the same when regular automobiles were replacing the functioning transit systems in the USA, specifically in LA.
    - AlotOfReading 1y ago
      I've never really understood this "improve public transit instead of autonomous vehicles" argument. They're two entirely distinct funding sources. Nothing is preventing us from improving public transit except the same things that always have.
      - oblio 1y ago
        People funding autonomous driving will obviously lobby against increased funding for public transit and they will also fund demonizing public transit. Look at Musk and Vegas. The vast majority of mass transportation in Vegas should be handled by actual public transit, most likely high speed rail from LA and light rail along the Strip to downtown Vegas and a few other places. Instead Vegas has a silly monorail, a few buses that don't even get dedicated bus lanes on 8+ lane stroads and something stupid like, dunno, 20 daily flights from LA. Plus Musk setting up tunnels or hyperloops or other stupidities.
        AlotOfReading 1y ago
        Musk doesn't need autonomous vehicles to derail public transit. Hyperloop predated FSD, to use your example. Moreover, the objection applies equally to taxis and Uber/Lyft. It's also not an actionable objection. Let's say we go and ban autonomous vehicles. Why wouldn't the same billionaires simply continue lobbying against public transit improvements and for the repeal of the ban? They have the money to do both. We haven't failed to invest sufficiently in public transit for 50+ years solely because of billionaire lobbying. That's not the blocker.
        achatham 1y ago
        As a counter to your one example: I've worked on autonomous vehicles for 16 years and my largest philanthropic effort is improving public transit. The common theme is being really interested in transportation and wanting it to work well for people. Cruise was also the top funder of one San Francisco's recent MUNI funding ballot propositions (which just barely failed). You can certainly have a cynical take on that, but they still did it.
  - chipsrafferty 1y ago
    You sound young and naive
  - ghushn3 1y ago
    Why? Why is not "everyone has access" and "wellbeing for everyone" the reward for inventing the future? Why is "that person gets to be extraordinarily wealthy" for inventing the future rather than "we all chipped in so we could all benefit" for inventing the future? If Waymos make the world better and safer and more convenient, why are they not simply something we figure out how to make a public good? In Star Trek you didn't have to pay to take the turbolift or transporter around large spaces, everyone got the benefits of the technology.
    - Dylan16807 1y ago
      > Why is "that person gets to be extraordinarily wealthy" for inventing the future rather than "we all chipped in so we could all benefit" for inventing the future? Well obviously we want a lot of the benefit to be the latter. But if you don't have some of the former, then almost no multi-billion-dollar-cost inventions get made in the first place.
      - ghushn3 1y ago
        Yuri Gagarin was the first man in orbit, and that was absolutely a multi-billion dollar invention. Alan Turing didn't pursue his ideas because he wanted to get wealth beyond imagining. Mondragon makes billions of dollars annually, and strongly limits executive pay. I think it's very reasonable to assume that we can, we have historically, and currently do, make multi-billion dollar investments for the good of all. The idea that it requires some profit incentive is, imo, a pernicious falsehood.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        > Yuri Gagarin was the first man in orbit, and that was absolutely a multi-billion dollar invention. That was government-funded. Most projects aren't that lucky. And are any governments funding self-driving cars? > Alan Turing didn't pursue his ideas because he wanted to get wealth beyond imagining. I said multi billion dollar cost. Not multi billion dollar benefit. He's not an example. > Mondragon makes billions of dollars annually, and strongly limits executive pay. Have they made any inventions that required a billion dollars or more? Ten billion? But you saying "makes billions" is exactly what I'm talking about. It's great that they don't pay a lot of money to executives and the workers own things. But the company invested money and the company profited. It didn't all go to making the world a better place. You avoid particularly wealthy people when a coop can self-fund, but the coop is still trying to profit off the result of the research. And if a risky research project ever can't be self-funded, then whatever/whoever makes the loan might make a huge profit. If that incentive isn't there, the loan doesn't happen and the research doesn't happen. > I think it's very reasonable to assume that we can, we have historically, and currently do, make multi-billion dollar investments for the good of all. The idea that it requires some profit incentive is, imo, a pernicious falsehood. It doesn't require it, but if you make it possible to profit off research then you end up with much more money spent on research.
