Support NeoGAF

[secondspace]

You guys really think people will buy a car at 40k or so and allow Uber to use it? Who's going to pay for the gas or electricity? And if Uber has these stations to clean and gas them or charge then then what's the point if only having part time use, the costs would be the same as owning? Hell, most of you wouldn't let your roommate drive your car now, let alone some corporation thats paying you peanuts

I think it's more likely to succeed if it's sold as an investment opportunity rather than a part time money earner. I don't see people in the market for a 40K car for themselves buying a self driving model yet. It's definitely going to be harder to sell than their current model though.

 

[jett]

Uber is trying to hold it's place until it can actually cut the costs with automated cars. It's a risky strategy but if they pull it off

It will be a looooooong-ass time before automated cars are cleared road legal without any supervision on the spot.

 

[Reptars Revenge]

Thanks uber for cheap prices to the airport and from the bars.

 

[Grifter]

E: Wrong thread

 

[Kibbles]

No I thought the prices were pretty ridiculous. Cost like $40 to take a 10min drive. Once and never again

 

[MatthewB92]

They won't last at that point. We are way to far out what they actually want to happen.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

The question is how Uber will produce automatic cars cheaper than GM, Ford and all the others. It won't be the only company that will have selfdriving cars. It is however the only that doesn't have the money or the factories.

But they have a very large worldwide network to distribute the cars. A partnership makes the most sense.

 

[johnny956]

They've got $13 billion in cash. So they could last about 6 more years without any kind of increased revenue or funding. I think that's a pretty good timeline. Ford wants driverless cars in 5 years so depending on how government regulations happen they could be right on target

 

[TheAbsolution]

Fuck that. I hate Uber the company, but one of the good things they're doing is getting rid of the idea that you need to tip a driver.

Now of course, they should be paying drivers a livable wage, but that should be part of the price, not a tip.

Tipping is not meant to be a salary replacement FFS.

Seriously. The price on the meter is the price I pay. Fuck tipping in all service industries. Fuck tipping out of existence.

Guys, I've had multiple people literally tell they'd tip me but they don't have cash. Why are you against a mechanism for them to do so? If they don't have cash, it shouldn't be a barrier and plus, you're not obligated to tip me.

Amazing that a company with virtually zero overhead for 99% of its employees can't break even.

Is the cost per ride simply from running the matchmaking servers and gps?

Don't forget driver incentives. For example, every weekend, I get this in my promotions tab.

And that's every weekend. They must be giving a shit ton in incentives to drivers every week. That adds up I imagine.

 

[KingV]

They've got $13 billion in cash. So they could last about 6 more years without any kind of increased revenue or funding. I think that's a pretty good timeline. Ford wants driverless cars in 5 years so depending on how government regulations happen they could be right on target

I believe they have had $13 billion in investment... meaning they have already burned through some portion of that.

 

[Magni]

Guys, I've had multiple people literally tell they'd tip me but they don't have cash. Why are you against a mechanism for them to do so? If they don't have cash, it shouldn't be a barrier and plus, you're not obligated to tip me.

Because the concept of tipping itself needs to die. It's pretty much the thing I hate the most whenever I'm back in the US.

 

[TheAbsolution]

Because the concept of tipping itself needs to die. It's pretty much the thing I hate the most whenever I'm back in the US.

Well, it only works if the wage is increased to cover not tipping. My wage is not being increased so...

 

[oneils]

If its untenable now I wonder how they are going to manage when they have to purchase and upkeep millions of automated vehicles?

Yeah, I don't really understand how any company will be able to maintain a fleet of driverless vehicles. Uber works because you download costs to the driver.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Well, it only works if the wage is increased to cover not tipping. My wage is not being increased so...

Isn't this the whole idea of Uber. Drivers chose to use it if it pays them enough. If it doesn't pay enough, then there will be less drivers and the app increases the price. This already happens during busy hours.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Guys, I've had multiple people literally tell they'd tip me but they don't have cash. Why are you against a mechanism for them to do so? If they don't have cash, it shouldn't be a barrier and plus, you're not obligated to tip me.


Don't forget driver incentives. For example, every weekend, I get this in my promotions tab.

And that's every weekend. They must be giving a shit ton in incentives to drivers every week. That adds up I imagine.

I work for uber as well, so I know about the weekly drive begging.

I just don't understand how a company that employs almost entirely contractors, where *most* of the payout to those contractors comes directly from customers, a company that doesn't have training seminars or driving schools, a company that doesn't have to worry about Christmas bonuses, health care, gas, or insurance...how does this equate to negative profit?

It seems like the most exploitative business model imaginable. After the investment of driverless cars, they can switch to keeping 100% of the fare profits instead of 20-30%.

