# Transition To Autonomous Cars Will Take Longer Than You Think, Waymo CEO Tells Governors



## WeirdBob

*Transition To Autonomous Cars Will Take Longer Than You Think, Waymo CEO Tells Governors*

https://www.forbes.com/sites/samabu...ernors-av-time-will-be-longer-than-you-think/

Sam Abuelsamid - Jul 20, 2018,1:07 pm

Speaking in a fireside chat at the National Governors Association meeting Friday, Waymo CEO John Krafcik told the gathering that the "time period will be longer than you think" for automated vehicles to be everywhere. Krafcik spent his conversation with Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval emphasizing the need for safety in developing automated driving systems and at the same time tempering some of the expectations caused by the hype around this technology.

Krafcik praised the progress that has been made on safety in recent decades including the installation of 8 to 10 airbags in every new vehicle and the adoption of a range of active safety and driver assist technologies like automatic emergency braking and stability control. He also offered some thoughts on why we actually seem to be going backwards on road safety in the last few years with an increasing number of fatalities.

"There are no autonomous systems available, zero on the road today," said Krafcik. "Anything you can buy on the road today is a driver assist system, that means the driver is completely responsible for the car and I think there is so much confusion on that."
. . .

Despite the rapid accumulation of testing miles, Krafcik warned the governors not to end all of their infrastructure investments just yet. Responding to a question about the need for new parking facilities, he responded that there will be a very long period of overlap between personally owned human driven vehicles and shared automated vehicles from Waymo and others. He suggested that it might be possible to slow down on some massive parking structures but was non-committal on timelines.
. . .​
Looks like the CEO of Waymo needs to have a conversation with RamzFanz to learn about the current status of Autonomous Vehicle technology. He is obviously misinformed.


----------



## iheartuber

RamzFanz is shocked!


----------



## jocker12

John Krafcik?

"*Krafcik famously owns a Caterham himself, plus a 2006 Porsche 911*. In a happy paradox, the guy taking humanity's collective keys *owns two of the greatest sports cars we've managed to build*." - https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a28901/john-krafcik-google-car/










Do we need to see if Krafcik put his money where his mouth was? Cough cough... Of course he spent around $100.000 on 2 sports cars and he explains why - "*I love those two cars for completely different reasons*. The 911 is the perfect manifestation of an initial idea that was sort of okay but not brilliant. But through 50 years of refinement, Japanese _kaizen,_ you make this* awesome machine*. The Caterham is the opposite of that, right? Colin Chapman sort of put the Lotus Seven down,* almost perfect from the start*. And it received no _kaizen,_ very little care, throughout its life cycle. It too is now over 50 years old. And it too is just* an awesome car*. It came out *nearly perfect.*"

Let's be clear here - what he loves is the interaction between the driver and the car, the way those machines respond to HUMAN INPUT. Every single time.

He is enjoying driving, but when it comes to other people money, self driving cars are "the future"? The perfect case of a hypocrite.

Chameleons like Krafcik and Lutz are going to tell you pancakes save lives or cheeseburgers are healthy. Please. Just give me a break.










And if you ask me what Krafcik should do as Waymo's CEO, I'll tell you have him ride a FUTURISTIC SEGWAY (or an electric scooter) and have fun with it!


----------



## tohunt4me

jocker12 said:


> John Krafcik?
> 
> "*Krafcik famously owns a Caterham himself, plus a 2006 Porsche 911*. In a happy paradox, the guy taking humanity's collective keys *owns two of the greatest sports cars we've managed to build*." - https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a28901/john-krafcik-google-car/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is enjoying driving, but when it comes to money, self driving cars are "the future"?
> 
> Chameleons like Krafcik and Lutz are going to tell you pancakes save lives or cheeseburgers are healthy.
> 
> View attachment 245362


Of Course !

Doesnt APPLY to the Rich !


----------



## goneubering

iheartuber said:


> RamzFanz is shocked!


The Tomato is splattered!!


----------



## tohunt4me

goneubering said:


> The Tomato is splattered!!


He will REBOUND !


----------



## heynow321

Well obviously waymo hasn’t spoken to the fat man. They must not know what they’re talking about


----------



## jeanocelot

I detect a lot of hostility about autonomously driven cars in this forum.


----------



## iheartuber

jeanocelot said:


> I detect a lot of hostility about autonomously driven cars in this forum.


It's not hostility to autonomous cars

It's hostility to the arrogance of some people who don't know reality (or who ignore it) and foolishly claim autonomous cars will be "everywhere" in "one or two years".

It's just silly talk, really.

