# So explain to me why you would need to take a Self Driving Uber Car



## DRider85 (Nov 19, 2016)

I'm of the understanding that in order for self driving cars to work, every other car would have to be self drivers as well. But anyways, what makes Uber so unique, when you have lots of other competitors also making their own self driving car?

And if we lived in a world where all cars were driverless, then why on Earth would I want to pay for an Uber when I have my own car? Like for instance if I wanted to go drinking, why would I pay for another self driving car, when I could just take my own car to drive me? Am I missing something here? Looks to me like Uber doesn't have anything extra to offer me.

Because we're not gonna live in a world where there's Uber self driving cars and then pretty much every other car is a human. That's not the reality. Now I could understand that self driving cars would be expensive. But in reality, the more the tech evolves, the cheaper it becomes. Sure there are some people who don't own cars, but then that would be a niche market we'd be talking about.


----------



## HNTRSTNG (Sep 1, 2016)

Uber is planning on phasing all drivers out eventually. I don't think it'll happen too soon, however. Autonomous vehicles are the future after all and as exciting as it may be, I am more on the cynical side of the argument.

I have a feeling this will be the Uber driver of the future...


----------



## UberSolo (Jul 21, 2016)

DRider85 said:


> I'm of the understanding that in order for self driving cars to work, every other car would have to be self drivers as well. But anyways, what makes Uber so unique, when you have lots of other competitors also making their own self driving car?
> 
> And if we lived in a world where all cars were driverless, then why on Earth would I want to pay for an Uber when I have my own car? Like for instance if I wanted to go drinking, why would I pay for another self driving car, when I could just take my own car to drive me? Am I missing something here? Looks to me like Uber doesn't have anything extra to offer me.
> 
> Because we're not gonna live in a world where there's Uber self driving cars and then pretty much every other car is a human. That's not the reality. Now I could understand that self driving cars would be expensive. But in reality, the more the tech evolves, the cheaper it becomes. Sure there are some people who don't own cars, but then that would be a niche market we'd be talking about.



*self driving cars will have their own exclusive lanes*. u will arrive to work 30 mins earlier void of traffic 
congestion and chatty low wage workers. 74 million millennials love technology and will jump faster than u can say homeless uber driver


----------



## DRider85 (Nov 19, 2016)

HNTRSTNG said:


> Uber is planning on phasing all drivers out eventually. I don't think it'll happen too soon, however. Autonomous vehicles are the future after all and as exciting as it may be, I am more on the cynical side of the argument.
> 
> I have a feeling this will be the Uber driver of the future...
> View attachment 110072


You didn't answer my question


----------



## UberSolo (Jul 21, 2016)

DRider85 said:


> You didn't answer my question


*self driving cars will have their own exclusive lanes*. commuters will arrive to work 30 mins earlier void of traffic


----------



## DRider85 (Nov 19, 2016)

UberSolo said:


> *self driving cars will have their own exclusive lanes*. u will arrive to work 30 mins earlier void of traffic
> congestion and chatty low wage workers. 74 million millennials love technology and will jump faster than u can say homeless uber driver


Okay but most roads only are 2 way so where are these lanes going to come from?


----------



## UberSolo (Jul 21, 2016)

DRider85 said:


> Okay but most roads only are 2 way so where are these lanes going to come from?


goggle it. class dismissed


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

DRider85 said:


> I'm of the understanding that in order for self driving cars to work, every other car would have to be self drivers as well. But anyways, what makes Uber so unique, when you have lots of other competitors also making their own self driving car?
> 
> And if we lived in a world where all cars were driverless, then why on Earth would I want to pay for an Uber when I have my own car? Like for instance if I wanted to go drinking, why would I pay for another self driving car, when I could just take my own car to drive me? Am I missing something here? Looks to me like Uber doesn't have anything extra to offer me.
> 
> Because we're not gonna live in a world where there's Uber self driving cars and then pretty much every other car is a human. That's not the reality. Now I could understand that self driving cars would be expensive. But in reality, the more the tech evolves, the cheaper it becomes. Sure there are some people who don't own cars, but then that would be a niche market we'd be talking about.


That's a great point. When all cars are self driving no more DUIs. but actually in large cities like NYC and Manhattan in particular people don't have cars or anywhere to park them, so SDC taxis or SDC Ubers will be needed there.

and there will be a time when SDC and regular cars have to share the road. The danger is not the SDC, once they figure it out it's the human drivers that will be causing the accidents to the SDC.


----------



## DRider85 (Nov 19, 2016)

Lee239 said:


> That's a great point. When all cars are self driving no more DUIs. but actually in large cities like NYC and Manhattan in particular people don't have cars or anywhere to park them, so SDC taxis or SDC Ubers will be needed there.
> 
> and there will be a time when SDC and regular cars have to share the road. The danger is not the SDC, once they figure it out it's the human drivers that will be causing the accidents to the SDC.


