# Waymo begins experimenting with self-driving taxi prices



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

All rides are free for volunteers, but the Waymo app recently started to show hypothetical prices. A view of the app by Bloomberg News offers the first indication of Waymo's early experiments with pricing. A ride to Kyla's nearby school shows up as $5, for example, while a longer 11.3-mile trip lists a cost of $19.15. That's similar to the cost of a ride from Uber Technologies Inc. or Lyft Inc., and cheaper than a local taxi.

The experience of riding in a Waymo is surprisingly mundane. The robotaxi drives like a very careful human. Bloomberg News sat in the backseat, accompanied by backup drivers, for recent rides near Palo Alto and Phoenix.

Screens built into the back of the front-seat headrests give passengers a sleek, videogame-like view of what the car sees, with nearby vehicles represented as smooth pods jockeying along a dark blue virtual roadway. Every 5 seconds or so, a spray of white pinpoints flash across the screen, briefly illuminating the roadway in striking detail: pedestrians on the sidewalk, shrubbery, road signs dotting the landscape. It's Waymo's way of telling the passenger: I've got this.

One of the tricks Waymo has had to learn is how to indicate "intent" to other drivers by how the car moves. While making a left turn in a large multi-lane intersection, the car signals and creeps forward before accelerating into the turn. Waymo drives conservatively, to be sure, but the robots aren't cowards. Gone are the days where two self-driving cars facing each other in a parking lot might freeze up from an overabundance of politeness: You go first. No, please, you go first.

There are still times when the car gets flustered-Kyla says that the rush of students in the parking lot of her high school can trigger Waymo paralysis-but for the most part it's a reliable, if boring, chauffeur. "Kids walk and it halts," she says. "It's so polite. It's like, 'Oh sorry.' It's not rude enough."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-07-31/inside-the-life-of-waymo-s-driverless-test-family


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

The first thing you note is no video showing any of the cars they reference driving themselves, working perfectly, with no interaction from the driver.

I'm just going to point out the important pieces.



> everywhere within the 100 square-mile operating area:


These things only work within a small area so what's the point ? Why are they acting like they are ready to drive anywhere a human driver can ?



> Access to robotaxis has even managed to convince this 17-year-old to put off an American rite of passage: getting her driver's license. As Kyla puts it, "What's the point?"


lol what kind of propaganda is this ? Yeah, kids are going to not get driving licenses because these ridiculous death traps that can only work within a small area can drive them around for free ?



> "People were like, 'I don't know how you get in that. I couldn't trust a machine like that.'


This is exactly what normal people that aren't being given free rides are saying.



> The Google offshoot has logged more than 8 million miles in fully autonomous mode


But still no videos whatsoever over 15 minutes in length, showing these things driving themselves perfectly.

As I've said before, there is a ratio of 20-1 of waymo cars I see in Mountain View daily not driving themselves vs driving themselves. The driver almost always has their hands on the wheel driving the supposed SDC. Ridiculous.



> The robotaxi drives like a very careful human.


If you've ridden behind any of these sdc's you know they drive like an old lady. They are always many miles below the speed limit. Yes, they error on the side of caution but absurdly so, so much that you always have to go around them.

What this article shows is, yet again, instead of showing you video of these ridiculous things in action, they simply tell you what they are seeing. Why not show us video ? Wouldn't we rather see these things driving instead of some meathead trying to tell me ? The reason is simple, they will not work.



> Once, early on, her car stopped behind a construction container and didn't know what to do, forcing the backup driver to take over.


Exactly.



> On her first trip to the mall, she recalls the car taking "the most asinine route" and then driving all around the parking lot. Since then, she says, Waymo has designated drop-offs on the map for major points of interest.


Exactly.



> Waymo is widely seen as the current leader in self-driving technology, and the company is poised to step first into a market that could top more than $1.5 trillion a year by 2030, according to UBS analyst Eric Sheridan. He estimates that Waymo software will drive some 60 percent of autonomous cars by then, bringing Alphabet some $114 billion in revenue, not including the trucking business. But these eye-opening revenue projections and the potential for widespread adoption will hinge, in part, on pricing.


Great, then where's all the video ? If these things work, let's see the video ? What about me always seeing the driver driving these cars all over Mountain View ? BS

So, in conclusion you have no video of anything happening and supposedly one person that is not only paying for a ride but also likely being paid for her to be in the program actually saying ridiculous things about how these things likely don't work anything near a human being and only within a small 10 x 10 area.



> "A lot of my friends are like, 'Oh my gosh, I wish I had a Waymo.'"


lol ? Which friends are these ? Friends that didn't want to say so on camera ? Complete bs. Nobody is saying that.

