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

Waymo seeking about $16B near $110B valuation

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 348 posts

Re: Waymo seeking about $16B near $110B valuation

#321

Post by IshKebab »

DauntingPear7 wrote: post #302
IshKebab wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it could solve a lot of transportation problems though. In theory if driverless vehicles were ubiquitous you'd have no on-street parking, no commercial transport in the day (do it all at night), much less traffic (just wait until your slot; maybe with peak time pricing), fewer delays due to crashes, etc. When nobody drives manually you could even do things like getting rid of traffic lights.

But then you get into a world where people can’t cross the street (moreso than what’s already available). I recall seeing a video on YouTube that explores your suggestion to its inevitable conclusion. Additionally, this could exacerbate suburban sprawl

I don't think so - you could still have pedestrian controlled crossings - press a button and the cars will stop. You just don't need any lights.

You might not even need buttons - driverless cars are already going to have to handle zebra crossings somehow.

Re: Waymo seeking about $16B near $110B valuation

#322

Post by fc417fc802 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #316
fc417fc802 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And where it isn't...well, American housing prices and rents are increased to pay for them. The driver of housing cost in US cities is lack of supply. Parking spaces are a drop in the bucket versus what is missing. The root cause is zoning laws; particularly the height restrictions as they currently stand.

> Parking spaces are a drop in the bucket versus what is missing. https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/seattle-parking-spot-sells-... That was 2022, $56k is probably about 10% of a one or two bedroom condo price. > The root cause is zoning laws; particularly the height restrictions as they currently stand. Tokyo is, as I understand it, the libertarian ideal for a city that doesn't let zoning get in the way of a good time…

I think there's a misunderstanding. I'm not claiming that parking space if charged at the market rate for an unimproved cement room in a high rise is particularly cheap. You can only fit so many cars within the footprint of a typical condo after all.

I'm claiming that removing parking (ie converting the raw sq footage over to living space) would not meaningfully impact housing prices. The existence of parking, free or otherwise, is not a significant contributor to the housing shortage. The issue is one of scale. That's what my "drop in the bucket" comment is referring to.

You specifically said "American housing prices and rents are increased to pay for them". That is technically correct but in context it is blatantly wrong. The price increase as it stands is approximately zero.

The error is failing to differentiate between cost due to construction and maintenance versus cost due to land value. The latter is linked to total supply and thus height restrictions. The former is not the primary component in HCoL cities. You can easily verify this by checking the cost to purchase an apartment building in say San Francisco versus a small town in the midwest. (I refer to the cost to purchase the entire building there, not the cost to rent a single unit.)

Re: Waymo seeking about $16B near $110B valuation

#323

Post by josefx »

echelon wrote: post #250
josefx wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money from Google internally might be subject to internal power dynamics and come with strings attached. Having reliable outside funding from people who don't get a say in things might be a better alternative for a project that doesn't want to end up as Stadia 2.0 .

Google Genie would have disrupted Stadia anyway, fwiw.

I think it will be quite some time before you can prompt Genie for the next GTA, Skyrim or Call of Duty.

Re: Waymo seeking about $16B near $110B valuation

#324

Post by infecto »

kolbe wrote: post #308
infecto wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Notice I left a list of potential reasons. Not that ownership has changed. Just pointing out for folks like yourself that Google has made commentary about this exploring the idea of partnering with companies that operate the physical fleet. $3bn even if chump change for you is still a larger placement and has some level of signaling indicating the want to get other folks involved at some level.

I didn't ask for potential reasons. You're talking about the "reasons" for a "gradual transition," and I am telling you that this investment isn't transitioning anything. Everyone is keeping their equal share of the company. So, I don't understand why you are giving reasons for something that isn't currently happening.

I think the words are going over your head sorry. I will try one more time but realize now it might be too much especially see some of your dead comments here.

I am not claiming a transition is happening in this round, so asking for evidence of one misses the point. Transition here means enabling future shifts in who owns and operates the capex, not changing the cap table today. If Alphabet wanted permanent full-stack ownership, an entirely internal recap would have been cleaner. Bringing in outside capital, even minority, is about signaling and optionality, not dilution.

Re: Waymo seeking about $16B near $110B valuation

#325

Post by estearum »

nradov wrote: post #255
tanseydavid wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they prohibit autonomous vehicles, eventually their constituencies will be screaming for it. It seems that many people, after trying out the service for themselves first hand, in a locale that has it available today, are very eager to have the service available to them in their home locale.

Maybe, although stupid laws can become heavily entrenched and surprisingly hard to change. Like in New Jersey I think you still can't pump your own gas, and some idiots actually defend that crazy policy for the sake of saving jobs.

But this is a great example: the reality is that pumping your own gas is simply not even a 10x better product than having it pumped for you.

If NJ consumers (and politicians) had a 10x better product dangled in front of them every day, then the regulation side would solve itself.