Okay maybe in those cities but then Uber's self driving cars would be more of a niche than right? Because if my car was a self driver, I wouldn't need an Uber to drive me. All those people that drink but own a car wouldn't Uber anymore so they would just use their own car I'm guessing.

Plus if parking was hard, then your own self driving car would do fine, why would you need another self driving car?

Also in manhattan I'm sure some still have cars. They wouldn't need their self driving car to park, but to just drop them off and go back and then pick them up again where they need to be picked up. Don't see how Uber would be relevant. The way I see it is if technology got that strong then an Uber self driving concept would also become antiquated.

I mean I guess nobody sees it this way. If uber is looking this far ahead, then I'm looking even further ahead. Uber has to make their own cars. I read that Mercedes is working on their own self driving car. So if I bought a Mercedes and it self drove me wherever I wanted, then where does Uber fit in?

At this point Uber would be running an outdated business model (self driving rideshare) unless they had their own car brand. The more mainstream tech gets the cheaper it gets. It's like smartphones, they seem like amazing tech but everyone had them. So people might figure that it makes sense to just own your own self driver car. So unless Uber is giving me something I cannot get anywhere else, I don't see where they fit in.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

DRider85 said:


> Okay maybe in those cities but then Uber's self driving cars would be more of a niche than right? Because if my car was a self driver, I wouldn't need an Uber to drive me. All those people that drink but own a car wouldn't Uber anymore so they would just use their own car I'm guessing.
> 
> Plus if parking was hard, then your own self driving car would do fine, why would you need another self driving car?
> 
> ...


The problem is there is no place to park cars in Manhattan. A building can have 50 apartments and a few street parking spaces that you have to pay for. Manhattan workers who drive in have to pay about $30 a day to park.


----------



## Fubernuber (Jan 15, 2017)

DRider85 said:


> I'm of the understanding that in order for self driving cars to work, every other car would have to be self drivers as well. But anyways, what makes Uber so unique, when you have lots of other competitors also making their own self driving car?
> 
> And if we lived in a world where all cars were driverless, then why on Earth would I want to pay for an Uber when I have my own car? Like for instance if I wanted to go drinking, why would I pay for another self driving car, when I could just take my own car to drive me? Am I missing something here? Looks to me like Uber doesn't have anything extra to offer me.
> 
> Because we're not gonna live in a world where there's Uber self driving cars and then pretty much every other car is a human. That's not the reality. Now I could understand that self driving cars would be expensive. But in reality, the more the tech evolves, the cheaper it becomes. Sure there are some people who don't own cars, but then that would be a niche market we'd be talking about.


You are asking the wrong question. The right question is:
Why does uber say that they will one day own their own fleet of driverless cars when much bigger companies with much deeper pocketts can crush uber if this was a feasible business model?


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

Fubernuber said:


> You are asking the wrong queation. The right queation is:
> Why does uber say that they will one day own their own fleet of driverless cars when much bigger companies with much deeper pocketts can crush uber if this was a feasible business model?


And why should Uber spend billions on the technology when they can just buy the cars from Ford or GM when they make them and just add SDC taxi software. they are wasting money. In fact GM and Ford can put their own cars on the road as taxis and Uber will be dead.


----------



## DRider85 (Nov 19, 2016)

Lee239 said:


> The problem is there is no place to park cars in Manhattan. A building can have 50 apartments and a few street parking spaces that you have to pay for. Manhattan workers who drive in have to pay about $30 a day to park.


But if there's no where to park then how would Uber's self driving car be of better service than my own car? Then uber cannot park either.


----------



## Fubernuber (Jan 15, 2017)

Self driving cars dont need parking. U send them as far as needed to park. Self driving is also self parking


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

DRider85 said:


> But if there's no where to park then how would Uber's self driving car be of better service than my own car? Then uber cannot park either.


Taxis have places to park so will Uber or they can park them in Brooklyn or New Jersey.


----------



## DRider85 (Nov 19, 2016)

Fubernuber said:


> Self driving cars dont need parking. U send them as far as needed to park. Self driving is also self parking


So? Why would I need Uber's car to do that when I could get one from Mercedes?


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

Fubernuber said:


> Self driving cars dont need parking. U send them as far as needed to park. Self driving is also self parking


And the argument was why don't all Manhattanites have SDC and why do they need Uber SDC taxis, it's because if everyone had a SDC manhattan would be at a standstill.


----------



## DRider85 (Nov 19, 2016)

Lee239 said:


> Taxis have places to park so will Uber or they can park them in Brooklyn or New Jersey.


