Driverless cars and the ownerless future
Discussion
unsprung said:
[glances at other guy's user name; yep, it checks out] 
There's a lot of froth in the water right now, isn't there. Eventually, however, there will be new and sustainable value created. There's too great a convergence of emergent technologies and network effects.
Part of this will indeed involve a number of failed ventures which you imply. It's just early days.
As others have explained in this thread, the issues are many: not just commercial and technological, but cultural and ethical as well. The heedless and arrogant Uber got in London just what it deserved (the notification to withdraw its trading licence).
Erm... I think you won buzzword bingo with that post. There's a lot of froth in the water right now, isn't there. Eventually, however, there will be new and sustainable value created. There's too great a convergence of emergent technologies and network effects.
Part of this will indeed involve a number of failed ventures which you imply. It's just early days.
As others have explained in this thread, the issues are many: not just commercial and technological, but cultural and ethical as well. The heedless and arrogant Uber got in London just what it deserved (the notification to withdraw its trading licence).
The point I was trying to make about Amazon (and that DonkeyApple made quite eloquently) that they became profitable by diversification into markets that were practically untouched. AWS was amongst the first of it's kind, now everyone from Microsoft to IBM to small MSP's are doing the same thing.
Uber isn't going to survive. They've got no plans beyond making a name for themselves. Their losses are piling up year on year. In 2015, they were losing US$600 million a year, in 2017 its US$4.5 billion. In a few years, Uber will be a joke you use when you don't have enough wind to pass.
Uber is just an illegal taxi operation. Anything beyond that is just marketing.
RacerMike said:
As I said a few posts back, working from home works in some specific industries, but for many it doesn't, and that isn't going to change because it's simply not possible to do a lot of jobs from home! The majority of all employees (apart from the wonderful collaborative co-op vegan peace charities who offer new and inspiring solutions to an ever changing tech world) will continue to need to work together face to face, do actual physical things in a place of work for the majority of the time and commute to and from a place of work.....and believe it or not, the majority of the worlds population don't live in a city like London, New York or LA....
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/aug/18/percentage-population-living-citiesI'm with the OP can't understand in the slightest what the business case is for the car manufacturers. At the moment I might buy a car in full for £50k yet in the future I might pay £5 per journey to get somewhere. If on the other hand it isn't cheap and instead is as expensive as public transport then surely people will just take public transport? Makes no sense to me at all. Then throw in the "danger" associated with machines driving cars and some people may not even use that model at all.
To me it only makes sense if "normal" cars are outlawed eg they take away some choice which perhaps is the long term goal.
TX.
To me it only makes sense if "normal" cars are outlawed eg they take away some choice which perhaps is the long term goal.
TX.
captain_cynic said:
Erm... I think you won buzzword bingo with that post.
The point I was trying to make about Amazon (and that DonkeyApple made quite eloquently) that they became profitable by diversification into markets that were practically untouched. AWS was amongst the first of it's kind, now everyone from Microsoft to IBM to small MSP's are doing the same thing.
Uber isn't going to survive. They've got no plans beyond making a name for themselves. Their losses are piling up year on year. In 2015, they were losing US$600 million a year, in 2017 its US$4.5 billion. In a few years, Uber will be a joke you use when you don't have enough wind to pass.
Uber is just an illegal taxi operation. Anything beyond that is just marketing.
People where saying the same of Amazon. AWS is just computers sold in a more flexible way. Just like easy payments on cars (as below). Uber has an epic amount of work to do but there 2018 numbers a looking better any the new CEO has some strong talk. The point I was trying to make about Amazon (and that DonkeyApple made quite eloquently) that they became profitable by diversification into markets that were practically untouched. AWS was amongst the first of it's kind, now everyone from Microsoft to IBM to small MSP's are doing the same thing.
