Google Maps On Mobile Gets Uber Integration | Hacker News Reader

Google Maps On Mobile Gets Uber Integration

techcrunch.com

121 pointsviscanti63 comments

Knowing Google, it will be an Android API service where you can register your app, so here Uber is an example in the screenshot but other apps will be able to register too.

That would actually be amazing the see the different prices / times for each service like Uber / Lyft / Taxi / Bus / Metro / etc.

It seems like they're on the cusp of offering something similar for Google Now voice actions based on the Android Wear preview SDK. As both a user and developer, it's a welcome addition.

Great point. Google wants all the world's data so I'd say they'd be much more interested in using Uber to get all the other services to quickly follow suit than try and make this Uber specific and a lead gen tool for a while.

I think this happened because Google Ventures invested $200M on Uber last year.

This is either a huge victory for Uber or a trojan horse by Google.

Google can use this strategy to train users to rely on google maps for Uber. If they see traction, they can roll out their own competing ride sharing service on top of google maps where they already have built traction and have users by using Uber.

Other than a decidedly not-Uber-like experience of throwing ads at a captive rider, I really don't see a reason that Google would be interested in that space.

As it stands now I'd agree, but Uber's the first market that'll be overturned by self-driving cars.

Google has other realms that could benefit from self-driving cars, not just ride-sharing/taxi. Why have separate fleets of vehicles if you can have one that does taxi services, shopping deliveries, and data collection (street view) at the same time?

Commercial trucking is the first market that will be overturned by self-driving cars. More predictable routes, do not have to deal with passenger misbehavior, higher total profits to absorb early-on technology costs associated with creating the self-driving vehicle (LIDAR costs and whatnot).

Google wishes it wasn't 95+% an ad company. It's a highly profitable space, but it leaves them vulnerable in the long term.

Google is entering into the delivery space (Google Shopping Express) and into self-driving cars, both which are similar to or complementary to Uber's business model.

Not so much there own "ride sharing" but their own automated car fleet. There already have been rumors of Google using the self driving car in this fashion. It would be simple to swap out Uber for a Google Car.

Google invested $258,000,000 in Uber [1]. Why would they have plans to roll out a competing ride sharing service?

[1] http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/22/google-ventures-puts-258m-i...

I'm curious. Why wouldn't google just buy Uber or replicate the technology?

I've done IT forever. I know the trap, "How hard can it be?" Google has location data on everyone with Android devices. They have location data used for traffic information. It wouldn't be a leap to use that data to determine hotspots and route drivers.

Google has a strange disincentive to buy Uber -- since Google Ventures invested, Google really wants someone else's money to provide that exit, otherwise they're just moving money from one pocket to the other.

Unless the long-term value of Uber is much greater than their $258 million investment. Is it better to exit? Or be the leader in urban mobility (and the revenue that comes with that position)?

Excellent point that I hadn't considered.

In which case I guess it is just a numbers game like you said.

    >Or be the leader in urban mobility (and the revenue that comes with that position)?

Small nit to pick, Google would be the leader in SUBurban mobility. The leader in urban mobility is the pedestrian (and lesser extent the bike rider). I live, work and for the most part "play" downtown. I already walk to work but Dallas isn't walkable and mass transit dense enough for me to totally ditch car ownership yet; but it is the eventual dream, to not have a car, rather than be driven around by a self driving one.

(yes, I fully admit I probably sound like an urban hipster douche, but sometimes you just have to embrace it)

That seems backward to me. I used to live in the suburbs; I likely wouldn't use Uber often or at all in that case, since you "have" to drive to get anywhere, and parking at your destination is usually free and plentiful. My Uber bill would likely be pretty high since things are more spread out.

I live in a city now, and use Uber frequently (despite still owning a car). It's faster than public transportation, walking, or cycling, and avoids the hassle and cost of parking.

Except that didn't stop them from acquiring Nest for $3.2b in cash.[1] If the market opportunity is big enough, then shifting money from one pocket to another makes the pants equally as big.

