# Will people be able to buy self driving cars for rideshare?



## uberboy48 (Aug 9, 2015)

It seems like this will only be owned and operated by the big names, if that is there plan than this will hurt the economy even worse than I thought


----------



## gtrplayingman (Sep 15, 2014)

At this point, only Tesla has expressed interest in letting their autonomous cars be privately owned AND monetized by their owners. Lyft and Uber seem dead set on owning all the cars for them to rent out to us and giving nothing back to current drivers.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

gtrplayingman said:


> At this point, only Tesla has expressed interest in letting their autonomous cars be privately owned AND monetized by their owners. Lyft and Uber seem dead set on owning all the cars for them to rent out to us and giving nothing back to current drivers.


Neither of those models will work. Tesla won't have enough cars on the road to create a self driving taxi service. The self driving taxi companies will have to own the cars to be able to prove to customers that they are being properly maintained.


----------



## gtrplayingman (Sep 15, 2014)

tomatopaste said:


> Neither of those models will work. Tesla won't have enough cars on the road to create a self driving taxi service. The self driving taxi companies will have to own the cars to be able to prove to customers that they are being properly maintained.


Well, Tesla won't be the only one. I FORESEE  that other companies that are currently in the business of selling cars - GM, Mercedes, Toyota - and that are also interested in selling autonomous vehicles/features will take his playbook and also monetize them. So you'll also have Mercedes On Demand, Honda Robot Carpool and so forth.
It will also help preserve their brands. Tesla and Mercedes will remain cars for rich people, and Honda+Toyota will remain cars for the rest of us  Indoor job people who don't have to own cars won't, and will share/request a self-driving Chevy Bolt owned by a retired driver to get to/from their jobs.
Yeah, it's the half-full view. The reality will probably be closer to: GM and Mercedes and the rest will keep all the autonomous cars and rent them out forever, and we'll have to find strong cardboard boxes to live in when we're 60. But the half-full view would be nice, wouldn't it?


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

gtrplayingman said:


> Well, Tesla won't be the only one. I FORESEE  that other companies that are currently in the business of selling cars - GM, Mercedes, Toyota - and that are also interested in selling autonomous vehicles/features will take his playbook and also monetize them. So you'll also have Mercedes On Demand, Honda Robot Carpool and so forth.
> It will also help preserve their brands. Tesla and Mercedes will remain cars for rich people, and Honda+Toyota will remain cars for the rest of us  Indoor job people who don't have to own cars won't, and will share/request a self-driving Chevy Bolt owned by a retired driver to get to/from their jobs.
> Yeah, it's the half-full view. The reality will probably be closer to: GM and Mercedes and the rest will keep all the autonomous cars and rent them out forever, and we'll have to find strong cardboard boxes to live in when we're 60. But the half-full view would be nice, wouldn't it?


Every car manufacturer on the planet sees the writing on the wall. Auto Nation, the largest car dealership in the U.S, signed a deal with Waymo to service their self driving car fleet, why? Because they realize they have no other choice, soon people won't be buying cars.

People will subscribe to a Waymo type self driving taxi service for all their transportation needs. That's why GM bought Cruise. Most of the Bolts GM produces will go into their Cruise self driving taxi service. Tesla is still trying to fool fools into buying a Tesla.


----------



## Disgruntled (Nov 10, 2016)

I have no doubt driverless cars will one day be prime time but I seriously doubt the rideshare moguls will be the driving force (no pun intended). 

Uber and Lyft's business model only works for them because they can screw over the drivers so easily and thoroughly. They can't screw over a machine they have to buy and operate, that is unless a private party buys one (why the hell would someone want to do this with Uber's history of abuse?). 

Right now Uber pays the driver's peanuts, they don't have to buy the cars, they don't have to register the cars, they don't have to maintain the cars, they don't have to insure the cars (full time), they don't have to buy gas and they suffer no depreciation of any kind. On top of all of that, the cost for buying and implementing driverless cars has to be astronomical. Why in the world, if you had this kind of setup, and it was working and making you BILLIONS, would you want to cut out the one, perfect sucker in all of this and then have to take on all of that expense?