Uber isn't going to survive. They've got no plans beyond making a name for themselves. Their losses are piling up year on year. In 2015, they were losing US$600 million a year, in 2017 its US$4.5 billion. In a few years, Uber will be a joke you use when you don't have enough wind to pass.
Uber is just an illegal taxi operation. Anything beyond that is just marketing.
London will be the seed, and with new homes having very limited parking not even taking a driving test is now common. I love my cars and motorbikes, but have no interest in driving in the rush-hour. For the average city car user its days are numbered.
mgv8 said:
Uber has an epic amount of work to do but there 2018 numbers a looking better any the new CEO has some strong talk.
Talk is what it mostly is. They've been through the A-Z of capital-raising and have now run out of mug investors .They are very rapidly running out of cash. The only thing that's making their numbers look a little less awful recently is that they're effectively selling their operations in a lot of places to competitors, in exchange for minority equity stakes in those competitors, which means the losses of those operations longer show up on the Uber EBIT line. The only sizeable potential remaining source of mug equity investment is to IPO the thing, but it's practically impossible to write a IPO prospectus for it that shows it as a going concern. They have no path to a positive free cash flow at all using any technology which exists or will be commercially available at scale in time to save them.It can't survive in anything resembling its braggadicio of the last few years. It might survive in some form at a vasty reduced valuation, say 10% of current. At that sort of valuation there might even be a business to be had, but if there is, its probably one that realises the greatest value when the smoking remains are sold off to a carmaker.
mgv8 said:
I said 'cities like London, New York and LA' 
Plenty live in cities yes, but when was the last time a new ride sharing app was developed and launched in S
horpe or the last time you jumped on the tube in Derby?Zetec-S said:
GetCarter said:
As I added:
I know a chap who just started flying 737's and he reckons 10 years. He hardly does anything now. 99% auto.
Even my £1500 drone if it encounters a problem returns to home avoiding all obstacles on it's way.
A £1500 drone is very different to an Airbus 380 I know a chap who just started flying 737's and he reckons 10 years. He hardly does anything now. 99% auto.
Even my £1500 drone if it encounters a problem returns to home avoiding all obstacles on it's way.
But anyhows, I'm not disputing the tech, I'm sure we're pretty much there already. But the psychology will make it almost impossible to roll out commercially for years. Look at the response after the SW airlines incident last week, pilot being labelled a hero. People want that human to fall back on.
TX.
"General Motors has petitioned for approval to operate up to 2,500 vehicles without steering wheels or human drivers."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-selfdriving/...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-selfdriving/...
Ask these "models" assume we all have somewhere to go. We often just jump in the car and go out.
When we're out we might stop at a garden centre and buy something, get in the car and off we go, might stop off at a random pub/eatery on the way home and call it a day.
I just don't think driverless cars will ever work. For a start I don't think they'll ever be safe enough, people are so random and unpredictable, no machine will come close to predicting outcomes where people are involved.
When we're out we might stop at a garden centre and buy something, get in the car and off we go, might stop off at a random pub/eatery on the way home and call it a day.
I just don't think driverless cars will ever work. For a start I don't think they'll ever be safe enough, people are so random and unpredictable, no machine will come close to predicting outcomes where people are involved.
article said:
At a Nov. 30 briefing in San Francisco, GM’s Ammann told investors the lifetime revenue generation of one of its self-driving cars could eventually be “several hundred thousands of dollars.” That compares with the $30,000 on average that GM collects today for one of its vehicles, mostly derived from the initial sale.
And there's the answer for the naysayers. The thing that businesses and governments all like; money.I think it's inconceivable this isn't going to happen. That pot of gold is too big to resist.
You're ignoring the lifetime operating costs, which car-makers are also currently not exposed to.
However, where I agree is that there is no reason whatsoever to think car-makers are likely to let the likes of Uber and Lyft own the customer for the journey.
Mobiol;ity as a service is not an inherently profitable business and no-one has ever demosntrated that it can be operated at large scale across whole city-region markets without some sort of subsidy: whether from mug investors and under-renumerated drievrs, as in the case of Uber, or from the taxpayer, as in public transport networks.
