Waymo the Leapfrog

https://loeber.substack.com/p/20-waymo-the-leapfrog

by loeber • 2 years ago

85 114 2 years ago

loeber.substack.com

I don't get why Tesla keeps touting that they're going to have FSD taxis... in a few years. And their stock goes up when they (usually it's Musk, let's be clear) tout this. Waymo already has this (in limited areas). Why wouldn't Musk just partner with Waymo on this? Isn't this a situation where the more people using the tech will make it better faster than trying to have a dozen different companies chasing it essentially duplicating effort and training? Self driving seems like an area where it would be beneficial to share training data as much as possible.

Detrytus• 2 years ago

Musk's ego is just too big at this point for partnering with anyone on anything. He'd rather just "show them how it's done".

yiyayo110• 2 years ago

Using FSD every single day and it's amazing how well it works.

vinni22• 2 years ago

I guess fundamental difference is that Waymo uses a lot of sensors while Tesla FSD is relying on AI and computer vision.

mupuff1234• 2 years ago

More sensors doesn't mean waymo doesn't rely on AI and computer vision.

xnx5• 2 years ago

Not sure Waymo has anything to gain from a partnership with Tesla.

opinion-is-bad• 2 years ago

At some point Waymo is going to want a lot of cars if things go well. Those cars need to be electric, due to the power draw of the computer and sensors. A partnership doesn’t necessarily make sense between these companies, but I can see possible synergies.

ilaksh• 2 years ago

I think within X decades, any viable car company will have self driving or have to license the technology. Companies would rather develop their own than license it for the same reason as they have their own anything.

But I think that as AI continues to improve and more sensors are manufactured, the cost goes down and feasibility goes up for more companies to implement self-driving.

amacneil• 2 years ago

It's a bit like asking why Google doesn't just partner with Apple on phones since Apple is clearly better at it. The reason is that they are building competing products, with competing teams, competing software stacks, and different business models. Competition is good for innovation.

Tesla prioritized building a highly generalized stack that can offer incremental improvements from L2+ on all roads (today) to L3/L4 some time in the future. Waymo is prioritizing building a tightly geofenced L4 system and gradually expanding the operating domain.

Neither is more of a "correct" approach, since they have different design goals, and it's hard to even directly compare them at this stage of development.

modeless• 2 years ago

And their stock goes up when they (usually it's Musk, let's be clear) tout this

The stock is down 55% in the past three years.

Why wouldn't Musk just partner with Waymo on this?

Because they sell cars worldwide, not just in San Francisco and Phoenix. Because Waymo's required sensor suite is far too expensive and maintenance heavy for a consumer-owned vehicle. Because what they have is already far better than any other car manufacturer's system. Because they have a huge head start in data collection over anyone else including Waymo.

Isn't this a situation where the more people using the tech will make it better faster than trying to have a dozen different companies chasing it essentially duplicating effort and training

No, because many different companies are trying different approaches with incompatible hardware and it's not certain which approach will ultimately have the best tradeoffs in the real world. Centralization is not the way to produce innovation.

mdasen• 2 years ago

There are a bunch of reasons why Tesla doesn't partner with Waymo.

The practical issue is t hat Waymo uses more advanced sensors than Tesla vehicles use. Partnering with Waymo would mean telling Tesla owners and Tesla shoppers "your vehicles won't be self-driving."

If Tesla partners with Waymo, they're telling investors that their self-driving technology won't cut it. It's not just about ego. If Tesla is worth 10x more than GM or 100x more than Mazda because of a self-driving/AI/robo-taxi future, then partnering with Waymo is essentially saying "we'll provide the easily replaceable piece of the self-driving system."

Let's say that this works by Waymo buying Tesla vehicles for its self-driving fleet. That leaves all the power in Waymo's hands. Maybe they ink an exclusive deal for a few years. When that deal is up, Waymo is going to be pitting Tesla/GM/Volkswagen/Toyota/etc. all against each other on price. Waymo has the thing they don't have. They all have mostly comparable substitutes.

Let's say it works by Tesla licensing Waymo's technology and ditching their own AI plans. Again, it leaves the power in Waymo's hands. A few years out when the deal is set to be renewed, Waymo has a dozen car companies clamoring for its technology. Waymo knows it can seek a very high price, especially if Tesla wants to keep it exclusive. If Tesla doesn't want to keep it exclusive, then Tesla's valuation needs to be a lot lower like all the other car companies.

