Comment by calvinbhai | Hacker News Reader

Comment by calvinbhai | Hacker News Reader

I had a similar reaction (as in the article) when I read the Tesla feature explanation initially. But, later I realized Tesla is not overstepping the boundary.

Here's why I think so:

Tesla is setting the correct expectations. Once the car is fully autonomous, the process of dispatching rides to a pickup location will be controlled by Tesla.

So, if you own the car, and but are not needing the car to be used for a week, the car becomes available on the Ridesharing Autonomous Network of Teslas (RANT :). At that point, it makes no sense to put the car on something like say Google / Uber autonomous networks of Ridesharing.

Its a bit like how iPhone is not open for non app store downloads and yet an iPhone buyer 'owns' the phone.

FWIW, every autonomous car maker will put their car on their own rideshare network (making a rider app is 1% of creating the ridesharing service effort). Uber and Lyft apps will become too expensive to use if they cannot figure out the autonomous vehicle part of the equation.

Once the car is fully autonomous, the process of dispatching rides to a pickup location will be controlled by Tesla.

But if that's the case, then I will not pay thousands of dollars to own one.

Why? You'll earn the same money as with Uber. The cut goes to Tesla to reward them for their work in making the hardware and software. That's instead of paying Uber, who fire people by email.

After paying $100K for a car, would you let strangers ride in without any supervision only to earn a few bucks?

Even if there would be no damages, imagine getting your car back to go somewhere with your family and it smells like a bad kind of party.

Why? You'll earn the same money as with Uber.

No I won't. It's simple economics that I won't.

Assuming a future where I can choose to rent my car's free time to a ride sharing app. You just told me that I'd be able to make just as much money locked into a single customer as I would if different customers had to compete to rent my car's free time.

And yes blah blah blah I could buy a different type of car. But market forces don't break this sort of monsopoly until "what app can I rent my car's time to" is the TOP purchase differentiator to a very sizable portion of auto buyers.

You're assuming a future with one app; Tesla. There are, and will continue to be, more apps, hence competition.

And we'v not covered that the dynamics are different. With Tesla you're not paying for fuel. Or for human time. You literally earn money while you do something else. This means that, over time, Uber and Lyft would be saturated by Teslas because it's a race to the bottom in terms of profit.

You're assuming a future with one app; Tesla. There are, and will continue to be, more apps, hence competition.

No, I'm not. I'm assuming that in the post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12753624 you're comparing between the choice of only being able to drive for Tesla's app vs being able to choose which app to drive for.

If you're not, I don't understand what you meant to say to the post you replied to.

In this fictitious world you're describing, I should not be paying full prices for the car. Instead it should be more of a rental agreement, which I'd be totally fine with. However, if I'm paying $100k for a vehicle, it should be mine to do what I want with (within the bounds of the law).

That rental agreement you seek is called a lease, and you can certainly do that with the Tesla if it's new. You only pay the car's depreciation, not its total value

Leases are great for us that buy used since we get to have awesome cars at tens of thousands of dollars cheaper than new

It'll probably be called the Tesla Autonomous Ridesharing Network, though. TARN.

Tesla Ridesharing Autonomous Inter-Network. Or TRAIN.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com