Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 108 posts

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#71

Post by petra »

castratikron wrote: post #68
aetherson wrote: post #3

I feel this is additional evidence for my theory that Uber is in big trouble and is trying to spin a bunch of pixie dust into some kind of dumb money exit for its increasingly angry investors.

Their business model has no barrier to entry. Uber fares are subsidized by something like more than half, and as soon as Uber runs out of investor money, there's going to be nothing stopping someone like Lyft from doing exactly what they do now. They need some kind of capital, be it self-driving cars or whatever, to maintain their current dominant position.

Their problem is execution - they don't seem to sucseed in true ride sharing(few people share the same car), which is a protectable business, once won.

On the other hand, some of their competitors, like via seem to manage to do that quite well(altough currently supported by VC money).

So i wonder, what's the secret that Uber can't seem to copy ?

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#72

Post by edblarney »

castratikron wrote: post #68
aetherson wrote: post #3

I feel this is additional evidence for my theory that Uber is in big trouble and is trying to spin a bunch of pixie dust into some kind of dumb money exit for its increasingly angry investors.

Their business model has no barrier to entry. Uber fares are subsidized by something like more than half, and as soon as Uber runs out of investor money, there's going to be nothing stopping someone like Lyft from doing exactly what they do now. They need some kind of capital, be it self-driving cars or whatever, to maintain their current dominant position.

"Their business model has no barrier to entry."

Critical mass of drivers, particularly within a specific market area - and brand - are definitely barriers to entry.

There are network externalities for sure.

If you go to city ABC and 'everyone is on Uber' - as a consumer, you'll probably just use Uber.

Drivers? Well, they'll just sign up for Uber if there's little else.

A 'new market entrant' will have a 'chicken and egg' problem in terms of signing up drivers and riders.

A true 'lower barrier to entry' business would be like a hot-dog stand - no cost, you set up beside the other guy, you can take just as much business. Your benefit scales roughly linearly with the number of stands you have, and because you have more, does not really give customers incentive to buy from you etc..

So there are 'competitors' but there are also at least some barriers, on a locale by locale basis.

There are other barriers - such as the ability to fund/lobby (and bribe) all of the various political entities that could oppose you - Uber has been pretty aggressive at winning these things and that costs $$$.

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#73

Post by spraak »

fullshark wrote: post #37
spraak wrote: post #7

This could have equally been an article on the Onion

They are gonna hire this guy next to research Compost Fueled Cars: https://youtu.be/DkGMY63FF3Q

Actually I remember an article from the local paper here (on Kaua'i) where someone on the island had made just that.. though I think the compost was making biofuel of some sort

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#74

Post by snowwrestler »

FnuGk wrote: post #66

I never understood the point of flying cars. Do we not already have those but call them airplanes? Flying cars seem infeasible to operate for the mass consumer as they (like airplanes) require extensive training to operate safely.

The idea is that they are self-driving flying cars, so consumers don't need training.

While the physics of flight are more complex than driving, the environment is far less complex (straight-line between points, few obstacles along the way). Flight is better suited to automation, and in fact we already have very reliable autopilots and computer-enhanced airplanes.

That said, I think the fuel costs of flying mean it will never be competitive with driving, based on cost.

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#75

Post by castratikron »

edblarney wrote: post #72
castratikron wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their business model has no barrier to entry. Uber fares are subsidized by something like more than half, and as soon as Uber runs out of investor money, there's going to be nothing stopping someone like Lyft from doing exactly what they do now. They need some kind of capital, be it self-driving cars or whatever, to maintain their current dominant position.

"Their business model has no barrier to entry." Critical mass of drivers, particularly within a specific market area - and brand - are definitely barriers to entry. There are network externalities for sure. If you go to city ABC and 'everyone is on Uber' - as a consumer, you'll probably just use Uber. Drivers? Well, they'll just sign up for Uber if there's little else. A 'new market entrant' will have a 'chicken and…

I've got both Uber and Lyft on my phone, which I guess could be analogous to having two hot dog stands on the same block. Drivers can switch between the two just as easily.