Waymo is truly just such a vastly superior product that consumers will get exposed enough to it to care, and when they care, they will solve the regulation side.

Re: Waymo seeking about $16B near $110B valuation

#326

Post by another_twist »

paxys wrote: post #82
pu_pe wrote: post #52

It seems like a fair valuation to me. I can see a path for them to approach or surpass Uber's revenue (~$50B) in the future, and I think their technology and brand are actual moats in comparison to all other driverless systems out there.

I'm in the opposite camp. Waymo has neat tech, yes, but already valuing it on par with Uber is absurd considering the sheer scale at which Uber operates. 70 countries, 15K cities, 36 million daily trips. And this isn't counting Uber Eats and other side businesses. Waymo will have to accelerate its operations to the max for the next decade just to catch up. And that's assuming operating at such a scale is even possibl…

Waymo as a business has higher operating margins. I'd suppose that has to compensate for the lower scale. Having said that, Waymo likely needs more time to onbard cities than Uber so growth might be jerky.

Re: Waymo seeking about $16B near $110B valuation

#327

Post by rsynnott »

fragmede wrote: post #247
tfehring wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Driving to work is the most common way of commuting everywhere in the US except NYC. So in that sense, no, taking a taxi to work daily is not normal, just as walking, biking, and taking public transit aren’t normal. When I worked in San Francisco I took Caltrain to the city, but I took Waymo from the train station to the office. San Francisco, like almost all US cities, has poor local transit coverage. In my case the…

San Francisco's connection to Caltrain is deplorable, but as far as US cities go, the heart of it has pretty good public transportation.

> but as far as US cities go, the heart of it has pretty good public transportation

Damning with extremely faint praise there...

Re: Waymo seeking about $16B near $110B valuation

#328

Post by rsynnott »

biztos wrote: post #160
lazarus01 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im fortunate to live in an area dense with traditional taxis and Ubers, no Waymo yet. I rarely take taxis, the exception is when I have to haul my gear to the studio for a jam session. I always take a taxi, because it’s cheaper and faster than using an app to call an uber. On 80% of the trips, I end up having a nice chat with the driver and learn something new about humanity or myself. I really enjoy these interactio…

I’m surprised they don’t have opt-in LLM-based “chatty mode” where you can talk to the AI personality of your choice while riding. Obviously shouldn’t be the same AI that’s deciding whether to run over the child or crash into the oncoming train. [edit: riding not driving]

This sounds like something from The Good Place, tbh.

Re: Waymo seeking about $16B near $110B valuation

#329

Post by kolbe »

infecto wrote: post #324
kolbe wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't ask for potential reasons. You're talking about the "reasons" for a "gradual transition," and I am telling you that this investment isn't transitioning anything. Everyone is keeping their equal share of the company. So, I don't understand why you are giving reasons for something that isn't currently happening.

I think the words are going over your head sorry. I will try one more time but realize now it might be too much especially see some of your dead comments here. I am not claiming a transition is happening in this round, so asking for evidence of one misses the point. Transition here means enabling future shifts in who owns and operates the capex, not changing the cap table today. If Alphabet wanted permanent full-stac…

I understand everything you have said. The D-K of you WSB transplants is wildly frustrating.

If you'll notice, all I am doing is asking the brigade of snarky know-nothings to stop talking. I'm not pretentiously claiming to know, unlike all of you. You clearly aren't in any position to understand the internal working of Google, and it's unfortunate that HN used to be a place where a question like the original one would have been answered by a person who does, but is now flooded with people like you. I will gladly take the downvotes if they're from a bunch of garage band stock pickers.

Re: Waymo seeking about $16B near $110B valuation

#330

Post by infecto »

kolbe wrote: post #329
infecto wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the words are going over your head sorry. I will try one more time but realize now it might be too much especially see some of your dead comments here. I am not claiming a transition is happening in this round, so asking for evidence of one misses the point. Transition here means enabling future shifts in who owns and operates the capex, not changing the cap table today. If Alphabet wanted permanent full-stac…

I understand everything you have said. The D-K of you WSB transplants is wildly frustrating. If you'll notice, all I am doing is asking the brigade of snarky know-nothings to stop talking. I'm not pretentiously claiming to know, unlike all of you. You clearly aren't in any position to understand the internal working of Google, and it's unfortunate that HN used to be a place where a question like the original one woul…

Go take a breath and stop digging a hole. Nobody is being rude to you but you are highly inflammatory and honestly a real lowering of quality. Take a bit of your medicine and step away. I am sorry you feel the need to be so rude back to everyone.

You are not “just asking questions.” You are dismissing any analysis that is not insider gossip as illegitimate, which is a convenient way to avoid engaging with the substance. No one claimed NDA level insight. We are talking about incentives, capital structure, and signaling, which is literally what outsiders analyze. If only Googlers are allowed to reason about Google, then HN has no purpose beyond rumor laundering.

Post reply on HN