Actually Foggyhill got in before me but know what's even funnier? I mention 12 different companies in one post but the only one you see is Google. They must grab your attention.
True, but if Google wasn't one of those, would you be here today?
The probability is low.
Me, on the other hand, I'm just interested in anonymous vehicles.
Considering Apple's stock price is constantly battered because they're
"doing nothing" and Google is sky high because they're parading those
cars around (and other showy things), I actually had a reason to mention Google.
The panic about Apple's stock price and Cook supposedly not being up to
the challenge has been going on for weeks ; there is no need
to panic. Apple has a very different way of developing products and services than everyone else.
I don't get the math either. Let's say you live 10-15 miles from your office. That would probably cost around $15 a day with a ride share, assuming you did not have to drop the kids off at school or go out for lunch. Then you also need to go to the grocery store and perhaps errand shopping on the weekend. Maybe you average around $18 per day in ride share expenses. That would run you more than $500 a month. You can lease a nice mid-range car for less, including insurance, fuel or charge. Not to mention the freedom and privacy that a personal car offers.
The economics of Uber is not favorable in low density areas that are parking rich. I live in one of those low density areas, so driving an owned vehicle is very economical. My fixed cost for an older vehicle is $2.00 a day for insurance, and $0.12 a mile for fuel; maintenance is a variable cost. Imagine how inexpensive an older EV would be in the future.
Self driving cars in those areas would still be good. You could even get into luxury levels you wouldn't be able to own. If getting from A to B the cheapest is the main goal then Apple is probably never for be for that person; just like it's not for someone who wants the cheapest smartphone.
The economics of Uber is not favorable in low density areas that are parking rich. I live in one of those low density areas, so driving an owned vehicle is very economical. My fixed cost for an older vehicle is $2.00 a day for insurance, and $0.12 a mile for fuel; maintenance is a variable cost. Imagine how inexpensive an older EV would be in the future.
Self driving cars in those areas would still be good. You could even get into luxury levels you wouldn't be able to own. If getting from A to B the cheapest is the main goal then Apple is probably never for be for the person. just like it's not for someone who wants the cheapest smartphone.
I'm not against self driving cars; I just don't see them or the regulation of them fully baked for another decade. I'd love to cross my state, Nevada, on I-80 and end up in Salt Lake City, or maybe a trip to So. California on 395, both near 10 hour trips, and sleep most of the way. Even a 4 hour trip to San Francisco would be effortless.
I do want an anonymous vehicle though; no data mining while I'm on my trip.
Saw one story that indicated that it would be good for Apple Pay exposure.
The economics of Uber is not favorable in low density areas that are parking rich. I live in one of those low density areas, so driving an owned vehicle is very economical. My fixed cost for an older vehicle is $2.00 a day for insurance, and $0.12 a mile for fuel; maintenance is a variable cost. Imagine how inexpensive an older EV would be in the future.
Self driving cars in those areas would still be good. You could even get into luxury levels you wouldn't be able to own. If getting from A to B the cheapest is the main goal then Apple is probably never for be for the person. just like it's not for someone who wants the cheapest smartphone.
I'm not against self driving cars; I just don't see them or the regulation of them fully baked for another decade. I'd love to cross my state, Nevada, on I-80 and end up in Salt Lake City, or maybe a trip to So. California on 395, both near 10 hour trips, and sleep most of the way. Even a 4 hour trip to San Francisco would be effortless.
I do want an anonymous vehicle though; no data mining while I'm on my trip.
Mmm ... So you live in the Reno area.
In the 1960's we rented a brand new car for a trip from Las Vegas to San Francisco. Though we took the route through Yosemite High Country, then Yosemite Vally (you could drive in the Valley back then).
I sure wouldn't want to have slept along the way and missed the beautiful scenery and impromptu stops.
I think your idea of taking a self-driving car on a personal [vacation or tour] trip is a good one.
In fact self-driving cars could drive you where you no-longer can drive yourself -- Yosemite Valley, Grand Canyon Rim, etc.
We live in the SF East Bay. A commute to SF or San Jose takes 2-2.5 hours ... It would be wonderful to be able to relax or get some work done instead of fiddle-farting with traffic, alternate routes, driving.
It may be possible to contact a self-driving car for regular commutes and save money over vehicle ownership.
The economics of Uber is not favorable in low density areas that are parking rich. I live in one of those low density areas, so driving an owned vehicle is very economical. My fixed cost for an older vehicle is $2.00 a day for insurance, and $0.12 a mile for fuel; maintenance is a variable cost. Imagine how inexpensive an older EV would be in the future.
