Slashdot Mirror


Uber Seeking To Buy Self-Driving Cars (reuters.com)

An anonymous reader writes from an article on Reuters: In order to save money from hiring drivers, ride-hailing service Uber has shown interest in placing a large order for self-driving cars, an auto industry source said on Friday. "They wanted autonomous cars," the source, who declined to be named, said. "It seemed like they were shopping around." Earlier on Friday, Germany's Manager Magazin reported that Uber had placed an order for at least 100,000 Mercedes S-Class cars, citing sources at both companies. [The top-flight limousine does not yet have fully autonomous driving functionality.] Another source familiar with the matter said no order had been placed with Mercedes-Benz. Diamler and Uber declined to comment. Auto industry executives are wary of doing deals with newcomers from the technology and software business who threaten to upend established business models based on manufacturing and selling cars. "We don't want to end up like Nokia's handset business, which was once hugely profitable... then disappeared," a second auto industry source said about doing a deal with Uber.

102 comments

  1. I saw this coming by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    It only makes sense. Uber can reduce the largest cost of taxi services by eliminating the temperamental drivers. This way, they can provide a consistent service that is the same everywhere.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    1. Re:I saw this coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The robots at Carls Jr never leave work. No need for these cars.

    2. Re:I saw this coming by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2

      It only makes sense. Uber can reduce the largest cost of taxi services by eliminating the temperamental drivers. This way, they can provide a consistent service that is the same everywhere.

      And further note, the taxi companies could *also* do this and get the same benefit

      ...or they could litigate and complain to the government about unfair competition.

    3. Re:I saw this coming by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 0

      News flash for auto makers: If you refuse to deal with Uber et al, they'll just end run you and build their own car, powered by Google's self driving software. Do you really want that? Companies that see the writing on the wall early enough can lead the industry in it's new direction. Those who refuse to compete at that level will die... like Kodak.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    4. Re:I saw this coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And further note, the taxi companies could *also* do this and get the same benefit

      ...or they could litigate and complain to the government about unfair competition.

      Clearly you don't understand the business.

      It's not the taxi driving companies. It's the taxi drivers. Many drivers operate similar to a franchise; they join as a driver with a given company and keep a percentage of fares. The taxi companies don't care and could buy self-driving cars but the drivers do; this will put thousands of uneducated workers (who are also voters) out of a job.

      So the municipal governments care, because they're local and their concerns are much more about jobs and unemployment than any Federal politician is. On top of that, they'll of course side with the taxi drivers because the taxi drivers have to pay for a taxi permit as well as fees for pickups at municipal facilities such as airports. So Uber's model represents a challenge to a major source of revenue for cities.

      So the drivers have a very large voice because their interests are aligned with city revenue sources; municipal governments and drivers are aligned in their interests.

    5. Re:I saw this coming by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      powered by Google's self driving software.

      Powered by their own software:

      http://www.theverge.com/transp...

      http://www.wsj.com/articles/is...

    6. Re:I saw this coming by mysidia · · Score: 1

      But they're trying to place an order for a product that does not exist yet, and nobody's proven yet that they will be able to make that product any time soon.

      Or that the product will be suitable for Uber's intended use, legal to operate driverless, and not a dud....

    7. Re:I saw this coming by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It is a little more difficult build a successful commercial car than to stop the use of film, however.

      Yes, Kodak completely screwed up because film itself became a thing of the past with digital and they refused to give up their film business.

      However, making cars automated or even autonomous doesn't make cars obsolete. And car companies do a lot of things to get and keep their cars on the road.

      Partnering with a software company that will make use of their expertise and infrastructure to build the initial cars, could eventually lead to the software company wanting to cut costs by changing their "hardware" to some sort of Made in China manufacturer.

      How could that happen? If the software becomes more important than the car itself, car companies are out of business. And who needs 500 hp if they are all in electric, self-driving pods anyway? All they will care about is that they can play AAA games in the auto pod while they wait for it to get them to work.

      I think car companies are learning that they need to get into this business while they can still control the conversation about what cars *are*, and merely being the hardware maker is not going to let them do that all by itself. Software isn't tied to their platform unless they own the platform and the software. Note how Apple is able to make its money. Car companies want to be Apple, not Nokia.

