We're going commercial
getcruise.comFor whatever reason, Cruise continues to advance and get very little buzz. I’m curious what it will take to get them discussed even half as much as Tesla (which is much farther behind) when it comes to automation.
From a customer's perspective, it isn't clear that a software taxi driver is in any way better than a human taxi driver, particularly with human driver assist preventing collisions and all the other warnings provided by a modern car.
In both cases someone else is driving for the customer. With a human driver (plus driver assist breaking and collision warnings) you have the most flexible, sophisticated intelligence on Earth driving. With a robotaxi you have something inferior. But maybe it's a lot cheaper, right? The robotaxi can only compete on price because that's apparently the only advantage.
The idea of a robotaxi seems popular among people who don't like being around other people... a population perhaps over-represented here on Hacker News. Personally I don't see the point and I know I'm not alone in wondering.
If you own a car (e.g., a Tesla) that drives itself, that's a different story. Everybody can see the value proposition.
The robotaxi’s draw will be its lower prices. They are removing the cost of a driver from the equation. Assuming the car felt as safe as a normal taxi, I’d take the cheaper one.
Well, we'd have to look at the cost of the hardware and maintenance and fallback remote operators and the R&D investment to evaluate whether a robotaxi fleet is indeed cheaper. And how much cheaper is it, exactly? 5%? 10%? 15%?
Would you pay a little more to have the most flexible, sophisticated intelligence on Earth (human brain + driver assist) or would you want to save a few dollars and risk having some dumb piece of software strand you in the middle of the road somewhere?
We all use Google Maps or Apple Maps when driving and most of us have seen these systems do boneheaded things. Just imagine the dumb things a robotaxi could do.
So robotaxis are perhaps mainly attractive to the very low income parts of population, people who might buy an inferior product to save a dollar or two. People who buy store-brand ketchup instead of Heinz ketchup even though it doesn't taste as good.
It's hard for a normal person to be excited about this.
I presume the human is still the most expensive cost. So you might be looking at cost reduction of over 50%. If that were true, then I would definitely take the robotaxi, assuming it's reached human safety levels of course. On the off chance that they leave me stranded, I'll file a complaint for full refund, and then just take another one
In other words, you believe the cost of the human is subtracted but there is no additional hardware/maintenance/remote-operation/R&D-investment cost to add?
Anyway, I think we can all agree that the only benefit of a robotaxi is that it's cheaper. And we don't know how much cheaper. So it's not surprising that most people aren't excited about them.
I don't know a single person who cares about robotaxis. In my experience, if you talk to people about robotaxis they just don't see it as big step forward. "What's the point?"
I think people under estimate just how much cheaper it is.
Conservatively, suppose the car lasts 100k miles, and costs $50k including maintenance. Suppose it gets 10mpg, and each trip is 5 miles. Gas is $6/gallon.
100k miles = 20k trips. 20k trips for $50k cost = $2.50 per ride + $3 gas = $5.50 fixed cost per ride, which is significantly cheaper than pretty much anything.
Cost is a big deal.
If my city had better public transport, I would use it more often. I don't like driving around everywhere. It's labor. While I am also pushing for better public transport, robotaxis can also fill that gap, provided it is cheap enough
Not even lower prices, but even to continue the current prices of Uber and Lyft (without burning VC cash), automation is needed. Even with the low pay for human drivers today, that's still too much for the prices charged by ride sharing to be sustainable.
The “burning VC cash” objection to Uber and Lyft is hardly relevant when they’ve both been public companies for three years or so.
Nah current prices are sustainable. Self driving cars should get us 1/5th of the prices going forward imo.
Based on what? Ride share companies don't absorb any of the cost of vehicle maintenance, insurance, or fuel. Drivers are subsidizing a significant amount of the capital costs of running a taxi business that isn't exactly reflected in prices.
Additionally there's the problem of the market tolerating current prices. Like gasoline, even if the cost comes down it doesn't mean price goes down. Profit margins will increase if the market can sustain current prices.
