Live data from Hacker News

Lyft and Waymo Reach Deal to Collaborate on Self-Driving Cars

nytimes.com

371–380 of 383 posts

Re: Lyft and Waymo Reach Deal to Collaborate on Self-Driving Cars

#371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that Waymo are killing it, but... their desire to not be a car company and just write the software makes me wonder what their plan is to become a serious driver of Alphabet profit. Unless they have made some real breakthroughs and are managing to somehow keep them under wraps (seems unlikely), optimistically they have a 5 year lead on their competitors. 5 years is a good amount of time to be the only people…

They seem to have gotten a lot more serious since forming Waymo. In just a few months, they started the actual public trial in Phoenix as well as make this deal with Lyft. Seems like they've finally understood the urgency and have stepped on the pedal. I don't understand your claim that they have to be a car company though. With this deal, it seems like they are (at least for now) targeting ride sharing, and arguably…

I don't think Waymo necessarily needs to build cars, they could try to be Uber, they could try to be FedEx, they could try to be Seamless. I don't really have a good opinion on what they should be, just that I don't think they will make enough money as a supplier to justify all the risk they've taken.

Maybe they can make some deals where they give a company exclusive access to self-driving tech for a given industry for a significant equity stake in that company, but I feel like no-one would really want to take that deal.

Re: Lyft and Waymo Reach Deal to Collaborate on Self-Driving Cars

#373
post #323
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may not be sending data back home via the mobile network, but you can bet your boots they make exhaustive logs of Autopilot disengagements and store them locally to be siphoned off at the next service. I wonder if they have WiFi base stations collecting data at Supercharger points? That's what I'd do.

> exhaustive logs of Autopilot disengagements That would still be only one slice of the many many situations you need to master, and that Waymo already has. E.g. something as simple as entering and exiting a small roundabout, like that YouTube video showed a Tesla couldn't do. Miles driven by Tesla owners aren't purposefully looking for those situations when they engage autopilot.

Are you sure? Again this is just how I'd do things, but after I had a bunch of disengagement snapshots, the next thing I'd do is start taking snapshots of similar situations. We live in an age of easy and super-accurate image classification, it wouldn't be too hard to start a snapshot every time the front camera view contains a roundabout.

Re: Lyft and Waymo Reach Deal to Collaborate on Self-Driving Cars

#375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldnt want Uber to die. They were one who created the ride-sharing market and the industry fighting against all outdated regulations. They may have done "sabotaging" their competition once several years ago -- there's no record of them having done it in the last 2-3 years. Btw, Lyft also has done similar stuff.

Um, the article discusses an ongoing court case accusing them of industrial espionage last year , which may result in criminal prosecution.

I dont see Uber itself having done it. Levandowski was the one who downloaded the documents when he was a Google engineer. It has not been proven and is very unlikely that Uber asked him to download the documents or knew about it. If Uber did not know that he downloaded documents, then I dont see how Uber did the wrong thing here.

In fact, Google's Java lawsuit with Sun/Oracle seemed worse for Google to me, as Google empployees openly discussed in emails that they were violating licensing terms and still did it.

Re: Lyft and Waymo Reach Deal to Collaborate on Self-Driving Cars

#376
post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Uber is losing money because they subsidize rides to try to push competitors out of business." ?? I think thats the wrong way to phrase this. Uber is loosing money as Uber and its competitors are giving a lot of incentives to drivers to win business. All of them are loosing money.

It is interesting that you and him describe essentially the same mechanism with different words. I would personally call it dumping. In effect, Uber is selling something at a lower cost than it buys, in order to acquire the market.

Note that all companies in the ride-sharing market are doing the same thing, not just Uber. Uber in fact looses less money than Lyft per ride.

Re: Lyft and Waymo Reach Deal to Collaborate on Self-Driving Cars

#377
post #218
post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> literally lighting billions of dollars in funds on fire Figuratively. But even that's not true, since customers have saved real money and spent it elsewhere.

Literally. Usage #2: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

yeah we may have won the battle but not the war. I have currently taken it upon me to use "figuratively" improperly and I won't stop until all language has lost meaning.

Re: Lyft and Waymo Reach Deal to Collaborate on Self-Driving Cars

#378
post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do so many on HN feel the need to structure their responses like this: > Something Rude. Real argument, which is stronger with first sentence removed. You may be right (or wrong, I don't know) but opening with rudeness or insults makes it more difficult to have meaningful conversations.

