We got these in Atlanta. I haven't had the chance to ride yet but watching them it's pretty clear that they're legit.
I think we're on the cusp of something that will change the landscape of our cities. It's going to revolutionize getting around and take a chunk out of the land dedicated to parking.
It will also funnel large amounts of revenue out of every city into s/SF/Bay Area. Currently around 35% of the money spent on Uber/Lyft stays in the local economy. Waymo in SF still employs a large number of highly paid engineers who are paid the money which used to move through SF via Uber/Lyft. And those SF engineers spend a decent chunk of it locally on food, art, entertainment, and various other services - so it has (somewhat) less of an effect on the city's overall economy/total employment.
Waymo in Miami won't be locally re-spending nearly as much of Miami's money as Uber/Lyft did. Significantly more of it will be removed from Miami with each ride. This might be even more pronounced for cities like Houston, which don't attract tourism from Waymo staff.
> It will also funnel large amounts of revenue out of every city into SF.
Why SF? Does Google even still have an engineering office in the city? Alphabet is a publicly traded company with employees all over the USA and the world, even if you said the money would be funneled into Mountain View you'd be incorrect. The money will be funneled into 401Ks would be more accurate, and a lot of snowbirds in Florida are living off of their 401Ks and stock investments (which probably have a lot of Alphabet in them), so it is definitely something for Florida.
But I think your point is that gig workers won't be making the money anymore. That's definitely true. That is just like when loom machines took money away from weavers back in the 19th century, or computers took money away from typists/secretaries in the 20th century. We should carefully consider whether or not that is a net good for society.
The purely 'luddite' argument is rather obvious. Exploring the effects of that new path of money are somewhat more interesting to me. I believe that the cash flow will be much more concentrated, both by geography and cohort.
Even just taking it at face value that "the vast majority of the 35% of the fare that would have gone to the drivers will now go to '401k's" is interesting! Currently most drivers for Lyft/Uber are in the bottom 50%ile of wealth in the USA, and they are currently getting that 35% cut. The bottom 50% of the USA hold nearly no stocks at all. 50% of the S&P500 shares are owned by the wealthiest 1% of the USA.
Also, computers and looms were perhaps a bit different - the result of their automation was a product that actually cost less than their equivalent human labor could produce. Waymo currently charges more than Uber and Lyft, but still takes significant market share.
I do expect them to be cheaper eventually, but they'll also have an opportunity to establish market monopolies and then raise prices again. Sure, uber and lyft driver supply is obviously elastic, but possibly not quite as elastic in the very long run - it took a lot of capital to raise the current driver base for Uber+Lyft, and I'm not sure that can be repeated, say, five years after people stopped driving for them.
Of course people have to get new jobs as the world churns. But all of these other effects are interesting too! And, many, many people never really attain those new jobs. I don't think that's Waymo's "fault" as a moral judgment if the reality is that removing money from these jobs will lead to increase in squalor. It's just a pretty stark example of the rich getting richer.
> That is just like when loom machines took money away from weavers back in the 19th century, or computers took money away from typists/secretaries in the 20th century. We should carefully consider whether or not that is a net good for society.
I don't want to sound like a luddite, but each of those contributed to a consolidation of wealth that was largely offset by new jobs and new markets. How exactly do you think this is paying off here? Tech companies get to benefit, we know that, which sounds like a dead end. So it's ok that everyone else loses?
The loss of manufacturing jobs and the movement of jobs in to services has been hard for the US, and is basically where MAGA came from, which I would say is a net harm to society. We wouldn't be arguing about Waymo right now if those Uber drivers had better jobs making things instead of being forced into gig work.
You don't think this will also have an effect on improving life in the cities where Waymo is utilized? I understand there is the threat to induced demand with too many waymo's being on the road but this is going to help improve city living and in turn, help increase people wanting to live there.
At least in SF, last I checked, it's as expensive, or sometimes more expensive, as Uber/Lyft. It'll serve the same sector of the population as those apps already do, so it's unlikely to actually reduce parking needs.
There's an argument that more competition could reduce prices and/or wait times for consumers, but there's also the argument it'll take away gig jobs, which are already somewhat of a "backup net" for people who need money but can't find a formal job for some other reason.
I don't live in SF anymore. When I did and now that I occasionally visit, I personally don't see any meaningful difference from when only Lyft and Uber operated there.
Honestly, in a lot of ways, yes. I'm a massive critic of Uber, but outside of the hotel areas and nicest neighborhoods, it was often incredibly difficult to successfully call a taxi to pick you up before Uber.