       

    8. Re:I saw this coming by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      News flash exactly why would the automakers bother with selling cars to Uber. Seriously auto executives would simply say, fuck Uber, we will make our own auto taxi service direct and keep those profits, let the morons at Uber make their own cars. Uber has a tiny limited window in the transportation market and it is doomed, expect it to go public ASAP, so the insiders can sell out and watch it go boom from some tax haven.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    9. Re:I saw this coming by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Those who refuse to compete at that level will die... like Kodak.

      Kodak did NOT "refuse to compete". They tried hard to convert to digital. The problem was that they had little expertise, and no competitive advantage in digital. Basically, all they had was their brand, and that wasn't worth much. Even in hindsight, I don't see anything that Kodak could have done to save themselves. They were doomed.

      It is the same for the automakers. If SDCs cause large numbers of people to forego car ownership, and most of the "shared" cars are basic models (since taxis are not status symbols), then the car manufacturers are in big trouble. If demand for cars contracts by 50% or 80%, then many of them will not survive, and there is nothing they can do to stop that.

    10. Re:I saw this coming by RuffMasterD · · Score: 2

      A young engineer by the name of Steven Sasson created the first digital camera in 1975 while working for Kodak. It was a completely functional self contained prototype, with batteries, and a cassette recorder to store the images on, and a separate system to load and display the image onto a television screen. He demonstrated what he had made to executives at Kodak, several times. The executives could not imagine why anyone would want to view their images on a television screen, and they had a monopoly on the processed film market anyway, so why would they want to compromise that. That didn't stop them from patenting the technology in 1978.

      Steven Sasson took the technology a step further in 1989, creating the first SLR camera, with a 1.2 megapixel sensor and a memory card. Again, Kodak would have none of it. They wanted to sell consumables. The rest is history.

      Ironically Kodak still earned billions from digital photography, thanks to royalties earned on the patent granted in 1978. That patent expired in 2007. Kodak filed for bankruptcy in 2012. Life's a bitch.

      I would say Kodak had THE expertise, they had the first move advantage, they tried their hardest NOT to convert to digital, they refused to compete, and they could have saved themselves every single day since 1975. Kodak fucked up. If the automakers think they can ignore this technology then they will fuck themselves up too.

      Sources here, and here.

      --
      Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
    11. Re:I saw this coming by beernutmark · · Score: 1

      The same reason they aren't in the rental car business. It's not their core function and they know it.

    12. Re:I saw this coming by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the backup. This is exactly what I was saying, and it's amazing that nobody in this entire thread gets it but you... You can either lead the change or follow it, but the change is happening... guaranteed!

      Wish I could give you mod points.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    13. Re:I saw this coming by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think you might be on to something... at least in the distant future... as more and more people eschew ownership, I could see a company eventually just saying "lets build a fleet of purpose built transports that we own and control, and provide ride sharing." However, I think it requires first the mass adoption of ride sharing, which is why I say "distant future."

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
  2. No the aren't! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Butt fucker!

  3. Johnny Cabs arive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uber wants to create the first "Johnny Cabs".

  4. Lots of Slashdot people will hate this by Notorious+G · · Score: 1

    Replacing drivers will displace workers. See here for the feedback on that: https://hardware.slashdot.org/...

    1. Re:Lots of Slashdot people will hate this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will become an issue.

      If enough workers are displaced, it can take generations for new jobs to open up to replace the jobs that automation cleared away.
      That's assuming we keep coming up with new jobs.
      We went from farming to manufacturing - which still makes up a large number of jobs - to largely white collar and service jobs.

      Let's take just driving jobs.
            Cab drivers - 233000
            Bus drivers - 665000
            Train/light rail drivers - Not sure
            Eventually Semi and parcel delivery. 3.5 million.

            These are all pretty good trade jobs. They require no higher education and a relatively short training regime to get into.

            I don't know that Amazon will ever *widely* deploy drones to go from warehouses to one's house. . . but what about from the back of an automated truck to one's doorstep? Have a landing / charging or refuel pad. . .

            On the service side, Deep Blue in its current state could handle many call center jobs. I'm not talking super technical call center jobs. I'm talking billing issues, or the "tech support" you get from your cable company. That's another ~100,000 jobs. Put in several "accents" - male, female, East U.S., S. U.S., British, Indian, and if the system is good enough one may never know that their multiple calls to the call center were initially handled by a automated system instead of a person before being handed off to its supervisor for more difficult cases.

