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

Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 134 posts

Re: Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

#91

Post by sangnoir »

mandeepj wrote: post #82
Animats wrote: post #69

Uber's self-driving system doesn't actually have to work beyond the demo level. It's mostly to pump up the company's valuation. Uber is losing money, and unless they find another sucker within a year, they're toast. They've already had to borrow on unfavorable terms.[1] Operating a fleet of self-driving cars may turn out to be a lousy business. Uber's business model is built around others buying the cars, maintaining…

> Running a fleet of self-driving cars is running a car rental company. I am very surprised this comment got the top votes. OP - in which world do you live in? Uber already lease out vehicles so people who don't have a car but want to drive for Uber.... can lease it out from them. Uber does not have to maintain their cars. They can sign an AMC with some company.

> Uber already lease out vehicles so people who don't have a car but want to drive for Uber.... can lease it out from them

Do you have any links for Uber-backed leases? This is the first I've heard of them and I'd like to know more. Last O heard, Uber was encouraging/facilitating leases from 3rd parties for its drivers without being involved in the resulting lease itself.

Re: Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

#92

Post by mandeepj »

sangnoir wrote: post #91
mandeepj wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Running a fleet of self-driving cars is running a car rental company. I am very surprised this comment got the top votes. OP - in which world do you live in? Uber already lease out vehicles so people who don't have a car but want to drive for Uber.... can lease it out from them. Uber does not have to maintain their cars. They can sign an AMC with some company.

> Uber already lease out vehicles so people who don't have a car but want to drive for Uber.... can lease it out from them Do you have any links for Uber-backed leases? This is the first I've heard of them and I'd like to know more. Last O heard, Uber was encouraging/facilitating leases from 3rd parties for its drivers without being involved in the resulting lease itself.

> Do you have any links for Uber-backed leases?

One of the uber drivers told me this. I forgot the exact amount. I guess he said he pay around $250 per week to Uber

Here you go - https://www.uber.com/drive/vehicle-solutions/leasing/

Uber might have collaborated with some third party to handle the paper work

Edit - Uber partnered with Xchange Leasing, LLC for this leasing program

Re: Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

#93

Post by isubkhankulov »

mandeepj wrote: post #92
sangnoir wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Uber already lease out vehicles so people who don't have a car but want to drive for Uber.... can lease it out from them Do you have any links for Uber-backed leases? This is the first I've heard of them and I'd like to know more. Last O heard, Uber was encouraging/facilitating leases from 3rd parties for its drivers without being involved in the resulting lease itself.

> Do you have any links for Uber-backed leases? One of the uber drivers told me this. I forgot the exact amount. I guess he said he pay around $250 per week to Uber Here you go - https://www.uber.com/drive/vehicle-solutions/leasing/ Uber might have collaborated with some third party to handle the paper work Edit - Uber partnered with Xchange Leasing, LLC for this leasing program

Xchange Leasing is an Uber affiliate which takes capital from wall st banks and loans it to uber drivers. uber takes out the loan payment before paying the driver.

Re: Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

#94

Post by enraged_camel »

timewarrior wrote: post #89
bduerst wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Matt Levine succinctly said it best: >Eventually there will be self-driving cars, and there's no special reason to think that Uber will be the best at building them, or that its dominant position in the ride-hailing-app space will protect it from better self-driving-car businesses.

Agreed. Unless they have a monopoly on self driving technology (which I seriously doubt). On the other hand, I feel that we will not have self driving cars for a really long time. Instead I believe we will have flying cars before that, who will solve the last mile problem. They will take you from the house to the hub and hub to the final destination. Buses can transport people between hubs. With self driving cars you…

>>On the other hand, I feel that we will not have self driving cars for a really long time. Instead I believe we will have flying cars before that, who will solve the last mile problem.

We already have flying cars. They are called helicopters, and they are only available to various government agencies, large corps and the rich.

Re: Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

#95

Post by cstejerean »

djsumdog wrote: post #84
mandeepj wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Running a fleet of self-driving cars is running a car rental company. I am very surprised this comment got the top votes. OP - in which world do you live in? Uber already lease out vehicles so people who don't have a car but want to drive for Uber.... can lease it out from them. Uber does not have to maintain their cars. They can sign an AMC with some company.

I was not aware drivers could lease vehicles from Uber. I assumed they couldn't because I once reserved a ReachNow car, only to find an Uber driver setting up in it. He had ended his ride by accident, and was on the phone with their customer service. He was talking about needing to start work. The customer service rep said there was another car nearby (it was 2 blocks away when I looked at the app). The guy then says…

That seems unlikely. You need to register each car you intend to drive with Uber and each one requires them to perform an inspection. So the chances of just grabbing a ZipCar and using it for Uber for the day being allowed are pretty much zero.

Re: Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

#96

Post by danderino »

Animats wrote: post #80
bluetwo wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but Uber has one big ace up their sleeve... they could go public anytime they want. The last best sucker is the stock market.

They'd have to publish real GAAP financial numbers. Those numbers would look awful. Years of losses.

Didn't stop Snap

Re: Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

#97

Post by hiddencost »

home_boi wrote: post #78

I don't get Levandowski's 5th amendment claim on the privilege log. Doesn't the 5th amendment only stop the individual from incriminating himself? How can he argue that other people (or an entire company in this case) are not allowed to incriminate him? Has anyone successfully claimed 5th amendment and forced other people/entities not to incriminate him/her?

'The statement at issue need not directly implicate the witness as long as it "furnish[es] a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a...crime." Hoffman v. United States , 341 U.S. 479, 486-87 (1951).'

http://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/taking-the-fifth-am...

Re: Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

#98

Post by abpavel »

timewarrior wrote: post #89
bduerst wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Matt Levine succinctly said it best: >Eventually there will be self-driving cars, and there's no special reason to think that Uber will be the best at building them, or that its dominant position in the ride-hailing-app space will protect it from better self-driving-car businesses.

Agreed. Unless they have a monopoly on self driving technology (which I seriously doubt). On the other hand, I feel that we will not have self driving cars for a really long time. Instead I believe we will have flying cars before that, who will solve the last mile problem. They will take you from the house to the hub and hub to the final destination. Buses can transport people between hubs. With self driving cars you…

> No existing regulations (unless at risk of being in flight path).

Obviously you haven't had your flight lessons yet. Not only there are scores of airspace regulations, but flying is a much harder task to do as well. The freedom you're thinking off is akin to freely driving in a 4x4 on an open ranch, which has more to do with joy, and less with transportation needs.

Re: Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

#99

Post by xapata »

justicezyx wrote: post #79
bluetwo wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but Uber has one big ace up their sleeve... they could go public anytime they want. The last best sucker is the stock market.

> they could go public anytime they want. Why? I cannot believe Uber's status-quo supports its valuation at all.

You say that like public stock shareholders are more discerning than other kinds of investors.

Re: Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

#100

Post by microtherion »

prawn wrote: post #87
Animats wrote: post #69

Uber's self-driving system doesn't actually have to work beyond the demo level. It's mostly to pump up the company's valuation. Uber is losing money, and unless they find another sucker within a year, they're toast. They've already had to borrow on unfavorable terms.[1] Operating a fleet of self-driving cars may turn out to be a lousy business. Uber's business model is built around others buying the cars, maintaining…

One solution to parking, once the human drivers are out of the picture and fuel costs are largely removed, is in self-driving cars purposefully getting themselves stuck in traffic.

That would be really anti-social, but plausibly cost effective. Or, as Uber management would say, "a no-brainer".
Post reply on HN