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

We're going commercial

getcruise.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 37 posts

Re: We're going commercial

#11

Post by qgin »

42jd wrote: post #9
37ef_ced3 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a customer's perspective, it isn't clear that a software taxi driver is in any way better than a human taxi driver, particularly with human driver assist preventing collisions and all the other warnings provided by a modern car. In both cases someone else is driving for the customer. With a human driver (plus driver assist breaking and collision warnings) you have the most flexible, sophisticated intelligence on…

The robotaxi’s draw will be its lower prices. They are removing the cost of a driver from the equation. Assuming the car felt as safe as a normal taxi, I’d take the cheaper one.

Not even lower prices, but even to continue the current prices of Uber and Lyft (without burning VC cash), automation is needed. Even with the low pay for human drivers today, that's still too much for the prices charged by ride sharing to be sustainable.

Re: We're going commercial

#12

Post by woojoo666 »

37ef_ced3 wrote: post #10
42jd wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The robotaxi’s draw will be its lower prices. They are removing the cost of a driver from the equation. Assuming the car felt as safe as a normal taxi, I’d take the cheaper one.

Well, we'd have to look at the cost of the hardware and maintenance and fallback remote operators and the R&D investment to evaluate whether a robotaxi fleet is indeed cheaper. And how much cheaper is it, exactly? 5%? 10%? 15%? Would you pay a little more to have the most flexible, sophisticated intelligence on Earth (human brain + driver assist) or would you want to save a few dollars and risk having some dumb piece…

I presume the human is still the most expensive cost. So you might be looking at cost reduction of over 50%. If that were true, then I would definitely take the robotaxi, assuming it's reached human safety levels of course. On the off chance that they leave me stranded, I'll file a complaint for full refund, and then just take another one

Re: We're going commercial

#13

Post by _hcuq »

systemvoltage wrote: post #5
NO-AI wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? See this earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31615770 This is the thin edge of the wedge. Just say no.

Eh, I am not convinced by your arguments. Technology has improved our lives and relieves us from drugery of life. But there are people out there that want Humans to suffer (Mother Teresa, et. al.) and it is a fundamentalist view that cannot be challenged through logic, reason and objectivity. The only way to defeat neo-luddism is to double down on technological progress. It is fundamentally anti-Human in every way. T…

Maybe they got their cancer from technology…

Re: We're going commercial

#14

Post by 37ef_ced3 »

woojoo666 wrote: post #12
37ef_ced3 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, we'd have to look at the cost of the hardware and maintenance and fallback remote operators and the R&D investment to evaluate whether a robotaxi fleet is indeed cheaper. And how much cheaper is it, exactly? 5%? 10%? 15%? Would you pay a little more to have the most flexible, sophisticated intelligence on Earth (human brain + driver assist) or would you want to save a few dollars and risk having some dumb piece…

I presume the human is still the most expensive cost. So you might be looking at cost reduction of over 50%. If that were true, then I would definitely take the robotaxi, assuming it's reached human safety levels of course. On the off chance that they leave me stranded, I'll file a complaint for full refund, and then just take another one

In other words, you believe the cost of the human is subtracted but there is no additional hardware/maintenance/remote-operation/R&D-investment cost to add?

Anyway, I think we can all agree that the only benefit of a robotaxi is that it's cheaper. And we don't know how much cheaper. So it's not surprising that most people aren't excited about them.

I don't know a single person who cares about robotaxis. In my experience, if you talk to people about robotaxis they just don't see it as big step forward. "What's the point?"

Re: We're going commercial

#15

Post by mindvirus »

37ef_ced3 wrote: post #14
woojoo666 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I presume the human is still the most expensive cost. So you might be looking at cost reduction of over 50%. If that were true, then I would definitely take the robotaxi, assuming it's reached human safety levels of course. On the off chance that they leave me stranded, I'll file a complaint for full refund, and then just take another one

In other words, you believe the cost of the human is subtracted but there is no additional hardware/maintenance/remote-operation/R&D-investment cost to add? Anyway, I think we can all agree that the only benefit of a robotaxi is that it's cheaper. And we don't know how much cheaper. So it's not surprising that most people aren't excited about them. I don't know a single person who cares about robotaxis. In my experie…

I think people under estimate just how much cheaper it is.

Conservatively, suppose the car lasts 100k miles, and costs $50k including maintenance. Suppose it gets 10mpg, and each trip is 5 miles. Gas is $6/gallon.

100k miles = 20k trips. 20k trips for $50k cost = $2.50 per ride + $3 gas = $5.50 fixed cost per ride, which is significantly cheaper than pretty much anything.

Re: We're going commercial

#16

Post by woojoo666 »

37ef_ced3 wrote: post #14
woojoo666 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I presume the human is still the most expensive cost. So you might be looking at cost reduction of over 50%. If that were true, then I would definitely take the robotaxi, assuming it's reached human safety levels of course. On the off chance that they leave me stranded, I'll file a complaint for full refund, and then just take another one

In other words, you believe the cost of the human is subtracted but there is no additional hardware/maintenance/remote-operation/R&D-investment cost to add? Anyway, I think we can all agree that the only benefit of a robotaxi is that it's cheaper. And we don't know how much cheaper. So it's not surprising that most people aren't excited about them. I don't know a single person who cares about robotaxis. In my experie…

Cost is a big deal.

If my city had better public transport, I would use it more often. I don't like driving around everywhere. It's labor. While I am also pushing for better public transport, robotaxis can also fill that gap, provided it is cheap enough

Re: We're going commercial

#17

Post by dilyevsky »

37ef_ced3 wrote: post #8
qgin wrote: post #6

For whatever reason, Cruise continues to advance and get very little buzz. I’m curious what it will take to get them discussed even half as much as Tesla (which is much farther behind) when it comes to automation.

From a customer's perspective, it isn't clear that a software taxi driver is in any way better than a human taxi driver, particularly with human driver assist preventing collisions and all the other warnings provided by a modern car. In both cases someone else is driving for the customer. With a human driver (plus driver assist breaking and collision warnings) you have the most flexible, sophisticated intelligence on…

I think another draw would be its safety which at least as planned is supposed to be greater and consistent while with human driver you never know what you’re getting

For non-us markets it’s also integrity. No more shenanigans like calling rider and asking to cancel the ride bc the driver didn’t like it

Re: We're going commercial

#18

Post by KaoruAoiShiho »

qgin wrote: post #11
42jd wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The robotaxi’s draw will be its lower prices. They are removing the cost of a driver from the equation. Assuming the car felt as safe as a normal taxi, I’d take the cheaper one.

Not even lower prices, but even to continue the current prices of Uber and Lyft (without burning VC cash), automation is needed. Even with the low pay for human drivers today, that's still too much for the prices charged by ride sharing to be sustainable.

Nah current prices are sustainable. Self driving cars should get us 1/5th of the prices going forward imo.
Post reply on HN