            In more skilled environments something like deep blue could do one's taxes. Prescribe drugs and do a lot of "general practitioner" diagnostics. . .

            One will likely need a higher specialty doctor for bizarre cases, but with a bit of controlled lighting and good imagery, automated lab work, there's little reason a machine couldn't cope with many common diagnostics.

            A little nibble here, a little nibble there, and things could get grim for job seekers. How long before our robot overlords are running everything? That's a trickier question. Personally I don't believe we're decades away from the self driving car, but we're probably at least a couple decades from a self driving semi cresting I-80 in the Sierras, or a similar road over the Rockies.

            Eventually when you've displaced farming, many trade and manufacturing jobs, low to mid level white collar jobs, and the jobs that are left are asking for Masters or Doctorate degrees - at ever steeper prices for higher education - just to weed out the sheer number of applicants for that entry level job, what do you have left?

            I like the idea of a Star Trek economic utopia where nobody need work and one is free to pursue one's passion at leisure - not that we're all well equipped to handle that, that can lead to a pretty bad case of apathy - but I just don't know that our civilization is well equipped to handle that. I think there are too many people that would simply shut all those slackers who can't get jobs out and let them starve than to allow a large portion of the populace to effectively be on the dole, even if there really aren't any jobs out there for the slackers to grab.

    2. Re:Lots of Slashdot people will hate this by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      Also it leads to a setting where people are better off in lockup then out on the street. Now what will the people do to get in to that? Go to automat and try to steal food / cash? vandalize the place? burn the mother down?

  5. Uber confirmed for technologically incompetent by kheldan · · Score: 1, Insightful

    There is currently no such thing as a 'self driving car', and there won't be for decades to come, and even if there is sooner than that, it'll still require, by law, a qualified driver behind the wheel at all times.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Uber confirmed for technologically incompetent by zlives · · Score: 2

      Uber also placed an order for 1,000 self driving air cars...

    2. Re:Uber confirmed for technologically incompetent by ark1 · · Score: 2

      Google latest prototype already comes without wheel or pedals. Sure there will be conditions where machine is unable to perform up to standard but for majority of cases I believe we are only a few years from something available on the market. Assuming the technology is as safe or safer than humans, perhaps public transportation will be first to get automated as routes tend to be very predictable.

    3. Re:Uber confirmed for technologically incompetent by fluffernutter · · Score: 0

      That's just it.. so much investment on tech that has yet to show any signs of being practical in the real world. They're driving into buses at 2 MPH for crying out loud, IN PERFECT WEATHER.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    4. Re:Uber confirmed for technologically incompetent by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      I'm curious. Can a self-driving car park to the nearest millimeter? Are there really going to be zero cases where a human needs to move the SDC "just a smidge"?

      --
      I come here for the love
    5. Re:Uber confirmed for technologically incompetent by johanw · · Score: 1

      Maybe in the US, where the streets are car-friendly and drivers usually behave very predictively. And there they still drive very slow. Now try that self-driving car in Paris, Rome or Manilla and see if it even dares moving when it calculates the chance of a crash.

    6. Re:Uber confirmed for technologically incompetent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People like yourself buy into the hype and think it is right around the corner.

      That prototype needs to drive on a planned route that has been mapped days beforehand and there cannot be any inclement weather. Oh, it also needs to communicate to the mother ship. Considering none of the "autonomous" driving stunts have ever driven an unplanned route in heavy rain, or snow, we are decades away from anything approaching autonomous. If you actually listen to the scientists studying (such as MIT) the systems required for this type of transportation, they generally agree this is something that won't happen in their lifetime. There are lots of obstacles to overcome.

    7. Re:Uber confirmed for technologically incompetent by xvan · · Score: 1

      Parking is easier for a machine than your average person. Reacting fast to unexpected things is the problem.

    8. Re:Uber confirmed for technologically incompetent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can a self-driving car park to the nearest millimeter?

      Can you? Can any human?

  6. Never going to happen. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 0

    Uber's time is coming to and end as more and more cities and countries force Uber to comply with the same laws and regulations as taxis, which is what Uber is. These laws are not going away.