- BurningFrog 1y ago
  There is plenty of competition coming to hold prices down.
- KPGv2 1y ago
  In my experience, most price increases are in labor-intensive industries. Construction, etc. Compare with tech, which is what a Waymo is like: computers, TVs, etc are insanely cheap compared to their equivalents in the past. I had to point out to a Gen Zer complaining about how video game companies keep jacking up prices ("this game for the Switch is $80!") by pointing out that when you adjusted for inflation, a Super Nintendo game cost over $100 in today's money.
  - oblio 1y ago
    What do you think is happening, now that the hyper scalers stopped growing by more than 20-30% per year? We're just entering the maturity stage of the tech world. 10-20 years from now all these subscriptions will reach and exceed cable levels.
- kelnos 1y ago
  Well it depends on their competition and what the market will bear. If they have competitors with a similar-quality product that is undercutting them on price, Waymo will have to lower prices to compete. And regardless, there's always a ceiling when it comes to what people will pay. In the case of a robotaxi there's of course significant marginal cost to expand the fleet of vehicles, but if they can make more money with more cars at a lower price point (than fewer cars at a higher price point), then they'll do so.
  - oblio 1y ago
    > If they have competitors with a similar-quality product that is undercutting them on price, Waymo will have to lower prices to compete. Oligopoly, cartels, huge barriers to entry into the market. I appreciate your optimism in the free market for a domain where you have to spend tens of billions of dollars to even enter it
harmmonica 1y ago
We're far from them doing it, but I have to imagine at some point Waymo, assuming they survive, will operate similar to Uber and Lyft in terms of pricing vs vehicle type. They have to realize how critical consistency-of-ride is so I'm not suggesting they'll have tons of options, but they will "have to" tier their offering lest someone else comes along (assuming the tech becomes more widespread) and offers a tier they don't offer. At the least I would think they'll end up with a base ride (like an Ioniq or even something extremely basic), an Ioniq or Ioniq+ type in the middle and then some kind of larger, more luxurious option. I mean this as it relates to rideshare because I'm sure Waymo has had plenty of internal conversations about the various verticals they can eventually operate (shipping, mass transit, etc.).
- Animats 1y ago
  There's a larger Ioniq 9. But the real future is probably a 2-seater with no steering wheel. That handles most usage.
  - kelnos 1y ago
    This makes lots of sense to me. A 2-seater is often a hard sell for a private owner (even one with no kids), but I'd bet the majority (or at least a plurality) of taxi/ride-share trips are for one or two people.
  - harmmonica 1y ago
    That's really interesting because I hadn't actually thought about that in-depth before. I think Tesla's robotaxi prototype was even a 2-seater. My knee-jerk reaction to your comment was "no, 2 seater won't happen because the incremental cost of the additional seats and doors is immaterial to the overall cost of the car." But then thinking more about it I thought of how great we (all the people who like Waymo) think it performs around bikes and pedestrians. So now I agree with you directionally but you might not be taking it far enough. Once (if?) autonomous vehicles rule the road, and they're known to be safe, the future will likely be the broad spectrum from autonomous buses (on the large side) to super-cheap, bike-like vehicles (on the small side) that cost way less than a car. For a single occupant, if you knew another vehicle wasn't going to kill you, wouldn't you take an e-bike (with a cover and basket on it?) for short trips if the fee was proportionate to the cost of the vehicle? I would. Assumes lidar shrinks I guess and that automated kickstands are a thing, but that seems tractable in the years to come.
autobodie 1y ago
$23.66/hour in Savannah, GA in 2025 is a starvation wage. Savannah has a bad housing squeeze with very few apartments and they still cost nearly $2K/mo when you find them. God bless those poor souls.
- strictnein 1y ago
  Savannah's COL is 22% below the national average. $23.66/hr starting pay plus benefits definitely isn't a "starvation wage".
  - turtlesdown11 1y ago
    > In Chatham County, the living wage per hour necessary for one adult with no children is $22.46 while those with one kid is $35.70, two kids is $43.45, and three kids is $56.93. https://www.savannahnow.com/story/news/2024/12/09/what-is-a-living-wage-in-georgia-what-the-mit-calculator-says/76825626007/ https://www.savannahnow.com/story/news/2024/12/09/what-is-a-...