Rudeness? Insults? I said "this is naive", not "you are naive." Surely we're all adults and can talk about ideas candidly without having to beat around the bush and tell each other little white lies. A while ago you told someone, "You speak in broad generalizations that miss many points and make many faulty assumptions. " Any difference between your statement and mine comes down to how individuals respond to specific…

> You've added nothing to this discussion and have wasted people's time.

What is your response doing?

Re: Lyft and Waymo Reach Deal to Collaborate on Self-Driving Cars

#379
post #316
post #117

This could be a longer term death blow for Lyft, ironically. If Google has the self driving tech, the car & car partnerships, the money, maps, access to end consumers, what exactly does it need Lyft for? Lyft will be a vehicle for Google to kickstart and test this out with a current ride sharing network before Lyft is cut off ...

But Waymo (and Apple) is no longer building cars, as they partnered with Fiat Chrysler. Turns out building cars is a pain in the ass. If all you're building is the underlying technology, you NEED partnerships for an actual complete solution.

It's also unlikely a company will just switch over self driving tech. A lot of the technology all these companies have is proprietary and I highly doubt it will all be interchangeable.

Re: Lyft and Waymo Reach Deal to Collaborate on Self-Driving Cars

#380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't ever bet against Musk, but Musk says a lot of things. Yes we should be able to make self driving cars with just cameras because, after all, we do it with just two eyes. But in what world is computer vision perfect? Tesla's Autopilot already has a fatality on its record because it couldn't differentiate the color of the sky with the color of a truck. LIDAR solves a lot of problems.

There's another aspect of it though. As soon as Waymo makes self-driving cars more popular, and there are less humans on the road - you just need inferior technology to be able to operate. Bootstrapping this is the hardest - after self-driving cars are a thing, normally we'll see accelerated move towards fully automated driving. In the extreme case, if Waymo cars are 80%, Tesla cars can easily be 20% just based on th…

You might be right, but I'll devil's advocate a bit, with a few possible predictions (none of which I believe in all THAT strongly, just speculation)

- If there's a period where new self driving cars are popular but aftermarket self driving kits for older cars are unaffordable or nonexistant, then during this period, the price of non-self-driving cars will plummet dramatically. Who knows, you might be able to buy a 2 year old camry for $1000. The market for these cars will exclusively be (other than oddballs/enthusiasts) people whose wages are so low that driving yourself in a non-self-driving car is still cheaper in an overall sense than using self-driving cabs, so that will cap the possible value of such cars at a pretty low point.

- As long as (possibly as a result of the above) the number of human driven cars on the road is at all significant (like, at least 1% or 0.1% or something), the benefits you mention will be hard to attain. In a given trip a car interacts with hundreds of other cars.

- You forgot about pedestrians and cyclists. In many places, there are more of those than there are cars, anyway, so even if all cars are self driving,

- There's going to be weather and construction and falling trees and runaway skateboards and runaway trucks on ice covered hills and wildfires and so on. This kind of software will operate at scale, so improbable events become important to handle.

- Uber is probably dumb enough to hope your argument is true and think they can get away with half-assed self-driving, which is why they're going to fail miserably and go bankrupt.

- There's going to be regulation. As a made up example, if the "Waymo patent tax" is "just" $5000 per car, it's going to be pretty hard for a car manufacturer to justify to regulators that they'll instead develop competing software that is somewhat inferior in safety, but "acceptable", for the sake of saving, say, half of that $5000 (it still costs the thrifty manufacturer money to develop or buy their lower quality software!). All it'll take is one fatality and people will be up in arms. If the "acceptable" technology was the first one out, it'd be different, but it'll be hard to convince anyone it's worth the risk when there's better tech already out there. BTW, Waymo management would obviously be clever about setting a good price point that captures lots of value but still is low enough to discourage this kind of competition.

- My vague software and driving intuitions tell me it'd actually be easier to design a more general system anyway (massive handwaving). It's actually HUMANS (specifically those accustomed to easy suburban western driving conditions) who have a harder time driving when they can't assume everyone will follow the rules, not computers, and I think that's why so many people mistakenly (IMHO) imagine it'd be so easy to make self driving cars if only everyone followed the damned rules. The simplified laws of physics applicable to driving are simpler than the DMV manual anyway.

Post reply on HN