    Also, it will be a long time before self-driving cars will be commercially available, there are still many kinks to be worked out and questions about liability that will keep them off the road for general use, especially taxis.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Never going to happen. by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 2

      I'm thinking it's about 50/50 that Uber will survive... however, the ride hailing idea is NEVER going to die. The desire for ride hailing companies to not pay employees, and instead invest in self driving tech is also not going anywhere. I think you put too much faith in "laws" which are in fact more like racketeering. The taxi laws are not in place to protect the taxi companies, they are in place to protect the customers and the general public. Once self driving tech is considered safer than human drivers (the bar is pretty low people...) then you will see the industry kick every last driver to the curb.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    2. Re:Never going to happen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly it. Uber's profitability is built on the fact that they slip into a quasi-legal space where they are not compliant with the codes for commercial passenger vehicles and don't pay municipal transport fees. Eventually they will get caught and then their profitability will tank.

    3. Re:Never going to happen. by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      ... force Uber to comply with the same laws and regulations as taxis, which is what Uber is.

      I agree, and this announcement is significant because it signals that Uber is abandoning the claim that their drivers are just contractors. They are not only admitting that their drivers are employees but that they are also going to be providing the cars. This puts them in exactly the same status as taxis, except they're still trying to avoid the laws that cover taxi service.

      and questions about liability

      In this case, there would be no question as to the liability. Not only would the manufacturer be sued, so would Uber. There would be no innocent party (driver/owner) who was depending on the over-hyped hyper-reliability of autonomous vehicles.

    4. Re:Never going to happen. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      I think it's sad that reactionary assholes down vote a comment that states the facts and not opinion, simply because they disagree with the facts.

      1. Uber is a taxi service.
      2. Uber declines to follow the rules of taxi services (right or wrong)
      3. Local municipalities are cracking down on Uber, as are several (and counting) countries.

      These statements are factual.

      I have used Uber and will again. But that does not mean I am blind to the contradictions in the Uber Group Think vs. Reality.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    5. Re: Never going to happen. by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      The taxi laws are not in place to protect the taxi companies, they are in place to protect the customers

      Wishful, naive thinking. The fact that NYC taxi medallions reached a high of $1.1 million each is clear proof that taxi companies captured the regulatory authorities decades ago (to the obvious detriment of both customers and customers).

    6. Re: Never going to happen. by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      Maybe you don't understand supply and demand.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
  7. More complicated than just buying them. by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    Each group of vehicles will need a home base, probably with a mechanic, fuel, and place to store most (if not all) of the vehicles in case of disaster i.e. a flood/storm/blizzard when all cars are ordered off the road.

    Right now, they have a ready made test market in Nevada (laws already passed), which they will most likely have to self-insure the vehicles. But they have the money to do it.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:More complicated than just buying them. by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 2

      The thing is, maintaining a car that was driven by algorithm to be easy on the hardware is going to be much easier than maintaining a car that was driven by an emotional, fallible, sleepy, hungry, angry human. Also, fuel won't be that big of a deal since I predict most self driving cars will be electric. Finally, parking a car in a safe out-of-the-way place is a lot easier when your parking garage only needs 5' tall ceilings, cars can be placed 3" apart and you don't need to leave right of way space (assuming your parking garage has a FIFO layout, you can park them wall to wall door to door. Plus, the highways themselves could potentially provide the "parking" space if you simply mean getting it out of the way of a hurricane... the car doesn't technically have to stop to be parked... it just needs to be out of the way. Hell, with a big enough fleet, you could get half your cars out of the the city by making rides 1/2 price for anyone wanting to leave. Send half your cars 200 miles inland to a safer city (with a paying passenger of course) and once it arrives in the new city, it can work the city for a couple of days while infrastructure gets put back together, then it can head back home with the returning surge of people who also want to come back. Self driving cars FTW.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    2. Re:More complicated than just buying them. by bobdehnhardt · · Score: 1

      Not to mention having to program an annoying, intrusive AI "driver" in each car.

      "Did I pick you up at home?"

      "Um..."

      "Am I taking you home now?"

      "Well..."

      "Can I friend you on Facebook? Friend request sent."

      "Hey, I didn't-"

      "Can I follow you on Twitter? Following. I see you like cats."

  8. This is just so typical of Republican-ruled... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    corporations. They hate us and want to fire is so we starve to death. To death.

    1. Re: This is just so typical of Republican-ruled... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's how they be.

    2. Re: This is just so typical of Republican-ruled... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the future Republicans want for everyone that isn't an old white man.