    - strictnein 1y ago
      So the entry level job at the factory is a living wage for the area it's in. Sounds like that's what people have been asking for?
    - kelnos 1y ago
      So that's fine then? A family of four with both parents working at $23.66/hr each is $3.87/hr above that level. Unless you're saying "starvation wage" and "living wage" are the same thing, which I don't think is a reasonable characterization. Only problem is if they decide to have a third kid, or if you have a single parent with one or more kids. And while I get that unforeseen things happen to people that lower their wages after they already have their kids, I'm also tired of people becoming parents without considering the financial aspects ahead of time. If you're making minimum wage and are barely surviving, don't have kids until you're on steadier ground.
      - 1y ago
barchar 1y ago
I bet they will try and expand service area over expanding inventory. It's very expensive to keep cars in reserve for peak times, Uber gets around this by offloading the cost onto their drivers, but waymo will need to be able to pull cars from nearby areas.
dilyevsky 1y ago
jags and ioniqs are a midway stop for sure. there's no need to have a seat you can't use with a steering wheel and windows that are not totally blacked out. the final product would probably resemble something closer to Cruise One concept.
- notatoad 1y ago
  the next step has already been announced. the holdup is regulatory approval for less-conventional vehicles. https://insideevs.com/photos/802937/waymo-zeekr-robotaxi/#6965062_waymo-zeekr-robotaxi-doors-open-revealing-interior https://insideevs.com/photos/802937/waymo-zeekr-robotaxi/#69...
  - dilyevsky 1y ago
    Yeah I know about Geely and under current circumstances I categorize this as "never gonna happen". There's probably better chance of partnering with GM at this point...
    - nebula8804 1y ago
      Why would they even entertain the idea of even talking to a Chinese OEM. This is obviously very important technology and Google must know the Chinese history of IP theft. They are not in the Chinese market because of this! Zeeker must have given them such an unbelievable deal that Google couldn't pass it up. Either that or the other OEMs have really soured on them. I always thought the idea of OEMs being reduced to generic white label badges while companies like Waymo make all the profit on the future of "on demand" transportation is not appealing to them. Companies like GM tried to cut Waymo out by buying Cruise but it hasn't worked out. I guess if the stock price of one of these OEMs falls enough, maybe Waymo can just buy them out but do they really want to take on that obligation?
      - notatoad 1y ago
        i don't beleive that waymo is letting zeekr have any IP - the plan is to buy dumb vehicles and upfit them.
asdfman123 1y ago
What's expensive about operating a Waymo? Do the capital costs exceed that of the driver's salary?
1024core 1y ago
The other day I almost got ran over by an old lady in her old Volvo wagon at a stop sign. She seemed to have gotten confused a little and was turning left but couldn't figure out the right move to make. People behind her honked and she decided to just go for it. I happened to be in the crosswalk and just happened to look over at the honking, and saw her coming, so managed to jump out of her way. She was easily over 90, if not over 95. People like her could really benefit from a personal Waymo. Just sell a car with FSD built in, at the level of a Waymo, and bam! That would make so many senior citizens' lives easier!
- chipsrafferty 1y ago
  Why sell a car when you can charge per ride?
  - 1024core 1y ago
    Supply. There may not be enough Waymos sitting around to satisfy all of the demand at a point in time.
  - sagarm 1y ago
    It's not so much "why sell the car" but more "who is going to buy this car?" Plus, without maintenance the self-driving capability will probably degrade and become unsafe.
  - jgerrish 1y ago
    Well, you wouldn't have to sell the car. You could also setup a licensing / loan / dedicated car system. It would work well for local municipalities that want to provide low-cost door-to-door service for the elderly. We have a bus service here, The ART, and a dedicates "paratransit" bus service that provides door-to-door service to eligible riders. And a couple private large-scale developed and managed neighborhoods that have driverless non-automated (remote controlled) transit systems. If you know a large portion of your riders have disabilities, dedicated buses or vans make sense. I'm sitting here advocating for this, and it's a great service that I'm glad they have it for those in need, and yet I need fucking plywood for hurricanes myself. Yeah, it is Florida. But honestly, the transit system here and bike infrastructure development and traffic planning is good.