If (and it's a big if) the do-everything robo-taxi becomes technologically and economically practicable, car-makers will prefer to own the retail customer rather than be faced with a monopolistic Uber-style organisation dictating terms to them.
However, where I agree is that there is no reason whatsoever to think car-makers are likely to let the likes of Uber and Lyft own the customer for the journey.
Mobiol;ity as a service is not an inherently profitable business and no-one has ever demosntrated that it can be operated at large scale across whole city-region markets without some sort of subsidy: whether from mug investors and under-renumerated drievrs, as in the case of Uber, or from the taxpayer, as in public transport networks.
If (and it's a big if) the do-everything robo-taxi becomes technologically and economically practicable, car-makers will prefer to own the retail customer rather than be faced with a monopolistic Uber-style organisation dictating terms to them.
Edited by Lowtimer on Wednesday 25th April 08:12
Zetec-S said:
http://www.cityam.com/269833/your-robot-speaking-w...
On top of that, I think the biggest obstacle is that people will judge a computer a lot more harshly than they'll judge a human pilot. So the first serious incident involving a pilotless aircraft will likely result in a massive loss in faith of the tech.
‘analysis by the Swiss bank’. article said:
With pilotless planes are currently being trialed, analysis by the Swiss bank suggested they could be used commonly for air taxis and cargo flights by the 2020s, before spreading into business jets and helicopters by the 2030s.
By the 2040s, pilotless technology will be regularly used to reduce cockpit workload on commercial passenger jets, suggested the researchers.
A bit vague language in that report. Plus only 17% of people surveyed would travel on a pilotless aircraft. Most people still want a qualified pilot in the cockpit.By the 2040s, pilotless technology will be regularly used to reduce cockpit workload on commercial passenger jets, suggested the researchers.
On top of that, I think the biggest obstacle is that people will judge a computer a lot more harshly than they'll judge a human pilot. So the first serious incident involving a pilotless aircraft will likely result in a massive loss in faith of the tech.
It’s also worth making sure it is understood just what purpose a bank’s research department fulfills.
Terminator X said:
I'm with the OP can't understand in the slightest what the business case is for the car manufacturers. At the moment I might buy a car in full for £50k yet in the future I might pay £5 per journey to get somewhere. If on the other hand it isn't cheap and instead is as expensive as public transport then surely people will just take public transport? Makes no sense to me at all. Then throw in the "danger" associated with machines driving cars and some people may not even use that model at all.
To me it only makes sense if "normal" cars are outlawed eg they take away some choice which perhaps is the long term goal.
TX.
I guess the reality is that firms and industries that don’t embrace new technology historically tend to die out from the mainstream and become a niche so firms must explore and embrace routes that in paper may look like they will lead to their own demise. To me it only makes sense if "normal" cars are outlawed eg they take away some choice which perhaps is the long term goal.
TX.
In the case of the motoring industry even without this the future looks potentially bleak. The industry in the West has spent the last 50 years massively consolidating to the point that we now have a few enormous global players but each one faces the enormous threat of the new manufacturers emerging out of Asia at the exact same time as the Western consumer is running out of money to maintain its avid consumption rate.
Whatever happens tech wise it looks like there is huge change coming for the industry and the key battle ground is China and the BRICS in general where there is less regulation, rapid growth in the wealth demographic and monumental demand growth for cars.
In the West, if autonomy transpired to be viable tech that works and if consumers do demand it then it will generate huge turnover as consumers swap their cars over or surrender them to go PAYG. After that change there may be fewer cars on the road but given the current economic path and trends this is going to happen regardless of autonomy anyway.