And what's in this for Waymo? They could partner with any number of car companies. What is Tesla bringing to the table? A CEO likely to damage Waymo's reputation and blame them for anything that goes wrong?

In terms of sharing things vs. not: you're kinda getting down to a fundamental inefficiency in our whole society. If all the car companies worked together on engines, we could get better engines faster. If all the drug companies worked together, we could accelerate research. But there are problems to that idea too. Having a single way of doing data collection can lead to blind spots, having a single hierarchy can mean that different things don't get tried, etc. There's also the issue of whose work gets deemed worthy of compensation.

If you've ever worked at a large enough company, you'll have seen instances where people with entrenched ideas stymie progress. If everyone partnered on self-driving, who decides what sensors are going into the vehicles? Maybe I come up with a new sensor and SelfDrivingPartnership says "nah, we don't think it's worth the cost," and I can never test whether I'm right or not.

In some ways, open source tries to solve some of this: everyone can still compete to make something better with the freedom to do so, but you can just take other people's code so you don't have to duplicate efforts. Of course, the problem there can be that companies don't want to share the pieces that are worth a lot of money. If self-driving tech is worth a trillion dollars, I might rather get that trillion dollars for myself and you can wait another 2, 5, 10, 20 years for it to be available.

UncleOxidant3• 2 years ago

The practical issue is t hat Waymo uses more advanced sensors than Tesla vehicles use. Partnering with Waymo would mean telling Tesla owners and Tesla shoppers "your vehicles won't be self-driving."

Maybe, but the Tesla Taxi seems to be a separate, non-consumer vehicle, more like what Waymo is doing.

UncleOxidant3• 2 years ago

In some ways, open source tries to solve some of this: everyone can still compete to make something better with the freedom to do so, but you can just take other people's code so you don't have to duplicate efforts.

Yes, open sourcing and sharing training data would likely get us to safer self-driving cars faster.

Of course, the problem there can be that companies don't want to share the pieces that are worth a lot of money. If self-driving tech is worth a trillion dollars, I might rather get that trillion dollars for myself and you can wait another 2, 5, 10, 20 years for it to be available.

I guess I'm not sure it's a trillion dollar idea ultimately if it becomes widespread - is ABS a trillion dollar industry? Also, I wonder if auto companies will become wary of the liability issues. A full self-driving car (no steering wheel) likely won't generally be owned by consumers. You'd hail one like you do an Uber. Consider the liability issues: Who carries the insurance? Not the rider as they have no input (even if someone chose to buy one it's tough to see that they would be liable in the event of a crash since, again, they had no input). It would have to be the maker of the vehicle that carries the insurance.

The other thing to consider is that ultimately in order for these systems to work most efficiently (and most safely) we need some communication between vehicles and with traffic signals. Another area where cooperation would be better than competition.

c22• 2 years ago

Why would Waymo want to partner with Musk on this?

shreezus• 2 years ago

I have been riding Waymo around LA for over a year with no issues. To me, it's just an Uber with an invisible driver, and more predictable experience.

Riding it is now a mundane experience, and that's a marvel in itself. Every time I'm forced to get an Uber in another city (or do airport rides as Waymo doesn't do pickups/dropoffs in LAX yet), I feel like I went 5 years back in time.

My Tesla has FSD and that has gotten progressively better the last few updates, however Waymo still feels ahead. I can truly "relax" in a Waymo, where FSD still makes me uneasy at times, like I'm supervising a teenage driver.

panarky• 2 years ago

It's been a consistently excellent experience for me in both SF and LA.

The cars are well maintained and clean inside and out.

They are very careful and considerate drivers.

They navigate complex and ambiguous situations with unprotected turns, pedestrians, bicyclists, double-parked cars, construction zones and narrow streets.

They're better than Uber in every respect.

And I dare say I think they're now a safer and more capable driver than I am, at least within their designated operating territories.

thefounder• 2 years ago

I heard Tesla has no real FSD. Just a broken prototype with customers used as Guinea pigs.

dvt2• 2 years ago

I've been taking Waymo in LA for about half a year now, and I love it and it's a great party trick (always pick up my dates in one lmao), but a handful of times it's (a) accidentally blocked traffic and gotten incessantly honked at (kind of hilarious considering there's no driver), and (b) went the wrong way on a one-way back alley and got stuck when a lady was going the opposite direction lol. Again, kinda funny when she started honking, got out of the car, and realized there's no driver. In the latter case, we actually had support call us in the car.