passwordoops 1y ago

>Waymos will get cheaper to make as they scale up. Meaning their profits will rise as they inevitably increase prices

elcritch 1y ago
Exactly, capitalism isn't about putting capital to work doing things. It's only concern is share holder profit!
silvr 1y ago
Minority view here I'm sure but maybe profits are a just reward for inventing the future - this is literally science fiction come to life
- owebmaster 1y ago
  Facebook was once inventing the future, too
- MegaButts 1y ago
  Self-driving cars are cool but I'd rather have good public transit. These vehicles clearly have utility beyond just public transit, but I'd rather they be an edge case rather than considered a main solution. So yeah, from my perspective the problem is being focused on profits instead of trying to solve the real problem with solutions that have already existed for decades. If you zoom out a bit, your argument would be more-or-less the same when regular automobiles were replacing the functioning transit systems in the USA, specifically in LA.
  - AlotOfReading 1y ago
    I've never really understood this "improve public transit instead of autonomous vehicles" argument. They're two entirely distinct funding sources. Nothing is preventing us from improving public transit except the same things that always have.
    - oblio 1y ago
      People funding autonomous driving will obviously lobby against increased funding for public transit and they will also fund demonizing public transit. Look at Musk and Vegas. The vast majority of mass transportation in Vegas should be handled by actual public transit, most likely high speed rail from LA and light rail along the Strip to downtown Vegas and a few other places. Instead Vegas has a silly monorail, a few buses that don't even get dedicated bus lanes on 8+ lane stroads and something stupid like, dunno, 20 daily flights from LA. Plus Musk setting up tunnels or hyperloops or other stupidities.
      - AlotOfReading 1y ago
        Musk doesn't need autonomous vehicles to derail public transit. Hyperloop predated FSD, to use your example. Moreover, the objection applies equally to taxis and Uber/Lyft. It's also not an actionable objection. Let's say we go and ban autonomous vehicles. Why wouldn't the same billionaires simply continue lobbying against public transit improvements and for the repeal of the ban? They have the money to do both. We haven't failed to invest sufficiently in public transit for 50+ years solely because of billionaire lobbying. That's not the blocker.
      - achatham 1y ago
        As a counter to your one example: I've worked on autonomous vehicles for 16 years and my largest philanthropic effort is improving public transit. The common theme is being really interested in transportation and wanting it to work well for people. Cruise was also the top funder of one San Francisco's recent MUNI funding ballot propositions (which just barely failed). You can certainly have a cynical take on that, but they still did it.
- chipsrafferty 1y ago
  You sound young and naive
- ghushn3 1y ago
  Why? Why is not "everyone has access" and "wellbeing for everyone" the reward for inventing the future? Why is "that person gets to be extraordinarily wealthy" for inventing the future rather than "we all chipped in so we could all benefit" for inventing the future? If Waymos make the world better and safer and more convenient, why are they not simply something we figure out how to make a public good? In Star Trek you didn't have to pay to take the turbolift or transporter around large spaces, everyone got the benefits of the technology.
  - Dylan16807 1y ago
    > Why is "that person gets to be extraordinarily wealthy" for inventing the future rather than "we all chipped in so we could all benefit" for inventing the future? Well obviously we want a lot of the benefit to be the latter. But if you don't have some of the former, then almost no multi-billion-dollar-cost inventions get made in the first place.
    - ghushn3 1y ago
      Yuri Gagarin was the first man in orbit, and that was absolutely a multi-billion dollar invention. Alan Turing didn't pursue his ideas because he wanted to get wealth beyond imagining. Mondragon makes billions of dollars annually, and strongly limits executive pay. I think it's very reasonable to assume that we can, we have historically, and currently do, make multi-billion dollar investments for the good of all. The idea that it requires some profit incentive is, imo, a pernicious falsehood.
      - Dylan16807 1y ago
        > Yuri Gagarin was the first man in orbit, and that was absolutely a multi-billion dollar invention. That was government-funded. Most projects aren't that lucky. And are any governments funding self-driving cars? > Alan Turing didn't pursue his ideas because he wanted to get wealth beyond imagining. I said multi billion dollar cost. Not multi billion dollar benefit. He's not an example. > Mondragon makes billions of dollars annually, and strongly limits executive pay. Have they made any inventions that required a billion dollars or more? Ten billion? But you saying "makes billions" is exactly what I'm talking about. It's great that they don't pay a lot of money to executives and the workers own things. But the company invested money and the company profited. It didn't all go to making the world a better place. You avoid particularly wealthy people when a coop can self-fund, but the coop is still trying to profit off the result of the research. And if a risky research project ever can't be self-funded, then whatever/whoever makes the loan might make a huge profit. If that incentive isn't there, the loan doesn't happen and the research doesn't happen. > I think it's very reasonable to assume that we can, we have historically, and currently do, make multi-billion dollar investments for the good of all. The idea that it requires some profit incentive is, imo, a pernicious falsehood. It doesn't require it, but if you make it possible to profit off research then you end up with much more money spent on research.
BurningFrog 1y ago
There is plenty of competition coming to hold prices down.
KPGv2 1y ago
In my experience, most price increases are in labor-intensive industries. Construction, etc. Compare with tech, which is what a Waymo is like: computers, TVs, etc are insanely cheap compared to their equivalents in the past. I had to point out to a Gen Zer complaining about how video game companies keep jacking up prices ("this game for the Switch is $80!") by pointing out that when you adjusted for inflation, a Super Nintendo game cost over $100 in today's money.
- oblio 1y ago
  What do you think is happening, now that the hyper scalers stopped growing by more than 20-30% per year? We're just entering the maturity stage of the tech world. 10-20 years from now all these subscriptions will reach and exceed cable levels.
kelnos 1y ago
Well it depends on their competition and what the market will bear. If they have competitors with a similar-quality product that is undercutting them on price, Waymo will have to lower prices to compete. And regardless, there's always a ceiling when it comes to what people will pay. In the case of a robotaxi there's of course significant marginal cost to expand the fleet of vehicles, but if they can make more money with more cars at a lower price point (than fewer cars at a higher price point), then they'll do so.
- oblio 1y ago
  > If they have competitors with a similar-quality product that is undercutting them on price, Waymo will have to lower prices to compete. Oligopoly, cartels, huge barriers to entry into the market. I appreciate your optimism in the free market for a domain where you have to spend tens of billions of dollars to even enter it