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Disgruntled said:


> I have no doubt driverless cars will one day be prime time but I seriously doubt the rideshare moguls will be the driving force (no pun intended).
> 
> Uber and Lyft's business model only works for them because they can screw over the drivers so easily and thoroughly. They can't screw over a machine they have to buy and operate, that is unless a private party buys one (why the hell would someone want to do this with Uber's history of abuse?).
> 
> Right now Uber pays the driver's peanuts, they don't have to buy the cars, they don't have to register the cars, they don't have to maintain the cars, they don't have to insure the cars (full time), they don't have to buy gas and they suffer no depreciation of any kind. On top of all of that, the cost for buying and implementing driverless cars has to be astronomical. Why in the world, if you had this kind of setup, and it was working and making you BILLIONS, would you want to cut out the one, perfect sucker in all of this and then have to take on all of that expense?


Because it's not working. Uber loses 3 billion a year, it's a Ponzi scheme and the jig is up once Waymo officially launches their self driving taxi service.


----------



## Disgruntled (Nov 10, 2016)

tomatopaste said:


> Because it's not working. Uber loses 3 billion a year, it's a Ponzi scheme and the jig is up once Waymo officially launches their self driving taxi service.


I seriously doubt they're losing anything. They're worth over $60,000,000,000 anyway so I hope they lose it all.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Disgruntled said:


> I seriously doubt they're losing anything. They're worth over $60,000,000,000 anyway so I hope they lose it all.


*Uber Hopes a New Investment Keeps It Afloat After the First $11.6 Billion*


But when you think about what they really represent, it's more like hearing that a hasty medical procedure is keeping someone alive for now. That's better than a failure, and yet the future is still dark.
Uber depends on shifting operational costs onto others. Even doing so, it's been losing an estimated $2 billion a year, at least over the last couple of years.
That would put any company into dire straits. You need a fat piggy bank to fund all that red ink. Uber has never made a penny in profit as it funded expansion and attempts to push into markets with little regard for regulatory realities or compliance. Instead, the money has flowed like crimson flood waters over worn levies.
In addition, the deal reportedly hinges on a number of conditions, including some of the shares coming at below the current market valuation for Uber. You don't make that kind of deal unless you have to. The signs suggest Uber's back is against the wall and the clock is running fast.
https://www.inc.com/erik-sherman/ub...-keeps-it-afloat-after-first-116-billion.html


----------



## Disgruntled (Nov 10, 2016)

I'm not talking about what they make the public believe. They don't do anything. They don't produce a product. All they do is sit and watch a computer monitor to make sure the app is working. They're not "losing money." At the very worst it's just clever accounting practices. The automakers are famous for this. They'll claim they're losing money in some quarter or even year but they'll just showing some multi-million dollar machines they bought or they'll spend a bunch to open a factory in Mexico or Canada and whine about "losing money." A team of accountants in a large company can show anything you want them to show at any time. You'll know when they're really losing money.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> Neither of those models will work. Tesla won't have enough cars on the road to create a self driving taxi service. The self driving taxi companies will have to own the cars to be able to prove to customers that they are being properly maintained.


Easily resolved.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

RamzFanz said:


> Easily resolved.


How so? Musk has said Tesla owners won't be able to use Teslsa SDC's on any network other than the Tesla network, not that it would make any sense either way.

The minimum purchase price for a self driving Tesla will be 60k. How will an individual paying retail for the purchase, maintenance, etc, be able to compete with a Waymo or GM self driving taxi service?


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> How so? Musk has said Tesla owners won't be able to use Teslsa SDC's on any network other than the Tesla network, not that it would make any sense either way.
> 
> The minimum purchase price for a self driving Tesla will be 60k. How will an individual paying retail for the purchase, maintenance, etc, be able to compete with a Waymo or GM self driving taxi service?


In the US a self driving equipped Tesla 3 will cost $42,000 for now until the government stops the incentive?