I guess. But this is one or two cities...



Lee239 said:


> And why should Uber spend billions on the technology when they can just buy the cars from Ford or GM when they make them and just add SDC taxi software. they are wasting money. In fact GM and Ford can put their own cars on the road as taxis and Uber will be dead.


That's a good point too. Why would Uber invest money in this tech when it's not their niche?


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

DRider85 said:


> I guess. But this is one or two cities...


Manhattan, Chicago, LA , San Fran, Miami all the major metro areas would do well with SDC taxis. when they get them it will be cheaper for Uber to keep human drivers in most of the rest of the US.



DRider85 said:


> I guess. But this is one or two cities...
> 
> That's a good point too. Why would Uber invest money in this tech when it's not their niche?


Because they are stupid and don't realize they are an app company and not a car or taxi operation.

eventually SDC will lean to automated roads where cars and almost touching each other and speeding along and then separate via GPS to where they need to go.


----------



## DRider85 (Nov 19, 2016)

Lee239 said:


> Manhattan, Chicago, LA , San Fran, Miami all the major metro areas would do well with SDC taxis. when they get them it will be cheaper for Uber to keep human drivers in most of the rest of the US.
> 
> Because they are stupid and don't realize they are an app company and not a car or taxi operation.
> 
> eventually SDC will lean to automated roads where cars and almost touching each other and speeding along and then separate via GPS to where they need to go.


Unless uber thinks that they are more than just an app company.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

DRider85 said:


> Unless uber thinks that they are more than just an app company.


They think that buy they just hire independent contractors to do rideshare. They don't make cars nor are SDC leaders so they are just throwing money away, unless they have a genius who can create and patent a technology that all other SDC need to become the standard.


----------



## DRider85 (Nov 19, 2016)

Fubernuber said:


> You are asking the wrong question. The right question is:
> Why does uber say that they will one day own their own fleet of driverless cars when much bigger companies with much deeper pocketts can crush uber if this was a feasible business model?


That would be another good question yes.

But what I was wondering is if let's say I want to do drink, even though I don't drink. And I just have my self driving Mercedes take me to the bar. Why would I need Uber's car when my Mercedes is driving for me?


----------



## Jagent (Jan 29, 2017)

This thread will end up being 20 pages. Good bait...lol


----------



## Fubernuber (Jan 15, 2017)

Lee239 said:


> And why should Uber spend billions on the technology when they can just buy the cars from Ford or GM when they make them and just add SDC taxi software. they are wasting money. In fact GM and Ford can put their own cars on the road as taxis and Uber will be dead.


They are not wasting or spending billions. They are making billions off the pie in the sky they are selling to investors. Pretty simple concept. "I have a goldmine, i need to buy equipment and tech to mine it. Give me your money for a share of this goldmine". In reality this goldmine is full of lead.



DRider85 said:


> So? Why would I need Uber's car to do that when I could get one from Mercedes?


You dont. Read my posts above. I 100% agree with you except i took it a step further. Its all an elaborate fraud to fleece investors. Technically they are not lying. They are investing heavily into self driving cars. When the future reveals that their dreams were never a posible reality for uber they will absolve them selves from any wrong doing. The heads atop will have made hundreds of millions in bonuses and pay. The investors will write off their losses and uber dissapears when it becomes evident that they could never turn a proffit.



DRider85 said:


> That would be another good question yes.
> 
> But what I was wondering is if let's say I want to do drink, even though I don't drink. And I just have my self driving Mercedes take me to the bar. Why would I need Uber's car when my Mercedes is driving for me?


Ubers investors dont think like you. They have never driven anyone and have no clue. They need uber to give them a clue. Uber is a master at clueing them in. You want to tell ubers investors they will never get their money back? I think you dont have to. Soon enough they will figure it out


----------



## Jermin8r89 (Mar 10, 2016)

Self driveing econmy is nothing but a hype. Think about it. As an app they own nothing and drivers arr at fault. If an uber driver crashes oh well it should be on the person. So if an uber self driveing car crashes noone else to point to but travis.

In reality it should not work cuz you going to have to lower rates with more people out of work esspecally since transportation sector has the most amount of workers. More SSI. Taxes on uber. We live in a capitalism world and if they do this then its a socailism world. Uber would lose money not unless uber is all about safety of its people.

Driver appreciation year. Oh yay for uber for helping 1 uber driver become homeless at a time


----------



## UberSolo (Jul 21, 2016)

DRider85 said:


> Okay maybe in those cities but then Uber's self driving cars would be more of a niche than right? Because if my car was a self driver, I wouldn't need an Uber to drive me. All those people that drink but own a car wouldn't Uber anymore so they would just use their own car I'm guessing.
> 
> Plus if parking was hard, then your own self driving car would do fine, why would you need another self driving car?
> 
> ...