No video, nothing to back up anything in this article at all. All propaganda.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

The biggest problem I see, set aside the large amount of corporate propaganda mixed up with a little information, is the PRICE MODEL. 

These tests clearly show self driving rates will be the same as rideshare, even when THE DRIVER is REMOVED from the car.

Hmmmmmmm!!!!!


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

Not to mention the massive traffic jams the stupid things will cause by driving like ******ed 15-year-olds or blind 80-year-olds.

Where is the fat man? I thought the price was going to be like five cents a mile because of magical efficiency gains


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> Not to mention the massive traffic jams the stupid things will cause by driving like ******ed 15-year-olds or blind 80-year-olds.
> 
> Where is the fat man? I thought the price was going to be like five cents a mile because of magical efficiency gains


Travis Kalanick said in 2014 - "The reason Uber could be expensive is you're paying for the other dude in the car. When there is no other dude in the car, the cost of taking an Uber anywhere is cheaper. Even on a road trip."

The article says - "A ride to Kyla's nearby school shows up as $5, for example, while a longer 11.3-mile trip lists a cost of $19.15. That's* similar to the cost of a ride from Uber Technologies Inc. or Lyft Inc*., and cheaper than a local taxi."


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

8 million miles?

1000 taxis at 250 miles a day...

8 million miles is what one cab company can drive in a month


food for thought...

8 million is... well... just a number.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> 8 million miles?
> 
> 1000 taxis at 250 miles a day...
> 
> ...


Another big problem Waymo has - "claiming that I've got X billion miles becomes less significant." - https://uberpeople.net/threads/anot...lion-miles-becomes-less-significant-”.259544/


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

Are we still talking about the Pontiac minivans in Phoenix ? Are these rides all pool all the time? Is there absolutely no way for a pax to get their own robo ride?



jocker12 said:


> Travis Kalanick said in 2014 - "The reason Uber could be expensive is you're paying for the other dude in the car. When there is no other dude in the car, the cost of taking an Uber anywhere is cheaper. Even on a road trip."."


The reason why uber loses money is not cus they're "paying for the other dude in the car- the driver" but because they do not limit the number of drivers.

By flooding the supply that limits driver pay which results in approx 96% of all drivers quitting which means they have to spend so much money in driver recruitment.

The reason they flood the supply is because to limit the supply would be tantamount to them controlling the workforce which would mean they would then have to classify drivers as employees which would cost uber a ton in taxes.

The idea of self driving cars to save Uber from bleeding cash is ludicrous but they have to make up some kind of BS to tell the investors.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> The reason why uber loses money


That could also be the case but Kalanick was not speaking about why Uber was and is losing money. He was telling riders they pay too much because of the driver. By saying that, Kalanick was undermining "the driver" concept, hyping up the self driving hallucination, deliberately ignoring transportation realities.

Riders are not paying enough, as the rates kept going down. The reason some markets (maybe all of them) had higher rates in 2014, was because Uber wanted to attract as many DRIVERS as possible, not because the driver was the problem.

I don't think anybody else publicly repeated this stupidity, but the general public's logic went on considering Kalanick was right. And that is what SDCs enthusiasts believe today.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> That could also be the case but Kalanick was not speaking about why Uber was and is losing money. He was telling riders they pay too much because of the driver. By saying that, Kalanick was undermining "the driver" concept, hyping up the self driving hallucination, deliberately ignoring transportation realities.
> 
> Riders are not paying enough, as the rates kept going down. The reason some markets (maybe all of them) had higher rates in 2014, was because Uber wanted to attract as many DRIVERS as possible, not because the driver was the problem.
> 
> I don't think anybody else publicly repeated this stupidity, but the general public's logic went on considering Kalanick was right. And that is what SDCs enthusiasts believe today.


TK's first start up was a website called scour which was like Napster before Napster. It allowed the public to share movies and music for free via p2p.

He was shut down rapidly for copyright infringement.

But his pattern seems to suggest a kind of "Robin Hood" mentality where he wants to give the public free or cheap stuff at the expense of screwing someone else.

With scour he was screwing the record companies, the movie studios, and the artists themselves.

With Uber he's screwing the drivers.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> TK's first start up was a website called scour which was like Napster before Napster. It allowed the public to share movies and music for free via p2p.
> 
> He was shut down rapidly for copyright infringement.
> 
> ...


Yes, but comparing transportation with movie or music industry is a little off in my opinion, because the movie and the music people were used to making outrageous amounts of money from a printed and redistributed product on top of the money they were making on live performances.