I think if there's something weird/bad going on, someone manually takes over (but not sure if that's confirmed or not). Still a cool experience, but the real world is a lot more complicated than it first seems.

Even with all that, it definitely feels like the future.

mlyle2• 2 years ago

I think if there's something weird/bad going on, someone manually takes over (but not sure if that's confirmed or not).

Remote agents give the cars "advice" or label objects, but the car is free to not believe them. There's no actual remote control.

If the advice is not enough, roadside assistance goes and drives the car manually.

furyofantares3• 2 years ago

a handful of times it's (a) accidentally blocked traffic and gotten incessantly honked at (kind of hilarious considering there's no driver)

Interesting. Are you sure they aren't honking at you? I think your framing might be right but I'm not totally sure

nunez• 2 years ago

I wonder how much of that uneasiness comes from (the collective) you ceding control to the car vs being a passive passenger in a Waymo.

petters• 2 years ago

They’re commercially available. Anyone can download the app and hail one

Alas, not if you're from Europe it seems. I'd love to try one when I'm in the Bay area

ghaff3• 2 years ago

It's very limited geographically at this point. It's pretty clear it's going to be a long time before it's something near-universal and something you can just do with your own car--at a similar price point--today.

vinni22• 2 years ago

I am from Europe and managed to try Waymo in SF recently. Not sure why you couldn’t.

Angostura• 2 years ago

I think you misread. If they go to the Bay Area they would like to try it.

fooker2• 2 years ago

Most new tech takes about 5-8 years to be available in Europe nowadays.

For good reason sure, but might as well accept it.

snowpid2• 2 years ago

VW has a similar service and want to roll out autonomous driving next year in Hamburg.

xnx5• 2 years ago

Credit to the author for pointing out the public transit aspect of Waymo. In the same way that mobile phones and solar are allowing the developing world to skip a big middle step of fixed infrastructure, Waymo could allow cities to skip (or eliminate) expensive and limited use rail networks.

AlexandrB• 2 years ago

Skip the efficient transit and go straight to jammed up roads. Doesn't seem like a good move.

xnx5• 2 years ago

In the US (outside of possibly NYC) existing rail transit isn't especially money or time efficient. Trains require expensive dedicated right of way and don't take you directly from where you are to where you want to be. Trains are also highly susceptible to delays because they can rarely circumvent obstructed tracks. A single sick or disruptive passenger can delay hundreds of people. Waymo vehicles take you from exactly where you are to where you want to be on existing roads and can alter their route in the case of obstacles.

dyauspitr• 2 years ago

Housing in the USA is heavily suburban and spread out. You’re always going to need atleast last mile transportation.

jayroh• 2 years ago

If Waymo could operate in downtown Boston? Safely, reliably? Then, at that point, color me impressed!

cjsplat2• 2 years ago

SF is worse, except for the snow.

You can complain about Boston drivers, but they are pretty predictable compared to SF tourists.

Snow is an issue, but they'll get that done.

mazugrin2• 2 years ago

I don't think the drivers are the issue. The infrastructure, including the signage and road markings are vastly more sane and regular in SF than in Boston. And have you seen the road layout in Boston? I have no idea if this will be a challenge for Waymo, but I could imagine why someone would think it would.

ghaff3• 2 years ago

There's an argument that "aggressive Boston driving" was a result of how the old Central Artery was built.

tempest_• 2 years ago

They don't tend to operate anywhere it might snow.

pm90• 2 years ago

In fact, this might bring American public transportation to a leapfrog moment. Many pundits have lamented that developing cities elsewhere have “leapfrogged” the US on public transportation — building subways and rail networks that put ours to shame. Over a hundred years ago, we built first-generation public transit.15 Over the last forty years, other countries built second-generation public transit. Now we have the opportunity as a nation to lead the world on third-generation public transit, and in that course develop products and expertise that can be exported.

This is quite the stretch. Even in the best case scenario, Waymos won’t beat well run public transit lines in dense cities, especially in east and south asia.

