They have already spent an enormous amount of money. It’s hard to see how they could make it back quickly, if ever. I’d like to be wrong, but I expect they will continue to be a money losing experiment for a long time yet.
All that matters at this point is how much money they'll lose/earn in the future. There are no shortage of investors willing to put money into this effort, and they're growing exponentially, so there won't be any pressure for them to turn overall profitable for several more years.
If Waymo is at breakeven including capex, opex, and overhead, operations logistics becomes the limiting factor. While Alphabet is capable of investing more money into Waymo, I think they've reached the tipping point. If you see Waymo expansion accelerate, bet on that tipping point having been reached.
Waymo's older than Uber, but they hold many key patents by this point. Now that they've started running a taxi service, it seems straightforwards to scale up, assuming that is the business they want to be in. Then it's just a matter of charging more than it costs to run the service, and wait.
Growth tells you the eventual profits will be bigger. Leadership and moat gives certainty that the company will actually get the profits for the market they grew.
Now compare to how much money the average person spends on driving per year.
If Waymo winds up running half the market in autonomous transportation over the next several decades, it'll make search look like peanuts in comparison.
The winner in self driving will likely be enabled by extreme vertical integration - you want to be building your own cars, cleaning your own cars, repairing your own cars, and so on.
The average American spends something like $12,500 in car+taxi/rideshare per year. Suppose with Waymo that goes down to $7,000 and it's 20% profit. That's $1,400/person in profit per year.
Obviously it gets much more complicated -- the profit margin depends on whether there are serious competitors to Waymo and how much Waymo's head start matters. Waymo will bring costs down further with shared vans and buses on demand. Profitability will rise with video ads in vehicles that you pay not to see. And so forth.
But autonomous rideshare is going to be larger than search any way you look at it. Profits won't be as high as search, but the barriers to entry are so high that profits will be high for a long time.
I also think you're overestimating the impact of things like ads, buses, etc. The second Waymos become less pleasant than any remotely comparably priced option, they will lose customers.
And yes I assume Waymo will have high profit margins for an extended period of time because they have such a massive head start, and for a long time will be competing primarily against rideshare with human drivers, so won't be pushed below that. Their marginal costs will be much cheaper than that, not having to pay drivers. Hence 20% is not unreasonable.
Then, even in the long term, the economies of scale they develop and network effects will continue to give them a significant advantage. Not 20% margins, but way more than 1%. Especially as they start to vertically integrate the hardware at some point.
Waymo is currently charging substantially more than Lyft/Uber and is not profitable. Human drivers can taxi in anything with 4 wheels and a hood, and its 100% their responsibility to take care of their vehicle, fuel it, clean it, and so on. Each Waymo currently costs ~$200,000 and is going to have a proportionally higher maintenance costs, and all of those costs must be covered by Google. So their costs are far higher than you're ballparking.
As for competition - Tesla has already launched a live robotaxi trial in Austin, so it's already here.
In any case, the overall point is the same -- it's a vastly larger market than Search. And what Waymo currently charges, and the current cost of their cars, is irrelevant. Waymo's business model isn't based on the economics this year or next year. It's based on the economics ten and twenty years from now, when costs have fallen dramatically as they switch to cheaper models and gain massive economies of scale.
As for Tesla, it's hard to take seriously given all the promises it's made and completely failed to deliver on. Their trial currently has a safety human in a front seat and is limited to a tiny group of testers. It's so many years behind Waymo already, and it's unclear if the technological approach it's taking will ever be able to catch up or meet minimal safety requirements.
[1] https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/auto-loans/total-co...
Does autonomy make so much difference? Uber drivers are not well paid, and the Waymo sensor suite is very expensive today.
Google made ~$265B from its ads last year.
The global driving market.
When these are ubiquitous enough, the vast majority of people who currently own cars won't need to. It'll be so much cheaper and easier to use rideshare.
If I lived in a city and garaging a car were inconvenient/expensive? Maybe. But that's not me or a lot of other people.
But if it's half the price over the course of a year? And you can summon it in advance cheaply? And it basically never takes more than 5 min to arrive anyways, since they're everywhere?
You might decide it's worth it to keep the stuff you really need in a messenger bag or backpack or something, the way people in NYC do. And maybe roof racks don't matter if you can just summon a second autonomous van behind you to hold whatever you were going to put on your roof.
Obviously if you're a contractor or something you'll need your own vehicle. But the point is that for most people, sure they can't keep stuff in their trunk all the time, but that's a happy tradeoff if the total cost of driving is 50% less.
How many people would pay for such a luxury car? With the US population aging and public transit non-existent in most places, Waymo probably has a market for cars.
That’s probably $1000-2000 per car, or about a penny a mile.
I’m not sure how much a few lidars will cost at scale. The compute board is a few hundred. Modern cars already have plenty of cameras.