Spoiler Alert: the real reason why those people are so aggressive in their pursuit of AVs is because they stand to make a fortune the quicker AVs come online.

The only problem is to do so is tantamount to forcing society and society doesn't take kindly to that.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn

iheartuber said:


> It's not hostility to autonomous cars
> 
> It's hostility to the arrogance of some people who don't know reality (or who ignore it) and foolishly claim autonomous cars will be "everywhere" in "one or two years".
> 
> It's just silly talk, really.
> 
> Spoiler Alert: the real reason why those people are so aggressive in their pursuit of AVs is because they stand to make a fortune the quicker AVs come online.
> 
> The only problem is to do so is tantamount to forcing society and society doesn't take kindly to that.


I for one believe they will be 1 or 2 years away...

1 or 2 years away from WHEN is the question.

Probably one or 2 years after the self flying swine is introduced.

And my second point.. haven't they been 1-2 years away for like 5 years now?

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...g-car-elon-musk-tech-predictions-tesla-google

as of June 2 2016...

The Tesla CEO, Elon Musk, who is never shy about beating his chest, on Wednesday declared it to be just *two years away* . In doing so, he made one of the most confident predictions to date about how soon consumers can stop worrying about passing their driver's tests.

So...

2 years away?

Yeah.. OK.. sure...


----------



## heynow321

They’ve been 1-2 years away for like 6 years now


----------



## jocker12

heynow321 said:


> They've been 1-2 years away for like 6 years now


They've been like 1-2 years away from ..... 1921?










.... or 1925?










....or 1926?










... or 1932?










... or 1953?










Just. Give. Me. A. Brake!


----------



## goneubering

jocker12 said:


> They've been like 1-2 years away from ..... 1921?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .... or 1925?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....or 1926?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... or 1932?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... or 1953?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just. Give. Me. A. Brake!


This is great!! Did we lose all the SDC supporters because of this post?


----------



## iheartuber

goneubering said:


> This is great!! Did we lose all the SDC supporters because of this post?


They lost all of their investors because of this post


----------



## heynow321

goneubering said:


> This is great!! Did we lose all the SDC supporters because of this post?


haven't seen the fat man in a while. did greg get fired?


----------



## iheartuber

heynow321 said:


> haven't seen the fat man in a while. did greg get fired?


He may not have gotten fired per say.

He works at a Think tank who's current client just so happens to be a cabal of real estate developers who would super love to see robo taxis everywhere.

They might have let the contract run out and now he may have a new set of clients.

He's probably trolling NRA boards now. (Or whatever)


----------



## jocker12

Here is the 56 minutes video (C-SPAN2) from the National Governors Association summer meeting in Santa Fe, NM, on July 29th, 2018

https://www.c-span.org/video/?448313-5/national-governors-association-driving-automobiles

You can see a ridiculously primitive sidewalk food delivery Marble robot "in action" at 7:47, and John Krafcik at 14:30.


----------



## London Tube

WeirdBob said:


> *Transition To Autonomous Cars Will Take Longer Than You Think, Waymo CEO Tells Governors*
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/samabu...ernors-av-time-will-be-longer-than-you-think/
> 
> Sam Abuelsamid - Jul 20, 2018,1:07 pm
> 
> Speaking in a fireside chat at the National Governors Association meeting Friday, Waymo CEO John Krafcik told the gathering that the "time period will be longer than you think" for automated vehicles to be everywhere. Krafcik spent his conversation with Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval emphasizing the need for safety in developing automated driving systems and at the same time tempering some of the expectations caused by the hype around this technology.
> 
> Krafcik praised the progress that has been made on safety in recent decades including the installation of 8 to 10 airbags in every new vehicle and the adoption of a range of active safety and driver assist technologies like automatic emergency braking and stability control. He also offered some thoughts on why we actually seem to be going backwards on road safety in the last few years with an increasing number of fatalities.
> 
> "There are no autonomous systems available, zero on the road today," said Krafcik. "Anything you can buy on the road today is a driver assist system, that means the driver is completely responsible for the car and I think there is so much confusion on that."
> . . .
> 
> Despite the rapid accumulation of testing miles, Krafcik warned the governors not to end all of their infrastructure investments just yet. Responding to a question about the need for new parking facilities, he responded that there will be a very long period of overlap between personally owned human driven vehicles and shared automated vehicles from Waymo and others. He suggested that it might be possible to slow down on some massive parking structures but was non-committal on timelines.
> . . .​
> Looks like the CEO of Waymo needs to have a conversation with RamzFanz to learn about the current status of Autonomous Vehicle technology. He is obviously misinformed.