This piece is way too optimistic about Waymo. They’ve mastered a couple of cities over many years. To do that for more cities would require just as much time. It’s conceivable that ride share will continue to exist until that happens, which is likely several decades.

fnordpiglet7• 2 years ago

I’m not sure I agree with this. Autonomous cooperative cars would convoy in dynamic flocks in a way that does point to point transit with a lot of the advantages of trains (in that a major advantage of trains is they don’t congest). This would actually have a significant advantage over every other type of transit. Even having a modest percent of all cars on the roads cooperative autonomous vehicles using basic control theory to relieve congestion would aid the entire cities traffic (there have been several studies proving this).

ben-schaaf3• 2 years ago

Autonomous cooperative cars would convoy in dynamic flocks in a way that does point to point transit with a lot of the advantages of trains

The main advantages of trains are:

* Dedicated right of way - which you cant't get with cars.

* High route capacity - even a unrealistic 10x improvement still doesn't compete with trains. At 2x it's worse than busses.

* Cheap running & maintenance costs - doubtful running costs are similar, certainly not maintenance.

Trains do however congest, you get that a lot in the USA when you don't have dedicated passenger lines.

Even having a modest percent of all cars on the roads cooperative autonomous vehicles using basic control theory to relieve congestion would aid the entire cities traffic (there have been several studies proving this).

There have also been several studies into something called induced demand. The result of reducing car traffic is that more people choose to drive, resulting in more car traffic. The only way to actually reduce traffic is viable alternatives to driving.

cycomanic2• 2 years ago

But even then, that assumes that you assign the cost of building the infrastructure to public transit (or the public). Now if Waymo makes up a significant portion of overall traffic, why should the public pay for the cost of building the infrastructure, i.e. the roads?

amluto2• 2 years ago

Flocking may well be an improvement over the status quo, but it fundamentally can’t be nearly as efficient as busses due to simple geometry: cars physically take up a space.

https://humantransit.org/2012/09/the-photo-that-explains-alm...

rqtwteye• 2 years ago

Makes me wonder what Waymo’s endgame is. Become another Uber, become a car company or provide the tech to other car companies?

cwillu2• 2 years ago

What's google's endgame everywhere else? Captive audience to put advertising in front of.

treflop• 2 years ago

Their endgame is usually to build a product that they can abandon.

aPoCoMiLogin• 2 years ago

GCP/Gdrive/Gdocs is not putting ads anywhere, and the list can go on. what they are doing, they are looking for other streams of money

cwillu2• 2 years ago

Google product, and therefore mark my words: today's peaceful book-reading ride will be ad-infested in 20 years, if not less.

zitterbewegung• 2 years ago

If anything goes wrong during your ride a real person will have to let you out and you will be stranded . A person has been taking many rides with Waylon but on the other hand this is really an alpha or beta project. See https://youtu.be/TbEplrZ-uSA?si=OCZt46gfVN9EfFhz

sverhagen• 2 years ago

You getting stranded and stuck is one thing, I guess. This could arguably happen with your own car too. But what if that USPS supervisor, or in another situation some upset business owner, makes much bigger deal out of it, things could escalate...

mafuyu2• 2 years ago

It's exciting to see Waymo and self driving technology in general doing well, but the analysis on the broader implications fell flat for me. Claims about improving commutes or being more effective than mass transit need to be substantiated - there's a ton of stuff out there on traffic engineering, mass transit, and urban planning that can help perform these sorts of analyses.

Some thoughts:

* For the purposes of transit efficiency, self driving cars are very similar to Ubers. They have a low passenger density (being a regular car), and once the passengers disembark, they still take up space on the road with 0 passengers. Better experience and lower costs will basically just induce more demand over more efficient mass transit options. If you imagine everyone at a bus stop ordering an Uber, or have ever seen the flurry of Ubers after a big event, it's clear why self driving isn't really addressing the core issue.

* You can't really make direct cost comparisons to the infrastructure costs of bus lanes or subways like that. Infrastructure is ungodly expensive in the US, yes, but there are very well understood reasons to make dedicated bus lanes and subways: they don't compete with cars on the road. They're high density transit options, so having more reliable service will impact a lot more people (and reduce car congestion on the road!) A rideshare service is wholly unprepared to deal with the transit demands of a larger city, and imagining that we'd replace existing mass transit options with it is silly.

* I don't really understand the point about suburbs. You can already get that experience today by ordering an Uber to and from work. If there's more demand, it's just going to make traffic even worse while promoting more suburban sprawl.

shrubble3• 2 years ago

In order for a bus to actually be an efficient mass transit option, it has to be used.