I just don't understand. I'm the few months that I worked for them hardcore I never felt like I ever had a more hands-off employer. Maybe I'm underestimating the amount of free rides, partner-side guarantees (ie $30-$40/hr no matter what for covering certain hours and events), and how much of a bath they took on the late summer pool passes (which I took full advantage of as a customer).

 

[kingocfs]

It will be a looooooong-ass time before automated cars are cleared road legal without any supervision on the spot.

It's not that far off.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Yeah, I don't really understand how any company will be able to maintain a fleet of driverless vehicles. Uber works because you download costs to the driver.

That's a common misunderstanding.

Uber pays what the drivers are collectively asking their rates to be, and the rate is established on the average driver's needs, that encompasses not only car ownership costs, but ANY costs, even food, housing, health care, education.

The car ownership costs can vary per driver based on various factor that influence how much of a ROI the driver can generate through Uber and other means with his car (bringing the kids to school, going to work, whatever, doesn't have to be something that pays).

Uber doesn't just throw some pocket change out there, it throws what it needs to provide to have drivers willing to participate and that's a result of costs associated with every aspect of the driver's life. Renting isn't "passing the costs to the owner", and Uber is renting their fleet and employees, so costs could be optimized if they didn't rent.

If the driver's own costs were to go down (remember that is related to all of the driver's expenses, not just the car's), Uber would be able to pay them less accordingly, and if those costs instead rose Uber would have to pay more. If rents rise in a city, Uber has to pay more. If rents go down, they can pay less.

So now you take that into account and ask yourself if Uber wasn't renting, and didn't have to pay for a driver at all, could their ROI be higher? I think historically you can argue that yes, their ROI would be higher.

Right now Uber pays every time a driver is hungry, needs new clothes, needs to make a payment on his mortgage, etc. One way or another, a part of those costs are transferred to them.

If they get rid of the drivers, they'll either just still rent the self-driven cars, in which case they continue to pay for the costs associated with the cars as they did before (production, maintenance, insurance costs which would be lower anyway, etc.), cars that may well not be rented 24/7 as different companies could rent them for different needs at any time depending on availability and demand, but they don't pay for any costs associated with the drivers themselves anymore.

It's pretty much absolutely certain that at the end of the day, the ROI is much higher if the cars are self-driven. The cars end up being used almost continuously, so the usage rate is very high which is something that is economically favorable, whether by Uber or Uber and other companies, and costs are kept to a minimum.

This is pretty much true for any job that requires people, and it's why it's often counterproductive for companies to be against social safety nets since a well implemented one actually reduces employee costs for employers, as employees are less demanding regarding their salaries if their own costs are lower.

 

[KingV]

It's not that far off.

How do you know? The vehicles don't even properly exist.

 

[KingV]

That's a common misunderstanding.

Uber pays what the drivers are collectively asking their rates to be, and the rate is established on the average driver's needs, that encompasses not only car ownership costs, but ANY costs, even food, housing, health care, education.

The car ownership costs can vary per driver based on various factor that influence how much of a ROI the driver can generate through Uber and other means with his car (bringing the kids to school, going to work, whatever, doesn't have to be something that pays).

Uber doesn't just throw some pocket change out there, it throws what it needs to provide to have drivers willing to participate and that's a result of costs associated with every aspect of the driver's life. Renting isn't "passing the costs to the owner", and Uber is renting their fleet and employees, so costs could be optimized if they didn't rent.

If the driver's own costs were to go down (remember that is related to all of the driver's expenses, not just the car's), Uber would be able to pay them less accordingly, and if those costs instead rose Uber would have to pay more. If rents rise in a city, Uber has to pay more. If rents go down, they can pay less.

So now you take that into account and ask yourself if Uber wasn't renting, and didn't have to pay for a driver at all, could their ROI be higher? I think historically you can argue that yes, their ROI would be higher.

Right now Uber pays every time a driver is hungry, needs new clothes, needs to make a payment on his mortgage, etc. One way or another, a part of those costs are transferred to them.

If they get rid of the drivers, they'll either just still rent the self-driven cars, in which case they continue to pay for the costs associated with the cars as they did before (production, maintenance, insurance costs which would be lower anyway, etc.), cars that may well not be rented 24/7 as different companies could rent them for different needs at any time depending on availability and demand, but they don't pay for any costs associated with the drivers themselves anymore.

It's pretty much absolutely certain that at the end of the day, the ROI is much higher if the cars are self-driven. The cars end up being used almost continuously, so the usage rate is very high which is something that is economically favorable, whether by Uber or Uber and other companies, and costs are kept to a minimum.