Self driving cars in those areas would still be good. You could even get into luxury levels you wouldn't be able to own. If getting from A to B the cheapest is the main goal then Apple is probably never for be for the person. just like it's not for someone who wants the cheapest smartphone.
Saw one story that indicated that it would be good for Apple Pay exposure.
Apple may not be able to negotiate another deal with the banks for a slice of the pie when the contracts come up for renewal. There's an established standard now that mobile payment providers are to adhere to. When ApplePay first rolled out there was not one. What Apple was doing is no longer needed.
IMO while the Apple ecosystem will absolutely benefit from wider exposure as you've said yourself the direct revenue from it may not when the intitial 5 year contracts run out. We'll see I guess if Apple can pressure 'em for piece of the processing fee in the new agreements. Unless VISA/Mastercard rules change between now and then I think the banks are actually prohibited from making interchange fee sharing agreements like the one made with Apple a few years back so I personally doubt it.
gatorguy said: Nope never used a "private taxi" like Uber. I would hope guys a lot smarter than me could figure out how to clean one between rides if they were to be autonomous.
I don't get the math either. Let's say you live 10-15 miles from your office. That would probably cost around $15 a day with a ride share, assuming you did not have to drop the kids off at school or go out for lunch. Then you also need to go to the grocery store and perhaps errand shopping on the weekend. Maybe you average around $18 per day in ride share expenses. That would run you more than $500 a month. You can lease a nice mid-range car for less, including insurance, fuel or charge. Not to mention the freedom and privacy that a personal car offers.
---
Car-as-a-service will be focused on densely populated urban areas. The cost to park your car in such an environment could easily exceed the $500/month you mentioned. Garage spaces, when available, are sold like condos, costing tens of thousands of dollars. Plus the inconvenience of getting to/from where your car is parked. That may be blocks away from your door, unless you pay more, if there's even space available near your home. So grab the umbrella and get slogging through rain or snow just to get to/from your car, groceries in tow. Ride sharing makes so much sense in such an environment. Door to door. And when you want to go out to the country, just rent the vehicle that suits the purpose of your trip; truck, SUV, sports car, etc.
As mentioned in a few posts, there are many reasons why Apple might want to make such an investment: - Purely as an investment - Foot-in-the door to obtain some information on Chinese car consumers & habits - CarPlay or "car" - Opportunity for collaboration in mapping or similar data - Opportunity for Didi app & Apple Pay integration - Future opportunity for an Apple Car with this company - ...
Perhaps I am the contrarian viewpoint on this thread, but I believe the "truly autonomous" future (where there is no driver needed in the car & it can just come and pick you up as hailed with an app), is many, many years away from a practical reality outside of a few early adopter spots. I am talking 10+ years away. There are simply far too many issues to solve for this to happen in the near/intermediate term - and technology is only one and likely the fastest moving along. Getting autonomy to "90%" good enough is one thing (likely getting close to that from prototype perspective for very well mapped areas), but closing that 10% to cover all of those corner cases is another (accident happens that closes a street, have a cop directing traffic, short term road closure not updated in systems, traffic lights out, ...). Beyond that technology are the regulations (gov't doesn't move too quickly), insurance, and legal implications. All of these things move slowly in the real world.
So I am very skeptical that Apple is focusing on launching a truly autonomous ride-sharing fleet / service as their go-to-market strategy (or even their second strategy). It is possible that Apple could supply electric vehicles to DiDi or other firms where drivers are involved like Uber, and maybe emerging markets are a potential, though doesn't seem to follow Apple's GTM approaches of starting at premium end and work downward.
IMO Apple's car plans are to offer a car for sale to the end user - an "iconic" type car. Apple's ability to charge a premium for their other products is due to end customer "wanting" that product, and appreciates its ecosystem value, and thus willing to pay a premium. There are many areas for improvement with traditional cars that Apple "could" address that would allow them an entry point (interior configuration, new jobs to be done, new materials, production methods, intelligence systems and integration with Apple ecosystem, ...).
---
A couple more turns of Moore's law and the processing needed, which is already sufficient, will be dirt cheap, making autonomous vehicles a safer and more reliable option versus human drivers. It's like the risk assessment done by people when thinking about airline crashes versus driving. Individuals will think themselves safer when driving their own vehicle versus getting on an airplane. But that's due to them incorrectly assessing risk due to having control in one scenario and none in the other. Fact is, in aggregate, air travel is safer.