Not only are consumers running out of consumer power but we are in a regulatory environment where the car industry’s current business model is hugely at odds. For the time being the enormous investments into lobbying have allowed the manufacturers to run their disposable and highly inefficient consumption models but it is perfectly fair to believe that at some point a groundswell from the masses could over-rise this and manufacturers are forced to stop producing cars under a business model that views them with such a short shelf life. We have the ability to manufacture pretty much ‘cars for life’ and maybe in the West the manufacturers will end up being forced to do so.
Whatever happens I think we are in for huge changes in the industry over the next two decades from what the product actually is, how the financing is structured, what powers the product, where and when you can use them, how long they last, how they are sold. My view is that given the huge economic shifts facing the East/West and the massive weight of state regulation then in the grand scheme of things the aspect of ‘autonomy’ is actually rather irrelevant.
DonkeyApple said:
Not only are consumers running out of consumer power but we are in a regulatory environment where the car industry’s current business model is hugely at odds. For the time being the enormous investments into lobbying have allowed the manufacturers to run their disposable and highly inefficient consumption models but it is perfectly fair to believe that at some point a groundswell from the masses could over-rise this and manufacturers are forced to stop producing cars under a business model that views them with such a short shelf life. We have the ability to manufacture pretty much ‘cars for life’ and maybe in the West the manufacturers will end up being forced to do so.
Whatever happens I think we are in for huge changes in the industry over the next two decades from what the product actually is, how the financing is structured, what powers the product, where and when you can use them, how long they last, how they are sold. My view is that given the huge economic shifts facing the East/West and the massive weight of state regulation then in the grand scheme of things the aspect of ‘autonomy’ is actually rather irrelevant.
As someone who drives 20 year old cars as dailies .... I would love to see a focus on longevity, however everything consumers are doing is pushing the industry in the direction of short lived crap. As long as someone can stick a new car on the drive for 3+24 x £200, they’re happy and they don’t give a hoot about lifespan.Whatever happens I think we are in for huge changes in the industry over the next two decades from what the product actually is, how the financing is structured, what powers the product, where and when you can use them, how long they last, how they are sold. My view is that given the huge economic shifts facing the East/West and the massive weight of state regulation then in the grand scheme of things the aspect of ‘autonomy’ is actually rather irrelevant.
If the manufacturers can build a finance model that depreciates cars to zero in 10 years, and people will pay for it, then they’ll keep churning them out.
Lowtimer said:
You're ignoring the lifetime operating costs, which car-makers are also currently not exposed to.
However, where I agree is that there is no reason whatsoever to think car-makers are likely to let the likes of Uber and Lyft own the customer for the journey.
Mobiol;ity as a service is not an inherently profitable business and no-one has ever demosntrated that it can be operated at large scale across whole city-region markets without some sort of subsidy: whether from mug investors and under-renumerated drievrs, as in the case of Uber, or from the taxpayer, as in public transport networks.
If (and it's a big if) the do-everything robo-taxi becomes technologically and economically practicable, car-makers will prefer to own the retail customer rather than be faced with a monopolistic Uber-style organisation dictating terms to them.
Absolutely right. If the market does evolve to be mostly autonomous then it will be the brand perception of each manufacturer that is leveraged to generate profit. Ie poor, scum will have their transport provided for by Vauxhall or Ford while poor scum desperate to show they aren’t poor scum will sign up to the more expensive services from BMW, Mercedes etc and money launders, fraudsters and the genuinely wealthy will sign up to Ferrari, Rolls Royce etc etc. Consumer venues will create drop-off points for customers to be delivered at for other customers to see. No longer will you be forced to leave your primary tool of wealth and success display in a car park where no one at the venue will see and thus you are solely reliant on the size of your watch once at the destination. However, where I agree is that there is no reason whatsoever to think car-makers are likely to let the likes of Uber and Lyft own the customer for the journey.
Mobiol;ity as a service is not an inherently profitable business and no-one has ever demosntrated that it can be operated at large scale across whole city-region markets without some sort of subsidy: whether from mug investors and under-renumerated drievrs, as in the case of Uber, or from the taxpayer, as in public transport networks.
