4 ms·

You won't lease or own self driving cars. That makes no sense. You will just subscribe to a drive service if you drive a lot or just pay per ride and have one p

• randyrand 12y ago
  No way. In the city, yes. But in the somewhat wealthier suburbs many people will spring for the "self-driving" package. It might only be a ~$10k add on or less by my estimates. Most people will want to be able get in the car without having to request and wait for a ride (most people already have this luxury).
  • erikpukinskis 12y ago
    Sure, at first. But then your daughter has the SUV and your husband has the sedan and you want to get groceries and your sons want to go to two different friends houses, so you end up using sepf-driving cars all the time anyway, and you realize it's actually quite nice not to have to worry about maintenance and cleaning and charging. And you realize you could save $300 a month. And oh, you can just order a 4-wheel-drive vehicle pre-loaded with kayaks for your camping trip? And... and... and. We haven't imagine half of what cars-as-a-service will entail. Some people will always hold onto their vehicles, but in the end I don't think a hunk of plastic and metal will be able to compete with a fleet of special-purpose vehicles supported by a staff of thousands.
    • Chronic30 12y ago
      Many rich families own (at least) one car per family member. We are talking about luxurious add-ons which is why I bring this up.
• millstone 12y ago
  Isn't owning typically cheaper than renting? Anyways, it makes no sense that everyone on my block owns their own lawnmower, and yet here we are.
  • eru 12y ago
    > Isn't owning typically cheaper than renting? Depends how you account for all factors. Owning usually comes with some hassle and risk. Renting means you pay someone else to discharge those duties. Another factor is the cost of capital for you vs the company that would rent to you. Having your own lawnmower probably has something to do with transaction costs. Ie it's a hassle to coordinate among people.
  • aetherson 12y ago
    Renting a property or object that you are the sole user of is typically more expensive than owning. Renting a property or object that you are one of many users of is typically less expensive than owning. For instance, you don't imagine that renting one of those steam-carpet cleaners from the grocery store once every year or two is more expensive than owning one, right? (Renting is more expensive than purely your share of the use -- that is, if the steam cleaner gets rented by 100 people in a year, you expect to pay more than 1% of the yearly total cost of ownership of the cleaner). So the concept is that say you effectively use maybe 1/5th to 1/3rd of a car's capacity in a ride-for-hire situation, and so you pay say 25%-40% of the total cost of ownership, allowing a reasonable profit margin for the owner. (Or you use much less, but in that case you probably were never going to own a car).
    • millstone 12y ago
      This doesn't seem quite right - if I own a car and use only 1/3rd of its capacity, I generally expect it to last 3x as long, so the unused capacity costs me nothing. Even your annual steam cleaner example will favor the purchaser over the renter, given enough time. So the difference between renting and owning must come down to the cost of unused capacity, which means the fixed costs. Where those fixed costs are high, like a parking space in SF, you want to amortize them by maximizing utilization, which means sharing cars. But where those fixed costs are low, like parking in my driveway, unused capacity may be so cheap that owning costs less than renting, even if the car sits idle most of the time.
      • aetherson 12y ago
• cgriswald 12y ago
  In the short term, self-driving is going to be an optional activity, not an always-on activity. So for most drivers who have it, it will simply be a luxury. Certainly there will be services, but it may or may not be cost effective. We already have the option to schedule a car service every day at 8 am, yet most of us drive. Some of us have the option of busses and trains, which is more or less the same thing, but again, we opt to drive. In the long term, your car isn't going to sit outside your office for 8 hours. It's going to pick up the kids, your take-out order from the Chinese place across town, and deliver your laundry to a laundry service. People aren't going to travel around in taxis that don't even have the benefit of a driver who tries to keep it clean. They're going to want their own space. There are some caveats and exceptions, certainly. And self-driving vehicles and services may prompt more people to eschew car ownership, but the idea that people won't own or lease these things _in general_ is ridiculous.
• justincormack 12y ago
  But everyone wants to drive to work at the same time so there is very little saving from central provision (and thats the main use, at present in the US). It makes the rental model much less attractive.
• mirchibajji 12y ago
  For commuters, may be that's all there is to it. If I want to go out on a trip with my little one, I'd rather have a bunch of her favorite things in the car (without me having to lug it around every time), and have the convenience of not having to drive, which also makes it much easier to keep her entertained. I'm hoping she'd grow up by the time these are generally available, but I'm sure there are others reasons to own one.