Policy makers will come to see the same with respect to self-driving vehicles, and the tech will be designed to minimize risk in a scientific manner, which humans, with their lead feet, distracting habits, need for sleep, and emotional evaluation of risk don't do well when behind the wheel. Plus, an autonomous vehicle can have many sets of eyes, plus continuous connection and consideration for external information being broadcast to it from over-the-horizon sources. Really, once these things are in version 2, there will be no way for humans to compete, and that fact will become obvious. Driving is a perfect example of something machines will do better than humans. It just won't be as much fun. But that's another topic.
I'm not against self driving cars; I just don't see them or the regulation of them fully baked for another decade. I'd love to cross my state, Nevada, on I-80 and end up in Salt Lake City, or maybe a trip to So. California on 395, both near 10 hour trips, and sleep most of the way. Even a 4 hour trip to San Francisco would be effortless.
I do want an anonymous vehicle though; no data mining while I'm on my trip.
Mmm ... So you live in the Reno area.
In the 1960's we rented a brand new car for a trip from Las Vegas to San Francisco. Though we took the route through Yosemite High Country, then Yosemite Vally (you could drive in the Valley back then).
I sure wouldn't want to have slept along the way and missed the beautiful scenery and impromptu stops.
I think your idea of taking a self-driving car on a personal [vacation or tour] trip is a good one.
In fact self-driving cars could drive you where you no-longer can drive yourself -- Yosemite Valley, Grand Canyon Rim, etc.
We live in the SF East Bay. A commute to SF or San Jose takes 2-2.5 hours ... It would be wonderful to be able to relax or get some work done instead of fiddle-farting with traffic, alternate routes, driving.
It may be possible to contact a self-driving car for regular commutes and save money over vehicle ownership.
Finally ... Are we there, yet?
Carson City, but I'm glad I didn't have to draw a map!
My family almost always took the Tioga Pass route, which always scared my mother (the pass is closed today for snow, BTW), and I do remember being able to drive almost everywhere in The Valley.
I lived in Oakland in the early 80's, near Broadway (Rio Vista), and commuted to Alameda through the tubes where I had an engineering job with the Navy. Oakland was being Gentrified then, and I actually was a roommate in a home up off of Grizzly Peak in Berkley before that; absolute perfection! I fear it was burned over in the Oakland fire.
I ordered my Mac 128 in Oakland a couple of weeks after it came out, and later had it upgraded to a 512; people now can't even imagine what a paradigm shift the Mac and the Atari were. I was reading rumors for months on it.
I also worked up at Fort Wainwright in the late 80's for a couple of seasons as a Smokejumper for the BLM so I had two, 4 day, 2880 mile drives, a season; that would have been ideal for an autonomous vehicle!
Ownership of vehicles works best for me, but I am also aware that other people's mileage may vary.
"I suspect most of this has been due to the fact that Apple does not draw attention to its product pipeline and long-term strategy, choosing instead to embrace secrecy and mystery. Now compare this to Mark Zuckerberg laying out his 10-year plan for Facebook. It is easy and natural for people to then label Facebook as innovative and focused on the future. The same principle applies to Larry Page reorganizing Google to make it easier for investors to see how much is being spent on various moonshot projects. Jeff Bezos is famous for his attitude towards failing often and in public view, giving Amazon an aura of being a place of curiosity and boldness when it comes to future projects and risk taking. "
The information Didi might share with Apple as a condition of Apple's investment will be invaluable in designing the features of a future autonomous car-as-a-service business, and potentially also in determining some aspects of the design of the vehicles.
Ride volumes throughout the day Distance of each ride Number of passengers per ride Ride sharing along a route by multiple disassociated passengers (should this be an option, the way trike rides work throughout SE Asia) Actual routes requested (valuable for optimization of stationing, and ideal placement of recharging depots)
All of this information might have implications for the optimal size of battery packs, how the vehicle interior compartments are laid out, even the ideal size of the vehicles (passenger and cargo capacity and organization) and might even imply multiple different vehicle types to optimize the service for all needs. so there's good reason Apple would want to get in bed with a company like Didi.
Correct. From an automobile project stand point, the data sets achieved would be enormous. Add sensors to the patterns of data collected on each car, and the investment seems like peanuts.