This is pretty much true for any job that requires people, and it's why it's often counterproductive for companies to be against social safety nets since a well implemented one actually reduces employee costs for employers, as employees are less demanding regarding their salaries if their own costs are lower.

But the ROI is currently negative. Is it enough to both make it profitable and profitable enough to be a successful (rather than just surviving company?) given that the IRS says its costs 57 cents a mile and Uber pays about 75 cents/mile... probably not.

 

[kingocfs]

How do you know? The vehicles don't even properly exist.

IHS automotive estimated the first sales of fully autonomous cars will happen in 2025. They also estimated that by 2035, 10% of all cars sold will be autonomous.

It really depends on how car companies handle this. If they do a gradual transition, reaching full autonomy in stages, it will obviously take longer. I also think that would be a mistake for a lot of reasons, though.

 

[ClosingADoor]

IHS automotive estimated the first sales of fully autonomous cars will happen in 2025. They also estimated that by 2035, 10% of all cars sold will be autonomous.

It really depends on how car companies handle this. If they do a gradual transition, reaching full autonomy in stages, it will obviously take longer. I also think that would be a mistake for a lot of reasons, though.

8-9 more years of losing money is a long road for Uber if their plan is for autonomous cars to become their main business.

 

[SRG01]

I think they do research before entering a market and gamble that lobbying for law change and then entering the market is more risky than just starting and then having the legal battles later. If they don't start a competitor will. Sometimes it backfires but for the most part it has worked.

That's literally their M.O. for every market they enter. Uber got shut down in my city, but was recently legalized after legislation was passed to allow for proper insurance.

 

[KingV]

IHS automotive estimated the first sales of fully autonomous cars will happen in 2025. They also estimated that by 2035, 10% of all cars sold will be autonomous.

It really depends on how car companies handle this. If they do a gradual transition, reaching full autonomy in stages, it will obviously take longer. I also think that would be a mistake for a lot of reasons, though.

Uber will be way out of business by then. If I'm an Uber investor, 2025 might as well be eternity away.

 

[midramble]

How do you know? The vehicles don't even properly exist.

Don't properly exist? Both google and uber have been testing and using self driving cars in urban areas... They already work.

 

[kingocfs]

8-9 more years of losing money is a long road for Uber if their plan is for autonomous cars to become their main business.

Sure, but that's also why I'm optimistic about how long it'll take for full autonomous cars to happen - there's money to be made and companies like Uber will push for it hard.

 

[KingV]

Don't properly exist? Both google and uber have been testing and using self driving cars in urban areas... They already work.

Are you aware that googles cars ONLY work in mountain view, because that's the only place that google has built out the infrastructure and maps? I suspect that Uber's limitation to two neighborhoods in Pittsburgh is similar

Did you know that about half the cost of designing an airplane is software design, testing, and certification for reliability. The 787 cost $32 billion to design, and has two pilots monitoring it at all times. Having a car drive around autonomously, in traffic, with no monitoring is certainly a more complex situation, potentially an order of magnitude more so.

So while these cars work, they are years from being a viable technology for Uber to use to replace drivers.

 

[Wickerbasket]

Are you aware that googles cars ONLY work in mountain view, because that's the only place that google has built out the infrastructure and maps? I suspect that Uber's limitation to two neighborhoods in Pittsburgh is similar

Did you know that about half the cost of designing an airplane is software design, testing, and certification for reliability. The 787 cost $32 billion to design, and has two pilots monitoring it at all times. Having a car drive around autonomously, in traffic, with no monitoring is certainly a more complex situation, potentially an order of magnitude more so.

So while these cars work, they are years from being a viable technology for Uber to use to replace drivers.

The bolded isn't true, they've been tested in other cities and areas, it's just that mountain view is their main testing ground.

But yes, most experts expect self driving cars to be at least 10 years away at mimimum. How quickly the technology progresses really depends on how much money corporations think it will save them.

 

[KingV]

The bolded isn't true, they've been tested in other cities and areas, it's just that mountain view is their main testing ground.

But yes, most experts expect self driving cars to be at least 10 years away at mimimum. How quickly the technology progresses really depends on how much money corporations think it will save them.

Ah I guess they have started testing in other cities, my bad. However that wasnt really the important point. The important thing is that even if the technology was perfected, there are additional operational problems that look like mapping street view on steroids that need to be overcome just to expand the self driving cars into other cities.

Even if it was perfect, you cant just put the Google car on the road and press go and expect it to make a cross country drive, because Google's implementation requires precise 3d maps of the roadways and the areas around them that don't currently exist to navigate. And they will need be kept up-to-date somehow.