Comment by onlyrealcuzzo
2 days ago
Why is anyone surprised that a smaller segment of the market will pay more for a safer ride in a luxury vehicle compared to a base model Lyft (which can be a barely drivable car with rank cloth interior where you can't even fit two people in the back seat)?
Next up, some one will post, "First class tickets cost more than coach."
Waymo will eventually have Waymo Comfort and Waymo Black.
> Why is anyone surprised that a smaller segment of the market will pay more for a safer ride in a luxury vehicle compared to a base model Lyft
It's a criticism, because this same segment also realizes that a Waymo ride is WAY cheaper to operate than a human driven one.
Is it? It might be some day but they certainly have to factor in all the R&D they're spending.
> Is it?
Ummm then why on earth would they spend the money to build them if it wasn't?!
> but they certainly have to factor in all the R&D they're spending.
Those are capital expenses.
It’s not, or at least it definitely wasn’t a year ago. Those cars were something like $700k each and then there is a lot of software dev and AI infra to pay for. They were charging more than Lyft and were still losing money per ride.
> Those cars were something like $700k each
Source? Also, those numbers are quoted with including capital expenditures, which will get depreciated over years. Also, to do a like for like comparison you have to include all of the people, processes, and systems in place that support drivers. That cost center at Uber has to be in the millions globally for Uber (and hard to calculate on a per driver basis, but possible if we had internal numbers).
1 reply →
> It's a criticism, because this same segment also realizes that a Waymo ride is WAY cheaper to operate than a human driven one.
If this were broadly true, Waymo would be everywhere. If it is true, and that’s a big if that it isn’t being subsidized by the rest of Alphabet, it is only true in a very, very, tiny area of the Earth.
On the other hand, Uber is a publicly listed company with public financials already operating globally with profits.
This is true for mature markets but a new technology that a horde of lawyers are salivating over a chance to sue has a significant asymptomatic risk. One accident and the whole business is illegalized.
> If this were broadly true, Waymo would be everywhere.
It's not everywhere because of regulation and Waymo wanting to strategically roll it out carefully to markets. Remember, this is Waymo's first market to offer Waymo through the Uber app. There's a reason Waymo hasn't tested non-human driving in Chicago but it has in Phoenix, SF and Austin (I could give you a hint as to why but I'm sure its obvious).
> Uber is a publicly listed company with public financials already operating globally with profits.
And wants to create even more profit...what's your point? Also it's operating income is a paltry $2B for a company with $41B in revenue. Most of its current net income is from investing activities.
Is this exaggeration? I hope so. I have never seen a taxi nor ride share car that would ever qualify this statement.
I wonder... are the passengers recorded while in a Waymo?
Does Google ever delete those records? Being Google, I bet they don't.
Yes, I assume these are recorded to prevent vandalism. To be fair, someone might get legitimately sick in the car (ex. child). So Google can review the tapes and decide if it was intentional or not.
Regarding retention of these video recordings, you should check the Waymo user agreement in your area. You might even have the right to ask them to delete it earlier.
Would a CCPA delete request handle it? Or are they compelled to keep the video for legal reasons
2 replies →
I'm in LA, so I'm still skeptical about "safer". Granted, that's not a high bar, but I know who's accountable if an Uber/Lyft crashes.
I don't know if this is still true in the age of cellphones and uber, but when I was young, women were often advised not to take taxis alone, especially when drunk. There were a few high-profile rapes and murders.
As an bald, middle-aged man such risks are negligible for me, but I can see how some people might prefer a driverless vehicle.
Yeah I'm an ugly middle aged man myself. I'm more worried about the car than the person in it in my case. And I don't trust the tech yet in my area.
The driver whose main asset was the car that just crashed, and whose insurance may or may not be valid?
Still an easier battle than fighting a millionaire tech company on uncharted legal territory. Most of thr battle will be from my health insurance finding a anyone else to pay in that scenario.
but do you care for accountability or more safety (through lower crash rate)at the end of the day?
Between modern car safety standards and modern US healthcsre: accountability. The worst case scenario (where I still live) is drastic and I'd rather not add fighting a tech company in court on top of the medical burden, which I'll need to do just to afford the latter.