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

Google launches Uber rival RideWith

americans.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 203 posts

Re: Google launches Uber rival RideWith

#131

Post by slinkyavenger »

duaneb wrote: post #117
IgorPartola wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does Google want it? It's simple. Google is an advertising company. The more free time you have where you have nothing but your phone or computer, the more time you'll spend searching for things, and therefore clicking on their ads. An average person with a 30+ minute commute would sure as hell do a lot of shopping if they didn't have to drive. While we are all waiting on self-driving cars, this is another step i…

Why do people talk about Google being an advertising company when, while it's a significant fraction of current revenue, it's also only a small portion of their interests and investments.

All of their interests and investments are all justified because it either drives people to look at advertisements or it generates more information about the users to make their ad platform more valuable.

Re: Google launches Uber rival RideWith

#132

Post by pluma »

abalos wrote: post #11
mark_l_watson wrote: post #4

That seems like a very good idea, not as a huge business, but to save energy, wear and tear of cars, etc.

I think the barrier to this sort of behavior being more common in the masses is that it's difficult to make these sort of connections. If Google is basically able to say hey - your neighbor down the block drives to within a 5 minute walk of your office, then this could be a really useful tool for this sort of networking.

This seems like a clever way to nudge users in the general direction of self-driving cars as a service for local public transport.

Re: Google launches Uber rival RideWith

#133

Post by jellicle »

shostack wrote: post #126
minthd wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UBER plans to attack the "drive to work" segment of the transportation market, and it's potentially a huge opportunity for UBER.This Google service, if successful, might fill that role very well. And the fact that it's cheaper is basically "disruption from below" - a proven strategy in many businesses. While this exact transport service model generally failed , it did succeed in France(blabla car), and Google has uni…

Yep, a big factor to consider here is that while Uber has a head start, Google has a massive chest derived from other products and political clout to deal with the regulatory piece. They can absolutely price Uber and others out of the market on this if they felt like it.

Since this is actual carpooling, unlike Uber, there won't be any regulatory pushback. Every jurisdiction loves carpooling.

Re: Google launches Uber rival RideWith

#135

Post by mangeletti »

Sometimes when I read about Google dipping their hands into totally new things (another example is Google +) I think, "those greedy ...", etc., but then sometimes I read it and think, "perhaps Google is simply trying to prevent monopolies in tech fields where competition is sparse.".

If the latter possibility is sometimes the true motive, even if it is done out of self interest, the result tends to be good for all of us (except for the monopolists themselves), because Google doesn't tend to be able to maintain a monopoly in any techs other than search and advertising.

One example of the benefits of this kind of competition is the advent of larger iPhones. If not for Google's Android and subsequent proliferation of large-sized phones that evolved out of customer demand, Apple might have ignored (or not been nearly as aware of) the demand for a larger iPhone.

Re: Google launches Uber rival RideWith

#136

Post by jellicle »

ismail wrote: post #113

Note: We have built a marketplace to connect drivers and passengers, so we understand some of the challenges in scaling a business like this. Like all marketplaces, you are faced with the chicken and egg problem. The market place is supply constrained. There is demand for rides but not enough matching supply. People with cars much prefer to travel alone due the inconvenience of picking up others. So, in order to get…

Google knows where every Android user and most of everyone else lives and works.

Frankly it would be trivial to ask Android users a question: "Are you interested in carpooling? [Y/N]" and then prompt them when the guy three doors down also answers yes.

Re: Google launches Uber rival RideWith

#137

Post by ChuckMcM »

philsnow wrote: post #130
ChuckMcM wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep seeing a bunch of Google Express vans sitting around idle because they don't have any goods to deliver, this sort of thing could easily capture a bit of revenue from those idle vehicles. It was the first thing I thought of when I saw that Uber was doing deliveries.

How do you weigh 8 hours of idle time vs 8 hours of driving time in the long term ownership cost of one of those vans, though?

Well according to the drivers they aren't getting paid if they aren't driving. So it perhaps motivates them.

EDIT: Thinking about this a bit more what is the value of having nominal control over a fleet of vehicles of various capabilities sitting around a metropolitan area? Someone wants to go from point A to point B? Dispatch a nearby passenger capable vehicle to pick them up and drop them off. Package needs to go from here to there? Send a vehicle and driver over to get this package and take it over.

Imagine the economics of consolidating courier service, taxi cabs, emergency transport, into a single 'app' will all 'contract' labor.

Re: Google launches Uber rival RideWith

#138

Post by hackuser »

One big advantage of Google's solution over Uber's is the relative climate change impact of your transportation choice. In reverse order of benefit, based on my amatuer analysis:

* For a baseline, let's use one party (generally a person or a couple) with a personal car. Traveling someplace creates P marginal greenhouse gasses (GHG), plus there is the fixed cost of manufacturing the car (but I have no idea how much that is).

* Uber and taxis net GHG emissions should be worst and greater than P: Your trip uses P but added to that is the GHG generated when the taxi/Uber car has no passenger and is 'cruising'. Also, I expect taxis/Uber cars are larger on average than personal cars, and thus less fuel efficient, because they need to fit several adults comfortably in the back. If you give up a personal car for Uber/taxis, then you get the manufacturing benefit.

* Car share services (e.g., ZipCar) should net less than P emissions, if you give up a personal car when you join. The car is parked when nobody is driving it, so the marginal cost of one trip is P. But it also eliminates the emissions created from manufacturing the car, whatever that is. EDIT: As hayksaakian points out below, this is the same as buying a used car.

* Google's RideWidth's net GHG emissions should be much less than P: For every added passenger, one less car is on the road emitting P.

* Public transit probably is second best. The marginal GHG emissions of the bus/train carrying your fat a-- on its normal route probably don't amount to much. On the other hand, it probably depends on the average passenger load of the vehicle -- certainly a train/bus with only you on it costs much more per passenger than P, but those fixed costs are spread over many more passengers than Uber/taxis.

* Best of all, of course, are biking or walking. Though has anyone calculated the GHG emissions of the human energy cycle, from growing the cattle feed to transport to refrigeration to cooking to human methane emissions?

Also not calculated are the effect your use of one service or another has on demand, driving up the number of Uber/taxi/busses, etc. on the road.

Re: Google launches Uber rival RideWith

#140

Post by hackuser »

It heard that the branding team ruled out using "Google Hitchhiker".

What's the difference? Google's/Uber's/Lyft's imprimatur that your passenger is trustworthy? More surety of payment? If I want to take the risk, why won't cities let me give hitchhiker's rides for cash (or even credit card payments)?

Post reply on HN