I remember once playing ball all day in the front yard, calling all the taxi companies just on a lark. They'd claim they were sending a driver, that the driver pulled up and honked, but we were outside the entire time. No one ever actually drove up over about 20 calls to 6 cab companies.
Uber/Lyft finally served all neighborhoods mostly equally, and that was a huge benefit.
To the best of my knowledge, Waymo still has humans in the loop as Fleet Response agents that the vehicles can call for remote assistance when they aren't sure what to do. Caveat that the number needed likely isn't on the same order of magnitude as human drivers, but the job is likely higher paying. I could see a scenario where these should be locals for both latency (ChatGPT says SF to Miami RTT latency might be 80-100 ms and I don't believe the humans really teleoperate the vehicles, so that may not be meaningful, but that might be a bigger deal for international expansion) and knowledge of tricky intersections or road quirks in the city. They could also potentially help with labeling quirky city-specific scenarios and other various evals.
I think the pie will grow more than Waymo takes out. Stuff like a plumber realizing they're missing a part. What might be a trip to the supply house can be a self driving delivery instead.
Either way, it's not all that much different. Most of the money spent on getting around a city goes elsewhere through vehicle and gas purchases. Adding the cost of self driving to that probably won't move the needle all that much.
Isn't that how it always is when new technology disrupts an existing market? We no longer have telephone operators, toll booth agents, gas pump attendants, etc
Those all eliminated the work so that no one had to pay for it anymore, which freed up that money to be spent elsewhere in the local economy. Waymo is not cheaper than Lyft/Uber. So it's more of a direct wealth-transfer than the most cursory analogies were.
I usually ask most of my drivers how much they're getting paid for each ride. Across MCOL and HCOL areas like SF, NYC, HTX, ATX, DMV - I've generally been seeing around 40% going to the driver.
I would hope so, but it's not yet clear if the economics pan out for large scale deployment. The ride is amazing, but the sensor-laden cars are also very expensive.
The only sensible aspect of Elon's boneheaded move to remove non-camera sensors from Tesla models is the drive to reduce costs, because low costs are essential for mass adoption. Yes, sensors are rapidly dropping in cost, making the move even more boneheaded, but the theory is sound.
Some Waymo exec claimed that they are seeing very encouraging unit economics, which gives me hope for mass diffusion, but we'll only know when the rubber actually hits the road (heheheh).
We've had it for a few years in SF and, while it's very convenient, I haven't witnessed the revolution you speak of. Judging from the traffic, people still mostly get around in their personal vehicles. There's about as much parking as before and it's still a nightmare. But I'd like to believe.
I live in the city and as much as I'd like to be car free waymo doesn't do it (yet). I take frequent weekend trips that travel (I assume) outside of waymos range. Once waymo supports car rentals I could consider getting rid of mine.
I’m skeptical. Is the presence of a human driver keeping you from using Uber/Lyft/taxis more than you currently are? Why would you think removing a driver will lead to more ride share trips? Capitalism is going to do its thing, so between the touted benefits of driverless ride shares and capitalist economics, could you please explain how exactly our city landscapes, namely parking lots, will be revolutionized in any way, shape, or form other than zombie lots occupied Waymos endlessly arranging and charging themselves? Forgive my cynicism, it feels like I’ve seen this how this dream turns out many times before.
> Is the presence of a human driver keeping you from using Uber/Lyft/taxis more than you currently are?
Yep. A couple of bad experiences with Uber/Lyft drivers put me off using them. Waymo is honestly more comfortable/less stressful for me. Similarly, I just read an article discussing parents making use of Waymo to schlep their kids to sportball practice/friend's house/wherever kids hang out these days, even though it is against Waymo's terms of service. The article indicated those parents didn't trust their kids to be in a car along with a strange human, but were ok with an automated system (and violating the ToS of that system).
> please explain how exactly our city landscapes, namely parking lots, will be revolutionized in any way, shape, or form other than zombie lots occupied Waymos
Today parking tends to be located near the shop/restaurant/office people want to go to. If people no longer need to park to go to where they want to go, parking (for charging) can relocate and be concentrated, thereby freeing up the parking spaces for other uses.
Thanks for the reply. The perception of safety in attended ride shares is masking the larger economic constraint. So let's assume for sake of conversation that your safety concerns are warranted. I'd ask you to consider how much money additional money you're willing to spend on ride shares. The urban utopia of autonomous vehicles is often championed, yet fully unconsidered in a capitalist regime. How much additional money do you expect most Americans to spend toward ride shares, to the degree that they abandon vehicle ownership? What degree of broad behavior and spending change do you expect to occur as result of unattended ride shares?