Buses on regular roads create a "shadow" that affects other vehicles behind it and reduces 2 lanes in one direction to an efficiency of much less than 2 lanes, due to stops and starts. And except for peak usage times outside of a few major US cities, I would argue it is a net congestion creator rather than congestion reducer. A bus has the same effect as 10 or 15 cars, from my observation; so if there are less than 15 people on a bus, it's worse.

Part of the reason that buses have wraps or tinted windows is so you can't see how few people are riding on it.

At least the Waymo is not moving and not on the road when not in use.

mlyle2• 2 years ago

And except for peak usage times

Peak usage times are obviously what matters for congestion

I would argue it is a net congestion creator rather than congestion reducer

I think buses even outside of peak hours are usually net congestion removers... but if you want them to be congestion removers during peak times, you also need to offer service during other times.

mafuyu2• 2 years ago

Yeah, bus systems suck. People avoid buses because they have unreliable schedules, and dedicated bus lanes are intended to improve that. Putting every rider on a bus into their own dedicated rideshare car isn't really going to improve things, though...

kemotep3• 2 years ago

Can you explain how a bus, which takes up only the space that 2-3 vehicles can add the equivalent of 10-15?

Even triple the space usage, is leas than what you claim to observe. What is your methodology for determining this?

toast0• 2 years ago

Dedicated bus lanes absolutely compete with cars on the road. You could drive a car in the bus lane, except for the words 'bus only'.

Most of the dedicated bus lanes I've seen were once open to all vehicles, but later restricted. Some were built specifically for busses, but not many.

johnloeber6• 2 years ago

Hello! Author here. Quick responses:

1) With superior scale, the utilization of each Waymo approaches 100%. "Empty rides" going to a new pickup spot become more and more rare because they immediately get a ride close-by.

2) I think you underestimate the case for shared rides. Any Waymo with >= 2 passengers is reducing congestion, not adding. When you consider small bus-shuttles, e.g. 6 or 12 or 18 seats, it gets even more impactful.

3) The point with suburbs is that they become more accessible when the price point comes down. If you have a 45-minute commute to drive yourself, an Uber might cost you $60, which would be prohibitive. If a seat in a carpooled Waymo costs only $5 or $10, the incentives and customer behavior change significantly.

soneca• 2 years ago

I disagree with your three points.

*”because they immediately get a ride close-by”

That’s is unsubstantiated utopia (from you POV). People do not have uniformly distributed locations for starting and ending routes. There are concentrations of where people work, live, go to restaurants, schools, etc. More so if you are assuming suburban homes. The direction of routes also have very strong biases.

You very strongly and, again, unsubstantially overestimate shared rides. Shared rides could already be happening at scale with a human driver and are not. There is nothing about self-driving tech that solves any urbanistic, social or economic barrier to shared rides. Also, a shared ride negates most of the benefits of self driving cabs. You are not alone in the confined space, you are sharing with others, others that will likely be more intrusive than a professional driver. The vehicle will not be as clean, as comfortable, as silent, etc.

About commute getting cheaper seems a pipe dream. There is nothing in the self driving tech remotely indicating that a currently $60 ride will cost $5 with self driving cars.

AlotOfReading• 2 years ago

The article estimates that the vehicles cost $200k based on Cruise's reported numbers in 2023 for vehicles produced in previous years.

Reporting often misses just how quickly vehicle costs have dropped. When I started in the industry, vehicle costs often exceeded $500k. Almost everyone I'm aware of today is targeting sub-$100k.

johnloeber6• 2 years ago

Author here - Good catch, thanks for pointing this out

furyofantares3• 2 years ago

It's interesting to me that the author hadn't previously considered that self driving cars would feel different. My first experiences in an Uber were very memorable, the drivers are so much more aggressive than I am. I kept thinking "they drive like an asshole so I don't have to" because it felt so much like I was being driven by my teenage self.

But also -- I've been thinking about what it would be like to have nobody driving for over a decade, ever since the promise of self driving cars became a popular topic here on HN. I still really want to own one - once they're good enough to get rid of any interior controls and face the front seats backwards with a gaming table in the middle. If board game day could also have a destination dinner, I would pay a lot of money for that car.

jolux• 2 years ago

Page not found?

aabhay• 2 years ago

The unit economic analysis here is really off. Waymo loses a billion dollars a year on operating in only two or three cities. The cost is clearly not just the CapEx of buying the vehicles, there’s an incredible amount of ongoing engineering that takes place behind the scenes. Cruise had roughly 1.5 engineers assigned to each vehicle on the road at all times.

cycomanic2• 2 years ago

Why is this post being downvoted? If it is incorrect someone should really reply why.

tired_and_awake• 2 years ago

It's great the author is passionate about Waymo but wow this reads like an advertisement.

johnloeber6• 2 years ago

Author here - not an ad, I don't even know anyone at Waymo and don't hold any associated financial incentives.

zamfi3• 2 years ago

This piece makes the argument that self-driving taxis will be a winner-takes-most market, but color me skeptical.

