Waymo to test its autonomous driving technology in over 10 new cities
reuters.com
reuters.com
Instead of trying for universal self driving, they're going to prioritise being self driving taxi's for the most profitable areas.
thats just a function of the numbers of cars on the road
What they may do is refuse to raise prices and eventually inflation will make them the cheapest.
The cost of a Waymo car right now is around $150K. Soon, Waymo will build its own cars (with partnership with some car manufacturer) from scratch which will bring this cost to around $40K.
currently WayMo has around 2 people per car employed in service roles which will be like 2 people per 50 cars. At that point they will be swimming in profits.
Do you have a source for this? I'm curious about their operations
The problem with this is that one of their competitors (Tesla) now has very powerful friends in the government which are certainly not above using that power in their favor...
They'll perpetually be in "beta" until they're so ubiquitous that the idea of getting rid of them is unthinkable.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2025/01/28/waymo-is-reportedly-buildi...
Take this with the grain of salt it deserves. No one relying solely on publicly available information can give you anything more than highly speculative guesses.
And the prices seems to roughly match Uber/Lyft. Sometimes they're higher sometimes lower. The one ride I took I chose the more expensive Waymo just for the better experience. You don't have to worry about what the driver might say or do that makes you uncomfortable or unsafe.
They aren't aggressive like a normal driver when traffic is stopped and there's a clear but small gap that would result in the car being at an angle crossing traffic.
The lidar can't see any gap between cars when trying to turn into a more distant lane, so any obstruction to a close lane due to traffic kills them.
Source: been stuck in and observed Waymo in this situation for 10+ minutes several times.
A human driver is willing to make the turn much sooner.
Don't take a Waymo if you're in a hurry and the route will have such a left turns.
The light had just turned yellow before we entered the intersection, and I was sure it would slam the brakes (there was no one behind, so no risk of being read-ended). Yet it accelerated and cleared the intersection as the light turned red. It was what any reasonably good driver would do, but certainly edgy for a 100% law-abiding robot.
Pretty flawless experience.
That particular one was a traffic light green light with a "do not queue over intersection" area specifically designed to allow cars in my lane to turn onto the main road. The Waymo can't see that there's a gap in the lane it wanted to turn into, and was too conservative about queuing over the intersection at an angle when the light was green like any human would do.
Even if they're sometimes slower in pickup or trip time, on average, I greatly value the consistency of the experience over everything else.
I take both waymo's and lyft/uber all the time in sf and waymo's are way slower. I'd estimate it at 10-15% slower. Once the novelty of a waymo wears off you realize that they drive like a high anxiety teenager and going 15 mph on a 15 mph road, coming to gentle full stop at every stop sign, and being very tentative on turns and passing people all add up to a very slow ride.
You're right though it definitely feels safer.
They are doing the right thing.
"Lawful to a fault teenager" is not what people want in a taxi driver. That type of chauffeur doesn't make people feel safe. It makes them on edge. But unfortunately that's the kind of AI chauffeur regulators want.
I agree it's the "right" way to do it from a PR perspective though.
A Waymo drives more like a 50 year old who's seen some shit and drives well but defensively.
Uber drivers cause accidents sometimes, just like all drivers do. Whenever this happens, we generally blame the driver and not Uber. It's a completely unremarkable event that the media will not pick up on, because everybody knows that car accidents are just a fact of life.
If a Waymo causes just one fatal accident, people will be up in arms and demand a ban on self driving. That means they have to be extremely conservative in how they drive, especially as more and more of them appear and the probability of one causing an accident goes up due to simple statistics.
Human drivers are all different. They also learn from their mistakes and change unpredictably over time. Humans can get away with all kinds of unsafe behavior, because bad outcomes are unlikely in any particular situation. If something bad happens, it could easily be a one-off issue. And even with systemic issues, it's easier to change the environment / regulations / vehicles than the drivers.
Kidding but not kidding. Easily half my Uber rides have been legit scary. Yellow cabs only slightly better.
How does Waymo do for cleanliness and odor? That would be another selling point vs regular Uber/Lyft and many yellow cabs. These days they all seem to douse the interior with cheap cologne.
Also, don’t you think it’s weird that you complain that the car goes 15 on a road with speed limit equal to 15?
I don't think from either a business, technical or legal perspective google ever wants to sell or license their tech directly to a car being sold to the public.
They want to run a taxi service, they plan on running a taxi service, they're never going to sell it directly to consumers but they don't want consumers thinking about the implications of that.
They're just going to keep expanding Waymo in the background till it's ubiquitous.
I, and many others, are past the point of trusting their words.
I like that Waymo has human backup! Knowing that if the car gets into a tricky situation there's someone who can remote control it back out again is very reassuring.
I also like not having to think about where it parks, what it's doing when I'm not in it etc.
I get where I'm going and I send it over the the parking garage a mile away that's cheap, and then summon it back when I'm done with my event, so I never have to circle for parking. If enough people to it, they would probably develop a protocol so that they can be parked at a lot that is super dense and it's a puzzle to get the cars in and out.