The zombie lots can be consolidated and moved to less desirable areas.
And I think there's some demand shifting that can happen. People get driven to the office in the morning. Deliveries happen during the day and then people are driven home.
It also eliminates the need for parking for a lot of places. A restaurant doesn't need a parking lot if people are primarily arriving in self driving cars.
Any idea how much they cost? Because for me the main use is mostly one off rides to the city to have drinks with friends and go there and come home safely. I live in Central Florida, I mostly use Uber or Lyft for these scenarios.
In SF, Waymo costs about the same as an Uber or Lyft after factoring in a couple buck tip. For awhile, I checked both Uber and Waymo when I wanted to get somewhere, but after not seeing significant price differences I stopped bothering.
I think it fundamentally shifts the cost of transport from marginal to capitalized. Meaning a 20 minute trip is $0.50 of gas and some fraction of the manufacturing cost of the car. Today it's that plus $5-10 to the driver.
It's somewhat equivalent to the advent of trains but on a personal level. In the way that trains made shipping goods across the country more or less free once the rail was built that's what's going to happen to people and packages getting around cities.
I was at a conference in Phoenix in November and took seven Waymo trips during my stay. Four of those were fairly long (20-minute) trips. I preferred Waymo to the Uber/Lyft experience because it felt private. It was just me and my colleagues in the car, no strangers. It also felt futuristic and novel, which I'm sure will wear off. We experienced no weird or erratic driving, with one minor exception... Waymo always followed the speed limit. On a major road where the speed limit was 40mph, other cars were zipping around us at 55mph+. And, one parking lot had 5mph speed limit signs posted. As you can imagine, Waymo was the slowest vehicle in that parking lot by a wide margin.
Weirdly (well not for me it's a charter metal festival cruise) I am too and interested in doing the same. Typically we use Uber and it's been a not great experience.
Still can't believe the prices are comparable to Uber, sometimes costing even more. It should be significantly less to the point it drives Uber out of business. Is Waymo close to bankruptcy, unable to be profitable, or are they just greedy?
> It should be significantly less to the point it drives Uber out of business.
Prices are rarely based on cost, and more often based on what a customer is willing to pay. Waymo is a better experience than Uber (predictable, safe, clean, quiet, etc.), so it makes sense people would be willing to pay more.
> Is Waymo close to bankruptcy, unable to be profitable, or are they just greedy?
Are there indications that Waymo vehicles are sitting around idle? If so, then yes, they should reduce the price to attract customers. If they are essentially running at capacity with their current prices, why wouldn't they charge more? For the novelty, etc..
I assume that's simply a calculation they do of how much their revenue will change if they adjust the prices up or down. Until it makes financial sense to lower prices, they can wait on trying to capture the market. I would guess they're working on making the cars and equipment cheaper before massively scaling up.
Waymo can easily charge a premium for not having a driver in the seat. Privacy and physical security guaranteed? Also not dealing with the moral implications of what the driver is receiving in terms of compensation (or in the case of uber, not).
They're, in my customer impression, quite a world different.
Waymo is annoying only _available_ through Uber in some cities - notably Austin. Even more annoyingly, you can't choose whether you want to accept human drivers or just Waymo vehicles.
Waymo is such an interesting case study. For most other ~AI deployments you have strong public reaction to the proliferation of slop, non-human failure modes, cost cutting at the expense of quality, etc. But I haven't met a single person who doesn't like the experience of Waymo. They ended up cracking the code on what I suspect people really want:
- consistent car quality
- safety of the drive (conservative driving and potential fear of drivers)
- no randomly chatty driver
All of those feel like a breath of fresh air especially when stacked up against the current state of Uber & Lyft rides. People really just want consistency. I don't actually think you needed AI to get there (I've had occasional rides in black cars that provided the same experience). Waymo was just right time, right place, right price.
> but I haven't met a single person who doesn't like the experience of Waymo.
Just last week a Waymo was driving on train tracks and the rider had to jump out of the car and run because the car stopped while trains came at it. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26KJvL2clTs) I bet that guy'd have something to say about the experience.
I've had Waymos in SF take very strange routes. It seemed to really strongly avoid ever using Market St, generally preferring a long right-angle route over the perfect hypotenuse. Sometimes this delayed me very considerably, doubling my ride time compared to the Google Maps estimated time.
That said, I've never felt unsafe or uncomfortable. But I have jumped out halfway through the ride and grabbed an eScooter instead.
I'm not commenting on the externalities. For that I'd also cite economic impact, job loss, occasional emergency services issues, etc. I'm saying the experience when you yourself are taking a ride. I haven't met a single person who's said "this sucked - I'm going back to Uber".