Winner-take-most markets, like Uber, tend to be two-sided marketplaces with major network effects: folks use Uber because they’re pretty ubiquitously available and relatively inexpensive; they’ve available because the many users request many trips which makes working for Uber as a driver appealing. (Ditto AirBnB, etc.)

But Waymo’s competitive advantage is pretty much only technology here. There is an argument to be made that this technology has a “network effect”-style moat: you need massive amounts of data from cars to build the tech; you get that data by being first to market. But this post doesn’t make this argument, it simply points to Uber/Lyft/the-taxi-app-graveyard and says “see?”

It’s also not clear that this set of data will forever be as critical as it is now, nor that in 10 years it won’t be comparatively easy to collect.

If the only edge that Waymo has here is technology, that’s not a natural monopoly position on its own. Autonomous driving is surely hard, but it’s an absolute-performance-baseline task, not a zero-sum market like ads. The existence of one set of 0.0001%-accident-rate-drivers doesn’t prevent anyone else from producing a 0.0001%-accident-rate self-driving car. There’s a small market stickiness effect from being first, sure, but this is not the same kind of natural monopoly as a two-sided marketplace. It’s clear why users use Uber and AirBnB over alternatives: it’s where the drivers and properties are, and that takes time to build up and it hard to take away. It’s not clear why someone would be a tied to Waymo if another equally-available self-driving taxi were available that were substantially less expensive, even if it were marginally less safe. (Of course, everyone has their trade-off point here—consider airlines: while people are more likely to pick an airline based on convenience and price, rather than safety record, these days—United perhaps excepted—that’s only true because the overall accident rate is so low.)

Assuming the baseline for “safe operation” doesn’t escalate, improvement in technology (e.g., more capable GPUs, better sensors, more public datasets) will only make this baseline easier to reach for newcomers. If the tech gets easy enough, all it will take for a new entrant is CapEx, and it’s not clear how Google would differentiate, and could end up as a single commodity provider among many, rather than a two-way marketplace owner benefitting from network effects on both sides.

That said, to construct a monopoly here, Waymo does have a couple of options:

1. Argue for regulation around self-driving cars that protects incumbents, by (e.g.) setting safety standards that are impossible for new entrants to meet. The NRC has a “good” model for this: by analogy to nuclear plants, any new vehicles on the market would need to prove that they are better than existing vehicles in the market.

2. Cut deals with major auto manufacturers so that incumbents just can’t get the data through partnerships with camera-equipped vehicle manufacturers.

Number 2 seems like it could be clearly anticompetitive, but number 1’s playbook is being written by the big AI companies as we speak.

sbuttgereit2• 2 years ago

It’s not clear why someone would be a tied to Waymo if another equally-available self-driving taxi were available that were substantially less expensive, even if it were marginally less safe.

Do not underestimate quality of the experience/product on the whole. Whenever I take an Uber/Lyft/Taxi, I find myself in the uncomfortable position of having to deal with a stranger in a small space for a period a little longer than an elevator ride (if you know what I mean)... and that driver in turn has to figure out how to interact with me (or not). We're social animals and we feel compelled to do something or to expect something even if that interaction doesn't come. In a Waymo this forced social situation doesn't exist: and I for one find it superior enough to pay the small premium... which in my experience is on par with what I'd have to tip (another fun thing to have to deal with in the Uber/Lyft/Taxi scenario).

Also, I've mentioned this recently elsewhere. Uber/Lyft/Taxis don't always show up, drivers cancel trips and that can happen several times in a row. Waymo hasn't done that to me yet. So the certainty and dependable expectation setting of Waymo vs. Uber/Lyft/Taxis make a compelling case for premium pricing. And again, in my experience, the pricing of Waymo hasn't been so much more than the alternatives to justify calling those alternatives "substantially less expensive". Once the tipping is figured into the equation they're roughly on par.