If you are a book writer and have no live performances for your product, I understand the price your publisher is asking for the printed redistributed product, but for movie and music production and distribution companies to make fortunes out of redistribution of printed material is a little bit extreme and needed to be heavily adjusted. And it was forced into that with services like Netflix, Hulu or Spotify.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> Yes, but comparing transportation with movie or music industry is a little off in my opinion, because the movie and the music people were used to making outrageous amounts of money from a printed and redistributed product on top of the money they were making on live performances.
> 
> If you are a book writer and have no live performances for your product, I understand the price your publisher is asking for the printed redistributed product, but for movie and music production and distribution companies to make fortunes out of redistribution of printed material is a little bit extreme and needed to be heavily adjusted. And it was forced into that with services like Netflix, Hulu or Spotify.


Are you saying music and movies were so overpriced (still are?) that they deserved the TK and then Napster treatment they got?

Now you sound like TK himself!


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> Are you saying music and movies were so overpriced (still are?) that they deserved the TK and then Napster treatment they got?
> 
> Now you sound like TK himself!


I'm saying "comparing transportation with movie or music industry is a little off in my opinion", but I understand where you are coming from.

Uber or Lyft is not Netflix or Spotify. That is the mistake self driving cars enthusiasts make thinking a subscription model could work in ride share. On line traffic is not the same as downtown traffic.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> I'm saying "comparing transportation with movie or music industry is a little off in my opinion", but I understand where you are coming from.
> 
> Uber or Lyft is not Netflix or Spotify. That is the mistake self driving cars enthusiasts make thinking a subscription model could work in ride share. On line traffic is not the same as downtown traffic.


No, not Netflix... NAPSTER! At least the music and movie companies get paid with Netflix and Spotify. Napster was just straight up piracy.

I understand entertainment and transportation are different, but the concept is the same: give the public something free or close to free (ie cheap rides) at the expense of screwing someone.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

TK was not the only Robin Hood. Other start ups take money from investors, give customers something really cool, really cheap (or free) and basically burn through investor money doing so.

The latest example is Movie Pass:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-o...-moviepass-the-only-1533190729-htmlstory.html


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> I understand entertainment and transportation are different, but the concept is the same: give the public something free or close to free (ie cheap rides) at the expense of screwing someone.


File sharing is not only movies and music, but these sectors got hurt the most because people from those creation-production-publishing chains got hurt the most. Also the software industry got hit, but they had the ability to encode their products and made it a little more difficult to unlock.

The main reason that initiated the piracy was the corporate greed. The need to have their products on the market, made the same players facing piracy and their products traded for free, consider a much cheaper way to publish. and services like Netflix or Spotify got created.

In transportation, the taxi cab structure was an effective way to extort wealth from the consumers, with no quality improvement in response. The money were going different directions through the local governments regulatory entities, and the change was imminent and desired by the market. The ride share idea is brilliant if done right, because it brings the quality and the flexibility transportation needed. Ride share broke a monopoly, but unfortunately it could create another and TK needed to be removed only because of his fight to achieve his corporate goals. Lyft is doing the same but keeping a lower profile makes them look "better" when they are not.

Fares could be drastically reduced on the riders side following a Facebook approach, which is entirely free and worth billions. I do know two direct ways (using simple existing technology) to lower riders rates while increasing drivers rates that could be negotiated and implemented and make everybody happy - ride share platforms, drivers and riders alike. There is no need to deceive the public by promising the impossible - self driving primitive robots.

I'll give you an example about fixing heavy traffic, measures local authorities could implement shortly and effectively. Probably you already seen how New York wants to cap the number of rideshare licences blaming Uber and Lyft for traffic congestion. What is the reason of those congestions? People jumping on the same roads at the same time (to get to work and to get home from work). To me, looks like a* schedule glitch*. If one agree, we can alter the work schedule and have companies start the business day at different times in the morning (6am, 7am, 8am, 9am, 10am and 11am on a weekly or monthly rotation basis) and spread out the congestion into 6 different time segments. The same is going to happen in the afternoon with people and cars on the same roads at *different times* (2pm, 3pm, 4pm, 5pm, 6pm, 7pm and 8pm). There is no need to redo anything. Same roads, same cars, same work. Only different and coordinated work schedules. In my opinion they need a different philosophy, not different tools.

I am sure there will be people to question this format. No problem. Probably others will have better concepts. They are welcome! But forcing corporate delusions or local authorities impotence meant to create social problems (capping ride share licences), technological oxymorons (SDCs) and construction nightmares (infrastructure changes to accommodate stupidly slow and totally impractical self driving robots) and claiming that is THE FUTURE, is absurd and unfortunate.



iheartuber said:


> TK was not the only Robin Hood. Other start ups take money from investors, give customers something really cool, really cheap (or free) and basically burn through investor money doing so.


Initially, the ride share idea, even if its initiators didn't believe it, was brilliant. Its implementation was abusive but entirely matched the strength the monopoly was pushing back, and the latest developments are self destructive.