My first and only Waymo ride was super sketch. Car slowed down to ~5mph in a 35mph zone and stayed that way for 5+ minutes as other cars were swerving around us. Felt like it was going to come to a complete stop in the middle of the road, I prefer real humans.
Funny enough, Miami is one of the few US cities that does have a pretty large rail system. There are several types of rail and it is fairly fast and effective. You can even take the Silver Meteor to NYC with an average speed of 51 mph. That's a better average speed than many European lines over a similar 1400 mile distance. Compare: Brussels-Athens 41mph avg, Stockholm-Paris 54mph avg, Amsterdam-Lisbon 47mph. The fastest EU route over that distance is probably Berlin-Madrid at 65mph, and the Amtrak is cheaper, has no changes, and is usually more comfortable than any of those.
If you want (relatively) high speed, you can take the Brightline to Orlando, 236 mi in 3.5h aka 67 mph average. That's on par with Brussels-Amsterdam (68mph), Amsterdam-Paris (80mph), but indeed far below the marquee EU/Chinese/Japanese HSR routes of 150+ mph average speed.
More generally: large parts of the eastern US had a developed railroad system (and often still do, for freight.) You can look up old maps and see how widespread they were. The economics mostly just didn't work out because as car ownership rose, the population density wasn't high enough to justify them over cars.
Trains do not solve the same issue as Waymo/Rideshares/Taxis. For example, if I want to go from SF to somewhere in the East Bay, I would walk to my nearest bus stop, ride the bus to the train station, then hop on a train to Berkeley. But now I'm a couple miles from my friends' house. Relatively few people want to go to my friends' house each day, so it doesn't make sense to put a train station there. Maybe there should be a bus stop, but if everyone there owns cars anyway, the city might have other priorities. But I, the dude visiting, don't have a car. So I hire a cab/Uber/Waymo to bring me the last couple miles.
Yeah I agree. I'm very pro public transit -- I live in NYC and didn't get my license until my 40s -- but there is absolutely a need for last mile connections once you leave transit dense parts of a city. Or the occasional errand that requires hauling some stuff around. Or a number of other reasons you'd need a car a couple times a month.
The reality is we decided to invest mainly in car infrastructure for the past 100 years and it's going to take a long time to fix that. In the meantime, I'll be happy with an automated car and diminishing car ownership.
That first question is wild to me. Having to share a space with a questionably vetted stranger is one of the primary downsides to rideshare apps. Privacy and comfort are huge bonuses.
Different models of privacy. I don't really care if faceless corpo knows I spent hours the other day spewing fire from both ends because I finally met my match in spicy foods, but it's a somewhat uncomfortable topic to discuss in front of some strange dude sitting in the car.
For the latter question, ask your insurance company. I'd be surprised if they care specifically that waymo was involved. If you don't have insurance, ask a lawyer what your options would be in that situation.
We got these in Atlanta. I haven't had the chance to ride yet but watching them it's pretty clear that they're legit.
I think we're on the cusp of something that will change the landscape of our cities. It's going to revolutionize getting around and take a chunk out of the land dedicated to parking.
It will also funnel large amounts of revenue out of every city into s/SF/Bay Area. Currently around 35% of the money spent on Uber/Lyft stays in the local economy. Waymo in SF still employs a large number of highly paid engineers who are paid the money which used to move through SF via Uber/Lyft. And those SF engineers spend a decent chunk of it locally on food, art, entertainment, and various other services - so it has (somewhat) less of an effect on the city's overall economy/total employment.
Waymo in Miami won't be locally re-spending nearly as much of Miami's money as Uber/Lyft did. Significantly more of it will be removed from Miami with each ride. This might be even more pronounced for cities like Houston, which don't attract tourism from Waymo staff.
> It will also funnel large amounts of revenue out of every city into SF.
Why SF? Does Google even still have an engineering office in the city? Alphabet is a publicly traded company with employees all over the USA and the world, even if you said the money would be funneled into Mountain View you'd be incorrect. The money will be funneled into 401Ks would be more accurate, and a lot of snowbirds in Florida are living off of their 401Ks and stock investments (which probably have a lot of Alphabet in them), so it is definitely something for Florida.
But I think your point is that gig workers won't be making the money anymore. That's definitely true. That is just like when loom machines took money away from weavers back in the 19th century, or computers took money away from typists/secretaries in the 20th century. We should carefully consider whether or not that is a net good for society.
The purely 'luddite' argument is rather obvious. Exploring the effects of that new path of money are somewhat more interesting to me. I believe that the cash flow will be much more concentrated, both by geography and cohort.
