3 ms·

Driving home from visiting a friend recently I had a lightbulb moment on self-driving cars; much as I really enjoy driving (heck, I've got a sports car), the se

Driving home from visiting a friend recently I had a lightbulb moment on self-driving cars; much as I really enjoy driving (heck, I've got a sports car), the second a mainstream car with an autonomous mode becomes remotely affordable for me I will buy it. I confess I don't understand why the focus is so strongly on the taxi-replacement market; it's interesting, sure, but largely unviable outside metropolitan areas. It can't serve people who go shopping and want to use their cars as lockers during the shop, or people who leave sports gear in the car while they work then go to the gym later, or a number of other cases. Who pays for them? It'd be an expensive business to set up and you'd have regular arguments about taxi licenses that'd make the fuss about Uber look tiny. Who'd clean them? You bet people would do unsavoury things inside them. No; it's a small, awkward to serve. Fit a 'self-drive' button to my next mainstream car though, and you have a killer product. You can keep it just like your normal car whenever you want, but when you don't - just press the button, program the navigation and do what you want. That night I'd have slept. This evening I'd probably have read on my way home from work. The technical challenges are no greater and it's much easier to set up. That's a killer app, not an autonomous taxi. Your car, with an invisible chauffeur on demand. The first manufacturer to properly pull it off won't be able to keep up with demand.

fredophile 12y ago
While taxis are one likely use for these cars I expect they'll also replace existing car share/co-op programs. I used to live in an urban area where I didn't need a car 99% of the time. I was in a co-op so I could book a car for a few hours the other 1% of the time. I don't see anything preventing someone from booking an autonomous car for a few hours while they get all of their shopping done. This type of use can also replace a second car for some families.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> I confess I don't understand why the focus is so strongly on the taxi-replacement market; it's interesting, sure, but largely unviable outside metropolitan areas. Yeah, but metropolitan areas contain lots of people, and also fairly high concentrations of money, so serving them is particularly attractive. > It can't serve people who go shopping and want to use their cars as lockers during the shop, or people who leave sports gear in the car while they work then go to the gym later, or a number of other cases. Well, sure, it doesn't serve the "use a vehicle as a stationary storage facility" role very well. OTOH, if it sufficiently reduces the per-use cost of using a vehicle as a vehicle compared to traditional ownership or taxi-with-a-driver, it can free up money for alternative, at-destination lockers. > Who pays for them? Lots of possibilities, there: cities (perhaps particularly suburbus) as last (few) mile(s) connectors for mass transit systems. Or companies that want to disrupt the taxi market. > It'd be an expensive business to set up and you'd have regular arguments about taxi licenses that'd make the fuss about Uber look tiny. So, maybe Google just does it directly. Its not like they don't have a huge pile of money to pay the startup costs. > Who'd clean them? You bet people would do unsavoury things inside them. So, like a hotel, you do a user agreement that covers that, and have internal video monitoring (like most public transport) to identify the source of problems and assign responsibility. > Fit a 'self-drive' button to my next mainstream car though, and you have a killer product. Yeah, that incremental upgrade is the more obvious direct market for consumers, and its easy to see why conservative players are focussing on it. Its also not surprising that Google's vision is bigger and less conservative.
sbierwagen 12y ago
You have enough money to own a car, which implies you're old. Very few of my age cohort have a driver's license. Even if we had the time and money to get licensed, due to student loan debt we can't afford a car, or insurance, which is much more expensive for the young.
- chris_mahan 12y ago
  I'm old too. (45) and I have 2 cars in $30K-$40K range. I would buy the self-driving car (2 of them) because I could read in traffic, or relax while listening to music, or watching a movie. And if tired, on the way to Vegas from LA, push "autopilot button". It's safer to let autopilot drive than to try to drive sleepy, trust me.
- joelrunyon 12y ago
  You can buy a solid car for less than 5k. You don't need to spend 40k to get a vehicle that works. Read this --> http://www.tropicalmba.com/entrepreneurmobile/ http://www.tropicalmba.com/entrepreneurmobile/
- TwiztidK 12y ago
  I'm pretty young (22) and the overwhelming majority of my peers are licensed and usually have cars (disclosure: I don't have one myself). Although I do believe youth car ownership rates are much lower than in the past, there are a lot of places where it is near impossible to live without a car. The cars young people drive are usually cheap and old (potentially hand-me-downs from their parents or older siblings) and they only have liability insurance, but it is possible for a lot of people.

fredophile 12y ago

While taxis are one likely use for these cars I expect they'll also replace existing car share/co-op programs. I used to live in an urban area where I didn't need a car 99% of the time. I was in a co-op so I could book a car for a few hours the other 1% of the time. I don't see anything preventing someone from booking an autonomous car for a few hours while they get all of their shopping done. This type of use can also replace a second car for some families.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> I confess I don't understand why the focus is so strongly on the taxi-replacement market; it's interesting, sure, but largely unviable outside metropolitan areas. Yeah, but metropolitan areas contain lots of people, and also fairly high concentrations of money, so serving them is particularly attractive. > It can't serve people who go shopping and want to use their cars as lockers during the shop, or people who leave sports gear in the car while they work then go to the gym later, or a number of other cases. Well, sure, it doesn't serve the "use a vehicle as a stationary storage facility" role very well. OTOH, if it sufficiently reduces the per-use cost of using a vehicle as a vehicle compared to traditional ownership or taxi-with-a-driver, it can free up money for alternative, at-destination lockers. > Who pays for them? Lots of possibilities, there: cities (perhaps particularly suburbus) as last (few) mile(s) connectors for mass transit systems. Or companies that want to disrupt the taxi market. > It'd be an expensive business to set up and you'd have regular arguments about taxi licenses that'd make the fuss about Uber look tiny. So, maybe Google just does it directly. Its not like they don't have a huge pile of money to pay the startup costs. > Who'd clean them? You bet people would do unsavoury things inside them. So, like a hotel, you do a user agreement that covers that, and have internal video monitoring (like most public transport) to identify the source of problems and assign responsibility. > Fit a 'self-drive' button to my next mainstream car though, and you have a killer product. Yeah, that incremental upgrade is the more obvious direct market for consumers, and its easy to see why conservative players are focussing on it. Its also not surprising that Google's vision is bigger and less conservative.

sbierwagen 12y ago

You have enough money to own a car, which implies you're old. Very few of my age cohort have a driver's license. Even if we had the time and money to get licensed, due to student loan debt we can't afford a car, or insurance, which is much more expensive for the young.

chris_mahan 12y ago
I'm old too. (45) and I have 2 cars in $30K-$40K range. I would buy the self-driving car (2 of them) because I could read in traffic, or relax while listening to music, or watching a movie. And if tired, on the way to Vegas from LA, push "autopilot button". It's safer to let autopilot drive than to try to drive sleepy, trust me.
joelrunyon 12y ago
You can buy a solid car for less than 5k. You don't need to spend 40k to get a vehicle that works. Read this --> http://www.tropicalmba.com/entrepreneurmobile/ http://www.tropicalmba.com/entrepreneurmobile/
TwiztidK 12y ago
I'm pretty young (22) and the overwhelming majority of my peers are licensed and usually have cars (disclosure: I don't have one myself). Although I do believe youth car ownership rates are much lower than in the past, there are a lot of places where it is near impossible to live without a car. The cars young people drive are usually cheap and old (potentially hand-me-downs from their parents or older siblings) and they only have liability insurance, but it is possible for a lot of people.