I didn't intend to imply they will be competitive, just that the maintenance issue you brought up could be easily resolved with tracking.

Keeping in mind they should be extremely low maintenance anyways.

I've never considered how they would be competitive. It's a valid point. Economics of scale will probably price them out of the market.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

RamzFanz said:


> In the US a self driving equipped Tesla 3 will cost $42,000 for now until the government stops the incentive?
> 
> I didn't intend to imply they will be competitive, just that the maintenance issue you brought up could be easily resolved with tracking.
> 
> ...


As a practical matter I agree. Tesla or Uber or any other company would be able to show privately owned cars are safe as well. However I don't think they'll get that chance. It will be too easy for a Waymo or GM to say: 'we own and maintain all the cars on our system and are in total control of every car 24/7.' All they have to do is raise doubt.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> As a practical matter I agree. Tesla or Uber or any other company would be able to show privately owned cars are safe as well. However I don't think they'll get that chance. It will be too easy for a Waymo or GM to say: 'we own and maintain all the cars on our system and are in total control of every car 24/7.' All they have to do is raise doubt.


Tesla aside, it makes sense for TNC companies to include privately owned cars, especially initially, and while they expand. It would allow their fleet to expand as needed without the cost. Even if it was break even for them. This race is going to be about market share.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

RamzFanz said:


> Tesla aside, it makes sense for TNC companies to include privately owned cars, especially initially, and while they expand. It would allow their fleet to expand as needed without the cost. Even if it was break even for them. This race is going to be about market share.





RamzFanz said:


> Tesla aside, it makes sense for TNC companies to include privately owned cars, especially initially, and while they expand. It would allow their fleet to expand as needed without the cost. Even if it was break even for them. This race is going to be about market share.


I don't see it. Waymo and GM will have the market to themselves for almost a year. Every SDC coming off the lines will go to Waymo or GM. I don't see private citizens being able to purchase a SDC for at least a year or two. The only other option is to retrofit existing cars, but where will they get the SDC hardware and software? GM has made a big deal about the SD Bolts having 40 percent new parts vs a regular Bolt due to SD redundancy. They're basically trying to preempt the retrofit SDC market.

https://electrek.co/2017/09/11/gm-mass-produce-self-driving-bolt-ev/


----------



## Tom Harding (Sep 26, 2016)

gtrplayingman said:


> At this point, only Tesla has expressed interest in letting their autonomous cars be privately owned AND monetized by their owners. Lyft and Uber seem dead set on owning all the cars for them to rent out to us and giving nothing back to current drivers.


The curious thing about Uber and Lyft is that their agreements with government entities is that they won't own any cars. The only cars that can provide ride sharing services, as defined by that definition, are one owned by the driver. Anything else is a taxi service, manned or not. 
NOW IS THE TIME FOR ALL RIDE SHARE DRIVERS TO BAND TOGETHER FOR A VOICE IN THE RULES REGULATING RIDE SHARE. 
NO AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES IN MY TOWN AND STATE!!!


----------



## grabby (Nov 5, 2017)

FULLY Autonomous vehicles of any type mixed with Human operated vehicles, bikes, peds will never work in a winter environment. Other environments will be a huge challenge when the Human factor is present. Lets not forget Animals.

Put them on their own private roads, tracks, tunnels etc is what will be needed, that infrastructure will take many years to establish


----------



## Gung-Ho (Jun 2, 2015)

Has any car company run a commercial on television marketing a self driving car for public consumption?

I seem to recall several years ago Honda had an ad during the Siper Bowl for a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle but I’ve yet to see one on the road.

When the Super Bowl ad ( and thats where you’ll see your first commercial for self driving cars for the public) is shown then you can anticipate sdc’s becoming reality in about 10 years or so after that.