    3. Re: This is just so typical of Republican-ruled... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans will love self driving cars after they start using them to automatically and cheaply drive us to their corporate prisons.

    4. Re: This is just so typical of Republican-ruled... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most Tepublicans would rather pluck their own eyes out than let a minority have a job.

    5. Re: This is just so typical of Republican-ruled... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because Republicans are not whole people.

    6. Re: This is just so typical of Republican-ruled... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish you would starve to death. To death. And I wish I was there to watch and enjoy every minute of it. Every minute of it.

      Now, I'm goona go get the papers, get the papers.

    7. Re:This is just so typical of Republican-ruled... by I4ko · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Well, you aren't far from the truth. The population on the planet is not sustainable if robots work. It is even not sustainable now, but we still have the subhumans on the subcontinent breed like no tomorrow. While there is still some small piece of work, there will be some money changing hands, and there will be breeding. But averaged over all, humans are poor, wretched, hungry mass, doomed to mere existence with short life span.
      Humans are by nature (especially in the past) are r-selectors. The future, where robots case of everyone if a future of K-selectors. We have been moving gradually from r to K in accelerated pace in the last 400 years, and especially in the last 100. What the last 100 has given us is the r-selector numbers, with the quality of life of K-selectors. This is not sustainable. To complete our journey as species to K-selectors the majority will have to simply die off.
      And naturally these days it will be the heads of corporations, (the owners of robots) who are significantly further into the K-selector status. As, only the execs and few employees at the top, and their immediate families will be granted by evolution, the K-selector status, because of their wealth. All the regular employees, will be left without work, and therefore if they do not revert back to r-selectors and start basic self-sustaining agriculture, will need to perish.

      This has been so in ancient time - for early Eguipt to prosper they had to enslave Nubians, and other folk, though they had rich and fertile valley around Nile; for Rome (republic and early empire) to prosper, they had to kill and steal from most of Europe and Mediterranean leaving it in poverty; for the medieval feudal to prosper they had to reap (steal) all the products of the labour of their serfs; for the medieval Arab and Turkish empires to prosper to steal from the enslaved Christian territories turning the people to slaves; for the early US to steal from Africa and enslave human beings as well; for the Albion Empire to prosper they had to steal from most all people in the territories (like 1/3 of the planet); for contemporary US to prosper they have to steal from most rest of the world; and for the select few in US to prosper, they have to steal from most rest of their fellow country man.
      In contrast take contemporary Russia, and before that USSR - they don't really prosper - people were/are still mostly equal (some more than others), but if almost no one has their labour fruits stolen from them, they are only limited to the wealth they create personally, which is not much - not dying out of hunger, but not having great life span or anything.

      Believe it or not, it is actually the repuglican politics (their principals, not their particular execution) that keep us from getting one step deeper. The repuglicans are actually way closer to a socialist policy than their counterparts. The demoncrats of today are much more pro-corporate than those of the past and much less ordinary person social and merit awarding than the repugs.
      Just live with it, it is evolution, it is normal for a species to decrease their needs and demands from nature, thus becoming K-selectors, and there is no more effective way of decreasing your species impact than to just reduce numbers significantly.
      The Star Trek pipe dream universe needs little more than 2-3M humans. Actually all of them work as well, there is no one that doesn't. The crew of the ships, the colonist forces and the farmers, all those work, they are not on basic income.

    8. Re:This is just so typical of Republican-ruled... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find your ideas intriguing, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  9. They've been shopping around for nearly a year by Lucas123 · · Score: 1

    Uber stated last July it was interested in buying every single autonomous car Tesla could build.

  10. And there goes the final "job of last resort" by ErichTheRed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can't believe people don't see what's going to happen when all the unskilled work either disappears or pays so little that you have a permanent underclass of people. Driving a cab is pretty much a last-resort job for people who need to moonlight or can't get any other job. It's unrealistic to think that all these people have the intelligence or resources to train for a higher-level job. Look at all the factory workers who can't get anything better than a home health care aide job. I'd sure hate to be thrown out after 20 years on an assembly line to clean up after dementia patients.