> Based on what? Ride share companies don't absorb any of the cost of vehicle maintenance, insurance, or fuel. Drivers are subsidizing a significant amount of the capital costs of running a taxi business that isn't exactly reflected in prices.
Ultimately there's profit, drivers wouldn't do it if it weren't profitable.
> Additionally there's the problem of the market tolerating current prices. Like gasoline, even if the cost comes down it doesn't mean price goes down. Profit margins will increase if the market can sustain current prices.
I see a lot of competition in the space and the history of taxi services has been one of very low prices so I see the trend to continue in self driving.
I think another draw would be its safety which at least as planned is supposed to be greater and consistent while with human driver you never know what you’re getting
For non-us markets it’s also integrity. No more shenanigans like calling rider and asking to cancel the ride bc the driver didn’t like it
There should also be a huge tipping point in safety and efficiency when all (or almost all) cars go fully autonomous.
With cars all communicating p2p in a local mesh to avoid collisions and improve throughput, apart from reducing accidents even further, you could safely turn all highways into autobahns with much higher speed limits.
Even if it’s a long way off, I welcome any progress in this direction.
We’re all very used to it, so it seems normal, but the status quo of high stress traffic and casually risking death and disfigurement on a daily basis is completely insane.
Well good news is Kyle was super adamant about substantially reducing car accidents as one of the stated goals when I worked there. In contrast to some other well known ceos who seem to ngaf one way or another…
> ...it isn't clear that a software taxi driver is in any way better than a human taxi driver...
If there is sufficient surge coverage that I can get an autonomous vehicle within 10 minutes of hailing one 90% of the time and 15 minutes 100% of the time for example, and the fares are reasonably based off of amortizing across 24x7 operational hours. Then the financials flip for a lot of people who either do not want or cannot afford the capex much less opex of owning and operating their own private vehicle.
Furthermore, if the AV companies work with municipalities to share ride data in the form of urban public transit planning data in exchange for a small passive income slice of the parts of the data turned into actual implemented public transit routes, it is a win for everyone. The AV company gets to expand territory with a more efficient capital stream to replace old territory mostly ceded to public transit without burdensome capex, and everyone else gets empirically-tested public transit routes with little of the usual route planning risks.
With software-driven coordination, I really hope to see vehicles as just the leading edge of a trend to amortize the capex of expensive items across more people, leading to more Buy It For Life/Generations quality of those items, and less environmental impact of a throwaway items per individual orientation in the current market.
Software can't rape you.
I'm serious.
I think that automated taxis will be a boon to women who want to go somewhere at night but don't want to go there by means of an unscrupulous stranger.
Very good point Teever. Software also doesn't make small talk when you aren't interested. I've also had some drivers that could not follow a GPS well at all.
As a nerd I’m exited about the idea of a self driving car, as a black person I can’t wait until this is an option on every street!
A driverless car has no time to be racist! Also for women this will be a brilliant option!
Why would I want this? Why is this better than a normal taxi?
Presumably, labor cost is a large part of the cost of a ride.
Let me ask you back: Why not? What would be worse than a regular cab?
Not being able to get a taxi? I don't really see how your question relates.
Well, this is a substitute for a person driven taxi. "Not being able to get a taxi" is a confusing reply, since this assumption is wrong. My question begore relates to what you think are the disadvantages, since you asked "Why is this better than a normal taxi?". I beliebe its the same, just no driver from the consumers point of view, is it not?
Okay, well, the disadvantage is it is not driven by a person, so it is less safe, and less flexible.
What would be any of the advantages of it?
Less safe is up to the statistics. My guess is that its safe "enough" right now and only gets safer beyond humans. But the other point is more interesting: Flexibility. Since you don't need a driver, you can have a different kind of fleet management that - yes, I am an optimist - would be more available 24/7 than with human drivers.
See that's the thing, I don't see how it can ever be safer than all but the least competent human drivers.
I have yet to see an autonomous vehicle that could cope with anything other than a completely unobstructed road with everyone behaving themselves, and I can't see a way for autonomous vehicles to progress beyond that.
If you don't think taxis are available 24/7, you haven't met anyone that drives a taxi. Someone is always up and about.