Even just taking it at face value that "the vast majority of the 35% of the fare that would have gone to the drivers will now go to '401k's" is interesting! Currently most drivers for Lyft/Uber are in the bottom 50%ile of wealth in the USA, and they are currently getting that 35% cut. The bottom 50% of the USA hold nearly no stocks at all. 50% of the S&P500 shares are owned by the wealthiest 1% of the USA.
Also, computers and looms were perhaps a bit different - the result of their automation was a product that actually cost less than their equivalent human labor could produce. Waymo currently charges more than Uber and Lyft, but still takes significant market share.
I do expect them to be cheaper eventually, but they'll also have an opportunity to establish market monopolies and then raise prices again. Sure, uber and lyft driver supply is obviously elastic, but possibly not quite as elastic in the very long run - it took a lot of capital to raise the current driver base for Uber+Lyft, and I'm not sure that can be repeated, say, five years after people stopped driving for them.
Of course people have to get new jobs as the world churns. But all of these other effects are interesting too! And, many, many people never really attain those new jobs. I don't think that's Waymo's "fault" as a moral judgment if the reality is that removing money from these jobs will lead to increase in squalor. It's just a pretty stark example of the rich getting richer.
> That is just like when loom machines took money away from weavers back in the 19th century, or computers took money away from typists/secretaries in the 20th century. We should carefully consider whether or not that is a net good for society.
I don't want to sound like a luddite, but each of those contributed to a consolidation of wealth that was largely offset by new jobs and new markets. How exactly do you think this is paying off here? Tech companies get to benefit, we know that, which sounds like a dead end. So it's ok that everyone else loses?
are there examples of jobs going obsolete being a net harm to society, over a long time scale?
surely it's good to reduce the amount of menial labour being performed in the world
The loss of manufacturing jobs and the movement of jobs in to services has been hard for the US, and is basically where MAGA came from, which I would say is a net harm to society. We wouldn't be arguing about Waymo right now if those Uber drivers had better jobs making things instead of being forced into gig work.
You don't think this will also have an effect on improving life in the cities where Waymo is utilized? I understand there is the threat to induced demand with too many waymo's being on the road but this is going to help improve city living and in turn, help increase people wanting to live there.
At least in SF, last I checked, it's as expensive, or sometimes more expensive, as Uber/Lyft. It'll serve the same sector of the population as those apps already do, so it's unlikely to actually reduce parking needs.
There's an argument that more competition could reduce prices and/or wait times for consumers, but there's also the argument it'll take away gig jobs, which are already somewhat of a "backup net" for people who need money but can't find a formal job for some other reason.
I don't live in SF anymore. When I did and now that I occasionally visit, I personally don't see any meaningful difference from when only Lyft and Uber operated there.
Did uber?
Honestly, in a lot of ways, yes. I'm a massive critic of Uber, but outside of the hotel areas and nicest neighborhoods, it was often incredibly difficult to successfully call a taxi to pick you up before Uber.
I remember once playing ball all day in the front yard, calling all the taxi companies just on a lark. They'd claim they were sending a driver, that the driver pulled up and honked, but we were outside the entire time. No one ever actually drove up over about 20 calls to 6 cab companies.
Uber/Lyft finally served all neighborhoods mostly equally, and that was a huge benefit.
Drunk driving goes down significantly, for one thing.
To the best of my knowledge, Waymo still has humans in the loop as Fleet Response agents that the vehicles can call for remote assistance when they aren't sure what to do. Caveat that the number needed likely isn't on the same order of magnitude as human drivers, but the job is likely higher paying. I could see a scenario where these should be locals for both latency (ChatGPT says SF to Miami RTT latency might be 80-100 ms and I don't believe the humans really teleoperate the vehicles, so that may not be meaningful, but that might be a bigger deal for international expansion) and knowledge of tricky intersections or road quirks in the city. They could also potentially help with labeling quirky city-specific scenarios and other various evals.
I think the pie will grow more than Waymo takes out. Stuff like a plumber realizing they're missing a part. What might be a trip to the supply house can be a self driving delivery instead.
Either way, it's not all that much different. Most of the money spent on getting around a city goes elsewhere through vehicle and gas purchases. Adding the cost of self driving to that probably won't move the needle all that much.
> What might be a trip to the supply house can be a self driving delivery instead.
I think part replacement is an excellent use case for robotic delivery and even the Wing service if suitable weight and size.