And they could still be sold with remote human backup services (as well as giving you the owner the ability to take over if you want to).
I could also send it on errands. Go to Target and pick up my curbside order. Go to the pizza place and have them drop it on the front seat. Pick up my kid from school and bring her home. Go pick up my mother in law and bring her to my house so I don't have to go get her!
And I could use it to drive me to my parents house 350 miles away while I sleep.
I can think of a million reasons I'd want one.
Most people don't want that and there's no market for it. Consumers (rightly) expect a vehicle that just works. It's still early days for this technology and building something that works as reliably/independently as the rest of a car isn't possible yet.
Sure, and the cost would be really high too, but for a very wealthy person it might be worth it.
> would you be willing to check the air pressure regularly
I have to do that on my regular car, but it only needs air once every six months or so. New tires are pretty good about holding air. Also, no different than a regular car.
> take the vehicle in for calibration
I already have sensors on my car that require calibration, and I do that when it goes in for maintenance, about once a year. I wonder if these sensors need calibration more often.
> clean the sensors
You mean, wash the car? :)
> do software updates, implement the legal reporting responsibilities, etc?
I assume that would all be automatic over the air. And again, we're talking about someone who could afford a $150K car. There is a good chance they could hire someone to do that stuff too.
I'm picturing herds of empty Model 3's endlessly circling every city's downtown office district
In the distant future (10 years?) we may have private trailers/pods that are moved by self-driving vehicles. Best of both options.
In self driving world it no longer makes sense for a car to look like they do now.
Instead I think they operate a bit like Coach and Horses used to. You the consumer own the "coach", you have it specced out how you want it, your choice of seating (hell even a bed?), your sound system, your big screen tv, whatever you want because you're a passenger not the driver.
The "horses" are the self driving bit + batteries. The ubiquitous taxi service owns these. Maybe you permanently rent a low range model (100 miles) that is attached to your "Coach" at all times for quick errands. For longer range journeys you hire a model with more battery and longer range that drives over and attaches automatically to your coach.
For really long range journeys, your self driving "horse" drives into a coaching station along the way, detaches and another one attaches in 30 seconds and off you go.
I think it might go this way because people feel like they want to "own" their "cars". Especially in America it's a big part of the culture, so I can see being able to buy the coach part as being a popular compromise.
Powering electric cars is already cheaper, but right now they're less convenient, with self driving they become as convenient or more than gas vehicles. You no longer have to stop and charge anywhere because there's a fresh "horse" waiting to be hooked up while your existing one drives off to a charging station, all the downsides are automated away.
Makes sense. Ten cities are most of the US taxi market.[1] New York City alone is about a third. New York will be tough in several directions, but Waymo will probably succeed there eventually. Meanwhile, they can just scale up in LA.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxis_of_the_United_States
It'll make a huge dent in demand for Uber/Lyft over the next five years.
There are plenty of other companies experimenting with self driving taxis, cars, trucks, etc. And not just in the US. China is probably a lot further than Waymo on this front. In the end it boils down to cost at scale. Waymo has some early learnings for this, which is great, but it's no guarantee that somebody else won't come along and match what they are doing. Or massively improve on what and how they are doing what they are doing.
Tesla is the controversial one to mention in this context but I no longer believe that they'll get there first or exclusively. They might still get there. And maybe it won't even take that long. But they have a lot to prove and there are lots of other companies field testing working taxis with real passengers (unlike Tesla) at this point.
I wouldn't count Uber out. I'd say they are well aware of the challenges here and have a huge stake in ensuring that there will be multiple autonomy providers for them to choose from that all need the same thing to succeed: access to paying customers. Which is something that Uber has. The near future is likely to be mostly non-autonomous with specific geofences running experiments with autonomous driving in a limited number of places. Uber works in all those places and all they need is access to autonomous options in areas as that becomes available. They don't need to own or develop this in house. They just need access and some revenue share deal. More providers means more competitive deals.
I wouldn't be surprised to seem them close multiple, non-exclusive deals on this front in the next years. Possibly even with Waymo or Tesla. Or both. And then some.
Waymo is level with Lyft in San Francisco [1].
> plenty of other companies experimenting with self driving taxis, cars, trucks, etc.
None with a track record. The only wild card is Tesla.
[1] https://www.ktvu.com/news/waymo-ridership-skyrocketed-in-sf-...
You'll have multiple (local) companies, possibly Uber franchisees, maintaining autonomous fleets and doing the low-margin work of car cleaning, acquiring the vehicles, servicing them etc. Uber will be the interface between the passenger and those companies.
Uber could even keep some human drivers for peak-traffic situations that it would be uneconomical for a ppurely autonomous fleet to handle.
Adding support for wheelchairs introduces new failure modes that would require more software and/or human intervention. For example: Wheelchairs need to be strapped down for safety, and not all wheelchair users can do this themselves.