If (and it's a big if) the do-everything robo-taxi becomes technologically and economically practicable, car-makers will prefer to own the retail customer rather than be faced with a monopolistic Uber-style organisation dictating terms to them.
Edited by Lowtimer on Wednesday 25th April 08:12
Manufacturers will all vie for superior levels of access to venues with Rolls Royce consumers getting prime ‘red carpet’ delivery and Vauxhall’s drivers dropped round the back by the bins.
Supermarket drop offs will simply be defined by how much you consume. The supermarket will log your phone as you arrive in the car park and you will be dropped based on how much you have historically spent with them. This will encourage consumers to buy more expensive goods so they get to be dropped closer to the store and so look much richer to the other consumers.
God knows what commercial opportunities genuine autonomy will bring but it will be huge if or when it happens and as you rightly say, manufacturers plan to have key control over the revenues. Uber is just the means to see one way of how we might get there. The car industry can’t raise and spunk billions of dollars but a dodgy Silicon Valley entity can and so working with them for as long as they can keep raising speculative investment capital is the best way forward.
mgv8 said:
People where saying the same of Amazon. AWS is just computers sold in a more flexible way. Just like easy payments on cars (as below). Uber has an epic amount of work to do but there 2018 numbers a looking better any the new CEO has some strong talk.
Now you're just making things up. When AWS was released it was heralded by people in my industry. The worst criticism it received was "its good for small website operators, but not for larger companies" as the big players like IBM (because they still made iron back in those days) tried to play it down.
At no time was Amazon a fly-by-night illegal compute/sales organisation without a business plan. You really need to rethink your analogy.
mgv8 said:
London will be the seed, and with new homes having very limited parking not even taking a driving test is now common. I love my cars and motorbikes, but have no interest in driving in the rush-hour. For the average city car user its days are numbered.
London is an oddity. Much like Singapore. A lot of things happen in London because of the unique conditions in London... concentrate on that word... unique... meaning singular, not common. For cities outside of London, cars are very much still a necessity. For inside of London, a world class public transport system is making cars less of a necessity, not Uber.
technodup said:
article said:
At a Nov. 30 briefing in San Francisco, GM’s Ammann told investors the lifetime revenue generation of one of its self-driving cars could eventually be “several hundred thousands of dollars.” That compares with the $30,000 on average that GM collects today for one of its vehicles, mostly derived from the initial sale.
And there's the answer for the naysayers. The thing that businesses and governments all like; money.I think it's inconceivable this isn't going to happen. That pot of gold is too big to resist.
TX.
rxe said:
As someone who drives 20 year old cars as dailies .... I would love to see a focus on longevity, however everything consumers are doing is pushing the industry in the direction of short lived crap. As long as someone can stick a new car on the drive for 3+24 x £200, they’re happy and they don’t give a hoot about lifespan.
If the manufacturers can build a finance model that depreciates cars to zero in 10 years, and people will pay for it, then they’ll keep churning them out.
I think you’re absolutely right. However, that’s why I raised the point regarding legislation which is incredibly powerful when it comes to steering consumer direction. Consumers left to their own devices will do exactly what you suggest but as we’ve seen with just how rapidly consumers were steered into diesels and how hybrids are being brought to market through legislation their buying power can and is manipulated remarkably easily. It really just boils down to which political lobby group has more clout, the automotive or the others. To date, when you look at how the automotive industry has so rapidly adjusted for low co2 cars and hybrids I think it is fair to say that they don’t have the clout to totally control the future of car consumption in the West, certainly not Europe. If the manufacturers can build a finance model that depreciates cars to zero in 10 years, and people will pay for it, then they’ll keep churning them out.
This is why I think we will see enormous, continued change over the coming two decades and that at the end the incumbent manufacturers will look very, very different to today. How, is anyone’s guess but it’s fun speculating.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff