How do we resolve the observable tension here with the fact that self-driving cars are operating right now, relatively successfully, in ten or so major American cities?

Not a billion dollar business yet, maybe, but 300 cars generating five or six figures revenue per year each isn't far off.

(And I say this as someone who is skeptical that totally autonomous cars worldwide will ever be a thing, but you can get to £10Bn far, far before that point. Become the dominant mode of transport in just ONE major American city and you're most of the way there).

▲

cycomanic 3 days ago | parent [-]

> How do we resolve the observable tension here with the fact that self-driving cars are operating right now, relatively successfully, in ten or so major American cities?

Because geo fenced driving in a few select cities with very favourable conditions is not what was promised. That's the crux. They promised us that we have self drive anywhere at anytime at the press of a button.

> Not a billion dollar business yet, maybe, but 300 cars generating five or six figures revenue per year each isn't far off.

I'm not sure how you get to 6 figures revenue. Assuming the car makes $100 per hour for 24x7 52 weeks a year we still fall short of 1 million. But let's assume you're right $300M revenue (not profit, are they even operating at a plus even disregarding R&D costs?) on investment of >10 billion (probably more like 100), seems like the definition of hype.

> (And I say this as someone who is skeptical that totally autonomous cars worldwide will ever be a thing, but you can get to £10Bn far, far before that point. Become the dominant mode of transport in just ONE major American city and you're most of the way there).

What I don't understand with this argument, how are you proposing they become the dominant mode of transport. These services are competing with taxis, what do they offer over taxis that people suddenly switch on mass to self driving taxis? They need to become cost competitive (and convenience competitive) with driving your own car, which would significantly drive down revenue. Secondly if robotaxi companies take over transport, why would the public continue to build their infrastructure and not demand that these robotaxi companies start to finance the infrastructure they exclusively use?

	▲	Earw0rm 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I got to six figures by assuming that a human taxi driver makes maybe $30-40k at a guess, and an autonomous car can work 24/7. 6 figures is $100k minimum. So yeah, right now they'd have to be at ten cities x 300 cars each to hit 300M revenue, but there's still plenty of room for growth. Or should be, assuming the Waymo model isn't maxed out supporting the current handful of cities. But I'm not convinced they have to hit cost parity with personal cars, because the huge advantage is you can work and drive (or be driven). If NYC and LA rush-hour congestion time becomes productive time, there's your billions. I drive but prefer to take transit for this reason - some of my colleagues are able to join work calls effectively while driving, but for whatever reason my brain doesn't allow that. Just paying attention to calls is enough, you want me to pay attention to the road AND the call?