He said no such thing. Here's the entire interview. The exact opposite of what you're trying to portray.






1. "It's going to take a long time." Waymo CEO was answering a question about infrastructure, so he told the governors not to make drastic changes right now, like ripping out all parking lots and replacing them with parks.

2. "You can't "buy" a self driving car today." You can't. Every car available for purchase today is a level 2 driver assist, not a self driving car. Waymo is a fully autonomous self driving car but you can't "buy" one yet. That's entirely different than - fully autonomous self driving cars don't exist.

The main takeaway from the interview is Waymo's CEO reiterating they'll be launching a commercial robo taxi service this year, within four months.


----------



## iheartuber

London Tube said:


> He said no such thing. Here's the entire interview. The exact opposite of what you're trying to portray.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "It's going to take a long time." Waymo CEO was answering a question about infrastructure, so he told the governors not to make drastic changes right now, like ripping out all parking lots and replacing them with parks.
> 
> 2. "You can't "buy" a self driving car today." You can't. Every car available for purchase today is a level 2 driver assist, not a self driving car. Waymo is a fully autonomous self driving car but you can't "buy" one yet. That's entirely different than - fully autonomous self driving cars don't exist.
> 
> The main takeaway from the interview is Waymo's CEO reiterating they'll be launching a commercial robo taxi service this year, within four months.


You seem to know a couple things about this, can you answer a question I been wondering about?

Ok so you got all the techie guys creating SDCs. Once it's ready to go (which I guess it pretty much is now, more or less).. then why is Waymo looking to get into the taxi biz? I mean why don't Waymo just license their tech to all the car manufacturers so that when you go to buy a new Honda or ford or whatever you have the option to get one that's self driving?

In other words, if Waymo has the tech made a d now they want to get it out there for people to consume, wouldn't it be easier to just sell cars that are self driving instead of getting into the taxi biz?

I never really knew the official reason why they're doing it that way.

I do have some speculation: ego, control freaks, using taxis as a "guinea pig" to flesh out all the bugs, etc


----------



## London Tube

iheartuber said:


> You seem to know a couple things about this, can you answer a question I been wondering about?
> 
> Ok so you got all the techie guys creating SDCs. Once it's ready to go (which I guess it pretty much is now, more or less).. then why is Waymo looking to get into the taxi biz? I mean why don't Waymo just license their tech to all the car manufacturers so that when you go to buy a new Honda or ford or whatever you have the option to get one that's self driving?
> 
> In other words, if Waymo has the tech made a d now they want to get it out there for people to consume, wouldn't it be easier to just sell cars that are self driving instead of getting into the taxi biz?
> 
> I never really knew the official reason why they're doing it that way.
> 
> I do have some speculation: ego, control freaks, using taxis as a "guinea pig" to flesh out all the bugs, etc


Because removing the driver changes everything. Personal cars are only used 4 percent of the time. Yet taxis and Uber are too expensive due to the cost of the driver. Removing the driver reduces the cost to get from A to B by fifty percent, compared to car ownership. The taxi/rideshare market is a tiny fraction of the market the Waymos of the world are coveting. Someone posted a video from ARK Invest awhile back saying that within 10 years the majority of point to point transportation will be by autonomous taxis. I believe they are right.

Car manufacturers' margins on each car sold is a few thousand dollars. The residual income to a Waymo for every person that transitions from car ownership to using Waymo for their transportation is 2 to 3k a year. Every year. We've been making cars for a hundred years, that's not the hard part anymore. Whoever owns the self driving systems will control transportation. But the barrier to entry for self driving is very very high, as Uber is now realizing.


----------



## iheartuber

London Tube said:


> Because removing the driver changes everything. Personal cars are only used 4 percent of the time. Yet taxis and Uber are too expensive due to the cost of the driver. Removing the driver reduces the cost to get from A to B by fifty percent, compared to car ownership. The taxi/rideshare market is a tiny fraction of the market the Waymos of the world are coveting. Someone posted a video from ARK Invest awhile back saying that within 10 years the majority of point to point transportation will be by autonomous taxis. I believe they are right.
> 
> Car manufacturers' margins on each car sold is a few thousand dollars. The residual income to a Waymo for every person that transitions from car ownership to using Waymo for their transportation is 2 to 3k a year. Every year. We've been making cars for a hundred years, that's not the hard part anymore. Whoever owns the self driving systems will control transportation. But the barrier to entry for self driving is very very high, as Uber is now realizing.


LOL... Uber and taxis are not expensive because of the cost of the driver.

