Hacker News Reader

Comment by awwstn | Hacker News Reader

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...

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com