    Don't be surprised when the "knowledge worker" jobs are gone too. I consider myself reasonably smart and a hard worker, but no job is immune to this. I also worry about a massive glut of middle-skilled people getting displaced. I work in IT services, and there are so many "customer account coordinators" and "relationship specialists" and "technical project enablers" who fit this mold. They're not deeply technical, most are ex-fraternity or sorority types from Big State University who partied their way through a business degree or maybe even an MBA, and they'll be absolutely screwed when big corporations get around to cutting them out too. The thing is this - those C students pay taxes, buy stuff with their salaries and have children. When the safety net of stable work is cut, no one is going to want to spend or procreate, and then we're really stuck.

    1. Re:And there goes the final "job of last resort" by m00sh · · Score: 2

      I can't believe people don't see what's going to happen when all the unskilled work either disappears or pays so little that you have a permanent underclass of people. Driving a cab is pretty much a last-resort job for people who need to moonlight or can't get any other job. It's unrealistic to think that all these people have the intelligence or resources to train for a higher-level job. Look at all the factory workers who can't get anything better than a home health care aide job. I'd sure hate to be thrown out after 20 years on an assembly line to clean up after dementia patients.

      Don't be surprised when the "knowledge worker" jobs are gone too. I consider myself reasonably smart and a hard worker, but no job is immune to this. I also worry about a massive glut of middle-skilled people getting displaced. I work in IT services, and there are so many "customer account coordinators" and "relationship specialists" and "technical project enablers" who fit this mold. They're not deeply technical, most are ex-fraternity or sorority types from Big State University who partied their way through a business degree or maybe even an MBA, and they'll be absolutely screwed when big corporations get around to cutting them out too. The thing is this - those C students pay taxes, buy stuff with their salaries and have children. When the safety net of stable work is cut, no one is going to want to spend or procreate, and then we're really stuck.

      Research has shown that we are really bad at predicting the future but compulsively do so anyways.

      Let the problem arrive first and then we can figure out what can be done.

      I can pontificate endlessly on how we can use the tens of millions new workers instead of driving around in circles all day. If they have the discipline to be inside a car all day and drive people around all day, I'm sure they can do a lot more interesting and useful things.

    2. Re: And there goes the final "job of last resort" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously. What is the matter with all these idiots out there wanting to displace everybody from every job? They can't get out of mom's basement and find work so they want everyone else in the same boat? Maybe they just suck at everything and can't drive so they don't think anyone else can either.

      I know they list every single human trait as a weakness, never list any strengths, and just can't seem to figure out that we learned to drive, to fly, to travel in space, underwater, jump out of airplanes and live all without some snot nosed whiny dysfunctional geeks and their silicon valley startups watching and controlling our every move.

      I started in IT and development to help people do their work. Now my profession is becoming destructive to everyone's livelihoods. It will not surprise me even a little bit when we start getting targeted for violence and worse by those whose lives we're altering and destroying without their consent.

    3. Re:And there goes the final "job of last resort" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We will all be unemployed land whales living the good life at home while everything is delivered to us. The machines will design and build themselves. They will eventually figure out they don't need us. Thankfully, I will be long gone when that day happens.

    4. Re:And there goes the final "job of last resort" by SJ · · Score: 2

      Research has shown that we are really bad at predicting the future but compulsively do so anyways.

      I dunno, Kafka and Orwell seem to be pretty much on-the-money.

    5. Re:And there goes the final "job of last resort" by m00sh · · Score: 1

      Research has shown that we are really bad at predicting the future but compulsively do so anyways.

      I dunno, Kafka and Orwell seem to be pretty much on-the-money.

      Just because someone wins the lottery doesn't mean we should all go out and buy lottery tickets.

      Or maybe it does?

  11. Re: This is just so typical of Republican-ruled.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love how you post everything in ghetto nigger talk

  12. Re: This is just so typical of Republican-ruled.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They want me to die for not being white. You can never be a whole person if you be like that.

  13. And who's cleaning those cars? by tekrat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yesterday was St. Patricks. Do you have any idea how many people threw up in cabs last night?

    Ok, so let's go 10 years into the future and Uber actually has self-driving cars. And their Mercedes S-class picks up two drunk students. One barfs in the car on their ride home. They stumble out and go on their way.

    Then that same car gets routed to it's next pickup, a well to-do couple from a fine dining establishment. They open the door, and.......

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re: And who's cleaning those cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they have the option of riding on the hood... Or in the trunk. Just because the seat is out of commission doesn't mean the rest of the ride is.