First of all they're not expensive at all, the pax pay cheap as hell rides. But if you're saying take the driver out of the equation and the profits will roll in that's a no.

Because what you're not realizing is when you run a car for upwards of 100,000 miles a year a funny thing happens: it breaks. It needs maintenance. At the very least new tires, new brakes. Oil changes.

And when you have thousands of people in and out of your car you need to clean it. A lot.

And then you need to gas it up. A lot.

Then you need to have a garage to keep it. Uber doesn't pay for that because the drivers just keep the cars in their own garage. But Waymo now has to get a garage. And pay for it. Not to mention the hardware and software upgrade costs.

And vandalism.

So... with all these headaches, tell me again why Waymo wants to get into this business?


----------



## London Tube

iheartuber said:


> LOL... Uber and taxis are not expensive because of the cost of the driver.
> 
> First of all they're not expensive at all, the pax pay cheap as hell rides. But if you're saying take the driver out of the equation and the profits will roll in that's a no.
> 
> Because what you're not realizing is when you run a car for upwards of 100,000 miles a year a funny thing happens: it breaks. It needs maintenance. At the very least new tires, new brakes. Oil changes.
> 
> And when you have thousands of people in and out of your car you need to clean it. A lot.
> 
> And then you need to gas it up. A lot.
> 
> Then you need to have a garage to keep it. Uber doesn't pay for that because the drivers just keep the cars in their own garage. But Waymo now has to get a garage. And pay for it. Not to mention the hardware and software upgrade costs.
> 
> And vandalism.
> 
> So... with all these headaches, tell me again why Waymo wants to get into this business?


The AAUGH is strong with this one


----------



## London Tube

iheartuber said:


> So... with all these headaches, tell me again why Waymo wants to get into this business?


https://www.wsj.com/articles/late-to-the-driverless-revolution-1534520404

This month, Morgan Stanley analyst Brian Nowak speculated that the company born in late 2016 from Google's self-driving car team, known as Waymo, could be worth $175 billion-40% more than the combined market capitalization of GM, Ford and Fiat-Chrysler .

Our analysis later showed that the new business could do all that while saving people most of what they paid for trips in gas-powered, personally owned vehicles, costing them just 20 cents a mile on average compared with a 65-cent average for drives today. (Other studies have found similar costs and savings.) This didn't even count another 85 cents' worth per mile of productive time lost while driving, which they could use for other things while traveling as passengers. 

Mr. Kalanick knew that a ridesharing business that operated driverlessly could provide its services for much less than a human-operated rival; the human driver accounted for a reported 70% to 90% of Uber's cost per mile.


----------



## iheartuber

London Tube said:


> https://www.wsj.com/articles/late-to-the-driverless-revolution-1534520404
> 
> This month, Morgan Stanley analyst Brian Nowak speculated that the company born in late 2016 from Google's self-driving car team, known as Waymo, could be worth $175 billion-40% more than the combined market capitalization of GM, Ford and Fiat-Chrysler .
> 
> Our analysis later showed that the new business could do all that while saving people most of what they paid for trips in gas-powered, personally owned vehicles, costing them just 20 cents a mile on average compared with a 65-cent average for drives today. (Other studies have found similar costs and savings.) This didn't even count another 85 cents' worth per mile of productive time lost while driving, which they could use for other things while traveling as passengers.
> 
> Mr. Kalanick knew that a ridesharing business that operated driverlessly could provide its services for much less than a human-operated rival; the human driver accounted for a reported 70% to 90% of Uber's cost per mile.


Sounds like the same analyst who said Enron was the future of energy.


----------



## goneubering

London Tube said:


> https://www.wsj.com/articles/late-to-the-driverless-revolution-1534520404
> 
> This month, Morgan Stanley analyst Brian Nowak speculated that the company born in late 2016 from Google's self-driving car team, known as Waymo, could be worth $175 billion-40% more than the combined market capitalization of GM, Ford and Fiat-Chrysler .
> 
> Our analysis later showed that the new business could do all that while saving people most of what they paid for trips in gas-powered, personally owned vehicles, costing them just 20 cents a mile on average compared with a 65-cent average for drives today. (Other studies have found similar costs and savings.) This didn't even count another 85 cents' worth per mile of productive time lost while driving, which they could use for other things while traveling as passengers.
> 
> Mr. Kalanick knew that a ridesharing business that operated driverlessly could provide its services for much less than a human-operated rival; the human driver accounted for a reported 70% to 90% of Uber's cost per mile.


LOL

$175 billion!!

I love these fantasy numbers!!!!


----------



## London Tube

goneubering said:


> LOL
> 
> $175 billion!!
> 
> I love these fantasy numbers!!!!