Car-as-a-service will be focused on densely populated urban areas. The cost to park your car in such an environment could easily exceed the $500/month you mentioned. Garage spaces, when available, are sold like condos, costing tens of thousands of dollars. Plus the inconvenience of getting to/from where your car is parked. That may be blocks away from your door, unless you pay more, if there's even space available near your home. So grab the umbrella and get slogging through rain or snow just to get to/from your car, groceries in tow. Ride sharing makes so much sense in such an environment. Door to door. And when you want to go out to the country, just rent the vehicle that suits the purpose of your trip; truck, SUV, sports car, etc.
Perhaps, but you seem to be describing Manhattan or San Fransisco where people are already not driving a personal car, and in that context what you write makes sense. I was describing a situation from the perspective of living in the Los Angeles suburbs where almost everyone drives, even if it is just down to the commuter lot. Many businesses have parking for their employees, which is my situation. Uber is all over the place around here from Malibu to San Clemente, out to Riverside and all points in between, which in reality, is just one huge city with a population of over 20 million people, so I think my scenario is not all that unusual. A lot of people drive 20-30 miles or more each way to work in Southern CA, where rush hour starts a 3:00 AM. A new car-as-service business will find limited success if it only focuses on densely populated downtowns where parking is an issue. For someone who is currently driving their car everywhere, ditching it and depending on a ride share service every single day is not cost effective in my opinion, especially with the limitations it puts on one's lifestyle.
One good starting point might be autonomous cars to and from the airport to hotel for travelers which is what I use a car for hire service for. Not sure if Uber is allowed to service all airports though.
gatorguy said: Eventually a large segment of the populace won't have a need to own their own vehicle anymore IMHO.
Have you taken an Uber? I did recently and the car was filthy, smelled like tobacco and the driver's app was completely fouled up on the directions and location. Sorry but I prefer my German luxury car that I have detailed on a weekly basis. Ride share is no better than a public bus. You have to make sure you aren't sitting in someone's spilled beverage or stepping on chewing gum. No thanks.
Agree. Once you enjoy the benefits of leasing or owning, it's very difficult to imagine going back to "sharing a ride" with someone whose personal grooming may be substandard.
Comments
Considering Apple's stock price is constantly battered because they're "doing nothing"
and Google is sky high because they're parading those cars around (and other showy things), I actually had a reason to mention Google.
The panic about Apple's stock price and Cook supposedly not being up to the challenge has been going on for weeks ; there is no need to panic.
Apple has a very different way of developing products and services than everyone else.
If getting from A to B the cheapest is the main goal then Apple is probably never for be for that person; just like it's not for someone who wants the cheapest smartphone.
I do want an anonymous vehicle though; no data mining while I'm on my trip.
Saw one story that indicated that it would be good for Apple Pay exposure.
Mmm ... So you live in the Reno area.
In the 1960's we rented a brand new car for a trip from Las Vegas to San Francisco. Though we took the route through Yosemite High Country, then Yosemite Vally (you could drive in the Valley back then).
I sure wouldn't want to have slept along the way and missed the beautiful scenery and impromptu stops.
I think your idea of taking a self-driving car on a personal [vacation or tour] trip is a good one.
In fact self-driving cars could drive you where you no-longer can drive yourself -- Yosemite Valley, Grand Canyon Rim, etc.
We live in the SF East Bay. A commute to SF or San Jose takes 2-2.5 hours ... It would be wonderful to be able to relax or get some work done instead of fiddle-farting with traffic, alternate routes, driving.
It may be possible to contact a self-driving car for regular commutes and save money over vehicle ownership.
Finally ... Are we there, yet?
IMO while the Apple ecosystem will absolutely benefit from wider exposure as you've said yourself the direct revenue from it may not when the intitial 5 year contracts run out. We'll see I guess if Apple can pressure 'em for piece of the processing fee in the new agreements. Unless VISA/Mastercard rules change between now and then I think the banks are actually prohibited from making interchange fee sharing agreements like the one made with Apple a few years back so I personally doubt it.
---
Car-as-a-service will be focused on densely populated urban areas. The cost to park your car in such an environment could easily exceed the $500/month you mentioned. Garage spaces, when available, are sold like condos, costing tens of thousands of dollars. Plus the inconvenience of getting to/from where your car is parked. That may be blocks away from your door, unless you pay more, if there's even space available near your home. So grab the umbrella and get slogging through rain or snow just to get to/from your car, groceries in tow. Ride sharing makes so much sense in such an environment. Door to door. And when you want to go out to the country, just rent the vehicle that suits the purpose of your trip; truck, SUV, sports car, etc.