It's also increased in that one must manage the passengers.
Exactly this. The attraction of self-driving transit is the support for individual planning. Everyone gets a direct route to their destination, no delays stopping or detouring for other people.
There's also increased safety in having a personal ride. You're not being hassled, stalked, or threatened by random people.
That's an odd thing to say. The only times I've ever been randomly threatened in public were on the road, by another driver.
“You’re just constantly on alert”: Women and Gender-Diverse People’s Experiences of Sexual Violence on Public Transport -> https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10515455/
Uncovering gender-based violence and harassment in public transport: Lessons for spatial and transport justice -> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09666...
There's a reason we let drunks ride public transit but not drive.
The bar for conduct behind the wheel is higher than on the subway because the risks and stakes are much higher hence why people get pissed off much easier.
Not getting accosted on the subway is a simple task of not crossing paths with the few people doing the accosting. Not getting accosted on the road requires actively performing in a manner that keeps thing flowing smoothly.
Net result bus drivers are still a large fraction of the cost of bus service.
This eliminates the need for planning routes - go the nearest stop, wait 10-15min (sometimes buses get bunched up so it's not really every 10min), and get on the next bus.
Buses already have drivers, wheelchair (and bicycle!) support, etc. and the stops usually have live tracking of the next arriving buses.
In contrast, nowadays the peak schedule is 7.5min.
See "coming soon" on the WayMo homepage: https://waymo.com/
That's 9 total.
Pitching my own book here, but I think Jackson Hole would be a great place for Waymo. It's clearly delineated, has basically no freeway driving, affluent residents and a constant influx of tourists for brand building. The only challenge is snow, but the roads are well plowed and drivers generally careful. If you're working in Truckee, I can't imagine it will be a much-bigger challenge.
I think Truckee and Tahoe offer this environment within reasonable driving distance to the main Waymo development campuses.
The nice thing about EVs like they're using now. The electric motors are pretty good at responding and handling different road conditions, much faster than ICE vehicles since you can never quite predict what the engine is doing at a given moment.
billionaire class wouldn’t be too happy with getting beta tested on raw tech. They will push back because “NIMBYism” runs deep.
Waymo is being adopted in wealthy areas first. To the extent there is NIMBY sentiment, it's towards rideshare drivers. (Also, billionaires probably wouldn't be taking Waymo. If their properties aren't fly in they're driving themselves.)
theyd want to shut off on the odd snow day that makes lines invisible, but its a lot like phoenix on having big wide roads, and the places to consistently play with snow cover are pretty empty/safe to screw up in
It'd sure suck if they go into cities run the local taxi companies and human drivers out of business only to shut down every time there's bad weather leaving people without access to transportation.
I wouldn't be surprised if WayMo is losing <$200M instead of ~$800M like the above post made it seem.
Additionally - the majority of those losses could come from expansion efforts.
I wouldn't be surprised if WayMo already has profitable unit economics.
It sounds like you're talking about net losses for the company.
You think it costs them $500 to operate a $50 ride?
How? And why?
Unit economics does not include the previous r&d to map the city and train the model to drive the car.
It's literally the cost of the car going from point a to point b - and amortizing other operational costs like maintenance and cleaning.
The maps they make for self-driving cars are made constantly - it's not something they make every year. They're updated weekly, if not daily - and they use a separate much more expensive car to do it. There's a whole separate team just for dealing with this. The amount of data the taxis collect is insane. Terabytes of data per car per hour, which needs to be stored and processed and transported (the data is so much it often makes more sense to physically ship hard drives than to send it over the internet). The "phone home" team is paid employees, and in order to have cellular service to the cars the companies pay a much more expensive plan with cellular providers than you're used to with your cellphone. The engineers who are maintaining the software and making fixes cost money. The people that clean and maintain the cars cost money. Not to mention the wear and tear on the vehicle (which includes the extremely expensive sensor suite) and the electricity to move the vehicle.
I am saying the unit economics, which has nothing to do with the previously spent billions of dollars or efforts of expansion, is currently dogshit for self-driving cars. Theoretically it will improve with scale, but Waymo isn't at scale yet. I think people that haven't worked in robotics have this notion that robots are wildly profitable but this is a common fallacy. Robots almost always lose money, and usually a shitload.
That can be true, but they still can (and should be) profitable in unit economics.
Do you have any experience (or preferably data) to suggest otherwise?
Zulu time.
Cruise _was_ the king in this aspect and avoided them completely but Waymo is getting up there.
Side note: GOOG and other tech conglomerates are clearly monopolizing the tech industry - from ADS to AI/AGI/LLM. It’s no wonder these companies have kissed the ring of current administration to get the green light on acquisitions needed to setup monopolies and effectively become a monopsony (particularly in labor to keep wages down).
When I walk in front of a Waymo it stops and gives me space and doesn't come anywhere near hitting me. That doesn't qualify as "god awful" to me. do you have a different experience?