Isn't that how it always is when new technology disrupts an existing market? We no longer have telephone operators, toll booth agents, gas pump attendants, etc
Those all eliminated the work so that no one had to pay for it anymore, which freed up that money to be spent elsewhere in the local economy. Waymo is not cheaper than Lyft/Uber. So it's more of a direct wealth-transfer than the most cursory analogies were.
Good illustration of input/output economics; a discipline that mainstream economics tends to elide over for reasons that escape me.
Not sure about the 35% here.
If I spend 100$ on an uber ride, 65$ goes to Uber while only 35$ is local ?
I thought it's was the other way around with a margin of 30% for Uber.
I usually ask most of my drivers how much they're getting paid for each ride. Across MCOL and HCOL areas like SF, NYC, HTX, ATX, DMV - I've generally been seeing around 40% going to the driver.
For example, this route shows for me at $57 (-$10 discount = $47) but the driver sees $20: https://www.reddit.com/r/uberdrivers/comments/1q5z1dg/f_you_...
So many things wrong with the assumptions and chain of reasoning in this comment.
The easiest example is to look at Detroit.
Although, perhaps the username is a signal, and I fell for it.
I would hope so, but it's not yet clear if the economics pan out for large scale deployment. The ride is amazing, but the sensor-laden cars are also very expensive.
The only sensible aspect of Elon's boneheaded move to remove non-camera sensors from Tesla models is the drive to reduce costs, because low costs are essential for mass adoption. Yes, sensors are rapidly dropping in cost, making the move even more boneheaded, but the theory is sound.
Some Waymo exec claimed that they are seeing very encouraging unit economics, which gives me hope for mass diffusion, but we'll only know when the rubber actually hits the road (heheheh).
My prediction is it will make our cities worse. In 30 years every family will want one self driving car per person in the household
We've had it for a few years in SF and, while it's very convenient, I haven't witnessed the revolution you speak of. Judging from the traffic, people still mostly get around in their personal vehicles. There's about as much parking as before and it's still a nightmare. But I'd like to believe.
I live in the city and as much as I'd like to be car free waymo doesn't do it (yet). I take frequent weekend trips that travel (I assume) outside of waymos range. Once waymo supports car rentals I could consider getting rid of mine.
Have you watched them operate in a downpour? They've so far only been tested in semiarid locales.
> Have you watched them operate in a downpour?
Waymo in heavy rain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG6u6QfTv6s
> only been tested in semiarid locales
Is San Francisco semi-arid?
I’m skeptical. Is the presence of a human driver keeping you from using Uber/Lyft/taxis more than you currently are? Why would you think removing a driver will lead to more ride share trips? Capitalism is going to do its thing, so between the touted benefits of driverless ride shares and capitalist economics, could you please explain how exactly our city landscapes, namely parking lots, will be revolutionized in any way, shape, or form other than zombie lots occupied Waymos endlessly arranging and charging themselves? Forgive my cynicism, it feels like I’ve seen this how this dream turns out many times before.
> Is the presence of a human driver keeping you from using Uber/Lyft/taxis more than you currently are?
Yep. A couple of bad experiences with Uber/Lyft drivers put me off using them. Waymo is honestly more comfortable/less stressful for me. Similarly, I just read an article discussing parents making use of Waymo to schlep their kids to sportball practice/friend's house/wherever kids hang out these days, even though it is against Waymo's terms of service. The article indicated those parents didn't trust their kids to be in a car along with a strange human, but were ok with an automated system (and violating the ToS of that system).
> please explain how exactly our city landscapes, namely parking lots, will be revolutionized in any way, shape, or form other than zombie lots occupied Waymos
Today parking tends to be located near the shop/restaurant/office people want to go to. If people no longer need to park to go to where they want to go, parking (for charging) can relocate and be concentrated, thereby freeing up the parking spaces for other uses.
Thanks for the reply. The perception of safety in attended ride shares is masking the larger economic constraint. So let's assume for sake of conversation that your safety concerns are warranted. I'd ask you to consider how much money additional money you're willing to spend on ride shares. The urban utopia of autonomous vehicles is often championed, yet fully unconsidered in a capitalist regime. How much additional money do you expect most Americans to spend toward ride shares, to the degree that they abandon vehicle ownership? What degree of broad behavior and spending change do you expect to occur as result of unattended ride shares?
The zombie lots can be consolidated and moved to less desirable areas.
And I think there's some demand shifting that can happen. People get driven to the office in the morning. Deliveries happen during the day and then people are driven home.
It also eliminates the need for parking for a lot of places. A restaurant doesn't need a parking lot if people are primarily arriving in self driving cars.