Whoa! Thanks! That was close. I was just about to add to my position with Alphabet, then I saw your post. Let this be a lesson boys and girls; always check with randos on the internet before buying a stock.


Elsewhere on the Street, Waymo is valued anywhere from $119 billion by Mark Mahaney of RBC Capital Markets to $135 billion by Eric Sheridan of UBS.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona

iheartuber said:


> Sounds like the same analyst who said Enron was the future of energy.


But, they were the smartest guys in the room.


----------



## goneubering

iheartuber said:


> RamzFanz is shocked!


RamzFanz seems to have gone AWOL.


----------



## iheartuber

goneubering said:


> RamzFanz seems to have gone AWOL.


Maybe he wasn't really a "regular guy". Maybe he was an employee of Waymo


----------



## Lee239

goneubering said:


> LOL
> 
> $175 billion!!
> 
> I love these fantasy numbers!!!!


in 100 years maybe when the richest person in the world will be worth $200 Trillion.


----------



## heynow321

iheartuber said:


> Maybe he wasn't really a "regular guy". Maybe he was an employee of Waymo


Lol he was not intelligent enough for that. He's probably back to playing in the dirt


----------



## HotUberMess

Oooooh walkng that whole “1-2” years thing riiiiight back


----------



## WeirdBob

London Tube said:


> He said no such thing. Here's the entire interview. The exact opposite of what you're trying to portray.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "It's going to take a long time." Waymo CEO was answering a question about infrastructure, so he told the governors not to make drastic changes right now, like ripping out all parking lots and replacing them with parks.
> 
> 2. "You can't "buy" a self driving car today." You can't. Every car available for purchase today is a level 2 driver assist, not a self driving car. Waymo is a fully autonomous self driving car but you can't "buy" one yet. That's entirely different than - fully autonomous self driving cars don't exist.
> 
> The main takeaway from the interview is Waymo's CEO reiterating they'll be launching a commercial robo taxi service this year, within four months.


Yes, they will be launching a commercial robo taxi service soon. In a limited, geofenced area.

_"time period will be longer than you think" for automated vehicles to be everywhere_​
Autonomous vehicles require extremely detailed mapping of areas that change relatively rapidly. From foliage changes to new building construction to repaving and lane changes, maps at centimeter level have a short shelf life.

And, as has been detailed in this section and elsewhere, the cars are too cautious to deal with human drivers. Despite the fantasies of some, human driving will not become illegal or obsolete for at least another 20 to 30 years.

As well, keep in mind that us humans have evolved to exist in motion ever since our ancestors were single celled creatures. Motion is natural to us. It is not natural to binary systems. Although it is correct that we are not perfect at it, we have instincts for movement and self preservation which allow even intellectually challenged individuals to be able to drive tens, even hundreds of thousands of miles between crashes.


----------



## iheartuber

WeirdBob said:


> Yes, they will be launching a commercial robo taxi service soon. In a limited, geofenced area.
> 
> _"time period will be longer than you think" for automated vehicles to be everywhere_​
> Autonomous vehicles require extremely detailed mapping of areas that change relatively rapidly. From foliage changes to new building construction to repaving and lane changes, maps at centimeter level have a short shelf life.
> 
> And, as has been detailed in this section and elsewhere, the cars are too cautious to deal with human drivers. Despite the fantasies of some, human driving will not become illegal or obsolete for at least another 20 to 30 years.
> 
> As well, keep in mind that us humans have evolved to exist in motion ever since our ancestors were single celled creatures. Motion is natural to us. It is not natural to binary systems. Although it is correct that we are not perfect at it, we have instincts for movement and self preservation which allow even intellectually challenged individuals to be able to drive tens, even hundreds of thousands of miles between crashes.


Let me take this opportunity to give everyone a reality check:

When Waymo launches their robo taxi service (or to be more specific, to take their current service out of the beta test mode) there will be a few possible things that will happen:

1. It will for a variety of reasons simply not really get a whole lot of paying customers.

If this happens, no one will care.

2. It will get a lot of customers right away because people are excited to try this new thing, but then, fed up with the limited area or slow service, people will go back to uber.

If this happens, no one will care.

3. Waymo, part of google, a company used to tech, can not handle the logistics of running a taxi service, a world totally alien to them, and it will fail.

If this happens, no one will care.

A VERY distant possibility will be they launch, and they are successful enough to live side by side with uber and Lyft.

An even bigger distant possibility is they launch and put uber out of business.

If anyone tries to convince you that simply by launching they are guaranteed to succeed so well that they will become as big as the iPhone is lying to you. Or, more specifically, "hyping" you.