Wow, I'm glad your ancestors weren't around the Wright brothers, Thomas Edison , Steve Jobs, Henry Ford, Larry Page & Sergey Brin nor Jeff Bezos.

But, I guess they all had Naysayers like You. Good thing they were ignored

New Frontier my friend, New Frontier


----------



## DRider85 (Nov 19, 2016)

UberSolo said:


> Wow, I'm glad your ancestors weren't around the Wright brothers, Thomas Edison , Steve Jobs, Henry Ford, Larry Page &!Sergey Brin nor Jeff Bezos.
> 
> But, I guess they all had Naysayers like You. Good thing they were ignored
> 
> New Frontier my friend, New Frontier


I don't even know what you're trying to say.


----------



## UberSolo (Jul 21, 2016)

DRider85 said:


> I don't even know what you're trying to say.


Of course u don't. Try to think on a global level


----------



## Maven (Feb 9, 2017)

Ug to his buddies, 1 million BC: "Stick with square wheels! Round is a stupid idea that will never work and is against the laws of the gods and nature and will cause lots of accidents and is part of the Transhumanist Globalist conspiracy that we're being sold by the World Bank. Anyone who disagrees is their shill and a snowflake.

Ugg (Ug's bestest buddy), What's a snowflake? You do know that we live in a desert


----------



## UberSolo (Jul 21, 2016)

Maven said:


> Ug to his buddies, 1 million BC: "Stick with square wheels! Round is a stupid idea that will never work and is against the laws of the gods and nature and will cause lots of accidents and is part of the Transhumanist Globalist conspiracy that we're being sold by the World Bank. Anyone who disagrees is their shill and a snowflake.
> 
> Ugg (Ug's bestest buddy), What's a snowflake? You do know that we live in a desert


*Transhumanism: An Attempt To Use Technology To Turn Men Into Gods*
*https://conspiracyanalyst.org/2015/...empt-to-use-technology-to-turn-men-into-gods/










*​


----------



## Maven (Feb 9, 2017)

UberSolo said:


> Transhumanism: An Attempt To Use Technology To Turn Men Into Gods ... conspiracyanalyst.org ...


Hard to take anything seriously from a website calling itself, "conspiracy analyst". Having said that I found the website has surprisingly good writing and analysis.


----------



## UberSolo (Jul 21, 2016)

Maven said:


> Hard to take anything seriously from a website calling itself, "conspiracy analyst". Having said that I found the website has surprisingly good writing and analysis.


U sir are welcome!


----------



## DRider85 (Nov 19, 2016)

I came up with this new theory. By the time Uber is able to use self driving cars, self driving cars might already be an outdated idea. I mean there can be something even greater and better. Like flying cars or teleportation. Why would you want a self driving car if you could teleport? Now maybe teleportation is a little bit away from now, but with virtual reality, I think people might not even want to go places. By the time driving becomes automated, there will be less and less places to go, due to all the automation. Think about it. The better tech comes, the less reason there would be to need to go out, let alone take a self Driving Uber, especially if you have your own self driving car.

Have you used Virtual Reality? It's actually a thing. I've used playstation VR and when I am in the ocean, it really feels real. So if they can perfect that technology, why would people even want to get in a self driving car, when they could go anywhere they want in the universe in Cyberspace? Plus if all jobs became automated, there would be hardly any businesses to go to. Why pay hundreds to go to an NBA game, when you could be in the first row watching with your headset?


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

DRider85 said:


> I'm of the understanding that in order for self driving cars to work, every other car would have to be self drivers as well. But anyways, what makes Uber so unique, when you have lots of other competitors also making their own self driving car?
> 
> And if we lived in a world where all cars were driverless, then why on Earth would I want to pay for an Uber when I have my own car? Like for instance if I wanted to go drinking, why would I pay for another self driving car, when I could just take my own car to drive me? Am I missing something here? Looks to me like Uber doesn't have anything extra to offer me.
> 
> Because we're not gonna live in a world where there's Uber self driving cars and then pretty much every other car is a human. That's not the reality. Now I could understand that self driving cars would be expensive. But in reality, the more the tech evolves, the cheaper it becomes. Sure there are some people who don't own cars, but then that would be a niche market we'd be talking about.


SO I guess you never go on vacation or weekend trips, or if you do , you plan on taking your self driving car with you? I agree that as technology improves, and once they start mass producing these cars, they overall cost will come down a lot. I think its safe to say for every person that has a car today, maybe you will lose a significant portion (I am no expert but I estimate maybe 30% less cars) of those owners as many families will not need as many cars. If the cars are driver-less, in theory, once daddy goes to work, the car can go back to mommy to take kids to school for example. Maybe these families that maybe had 3-4 cars for mommy daddy, son and daughter, only need 1-2 cars, perhaps they need uber to fill in where the car cannot be at 2 places at the same time.