Any idea how much they cost? Because for me the main use is mostly one off rides to the city to have drinks with friends and go there and come home safely. I live in Central Florida, I mostly use Uber or Lyft for these scenarios.
In SF, Waymo costs about the same as an Uber or Lyft after factoring in a couple buck tip. For awhile, I checked both Uber and Waymo when I wanted to get somewhere, but after not seeing significant price differences I stopped bothering.
I guess the other thing is you dont have to tip your AI driver.
Can you elaborate? Are you saying you think people are going to give up their cars because Waymo is available?
I think it fundamentally shifts the cost of transport from marginal to capitalized. Meaning a 20 minute trip is $0.50 of gas and some fraction of the manufacturing cost of the car. Today it's that plus $5-10 to the driver.
It's somewhat equivalent to the advent of trains but on a personal level. In the way that trains made shipping goods across the country more or less free once the rail was built that's what's going to happen to people and packages getting around cities.
I was at a conference in Phoenix in November and took seven Waymo trips during my stay. Four of those were fairly long (20-minute) trips. I preferred Waymo to the Uber/Lyft experience because it felt private. It was just me and my colleagues in the car, no strangers. It also felt futuristic and novel, which I'm sure will wear off. We experienced no weird or erratic driving, with one minor exception... Waymo always followed the speed limit. On a major road where the speed limit was 40mph, other cars were zipping around us at 55mph+. And, one parking lot had 5mph speed limit signs posted. As you can imagine, Waymo was the slowest vehicle in that parking lot by a wide margin.
I’m going to Miami next week. Time for my first WayMo ride.
Weirdly (well not for me it's a charter metal festival cruise) I am too and interested in doing the same. Typically we use Uber and it's been a not great experience.
Still can't believe the prices are comparable to Uber, sometimes costing even more. It should be significantly less to the point it drives Uber out of business. Is Waymo close to bankruptcy, unable to be profitable, or are they just greedy?
> It should be significantly less to the point it drives Uber out of business.
Prices are rarely based on cost, and more often based on what a customer is willing to pay. Waymo is a better experience than Uber (predictable, safe, clean, quiet, etc.), so it makes sense people would be willing to pay more.
> Is Waymo close to bankruptcy, unable to be profitable, or are they just greedy?
No x 3
Are there indications that Waymo vehicles are sitting around idle? If so, then yes, they should reduce the price to attract customers. If they are essentially running at capacity with their current prices, why wouldn't they charge more? For the novelty, etc..
The cars are extremely expensive and they have a 100 billion investment to recoup. I assume they are still losing money on each ride.
> The cars are extremely expensive
Compared to what? Most estimates put costs around $150K/vehicle and dropping.
Uber drivers bringing their own car, or POS crown vic with a radio
I assume that's simply a calculation they do of how much their revenue will change if they adjust the prices up or down. Until it makes financial sense to lower prices, they can wait on trying to capture the market. I would guess they're working on making the cars and equipment cheaper before massively scaling up.
Waymo can easily charge a premium for not having a driver in the seat. Privacy and physical security guaranteed? Also not dealing with the moral implications of what the driver is receiving in terms of compensation (or in the case of uber, not).
They're, in my customer impression, quite a world different.
Having feared death in a Uber one too many times, I would definitely pay a premium over Uber for a waymo.
Waymo is annoying only _available_ through Uber in some cities - notably Austin. Even more annoyingly, you can't choose whether you want to accept human drivers or just Waymo vehicles.
Waymo is such an interesting case study. For most other ~AI deployments you have strong public reaction to the proliferation of slop, non-human failure modes, cost cutting at the expense of quality, etc. But I haven't met a single person who doesn't like the experience of Waymo. They ended up cracking the code on what I suspect people really want:
- consistent car quality
- safety of the drive (conservative driving and potential fear of drivers)
- no randomly chatty driver
All of those feel like a breath of fresh air especially when stacked up against the current state of Uber & Lyft rides. People really just want consistency. I don't actually think you needed AI to get there (I've had occasional rides in black cars that provided the same experience). Waymo was just right time, right place, right price.
> but I haven't met a single person who doesn't like the experience of Waymo.
Just last week a Waymo was driving on train tracks and the rider had to jump out of the car and run because the car stopped while trains came at it. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26KJvL2clTs) I bet that guy'd have something to say about the experience.
I've had Waymos in SF take very strange routes. It seemed to really strongly avoid ever using Market St, generally preferring a long right-angle route over the perfect hypotenuse. Sometimes this delayed me very considerably, doubling my ride time compared to the Google Maps estimated time.