Chances are the reason why they want this to happen and they want you to believe it will happen is because they stand to gain financially if it does.

Think for yourselves
Question everything
Don't be controlled


----------



## goneubering

heynow321 said:


> haven't seen the fat man in a while. did greg get fired?


No but he did buy a whole bunch of new socks.


----------



## goneubering

iheartuber said:


> Let me take this opportunity to give everyone a reality check:
> 
> When Waymo launches their robo taxi service (or to be more specific, to take their current service out of the beta test mode) there will be a few possible things that will happen:
> 
> 1. It will for a variety of reasons simply not really get a whole lot of paying customers.
> 
> If this happens, no one will care.
> 
> 2. It will get a lot of customers right away because people are excited to try this new thing, but then, fed up with the limited area or slow service, people will go back to uber.
> 
> If this happens, no one will care.
> 
> 3. Waymo, part of google, a company used to tech, can not handle the logistics of running a taxi service, a world totally alien to them, and it will fail.
> 
> If this happens, no one will care.
> 
> A VERY distant possibility will be they launch, and they are successful enough to live side by side with uber and Lyft.
> 
> An even bigger distant possibility is they launch and put uber out of business.
> 
> If anyone tries to convince you that simply by launching they are guaranteed to succeed so well that they will become as big as the iPhone is lying to you. Or, more specifically, "hyping" you.
> 
> Chances are the reason why they want this to happen and they want you to believe it will happen is because they stand to gain financially if it does.
> 
> Think for yourselves
> Question everything
> Don't be controlled


http://imsreporting.com/articles/self-driving-cars-are-a-fraud-a-money-making-scheme/


----------



## iheartuber

goneubering said:


> http://imsreporting.com/articles/self-driving-cars-are-a-fraud-a-money-making-scheme/


Before the Tomato starts bombarding us with propaganda and Team America GIFs, please wait until a robo taxi service in any city has actually effected uber

I'll wait.

Thanks


----------



## goneubering

iheartuber said:


> Before the Tomato starts bombarding us with propaganda and Team America GIFs, please wait until a robo taxi service in any city has actually effected uber
> 
> I'll wait.
> 
> Thanks


You mean you want real world results instead of hype??!! That's no fun.


----------



## Oscar Levant

jocker12 said:


> John Krafcik?
> 
> "*Krafcik famously owns a Caterham himself, plus a 2006 Porsche 911*. In a happy paradox, the guy taking humanity's collective keys *owns two of the greatest sports cars we've managed to build*." - https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a28901/john-krafcik-google-car/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we need to see if Krafcik put his money where his mouth was? Cough cough... Of course he spent around $100.000 on 2 sports cars and he explains why - "*I love those two cars for completely different reasons*. The 911 is the perfect manifestation of an initial idea that was sort of okay but not brilliant. But through 50 years of refinement, Japanese _kaizen,_ you make this* awesome machine*. The Caterham is the opposite of that, right? Colin Chapman sort of put the Lotus Seven down,* almost perfect from the start*. And it received no _kaizen,_ very little care, throughout its life cycle. It too is now over 50 years old. And it too is just* an awesome car*. It came out *nearly perfect.*"
> 
> Let's be clear here - what he loves is the interaction between the driver and the car, the way those machines respond to HUMAN INPUT. Every single time.
> 
> He is enjoying driving, but when it comes to other people money, self driving cars are "the future"? The perfect case of a hypocrite.
> 
> Chameleons like Krafcik and Lutz are going to tell you pancakes save lives or cheeseburgers are healthy. Please. Just give me a break.
> 
> View attachment 245362
> 
> 
> And if you ask me what Krafcik should do as Waymo's CEO, I'll tell you have him ride a FUTURISTIC SEGWAY (or an electric scooter) and have fun with it!


Well, what evidence can you present that this man has no integrity? owning a nice car, and appreciating it, doesn't necessarily translate into a negative viewpoint on SDCs, the reasoning being that even if there are SDCs, and they are everywhere, people are still going to own sports cars, for the love of driving them. Killing the desire to drive sports cars amongs enthusiasts, is not going to kill the driven car. Not in America.

As a professional photographer for many years, I have noted the fact that the Iphone takes a better picture than many of the point and shoots of yesteryear. Today, there are plenty of SLR and DSLR and pro/semipro (etc) camera /enthusiasts, and there will always be. I own three film cameras, and three dSLRs. I have no intention of selling them because my cell can take a nice picture. Similarly, I don't see it much different with cars.