[1] - http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/14/double-google-all-the-way/

My best guess is that the questionable legality of Uber discourages them from pursuing it more directly.

Although I don't think they'd want to compete directly with Uber... surely they'll want to do something with their self driving car technology some time in the future.

So they eventually buy Uber for the brand and the installed user base and gradually replace live drivers with self driving cars conveniently parked around town waiting for instructions from the mother ship.

So if it is a Trojan horse like the gp poster suggests it will be built with blocks of cash for the founders and investors instead of wood and filled with war crazed Greek soldiers.

That would be an amazing plan, and I hope it happens that way. Given current timelines for the self-driving cars, it seems like that would be a major gamble considering the number of factors in play and the elements out of their control (which are mostly legal and social). Interesting possibility to consider.

What are the current timelines for self driving cars?

In 2012 Sergey said it would be about 5 years away. This gives another 3 years so doesn't sound unreasonable for some initial urban deployment.

That's what they're doing with Google Shopping Express. Eventually self-driving cars will be doing the deliveries.

It's probably a big part of why they invested in Uber in the first place.

Having self-driving Uber cars would be pretty amazing and cheaper.

What makes you think they would be cheaper?

Costs would at least be lower, which at least opens the possibility of it becoming cheaper. Sure, it's possible to conceive of a dystopic scenario where GooUber has such a monopoly that they can just keep prices arbitrarily high and disconnected from costs, but I think that's pretty unlikely.

It seems hard to say for sure that costs will be lower. The cost of a fully-autonomous/self-driving car is still unknown. Even if google is currently at the 90%, it's well-known that the last 10% is always the hardest. That last bit is especially important when you consider the consequences of imperfection in this venue.

He might be implying that the cost to rent a car, for 30 minutes, twice a day, would be cheaper than owning an, idle, car 24 hours a day.

Or, sharing the ride with three other commuters could bring the total cost of ownership to ~15 minutes per day.

I meant that the incremental cost of paying a human driver would be gone. The fixed cost of inventing and developing the self-driving technology would be minimal because it is amortized across all self-driving cars.

Fewer accidents drives down the insurance costs.

but the cost of the vehicle increases, which would have an unhappy effect on premiums.

All of that extra cost was R&D, which is currently being funded by Google's advertising. While I have no idea what Google's business model will eventually be with self-driving cars, at the end of the day it's just software and some cameras that can be mass-installed on most any car.

While the cost will initially be higher, it likely won't be much, and will eventually be negligible.

I'm not sure the sensors are negligable...

lower insurance. no salary.

I'm not sure how much Uber will matter when self-driving cars are the norm. It's not like Google is the only player in that field.

Uber said they would purchase few self driving cars: http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/25/uberauto/

Great - just what the world needs.

Uninsured, automated gypsy cabs. No danger there.

I'll trust that over an inattentive or slow reacting human.

Currently the biggest challenge of UBER is regulatory - cities are fighting it tooth and nail. One way to exert strong political pressure is to offer a real breakthrough new service for the mass population(and not something like UBER which is an incremental innovation targeted for a small section of the population). This also fits with the breakthrough mentality shown by google's leaders.

Such service could work like UBER for public transit[1], basically enabling people to share rides with multiple other people while decreasing the costs significantly and maybe making such a service an viable alternative to private transportation. Such an offer would be hard for politicians to resist for long.

One key to enable such service at scale, is access to plenty of people and their real-time travel data, and having an ability to offer them an highly targeted ad + route + service. That sound perfect for google+UBER. Like a huge market they're positioned perfectly for.

[1]Previous HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7391885

I've got to think this is a big play for their self driving cars.

1) The new map data moves to show how super advanced their capabilities measuring real time data so people build more trust.

2) Uber is also a likely bridge to the mass population accepting self driving cars. First we ditch our own cars for ubers (which are everywhere according to google maps), then when Google decides to swap out the human with AI, it won't be as a drastic jump from where we are now.

Kudos, Google.

I'd also point out--for your benefit if you don't know, or for anyone else that reads this--that Google is an investor in Uber.