Fubernuber said:


> You are asking the wrong question. The right question is:
> Why does uber say that they will one day own their own fleet of driverless cars when much bigger companies with much deeper pocketts can crush uber if this was a feasible business model?


Uber may never actually own a car, they might just franchise them out like vending machines, and also service these cars like dealerships (dealerships make more on service than actually selling the car). So kind of like a cell phone company except you have to actually pay for the phone, and then monthly service or franchise fees. People can buy these SDC or several of them and not even have to drive.



Jermin8r89 said:


> Self driveing econmy is nothing but a hype. Think about it. As an app they own nothing and drivers arr at fault. If an uber driver crashes oh well it should be on the person. So if an uber self driveing car crashes noone else to point to but travis.
> 
> In reality it should not work cuz you going to have to lower rates with more people out of work esspecally since transportation sector has the most amount of workers. More SSI. Taxes on uber. We live in a capitalism world and if they do this then its a socailism world. Uber would lose money not unless uber is all about safety of its people.
> 
> Driver appreciation year. Oh yay for uber for helping 1 uber driver become homeless at a time


Uber does own a lot of information about people, where they go, when they go, and traffic patterns which they can not only use for their self driving cars, but also sell to cities who are planning new highways, paving roads or new bridges.

Also if Uber can not only lets say reduce the overall amount of cars on the road worldwide, and it doesn't just stop at cars, what about trucks and buses? They could get a lot of money from the government instead of spending money on buses or subways, they could theoretically outsource it to a company like Uber

I do think Uber will go out of business, but at the very least that information they have will probably be Travis huge golden parachute.


----------



## Fubernuber (Jan 15, 2017)

Kodyhead said:


> SO I guess you never go on vacation or weekend trips, or if you do , you plan on taking your self driving car with you? I agree that as technology improves, and once they start mass producing these cars, they overall cost will come down a lot. I think its safe to say for every person that has a car today, maybe you will lose a significant portion (I am no expert but I estimate maybe 30% less cars) of those owners as many families will not need as many cars. If the cars are driver-less, in theory, once daddy goes to work, the car can go back to mommy to take kids to school for example. Maybe these families that maybe had 3-4 cars for mommy daddy, son and daughter, only need 1-2 cars, perhaps they need uber to fill in where the car cannot be at 2 places at the same time.
> 
> Uber may never actually own a car, they might just franchise them out like vending machines, and also service these cars like dealerships (dealerships make more on service than actually selling the car). So kind of like a cell phone company except you have to actually pay for the phone, and then monthly service or franchise fees. People can buy these SDC or several of them and not even have to drive.
> 
> ...


You really swallowed ubers mindwash hard. Uber cant even figure out an effective way to prevent driver and rider attrition. They loose drivers and riders steadily and predictably. The only riders they will retain if they stay in business long enough are uber fools. This is a sinking ship and most of the water they are taking on comes from 2 very important features
1. Hidden destination
2. Ratings. Drivers and riders should not be rated to maintain quality of service. I know it sounds weird but if you think very slowly and rarionally you will understand.

Their information is worthless because a huge bulk of it includes uberpool. Major cities already have this information. Stop eating ubers hype. You are not an investor. You will not be ripped off by this rotten tomato unless you invest or drive for them


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

Fubernuber said:


> You really swallowed ubers mindwash hard. Uber cant even figure out an effective way to prevent driver and rider attrition. They loose drivers and riders steadily and predictably. The only riders they will retain if they stay in business long enough are uber fools. This is a sinking ship and most of the water they are taking on comes from 2 very important features
> 1. Hidden destination
> 2. Ratings. Drivers and riders should not be rated to maintain quality of service. I know it sounds weird but if you think very slowly and rarionally you will understand.
> 
> Their information is worthless because a huge bulk of it includes uberpool. Major cities already have this information. Stop eating ubers hype. You are not an investor. You will not be ripped off by this rotten tomato unless you invest or drive for them


Wow you really take this all really personally don't you?

I agree with some of your points, but a lot of companies have similar issues as far as attrition and losing Employees, Uber is not any different. You may not like the Olive Garden neither do I, but you cannot take away the fact they are popular, pretty large company, and they lose servers, cooks managers and bartenders all the time. Every fortune 500 company has similar problems as far as attrition, people leave companies all the time to go for better opportunities, the competition, or different industries in general.