London Tube said:


> Because removing the driver changes everything. Personal cars are only used 4 percent of the time. Yet taxis and Uber are too expensive due to the cost of the driver. Removing the driver reduces the cost to get from A to B by fifty percent,


I'm going to dispute that. I've posited that teh cost to own a car and use it commercially, is about what the current price point is. Uber is not charging enough to profit. Even without a driver, the current price point is break even at best. Now then, if they cant offer the service cheaper than it is now, what is the point? I think the only way they are going to get the cost down is if all the cars are small electric, low maintance, things. Maybe then the cost per mile will go down enough that the current price structure will yeild a profit.

It costs a lot more to operate a taxi company than it seems. They don't own the cars now, but when Uber does, their expenses are going to skyrocket.


> compared to car ownership. The taxi/rideshare market is a tiny fraction of the market the Waymos of the world are coveting. Someone posted a video from ARK Invest awhile back saying that within 10 years the majority of point to point transportation will be by autonomous taxis. I believe they are right.
> 
> Car manufacturers' margins on each car sold is a few thousand dollars. The residual income to a Waymo for every person that transitions from car ownership to using Waymo for their transportation is 2 to 3k a year. Every year. We've been making cars for a hundred years, that's not the hard part anymore. Whoever owns the self driving systems will control transportation. But the barrier to entry for self driving is very very high, as Uber is now realizing.


This makes a lot of assumptions. Just because something is high tech, doesn't mean it's going to be viable. What, I hear that only 2% of all patents, a product went to market and made money.

It might, it might not. We shall see. My gut feeling that SDCs will ultimately prove to be the biggest boondoggle of all time, mainly because of assumptions, using Amazon, Mac, etc., as a "model". NO, this is the transportation biz, the two cannot be compared. This is entirely new territory and there are no "models" that are reliable, other than the fact that , historically, big taxi companies commonly go out of business.

In the transportation biz, the guys making money are charter buses, of various sizes. Put a trolley -esque vehicle, on a predictable route, there it might work ( and I think they have this in the netherlands )


----------



## iheartuber

Oscar Levant said:


> Well, what evidence can you present that this man has no integrity? owning a nice car, and appreciating it, doesn't necessarily translate into a negative viewpoint on SDCs, the reasoning being that even if there are SDCs, and they are everywhere, people are still going to own sports cars, for the love of driving them. Killing the desire to drive sports cars amongs enthusiasts, is not going to kill the driven car. Not in America.
> 
> As a professional photographer for many years, I have noted the fact that the Iphone takes a better picture than many of the point and shoots of yesteryear. Today, there are plenty of SLR and DSLR and pro/semipro (etc) camera /enthusiasts, and there will always be. I own three film cameras, and three dSLRs. I have no intention of selling them because my cell can take a nice picture. Similarly, I don't see it much different with cars.
> 
> 
> I'm going to dispute that. I've posited that teh cost to own a car and use it commercially, is about what the current price point is. Uber is not charging enough to profit. Even without a driver, the current price point is break even at best. Now then, if they cant offer the service cheaper than it is now, what is the point? I think the only way they are going to get the cost down is if all the cars are small electric, low maintance, things. Maybe then the cost per mile will go down enough that the current price structure will yeild a profit.
> 
> It costs a lot more to operate a taxi company than it seems. They don't own the cars now, but when Uber does, their expenses are going to skyrocket.
> 
> This makes a lot of assumptions. Just because something is high tech, doesn't mean it's going to be viable. What, I hear that only 2% of all patents, a product went to market and made money.
> 
> It might, it might not. We shall see. My gut feeling that SDCs will ultimately prove to be the biggest boondoggle of all time, mainly because of assumptions, using Amazon, Mac, etc., as a "model". NO, this is the transportation biz, the two cannot be compared. This is entirely new territory and there are no "models" that are reliable, other than the fact that , historically, big taxi companies commonly go out of business.
> 
> In the transportation biz, the guys making money are charter buses, of various sizes. Put a trolley -esque vehicle, on a predictable route, there it might work ( and I think they have this in the netherlands )


Also consider it this way:

A guy owns a car, he drives for Uber. Let's say he makes $40k a year and Uber with their cut makes $20k

Ok but out of that $40k he only really made $20k after you factor out gas, maintenance, insurance, etc.

So if this were an SDC company they can make $20k per car more than what Uber makes. Ok, except....

All the expensive software and sensors cost a lot to maintain. 
Plus you gotta have a real driver in there as a backup.

So now you're not making any money as a robo taxi conpany

Ok... so what if you're using electric cars?

