Comment by dcolkitt | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dcolkitt | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

There's either two possibilities for the self-driving future.

1) Hardly anybody owns cars anymore. When we want to get from point A to point B, we just call a driverless car from the network. But this type of service is a natural monopoly.

When people are ridesharing everywhere, the network with the biggest fleet, becomes the stochastically fastest and cheapest option. Plus add in the fact that they're collecting a lot more data to constantly improve algorithm. This is a winner-take-all market with fat monopoly margins for whoever wins. If Uber prevails, it's likely that their profits will be larger than the entire global auto market.

2) People still mostly own their own cars. They're driverless, but people like the convenience, customization and sense of personal ownership with having their own vehicle. Ridesharing is still an out-of-the-ordinary option for unconventional lifestyles or special occasions.

But in this world, Uber doesn't need to own their own fleet. The same crowdsourcing logic still works. Personal vehicle ownership means a huge number of idle vehicles sitting in people's driveways. Without the pain-in-the-ass factor of actually having to be the driver, expect a lot more people to put their car on Uber's network.

1) doesn't work except in narrow circs, because there will always be an uncomfortable delay between ordering and arrival. And there are a lot of situations where that's either inconvenient (e.g you're cold and getting rained on) or more inconvenient (missing a flight because an event has removed all the available cars to the other side of the city.)

2) is a huge insurance headache. And most people aren't going to want strangers doing random things in their cars - whether it's leaving crumbs on the floor, spilling booze, or having sex.

It's the AirBNB problem - the service starts off well with high quality buyers and sellers, but over time the reliability of both degrades.

My guess is that 2) will be tried for a while but will not appeal to most owners. 1) will become a thing, but "popular" self-drive-sharing will acquire a sleazy and low-rent reputation.

0) will be an expensive upscale service with guaranteed nice cars and quickest possible delivery.

But (square root of minus one) will be something else entirely - a new disruptive AI-enhanced service that gives users live local price and availability updates on everything, from transport to deliveries to fast food to accommodation to special items.

This will algorithmically disrupt the algorithms of the disrupters, who will of course complain that it's unfair that technology is destroying their core business.

Possibility 3) The self-driving future is decades farther out than Uber/Tesla/Waymo's marketing suggestiosn and the rest of the business drags them under before it matters.

There’s a third possible future, where a significant number of individuals buy autonomous vehicles as investments, effectively renting them out on a rideshare aggregator as one might buy an investment property to rent out.

However, this aggregator almost certainly won’t be Uber or Lyft. It’s very unlikely that the time between now and ubiquitous, consumer-level AVs will be shorter than the time before Uber is acquired by Verizon for pennies on the dollar.

if I build a self driving car why would I see or lease it? I would go for the monopoly you painted. I truly believe this is Elon's dream. Figure it out and they will claim you can own a self driving car for $300/month. Don't worry about the parking, garbage or maintenance. Just use your phone to request a car.

Not following how this is a natural monopoly. There aren't barriers to multiple companies operating large fleets.

In fact the market is likely large enough that multiple large companies will.

3) Is implemented in a socialist model. Government creates a public company behind it, provides some of the initial investment, privates provide the rest; prices maintain to help pay for it (+ private quota), even though costs were cut significantly; decrease/fluctuate prices over time to match costs (maintenance, fuel).

You got yourself a national fleet. Note, that my comment does not necessarily has the US in mind.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com