*As I stated Uber will go out of business *IMO, just like Myspace, Blockbuster and AOL, but the rideshare concept isn't going anywhere. I would never invest in Uber, and you are absolutely wrong in that the information they have is worthless. It is not worth 68 billion but it is worth millions of dollars. And you think Cities aren't constantly trying to update their infrastructure and they are just done and don't need to update their information? And you think the only customers they will keep is Uber Fools? I assume you mean Uber Pool, yeah there will still be there, but you can ignorantly label all uber customers as uber pool riders. It doesn't matter if they are pool are not, it is still information that can be analyzed broken down and used by decision makers.

As much as I would love to know the destination of where the pax is going, do you really honestly think that drivers would use this information ethically? They already have a term down here in South Florida airports on the news and it is called Cherry Picking. If I somehow knew the PAX was only going 1 mile, I would never pick them up. The whole rideshare system would fail, which is what you want anyway so good luck with that.

I don't like the rating system either, and have posted numerous opinions on this topic, but honestly if you can't maintain over a 4.5-4.6 rating, you should think slowly and I think you meant rationally, and add objectively, because there is something you are doing wrong and you need to fix it. It is tough to analyze and critique yourself sometimes I get it. A lot of drivers have a tough time with this, or simply just don't care but as they say, the numbers don't lie.


----------



## Fubernuber (Jan 15, 2017)

Kodyhead said:


> Wow you really take this all really personally don't you?
> 
> I agree with some of your points, but a lot of companies have similar issues as far as attrition and losing Employees, Uber is not any different. You may not like the Olive Garden neither do I, but you cannot take away the fact they are popular, pretty large company, and they lose servers, cooks managers and bartenders all the time. Every fortune 500 company has similar problems as far as attrition, people leave companies all the time to go for better opportunities, the competition, or different industries in general.
> 
> ...


Drivers will not accept short fares but an nyc rideshare company figured out a way around it. They ping multiple drivers at the same time. If fare is not accepted they recycle it with a surge again and again until someone takes it. Long fares get taken instantly and short fares get the surge that rider doesnt pay. There is a solution to every uber problem but alot of the solutions require basically raising the rates for short fares which means uber will loose the uber fools back to mass transit. Ubers prime directive is active member count not proffit. Ergo "we are a tech company". Sounds like we agree on most things but for some reason you give uber credit and benefit of doubt where none is due


----------



## Maven (Feb 9, 2017)

DRider85 said:


> I came up with this new theory. By the time Uber is able to use self driving cars, self driving cars might already be an outdated idea. I mean there can be something even greater and better. Like flying cars or teleportation. Why would you want a self driving car if you could teleport? Now maybe teleportation is a little bit away from now, but with virtual reality, I think people might not even want to go places. By the time driving becomes automated, there will be less and less places to go, due to all the automation. Think about it. The better tech comes, the less reason there would be to need to go out, let alone take a self Driving Uber, especially if you have your own self driving car.


When I press the deactivate button on my SDC, it will fold up into the size of a small suitcase with wheels and a handle. Phase 2 will be the size of a credit card that I can slip into my wallet, because 99% of the mass is shunted into another "dimension". Phase 3 as you already guessed is teleportation 


DRider85 said:


> Have you used Virtual Reality? It's actually a thing. I've used playstation VR and when I am in the ocean, it really feels real. So if they can perfect that technology, why would people even want to get in a self driving car, when they could go anywhere they want in the universe in Cyberspace? Plus if all jobs became automated, there would be hardly any businesses to go to. Why pay hundreds to go to an NBA game, when you could be in the first row watching with your headset?


VR has limitations. VR-sex will never be the same as the real thing. Afterwards, guys just shut it off instead of needing to engage in awkward post-coital interaction, while girls get unlimited cuddling. VR-swimming and never have to dry off or worry about sunburn. VR-parachuting. VR-Moonwalks. The list is endless


----------



## Jermin8r89 (Mar 10, 2016)

Maven said:


> When I press the deactivate button on my SDC, it will fold up into the size of a small suitcase with wheels and a handle. Phase 2 will be the size of a credit card that I can slip into my wallet, because 99% of the mass is shunted into another "dimension". Phase 3 as you already guessed is teleportation
> VR has limitations. VR-sex will never be the same as the real thing. Afterwards, guys just shut it off instead of needing to engage in awkward post-coital interaction, while girls get unlimited cuddling. VR-swimming and never have to dry off or worry about sunburn. VR-parachuting. VR-Moonwalks. The list is endless


You would be a perfect globalist. If you want that you better go know people high up the chain. You know we gonna get the shit end of stick anyways. Nonstop BS that we must do what the companies tell us.


----------



## Maven (Feb 9, 2017)

Jermin8r89 said:


> You would be a perfect globalist. If you want that you better go know people high up the chain. You know we gonna get the shit end of stick anyways. Nonstop BS that we must do what the companies tell us.