The hugely unexpected factor that made this idea so successful was/is simple, the only metric that matters - people (riders and drivers) loved it (for their different reasons) from the very beginning. It used already existing assets for much better services with drivers with much better attitude, and disconnected local money flow controlling entities from the entire process.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> File sharing is not only movies and music, but these sectors got hurt the most because people from those creation-production-publishing chains got hurt the most. Also the software industry got hit, but they had the ability to encode their products and made it a little more difficult to unlock.
> 
> The main reason that initiated the piracy was the corporate greed. The need to have their products on the market, made the same players facing piracy and their products traded for free, consider a much cheaper way to publish. and services like Netflix or Spotify got created.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't go so far to say rideshare is "brilliant" because all it did/does is create a great opportunity for some (pax) at the expense of others (drivers)

So, if you're a pax sure it's brilliant. Driver? Not so much.

and how do these cheap rides happen? By circumventing regulations and passing the savings to the pax.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> I wouldn't go so far to say rideshare is "brilliant" because all it did/does is create a great opportunity for some (pax) at the expense of others (drivers)
> 
> So, if you're a pax sure it's brilliant. Driver? Not so much.
> 
> and how do these cheap rides happen? By circumventing regulations and passing the savings to the pax.


The concept is brilliant and I've also mentioned "Its implementation was abusive". I think drivers need more support from the platforms regarding car maintenance and regarding a reverse of the values of the per minute and per mile rates to reflect transportation realities.

*I am 100% for strict regulations*, but not the same way taxi cab industry was regulated. You need to shake the establishment to have them realize all those cab industry regulations, from the financial stand point, were abusive and the market was pressurized (because was facing a monopoly) to pay or not have service.

In addition to that, all the corporations involved need to be heavily scrutinized (especially for of the latest upfront pricing scheme) because they slowly but surely, move towards a slightly different abusive model, where money are not ending in local authorities possession, but they are kept in corporate accounts for corporate benefit, which is not what the drivers need and the riders want. The main problem is that the riders are intentionally kept in the dark and not informed about the details, while the drivers are coerced to keep their mouths shut (by the rating system and/or deactivation threat) and provide a service that is gradually deteriorating because of these exact reasons.


----------



## 404NofFound (Jun 13, 2018)

The rider can be the back up driver. Between rides the car will drive itself.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

404NofFound said:


> The rider can be the back up driver. Between rides the car will drive itself.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

jocker12 said:


> The biggest problem I see, set aside the large amount of corporate propaganda mixed up with a little information, is the PRICE MODEL.
> 
> These tests clearly show self driving rates will be the same as rideshare, even when THE DRIVER is REMOVED from the car.
> 
> Hmmmmmmm!!!!!


As time grinds the cars down, maintenance costs increased, and they are going to realize they are not profitable just because they got rid of the driver.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Oscar Levant said:


> As time grinds the cars down, maintenance costs increased, and they are going to realize they are not profitable just because they got rid of the driver.


The driver will never be removed. Probably the SDC developers will have their 15 minutes of fame to show their primitive robots, people will understand the reality, and this masquerade will fade off into the oblivion of monumental failures.

Don't get me wrong, the scientists are doing what they need to do and work towards their projected goal, but that's not even closer to enough. The problem is with the business people pushing for results in order to at least recover their invested billions, while science needs time and commitment.

Time is what business people are out of, because time is burning more of their money, and they only understand performance by making money, not by losing it.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> The driver will never be removed. Probably the SDC developers will have their 15 minutes of fame to show their primitive robots, people will understand the reality, and this masquerade will fade off into the oblivion of monumental failures.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, the scientists are doing what they need to do and work towards their projected goal, but that's not even closer to enough. The problem is with the business people pushing for results in order to at least recover their invested billions, while science needs time and commitment.
> 
> Time is what business people are out of, because time is burning more of their money, and they only understand performance by making money, not by losing it.


If you invested in SDCs instead of rental property or mutual funds then you get what you deserve


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> If you invested in SDCs instead of rental property or mutual funds then you get what you deserve


In all the fairness, Waymo is not telling people to invest in the bright future of self driving cars. It is the financial professionals (so called "advisers" - LOL) making predictions about technology, and insisting autonomous cars represent a strong investing field worth to consider.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> View attachment 248935


LOL


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

No journalists want to suggest Waymo to send its “self driving fleet” to save Americans from hurricane Florence’s path? 

Awwww... those great self driving robots much better than humans.... 

Why not Waymo, as a big and “successful” $175 billion estimated company, has John Krafcik step up from his anonymity and send the self driving robots to prove all the naysayers wrong?

After all, self driving cars are “here” and they are the future, and they are meant to save lives. Human lives.
Awwwwww.....


----------