You're right though, they do have a well-established brand, and they have spent a lot of effort in getting around all sorts of legal problems. I wonder, though, if the legal things that Uber has paved the way on would ever make it easier for some other Uber clone to take up the same business without all of the legal hurdles, since they've already established some sort of precedent.

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#76

Post by [deleted] »

6stringmerc wrote: post #60

Flying cars aren't the future. I think it's much more in Jetpacks. Once power density is better than Jet-A, we'll be in business for some great options. Probably dangerous as all get out, but that's part of the fun. https://medium.com/@6StringMerc/for-christmas-2016-i-give-th...

[deleted]

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#77

Post by mahyarm »

iaw wrote: post #19
jessriedel wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Flying is not a valid commute solution and never will be because of physics. All things equal, the energy requirements to change elevation will be too great to justify adoption. There are lots of technical roadblocks to feasible flying cars but the cost of the potential energy to change elevation is not one of them. The optimal altitude flown would be lower for shorter trips, and when normal cars must change elevat…

> The optimal altitude flown would be lower for shorter trips Where does the column of flying cars go? Do they expand vertically or horizontally as traffic increases? In the underpopulated area's of the US where 10% of the population lives this is a feasible mode of transit, what about the 90% that actually have traffic? If the cars broaden vertically it's a safety risk, if the cars broaden horizontally it's a violat…

Bridge chokepoints and other small hops over bodies of water / mountains are a great case for flying cars. It would be great for seattle, manhattan, SF, hawaii, islands, etc.

You also don't need to build much infrastructure other than landing/takeoff sites. Large infrastructure alone, especially in a place like the USA is a big blocker.

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#78

Post by Xunxi »

iaw wrote: post #5

This strikes me as pretty pathetic effort by Uber to make itself appear forward looking Flying is not a valid commute solution and never will be because of physics. All things equal, the energy requirements to change elevation will be too great to justify adoption. The system only becomes useful/safe if you "stack" vehicles on roadways. What happens when one has a failure and crashes? This is either market signaling…

The fact that big money is being funneled into the idea makes it more plausible that ever.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-09/welcome-t...

Theres a lot of R&D going on behind the scenes, it no longer a lone wolf undertaking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g6cCYoDWzM

Its likely all these personal air vehicle will fly-by-wire; perhaps Uber leveraging Otto's core algorithm for other uses?

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#79

Post by Xunxi »

iaw wrote: post #5

This strikes me as pretty pathetic effort by Uber to make itself appear forward looking Flying is not a valid commute solution and never will be because of physics. All things equal, the energy requirements to change elevation will be too great to justify adoption. The system only becomes useful/safe if you "stack" vehicles on roadways. What happens when one has a failure and crashes? This is either market signaling…

The fact that big money is being funneled into the idea makes it more plausible that ever.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-09/welcome-t...

Theres a lot of R&D going on behind the scenes, it no longer a lone wolf undertaking.

Its likely all these personal air vehicle will fly-by-wire; perhaps Uber leveraging Otto's core algorithm for other uses? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g6cCYoDWzM

Re: Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars

#80

Post by bogomipz »

iaw wrote: post #8
aetherson wrote: post #3

I feel this is additional evidence for my theory that Uber is in big trouble and is trying to spin a bunch of pixie dust into some kind of dumb money exit for its increasingly angry investors.

I share your theory. I think Uber was dominant and in a great position financially until it tried to aggressively continue it's expansion into immature markets using subsidies. Their fixed costs have exploded while revenue hasn't grown as quickly. There's no reason this technology can't/wont work from a science perspective. From an engineering, consumer, political standpoint this concept is such a non-starter. The mo…

What do you define to be an "immature market" in this context?
Post reply on HN