Pssst, everthing that I said before this as been a lie, part of the front that I maintain to fool everybody.  I am actually the secret leader of the Great Globalist Conspiracy! Don't tell anybody because I will be watching and listening to everything that you do and say from now on.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

DRider85 said:


> I'm of the understanding that in order for self driving cars to work, every other car would have to be self drivers as well. But anyways, what makes Uber so unique, when you have lots of other competitors also making their own self driving car?
> 
> And if we lived in a world where all cars were driverless, then why on Earth would I want to pay for an Uber when I have my own car? Like for instance if I wanted to go drinking, why would I pay for another self driving car, when I could just take my own car to drive me? Am I missing something here? Looks to me like Uber doesn't have anything extra to offer me.
> 
> Because we're not gonna live in a world where there's Uber self driving cars and then pretty much every other car is a human. That's not the reality. Now I could understand that self driving cars would be expensive. But in reality, the more the tech evolves, the cheaper it becomes. Sure there are some people who don't own cars, but then that would be a niche market we'd be talking about.


You are under the wrong impression. SDCs are being designed to operate with human drivers on the road. Nothing changes.

Few people will own SDCs, at least at first. They will be cheap to use, but not cheap to own and park.

It's all about cost, convenience, and service. Who will own a car when calling one takes minutes and costs way less than ownership while providing increased safety, no stress, and free time?



Fubernuber said:


> You are asking the wrong question. The right question is:
> Why does uber say that they will one day own their own fleet of driverless cars when much bigger companies with much deeper pocketts can crush uber if this was a feasible business model?


Because Uber owns the market share and your "much bigger" (they aren't bigger by the way, Uber could easily buy a manufacturer) companies want to partner with them. It's a race and reaching SDC doesn't mean market share. Both are required to win. Sure, some manufacturer could start from nothing against a $68B behemoth, but will they want to when they could lose out?



Lee239 said:


> And why should Uber spend billions on the technology when they can just buy the cars from Ford or GM when they make them and just add SDC taxi software. they are wasting money. In fact GM and Ford can put their own cars on the road as taxis and Uber will be dead.


Posing. Partner or we'll do it ourselves because we can. I personally think it's a bluff.



Lee239 said:


> They think that buy they just hire independent contractors to do rideshare. They don't make cars nor are SDC leaders so they are just throwing money away, unless they have a genius who can create and patent a technology that all other SDC need to become the standard.


They are selling market share, not technology.



DRider85 said:


> That would be another good question yes.
> 
> But what I was wondering is if let's say I want to do drink, even though I don't drink. And I just have my self driving Mercedes take me to the bar. Why would I need Uber's car when my Mercedes is driving for me?


Because few are paying for a car to sit in their driveway 90% of the time when they can pay way less to just summon a car.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

RamzFanz said:


> You are under the wrong impression. SDCs are being designed to operate with human drivers on the road. Nothing changes.
> 
> Few people will own SDCs, at least at first. They will be cheap to use, but not cheap to own and park.
> 
> ...


No SDC are not being designed for human drivers, we already have human drivers. they are being equipped with human drivers for the time being for safety reasons until it's perfected. Google even has a driverless SDC that they let a blind man travel in.


----------



## Fubernuber (Jan 15, 2017)

RamzFanz said:


> You are under the wrong impression. SDCs are being designed to operate with human drivers on the road. Nothing changes.
> 
> Few people will own SDCs, at least at first. They will be cheap to use, but not cheap to own and park.
> 
> ...


What you mean they not much bigger? Google, apple, all the auto companies are giants compared to uber. If you are pricing gm and ford for example simply based on market cap then yes they are not bigger. You can not price gm and ford based on market cap. You have to pricr gm and ford on an equal playing field. Both companies have a very low price to earnings while ubers at 60 billion market cap would need to expand revenue 10 fold to actuallt grow into their valuation. Both companies have gross revenues in the stratosphere compared to uber. Both flush with cash and both have banks on their side. You can not compate a mature company with a low pe to a company thats priced as if it will have a revenue stream ten times current capacity simply based on market cap. Yes gm and ford are behemoths compated to uber unless you are using projected market cap for uber


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Lee239 said:


> No SDC are not being designed for human drivers, we already have human drivers. they are being equipped with human drivers for the time being for safety reasons until it's perfected. Google even has a driverless SDC that they let a blind man travel in.


_SDCs are being designed to operate *with human drivers on the road. *Nothing changes.
_
Waymo (Google) has dropped plans for a car without human controls for now.