Would I consider other self-driving entrants over Waymo? Sure if they can match the quality of service and are price competitive. But the comparison with traditional driver based services needs to account to the higher overall product quality and not just the pricing model or even safety margins (so long as they are within some reasonable baseline).

zamfi3• 2 years ago

Oh, sorry, to be clear I'm not comparing Waymo with Uber/Lyft/taxi -- just pointing out that there isn't a natural monopoly to be had among self-driving car-based taxis specifically. Currently Waymo is the only one.

I don't consider Uber/Lyft to be self-driving taxi services. There's no question these are different.

johnloeber6• 2 years ago

Hi, author here. This is a good point that's worth addressing.

Technology is not the reason it's a winner-take-most market. It's helpful, but in the long term, many players will have comparable technology.

Utilization is the reason why it's a winner-take-most market. If you have the most popular app with the best drive liquidity, that's a self-reinforcing feedback loop. In turn, it means that your economics are better because your cars are going to be utilized at a higher % of the time. This in turn means that you can charge lower prices, and so forth. (A similar dynamic has been the case for Uber, for example.)

zamfi3• 2 years ago

Right. I guess I see that argument as an "economies of scale" argument, rather than as a "natural monopoly" argument.

In many industries large players will benefit from economics of scale. This is definitely true for Uber. But it's not a natural monopoly position -- if someone could offer the same service for half the price, people would switch, as we all expect they will when Waymo does this.

This is different from, e.g., AirBnB, where there's not that much a competitor could offer, necessarily, and they'd have to build a huge set of inventory from scratch, a true two-sided marketplace. A competitor that manages to cut the service fee in half would still face an uphill battle building up that marketplace.

crazygringo• 2 years ago

Waymo becomes most interesting as an alternative to public transit.

I really wonder what this looks like logistically, when you realize how inefficient it is for everyone to be in their own individual Waymo during rush hour.

The obvious first step is:

Many people who currently drive themselves would probably be happy to carpool in a self-driving vehicle if it’s reliable and easy

But if it's a 4-person vehicle, I'm not sure that's enough -- that's still a lot of vehicles clogging bridges and tunnels. And if you get to 12-person self-driving minibuses, it feels like too much time picking up and dropping people off if you're trying to stick to one vehicle.

So I kind of wonder if there will be intermediate ~20-person self-driving buses to bring people in and out of cities, that respond instantly to demand?

So in the suburbs, you take an 8-minute individual Waymo that brings you to a perfectly timed Waymo Bus that you wait 3 minutes for, get on with 19 other people for 42 minutes, everybody gets off at the same point at the edge of downtown, and everybody gets into carpooling individual Waymos already waiting, so you take 7 mimnutes to get to your office, dropping off 2 people along the same route you would have taken anyways.

But the buses don't have fixed routes or stops or timetables -- they just aggregate the demand along the common long corridors. Essentially replacing light commuter rail.

Kwpolska• 2 years ago

This reads very much like a Waymo advertisement.

The once-dreaded long commute is about to come back in a big and pleasant way. I would have no issue at all sitting in a Waymo for 45 minutes each way every day. It’s just a nice time to myself that I can use to nap, work, or read.

In places with working public transit, you can already have that experience. While it may make the experience less stressful (because you're not driving), it is still a huge time sink. You can do something entertaining while on a bus or in a Waymo, but it still blocks off time you could spend more productively.

johnloeber6• 2 years ago

"In places with working public transit" is a huge caveat here. The vast majority of the US does not have what I would consider "working public transit". And those places aren't going to get it any time soon.

Unfortunately, sitting in a Waymo is experientially not at all the same as riding the BART or NYC subway.

solarkraft• 2 years ago

One of Google's projects that actually persisted through hardships while others didn't.

Zigurd• 2 years ago

Broadly speaking, I agree with the article. This has the potential to leapfrog mass transit as well as Uber. But how the Waymo model develops is probably unknowable right now. Will there be a variety of Waymo vehicle purpose-built for Waymo? Will Waymo become a bus service on heavily traveled routes? Or will iit becomme a kind of franchise where the transit agency is responsible for the vehicles and Waymo becomes a white-label enabling technology or are bus routes going to be obsoleted by right-sized privately owned Waymo "mini busses" with dynamic capacity and pick up/drop off on demand?

My guess is that Google will try to get out of the business of owning the vehicles and make Waymo an enabling technology. But there is a lot of experimentation to be done before anything other than how Waymo has evolved to become part of what Waymo does.

Waymo the Leapfrog

Related Stories