harmmonica 1y ago

We're far from them doing it, but I have to imagine at some point Waymo, assuming they survive, will operate similar to Uber and Lyft in terms of pricing vs vehicle type. They have to realize how critical consistency-of-ride is so I'm not suggesting they'll have tons of options, but they will "have to" tier their offering lest someone else comes along (assuming the tech becomes more widespread) and offers a tier they don't offer. At the least I would think they'll end up with a base ride (like an Ioniq or even something extremely basic), an Ioniq or Ioniq+ type in the middle and then some kind of larger, more luxurious option. I mean this as it relates to rideshare because I'm sure Waymo has had plenty of internal conversations about the various verticals they can eventually operate (shipping, mass transit, etc.).

Animats 1y ago
There's a larger Ioniq 9. But the real future is probably a 2-seater with no steering wheel. That handles most usage.
- kelnos 1y ago
  This makes lots of sense to me. A 2-seater is often a hard sell for a private owner (even one with no kids), but I'd bet the majority (or at least a plurality) of taxi/ride-share trips are for one or two people.
- harmmonica 1y ago
  That's really interesting because I hadn't actually thought about that in-depth before. I think Tesla's robotaxi prototype was even a 2-seater. My knee-jerk reaction to your comment was "no, 2 seater won't happen because the incremental cost of the additional seats and doors is immaterial to the overall cost of the car." But then thinking more about it I thought of how great we (all the people who like Waymo) think it performs around bikes and pedestrians. So now I agree with you directionally but you might not be taking it far enough. Once (if?) autonomous vehicles rule the road, and they're known to be safe, the future will likely be the broad spectrum from autonomous buses (on the large side) to super-cheap, bike-like vehicles (on the small side) that cost way less than a car. For a single occupant, if you knew another vehicle wasn't going to kill you, wouldn't you take an e-bike (with a cover and basket on it?) for short trips if the fee was proportionate to the cost of the vehicle? I would. Assumes lidar shrinks I guess and that automated kickstands are a thing, but that seems tractable in the years to come.

autobodie 1y ago

$23.66/hour in Savannah, GA in 2025 is a starvation wage. Savannah has a bad housing squeeze with very few apartments and they still cost nearly $2K/mo when you find them. God bless those poor souls.