Ok.. if I'm the Uber driver I have a garage in my house with a charging station. If I'm a robo taxi company I have to build one.

But the most important difference? Responsibility! Uber has zero responsibility. A robo taxi company would assume a LOT.

And who wants that headache?


----------



## Oscar Levant

iheartuber said:


> Also consider it this way:
> 
> A guy owns a car, he drives for Uber. Let's say he makes $40k a year and Uber with their cut makes $20k
> 
> Ok but out of that $40k he only really made $20k after you factor out gas, maintenance, insurance, etc.
> 
> So if this were an SDC company they can make $20k per car more than what Uber makes. Ok, except....
> 
> All the expensive software and sensors cost a lot to maintain.
> Plus you gotta have a real driver in there as a backup.


Software and sensors? That's only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Uber will be owning the SDCs ( or partnering with a big firm ) , and there is where the overhead skyrockets. 
They will need technicians, wharehouses in every city where they operate, and that adds layers of costs, payroll,
logistics, programmers, maintenance personnel, layers of management, etc etc, . 
The costs of maintaining and owning/leasing a world wide fleet is astronomical. 


> So now you're not making any money as a robo taxi conpany
> 
> Ok... so what if you're using electric cars?
> 
> Ok.. if I'm the Uber driver I have a garage in my house with a charging station. If I'm a robo taxi company I have to build one.
> 
> But the most important difference? Responsibility! Uber has zero responsibility. A robo taxi company would assume a LOT.
> 
> And who wants that headache?


Remember, Uber will own or lease a fleet of hundreds of thousands of vehicles, world wide. The problems and expenses associated with maintaining and owning a large fleet will be immense. Most large taxi companies could not operate profitably and went out of business, or the sold all their cars and transfered the burden of overhead to the drivers, whereupon they over charged them for radio service and operated as a cooperative. All of the taxi companies in San Diego ( except North County Yellow ) are cooperatives, including Yellow ( city ).


----------



## bonum exactoris

Oscar Levant said:


> Software and sensors? That's only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
> 
> Uber will be owning the SDCs ( or partnering with a big firm ) , and there is where the overhead skyrockets.
> They will need technicians, wharehouses in every city where they operate, and that adds layers of costs, payroll,
> logistics, programmers, maintenance personnel, layers of management, etc etc, .
> The costs of maintaining and owning/leasing a world wide fleet is astronomical.
> 
> Remember, Uber will own or lease a fleet of hundreds of thousands of vehicles, world wide. The problems and expenses associated with maintaining and owning a large fleet will be immense. Most large taxi companies could not operate profitably and went out of business, or the sold all their cars and transfered the burden of overhead to the drivers, whereupon they over charged them for radio service and operated as a cooperative. All of the taxi companies in San Diego ( except North County Yellow ) are cooperatives, including Yellow ( city ).


To the contrary, U/L will Not own fleets of SDC. Third parties will. Uber is a technology Co, they will supply the software with lengthy lists of passenger client detailed information.


----------



## goneubering

bonum exactoris said:


> To the contrary, U/L will Not own fleets of SDC. Third parties will. Uber is a technology Co, they will supply the software with lengthy lists of passenger client detailed information.


That's partly true. Uber can't afford to buy fleets of SDCs.


----------



## iheartuber

Oscar Levant said:


> Software and sensors? That's only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
> 
> Uber will be owning the SDCs ( or partnering with a big firm ) , and there is where the overhead skyrockets.
> They will need technicians, wharehouses in every city where they operate, and that adds layers of costs, payroll,
> logistics, programmers, maintenance personnel, layers of management, etc etc, .
> The costs of maintaining and owning/leasing a world wide fleet is astronomical.
> 
> Remember, Uber will own or lease a fleet of hundreds of thousands of vehicles, world wide. The problems and expenses associated with maintaining and owning a large fleet will be immense. Most large taxi companies could not operate profitably and went out of business, or the sold all their cars and transfered the burden of overhead to the drivers, whereupon they over charged them for radio service and operated as a cooperative. All of the taxi companies in San Diego ( except North County Yellow ) are cooperatives, including Yellow ( city ).


Uber will never do any of those things because it's too much liability and too much expenses.

It sounds nice on paper but only when you dig do you see it's not all that

Talking about doing it is only to goose investors


----------



## Oscar Levant

bonum exactoris said:


> To the contrary, U/L will Not own fleets of SDC.* Third parties will.* Uber is a technology Co, they will supply the software with lengthy lists of passenger client detailed information.


As for the Gif, check out OL on "American In Paris".

Anyway, that is why I wrote, "(or partnering with a big firm)* "*


----------