- Purely as an investment
- Foot-in-the door to obtain some information on Chinese car consumers & habits - CarPlay or "car"
- Opportunity for collaboration in mapping or similar data
- Opportunity for Didi app & Apple Pay integration
- Future opportunity for an Apple Car with this company
- ...
Perhaps I am the contrarian viewpoint on this thread, but I believe the "truly autonomous" future (where there is no driver needed in the car & it can just come and pick you up as hailed with an app), is many, many years away from a practical reality outside of a few early adopter spots. I am talking 10+ years away. There are simply far too many issues to solve for this to happen in the near/intermediate term - and technology is only one and likely the fastest moving along. Getting autonomy to "90%" good enough is one thing (likely getting close to that from prototype perspective for very well mapped areas), but closing that 10% to cover all of those corner cases is another (accident happens that closes a street, have a cop directing traffic, short term road closure not updated in systems, traffic lights out, ...). Beyond that technology are the regulations (gov't doesn't move too quickly), insurance, and legal implications. All of these things move slowly in the real world.
So I am very skeptical that Apple is focusing on launching a truly autonomous ride-sharing fleet / service as their go-to-market strategy (or even their second strategy). It is possible that Apple could supply electric vehicles to DiDi or other firms where drivers are involved like Uber, and maybe emerging markets are a potential, though doesn't seem to follow Apple's GTM approaches of starting at premium end and work downward.
IMO Apple's car plans are to offer a car for sale to the end user - an "iconic" type car. Apple's ability to charge a premium for their other products is due to end customer "wanting" that product, and appreciates its ecosystem value, and thus willing to pay a premium. There are many areas for improvement with traditional cars that Apple "could" address that would allow them an entry point (interior configuration, new jobs to be done, new materials, production methods, intelligence systems and integration with Apple ecosystem, ...).
---
A couple more turns of Moore's law and the processing needed, which is already sufficient, will be dirt cheap, making autonomous vehicles a safer and more reliable option versus human drivers. It's like the risk assessment done by people when thinking about airline crashes versus driving. Individuals will think themselves safer when driving their own vehicle versus getting on an airplane. But that's due to them incorrectly assessing risk due to having control in one scenario and none in the other. Fact is, in aggregate, air travel is safer.
Policy makers will come to see the same with respect to self-driving vehicles, and the tech will be designed to minimize risk in a scientific manner, which humans, with their lead feet, distracting habits, need for sleep, and emotional evaluation of risk don't do well when behind the wheel. Plus, an autonomous vehicle can have many sets of eyes, plus continuous connection and consideration for external information being broadcast to it from over-the-horizon sources. Really, once these things are in version 2, there will be no way for humans to compete, and that fact will become obvious. Driving is a perfect example of something machines will do better than humans. It just won't be as much fun. But that's another topic.
My family almost always took the Tioga Pass route, which always scared my mother (the pass is closed today for snow, BTW), and I do remember being able to drive almost everywhere in The Valley.
I lived in Oakland in the early 80's, near Broadway (Rio Vista), and commuted to Alameda through the tubes where I had an engineering job with the Navy. Oakland was being Gentrified then, and I actually was a roommate in a home up off of Grizzly Peak in Berkley before that; absolute perfection! I fear it was burned over in the Oakland fire.
I ordered my Mac 128 in Oakland a couple of weeks after it came out, and later had it upgraded to a 512; people now can't even imagine what a paradigm shift the Mac and the Atari were. I was reading rumors for months on it.
I also worked up at Fort Wainwright in the late 80's for a couple of seasons as a Smokejumper for the BLM so I had two, 4 day, 2880 mile drives, a season; that would have been ideal for an autonomous vehicle!
Ownership of vehicles works best for me, but I am also aware that other people's mileage may vary.
BTW: a good story of a future Apple: http://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2016/5/11/apple-rd-reveals-a-pivot-is-coming
"I suspect most of this has been due to the fact that Apple does not draw attention to its product pipeline and long-term strategy, choosing instead to embrace secrecy and mystery. Now compare this to Mark Zuckerberg laying out his 10-year plan for Facebook. It is easy and natural for people to then label Facebook as innovative and focused on the future. The same principle applies to Larry Page reorganizing Google to make it easier for investors to see how much is being spent on various moonshot projects. Jeff Bezos is famous for his attitude towards failing often and in public view, giving Amazon an aura of being a place of curiosity and boldness when it comes to future projects and risk taking. "
One good starting point might be autonomous cars to and from the airport to hotel for travelers which is what I use a car for hire service for. Not sure if Uber is allowed to service all airports though.