----------



## DRider85 (Nov 19, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> _SDCs are being designed to operate *with human drivers on the road. *Nothing changes.
> _
> Waymo (Google) has dropped plans for a car without human controls for now.


But it won't work then. Remember that disaster in Arizona?


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

How long is it going to take for people to stop calling "driver-less" cars, "self-driving?" Self-driving is a form of autopilot. ;-)


----------



## DRider85 (Nov 19, 2016)

phillipzx3 said:


> How long is it going to take for people to stop calling "driver-less" cars, "self-driving?" Self-driving is a form of autopilot. ;-)


So then our cars already do that?


----------



## Jermin8r89 (Mar 10, 2016)

DRider85 said:


> So then our cars already do that?


Its only "assistance". Thats all its gonna be for years to come. Infostructure needs upgrade and also "the car" asspect woulf have to go. A type of hovercraft would make the best sense and invisable force feild of electromagnetics for gaurd rails and lines.

Its only way it can actually be possable for full autonimous. I dont see that for a long time.


----------



## DRider85 (Nov 19, 2016)

Jermin8r89 said:


> Its only "assistance". Thats all its gonna be for years to come. Infostructure needs upgrade and also "the car" asspect woulf have to go. A type of hovercraft would make the best sense and invisable force feild of electromagnetics for gaurd rails and lines.
> 
> Its only way it can actually be possable for full autonimous. I dont see that for a long time.


That's what I was thinking. Infrastructure has to completely change. Not sure why people think that they can just use the roads as is.


----------



## DRider85 (Nov 19, 2016)

Well I made this thread hoping to get an answer that I could understand. I still don't understand why I would get in an Uber autonomous vehicle if my car will be able to do that in the future.


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

DRider85 said:


> Well I made this thread hoping to get an answer that I could understand. I still don't understand why I would get in an Uber autonomous vehicle if my car will be able to do that in the future.


i thought i gave a good example but i guess you never ever take a vacation in another country or part of the us so you don't need one.


----------



## DRider85 (Nov 19, 2016)

Kodyhead said:


> i thought i gave a good example but i guess you never ever take a vacation in another country or part of the us so you don't need one.


Oh okay. But that would not be an everyday thing for me.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

DRider85 said:


> But it won't work then. Remember that disaster in Arizona?


What disaster? The flipped Uber car?

Uber's technology is in its infancy.


----------



## DRider85 (Nov 19, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> What disaster? The flipped Uber car?
> 
> Uber's technology is in its infancy.


You can say that again


----------



## Beritknight (Feb 18, 2016)

DRider85 said:


> Well I made this thread hoping to get an answer that I could understand. I still don't understand why I would get in an Uber autonomous vehicle if my car will be able to do that in the future.


The point of a full level 5 self driving car is that you wouldn't need Uber unless you were in a different city.

The point of a fleet of SDCs is that many of the people who currently own cars because using a taxi or Uber daily is too expensive, could transition to not owning cars. The guy who works next to me cycles in to work most days, but still owns a car. Uber is OK as it is, but it's not quite reliable enough to fill all the gaps in his life that his car does. It can be hard to get an Uber in the suburbs at 3am, or when you're just nipping down to the shops and back with a few bags of groceries. There are still plenty of types of job that Uber drivers don't like taking. SDCs solve that problem because they won't ***** and moan about short trips or Walmart pickups, and won't call to see if the trip is worth doing before cancelling, so they become reliable enough to use in place of owning a car.

My parents are in a similar position, retired and live in an inner city apartment. They probably only drive two or three times a week, and could make enough money renting their parking spot to basically cover Ubering everywhere. As long as Uber becomes as easy as owning your own SDC (i.e. you just tell it where to pick you up and it does), and is 100% reliable, then it's a valid alternative for them.


----------



## Maven (Feb 9, 2017)

DRider85 said:


> Well I made this thread hoping to get an answer that I could understand. I still don't understand why I would get in an Uber autonomous vehicle if my car will be able to do that in the future.


I'll make this simple. You'd "get in an Uber autonomous vehicle" tomorrow for all the same reasons that you'd get into a traditional Uber today plus:

it would cost 20%-to-50% less than a human-driven Uber
it would be safer than a human-driven Uber, according to statistical studies at the time, despite a history of earlier problems
Initially, it will be "cool" to tell your friends that you did it.



Beritknight said:


> The point of a full level 5 self driving car is that you wouldn't need Uber unless you were in a different city...


There will be a long, long period between the introduction of SDCs (probably low level 4) and "a full level 5 self driving car". See
https://uberpeople.net/threads/sdcs-will-come-a-lot-sooner-than-you-think.157838/
There will be even a longer period until the price of "a full level 5 self driving car" for a normal individual consumer is close to a human driven car. Once that happens, I agree with you.


----------