That said, I've never felt unsafe or uncomfortable. But I have jumped out halfway through the ride and grabbed an eScooter instead.
not having to talk to the driver and picking my own music are my fav parts. the novelty wears off quick and it becomes normal
There's a lot of complaints about externalities, especially when a power cut stopped all the vehicles in a city recently.
I'm not commenting on the externalities. For that I'd also cite economic impact, job loss, occasional emergency services issues, etc. I'm saying the experience when you yourself are taking a ride. I haven't met a single person who's said "this sucked - I'm going back to Uber".
I think parent was talking about how users of the service were very satisfied with it, not about externalities.
My first and only Waymo ride was super sketch. Car slowed down to ~5mph in a 35mph zone and stayed that way for 5+ minutes as other cars were swerving around us. Felt like it was going to come to a complete stop in the middle of the road, I prefer real humans.
What you're getting at is basically the difference between probabilistic models vs deterministic ones.
waymo is also a probabilistic deep learning system
Tried calling it and it left without picking us up.
The US would benefit much more from a good railroad system.
Everybody can drive a car. They have solved the wrong problem.
Funny enough, Miami is one of the few US cities that does have a pretty large rail system. There are several types of rail and it is fairly fast and effective. You can even take the Silver Meteor to NYC with an average speed of 51 mph. That's a better average speed than many European lines over a similar 1400 mile distance. Compare: Brussels-Athens 41mph avg, Stockholm-Paris 54mph avg, Amsterdam-Lisbon 47mph. The fastest EU route over that distance is probably Berlin-Madrid at 65mph, and the Amtrak is cheaper, has no changes, and is usually more comfortable than any of those.
If you want (relatively) high speed, you can take the Brightline to Orlando, 236 mi in 3.5h aka 67 mph average. That's on par with Brussels-Amsterdam (68mph), Amsterdam-Paris (80mph), but indeed far below the marquee EU/Chinese/Japanese HSR routes of 150+ mph average speed.
More generally: large parts of the eastern US had a developed railroad system (and often still do, for freight.) You can look up old maps and see how widespread they were. The economics mostly just didn't work out because as car ownership rose, the population density wasn't high enough to justify them over cars.
Trains do not solve the same issue as Waymo/Rideshares/Taxis. For example, if I want to go from SF to somewhere in the East Bay, I would walk to my nearest bus stop, ride the bus to the train station, then hop on a train to Berkeley. But now I'm a couple miles from my friends' house. Relatively few people want to go to my friends' house each day, so it doesn't make sense to put a train station there. Maybe there should be a bus stop, but if everyone there owns cars anyway, the city might have other priorities. But I, the dude visiting, don't have a car. So I hire a cab/Uber/Waymo to bring me the last couple miles.
Yeah I agree. I'm very pro public transit -- I live in NYC and didn't get my license until my 40s -- but there is absolutely a need for last mile connections once you leave transit dense parts of a city. Or the occasional errand that requires hauling some stuff around. Or a number of other reasons you'd need a car a couple times a month.
The reality is we decided to invest mainly in car infrastructure for the past 100 years and it's going to take a long time to fix that. In the meantime, I'll be happy with an automated car and diminishing car ownership.
> They have solved the wrong problem.
Human drivers kill >30K/year.
So displace human drivers with public transportation?
Precisely, Waymo is a form of public transportation.
> Everybody can drive a car.
Not everyone can/wants to own a car, though.
Why would I use Waymo if an Uber/Lyft costs the same?
If it gets in an accident, who pays my medical bills?
> Why would I use Waymo if an Uber/Lyft costs the same?
Safe, clean, quiet, private, predictable, no tipping, etc.
That first question is wild to me. Having to share a space with a questionably vetted stranger is one of the primary downsides to rideshare apps. Privacy and comfort are huge bonuses.
> Having to share a space with a questionably vetted stranger is one of the primary downsides to rideshare apps.
Some people see this as an upside. Not me, not you, but these people exist.
>Privacy
Waymo cameras permanently record everything that happens in their vehicles, right?
Different models of privacy. I don't really care if faceless corpo knows I spent hours the other day spewing fire from both ends because I finally met my match in spicy foods, but it's a somewhat uncomfortable topic to discuss in front of some strange dude sitting in the car.
in a waymo there are fewer parties involved. this should make you feel more confident in getting the bill paid, and knowing who will pay it
For the latter question, ask your insurance company. I'd be surprised if they care specifically that waymo was involved. If you don't have insurance, ask a lawyer what your options would be in that situation.
Funny that they apparently didn't include South Beach, at least according to the map.
miami beach is a different city = different laws and regulations
Dont let your cats outside.
The competition is growing.