----------



## grabby (Nov 5, 2017)

What is gonna happen, when people/humans start to purposely mess with the Autonomous Vehicles? subtle stuff to interrupt what they are doing, you *know* this will happen when kids want to have fun.

kid places a rope across street or some other obstruction, rider gets out to resolve problem, Vehicle: thank you for riding, and drives off leaving the passenger

You get the idea, it will become a game to disrupt the vehicles.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Gung-Ho said:


> Has any car company run a commercial on television marketing a self driving car for public consumption?
> 
> I seem to recall several years ago Honda had an ad during the Siper Bowl for a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle but I've yet to see one on the road.
> 
> When the Super Bowl ad ( and thats where you'll see your first commercial for self driving cars for the public) is shown then you can anticipate sdc's becoming reality in about 10 years or so after that.


Opening day of the NBA


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Gung-Ho said:


> Has any car company run a commercial on television marketing a self driving car for public consumption?
> 
> I seem to recall several years ago Honda had an ad during the Siper Bowl for a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle but I've yet to see one on the road.
> 
> When the Super Bowl ad ( and thats where you'll see your first commercial for self driving cars for the public) is shown then you can anticipate sdc's becoming reality in about 10 years or so after that.


https://www.thecarconnection.com/ca...7-vs-hyundai_tucson_2016-vs-toyota_mirai_2017


----------



## Gung-Ho (Jun 2, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> Opening day of the NBA


As usual you totally miss the point.

Intel is not a car company. There is no Intel car dealership where you can buy an Intel sdc.

When the general public can go to a dealer and buy one and use it unrestricted day or night on all roads everywhere anytime under all weather conditions and not have to be in the drivers seat while riding in it....THEN they have arrived. Until then it's all fluff and marketing.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Gung-Ho said:


> As usual you totally miss the point.
> 
> Intel is not a car company. There is no Intel car dealership where you can buy an Intel sdc.
> 
> When the general public can go to a dealer and buy one and use it unrestricted day or night on all roads everywhere anytime under all weather conditions and not have to be in the drivers seat while riding in it....THEN they have arrived. Until then it's all fluff and marketing.


Hey Einstein, Does Goodyear have car dealerships? Does Google/Waymo have car dealerships? Intel bought Mobileye for 15 billion dollars. Intel has partners like BMW and Mercedes that do manufacture cars. Intel wants to sell the self brains for the cars. Individuals won't be able to buy a self driving car for years yet there will be millions of self driving cars on the road in self driving taxi services like GM's Cruise and Google's Waymo.


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

Disgruntled said:


> I'm not talking about what they make the public believe. They don't do anything. They don't produce a product. All they do is sit and watch a computer monitor to make sure the app is working. They're not "losing money." At the very worst it's just clever accounting practices. The automakers are famous for this. They'll claim they're losing money in some quarter or even year but they'll just showing some multi-million dollar machines they bought or they'll spend a bunch to open a factory in Mexico or Canada and whine about "losing money." A team of accountants in a large company can show anything you want them to show at any time. You'll know when they're really losing money.


These giant publicly traded companies don't play games with books.

They are also collecting data for the SDCs and riders to use which is the true value of the company


----------



## Disgruntled (Nov 10, 2016)

Kodyhead said:


> These giant publicly traded companies don't play games with books.


LOL!!! Yeah right. That is ALL they do and I'm not talking about anything illegal but I'm sure that goes on too. Anyway, I don't believe uber isn't publicly traded yet, not that it would matter.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Gung-Ho said:


> Has any car company run a commercial on television marketing a self driving car for public consumption?
> 
> I seem to recall several years ago Honda had an ad during the Siper Bowl for a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle but I've yet to see one on the road.
> 
> When the Super Bowl ad ( and thats where you'll see your first commercial for self driving cars for the public) is shown then you can anticipate sdc's becoming reality in about 10 years or so after that.


Self driving is already a reality. It happened months after Waymo began advertising them. Your prediction was correct except the timeline.



grabby said:


> FULLY Autonomous vehicles of any type mixed with Human operated vehicles, bikes, peds will never work in a winter environment. Other environments will be a huge challenge when the Human factor is present. Lets not forget Animals.
> 
> Put them on their own private roads, tracks, tunnels etc is what will be needed, that infrastructure will take many years to establish


No infrastructure changes are needed.


----------