strictnein 1y ago
Savannah's COL is 22% below the national average. $23.66/hr starting pay plus benefits definitely isn't a "starvation wage".
- turtlesdown11 1y ago
  > In Chatham County, the living wage per hour necessary for one adult with no children is $22.46 while those with one kid is $35.70, two kids is $43.45, and three kids is $56.93. https://www.savannahnow.com/story/news/2024/12/09/what-is-a-living-wage-in-georgia-what-the-mit-calculator-says/76825626007/ https://www.savannahnow.com/story/news/2024/12/09/what-is-a-...
  - strictnein 1y ago
    So the entry level job at the factory is a living wage for the area it's in. Sounds like that's what people have been asking for?
  - kelnos 1y ago
    So that's fine then? A family of four with both parents working at $23.66/hr each is $3.87/hr above that level. Unless you're saying "starvation wage" and "living wage" are the same thing, which I don't think is a reasonable characterization. Only problem is if they decide to have a third kid, or if you have a single parent with one or more kids. And while I get that unforeseen things happen to people that lower their wages after they already have their kids, I'm also tired of people becoming parents without considering the financial aspects ahead of time. If you're making minimum wage and are barely surviving, don't have kids until you're on steadier ground.
    - 1y ago

barchar 1y ago

I bet they will try and expand service area over expanding inventory. It's very expensive to keep cars in reserve for peak times, Uber gets around this by offloading the cost onto their drivers, but waymo will need to be able to pull cars from nearby areas.

dilyevsky 1y ago

jags and ioniqs are a midway stop for sure. there's no need to have a seat you can't use with a steering wheel and windows that are not totally blacked out. the final product would probably resemble something closer to Cruise One concept.

notatoad 1y ago
the next step has already been announced. the holdup is regulatory approval for less-conventional vehicles. https://insideevs.com/photos/802937/waymo-zeekr-robotaxi/#6965062_waymo-zeekr-robotaxi-doors-open-revealing-interior https://insideevs.com/photos/802937/waymo-zeekr-robotaxi/#69...
- dilyevsky 1y ago
  Yeah I know about Geely and under current circumstances I categorize this as "never gonna happen". There's probably better chance of partnering with GM at this point...
  - nebula8804 1y ago
    Why would they even entertain the idea of even talking to a Chinese OEM. This is obviously very important technology and Google must know the Chinese history of IP theft. They are not in the Chinese market because of this! Zeeker must have given them such an unbelievable deal that Google couldn't pass it up. Either that or the other OEMs have really soured on them. I always thought the idea of OEMs being reduced to generic white label badges while companies like Waymo make all the profit on the future of "on demand" transportation is not appealing to them. Companies like GM tried to cut Waymo out by buying Cruise but it hasn't worked out. I guess if the stock price of one of these OEMs falls enough, maybe Waymo can just buy them out but do they really want to take on that obligation?
    - notatoad 1y ago
      i don't beleive that waymo is letting zeekr have any IP - the plan is to buy dumb vehicles and upfit them.

asdfman123 1y ago

What's expensive about operating a Waymo? Do the capital costs exceed that of the driver's salary?

1024core 1y ago

The other day I almost got ran over by an old lady in her old Volvo wagon at a stop sign. She seemed to have gotten confused a little and was turning left but couldn't figure out the right move to make. People behind her honked and she decided to just go for it. I happened to be in the crosswalk and just happened to look over at the honking, and saw her coming, so managed to jump out of her way. She was easily over 90, if not over 95. People like her could really benefit from a personal Waymo. Just sell a car with FSD built in, at the level of a Waymo, and bam! That would make so many senior citizens' lives easier!

chipsrafferty 1y ago
Why sell a car when you can charge per ride?
- 1024core 1y ago
  Supply. There may not be enough Waymos sitting around to satisfy all of the demand at a point in time.
- sagarm 1y ago
  It's not so much "why sell the car" but more "who is going to buy this car?" Plus, without maintenance the self-driving capability will probably degrade and become unsafe.
- jgerrish 1y ago
  Well, you wouldn't have to sell the car. You could also setup a licensing / loan / dedicated car system. It would work well for local municipalities that want to provide low-cost door-to-door service for the elderly. We have a bus service here, The ART, and a dedicates "paratransit" bus service that provides door-to-door service to eligible riders. And a couple private large-scale developed and managed neighborhoods that have driverless non-automated (remote controlled) transit systems. If you know a large portion of your riders have disabilities, dedicated buses or vans make sense. I'm sitting here advocating for this, and it's a great service that I'm glad they have it for those in need, and yet I need fucking plywood for hurricanes myself. Yeah, it is Florida. But honestly, the transit system here and bike infrastructure development and traffic planning is good.