Totally agree.

More so: let's think about speed of adoption. It takes much less time to replace a small fleet of public transportation vehicles than the huge private fleet we have today.

And from a business model perspective , if an automated car manufacturer wants to compete , he has to start building a public transportation service now. But cars manufacturers have wrong incentives and bad capabilities for such tasks.

So this practically guarantees Google will win a large share of the automated transportation market from the car companies.

Maybe it's time to invest in google ?

I wonder how it works in Brussels and in Germany, where UberPop has been forbidden.

And does it integrate Uber only (where only legit taxidrivers can participate) or does it also integrate UberPop (that has been illegal in Brussels and Germany). Cause according the website, UberPop is still available in Germany (https://www.uber.com/cities/berlin ) and in Brussels (https://www.uber.com/cities/brussels)...

Anyone knows what specificly is integrated?

Uber is illegal in multiple US cities as well, but that hasn't stopped them operating anywhere that I've heard.

Uber or UberPop? From what i understand, those are 2 different things.

I haven't heard of UberPop in the US: a quick google says it sounds like a more open version of UberX, so it would also be illegal: the sticking point is drivers without a professional license/commercial insurance taking money from people for rides. In the US the version of Uber that uses professional drivers is technically called Uber Black: in my experience when people say "Uber" they mean UberX (because it's cheaper and so more popular).

The lane information they're adding to the UI is great, but I hope it's added to the navigator voice, too.

There haven't been many times when I've had to cross three lanes of traffic in a hurry because Google Maps waited until the last minute to tell me to turn right, but they tend to be memorable when they happen.

This is fantastic news for Uber. In my city Uber is only just starting to roll out properly, but when I recently visited San Francisco everyone in the tech space travels around using Uber, so I gave it a go and it was fantastic.

To those saying this is a move by Google to test the waters for a ride sharing service of their own, Google Ventures invested $258,000,000 into Uber, it would be cheaper for them to just have a large amount of equity in Uber like they probably already do or just by Uber out if it gains massive momentum.

You have to understand when you get to the size Google has it becomes more economical and cheaper for a company to just buy out any competing service or take a massive chunk of equity. Large companies rarely innovate, they purchase and absorb already established and researched companies & niches.

I can honestly see sometime in the future Google and Uber teaming up together to create driver-less Uber vehicles. Uber have already removed the payment on the spot step with credit card/Paypal integration, why not eliminate the driver as well?

I did not see that coming - does anyone know whether money changed hands here? It'll be interesting to see how Lyft and others respond.

Google Ventures is an investor.

Yes, but as mentioned in the article: "Google always maintains its venture arm operates independently from the rest of the organization"

Are there other examples of something like this happening to a GV backed company?

I'm sure that the venture arm operates independently of main Google -- but it's not like the folks at Google Maps are somehow unaware of the fact that GV sunk a quarter-billion into Uber.

And Uber is one of the, if not THE, biggest investments GV has made. They have $1.5 billion in assets, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Ventures). So 1/6th of all their assets is Uber. Which means that asking whether other GV-invested companies have experienced easier Google integrations is not all that meaningful -- Uber is an outlier.

This is actually an interesting monetization experiment for google maps.

Google might create an ad type allowing all the different ride sharing companies to bid on this ad space. Should be able to attract pretty good cpm considering the user has already shown clear intent.

How is this helpful to the Google Maps user? If I'm looking for an Uber ride, I couldn't care less about opening Google Maps. I just open Uber and request a car.

you've presupposed the user wants an uber.

usually what the user wants is to no longer be where they are, but where they want to be, and they'd be equally alright with taking a bus or subway.

Could this not have anti-trust implications?

This seems very analogous to Microsoft's tying of IE and Windows, considering Google's dominant position with regards to maps.

Microsoft was declared a monopoly in large part because there were huge barriers to their users switching to another platform. They were totally locked in.

In the maps world, there's no such lock-in. It's trivial to switch from Google Maps to some other mapping service.

And, before long, the road will be jammed full of Gübers...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com