    2. Re:And who's cleaning those cars? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I asked this question in a previous article and I was told that an Uber car would not only sense the vomit and drive to a car wash immediately to be cleaned in and out, but that the offender would be on video and sent the bill.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re:And who's cleaning those cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, the car can navigate streets, identifying people, other vehicles, traffic signs, distinguish shadows from objects, and the numerous other things necessary for a car to be fully autonomous... but, somehow, the internal cameras and sensors are unable to make use of similar sorts of algorithms to detect that a passenger emptied their stomach in (or for that matter, made any other significant change to) the otherwise static interior of the car...

    4. Re:And who's cleaning those cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not beyond the realms of possibility for a car to sense that someone has vomited inside. Never mind chemical sensors, the mere sound of someone hurling could be detected, probably more easily than recognising the address that the drunk passenger has just given.

    5. Re:And who's cleaning those cars? by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      Yesterday was St. Patrick's. Do you have any idea how many people threw up in cabs last night?

      State the obvious. I've known cab drivers who have had people screw on their ride home from the bar -- right in the back seat. "Come on, I'm only human," he cries at them to no avail.

      Now take an Uber driver-less. Tape-over the cameras and have a good fuck on your way to the party. Won't the soccer-moms driving by with their kids in the SUV be mortified? (that she did the same back in college)

    6. Re:And who's cleaning those cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmm taping over internal security cameras by vandals/criminals would probably make car lock-up criminals inside and call police,
      so only option is having sex with cameras on but than someone in Uber IT could sell your HD porno recording to pornotube

  14. Everyone saw this coming by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2

    Who didn't see this coming? Did people honestly think their business plan was to hire random people to drive their own cars? Right now that's the cheapest way to collect data. A year ago they went in and poached Carnegie Mellon's Robotics department (Those guys behind the Red Humvees in the DARPA autonomous vehicle project).

    Taking vacation in Florida I can't wait for a self driving future over the current crop of aging drivers. Grandma doesn't need to own, maintain or anything a car. She just uses the Amazon Echo-ish device to order a car to take her to the store and home.

    1. Re:Everyone saw this coming by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Cars, how quaint.

      I want hyperloop

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Everyone saw this coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hyperloop is fine for cross country, but what about local travel?

    3. Re:Everyone saw this coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will be a 3D printer at every hyperloop terminal so you can 3D print a car when you arrive.

    4. Re:Everyone saw this coming by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      My understanding, Hyperlook is good for both Local and medium distance travel, things that both cars and trains would normally work. Being both On Demand and fast (HSR speeds).

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  15. Re: This is just so typical of Republican-ruled.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Au contraire, mon ami: we'll gladly give you minority people a job. It will consist in plucking out the eyes of your kinspeople before bashing their skulls in and throwing them into a mass grave.

  16. "the source, who declined to be named" by tlambert · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "the source, who declined to be named"

    So ... "some guy said Uber wants to buy self driving cars instead of hiring drivers".

    (1) Uber does not hire drivers; Uber uses contractors

    (2) Uber is not a taxi company

    (3) If Uber owned the cars, self driving or not, they damn well *would* be a taxi company

    (4) Uber has no interest in *being* a taxi company, because that would cause them to fall under onerous regulations that the taxi companies have lobbied to put in place over the last century, as an anticompetitive measure to keep other taxi companies from coming into existence and competing against them.

    It's pretty obvious that about the stupidest thing Uber could possibly do is buy self-driving cars. If self-driving cars ever become a viable thing, then Uber will most likely *contract* with the owners of the self-driving cars, rather than owning the cars themselves, and that way they can remain a ride sharing service, rather than getting sucked into the morass that is the taxi industry.

    1. Re:"the source, who declined to be named" by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      an anticompetitive measure to keep other taxi companies from coming into existence and competing against them.

      Judging by the number of taxi companies, that has got to be the worst effort to be anticompetitive EVER. Complete fail there. Not to mention the fact that they are bound to be present in certain spots where people need them, give access to physically disabled, install expensive safety equipment and hold expensive insurance; all of which vastly raises the cost of operating in their business. By your measure the taxi industry must have the worst business strategists ever.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:"the source, who declined to be named" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If Uber's interest in self-driving vehicles is so tangential, why are they investing so heavily in them? http://www.wsj.com/articles/is-uber-a-friend-or-foe-of-carnegie-mellon-in-robotics-1433084582

    3. Re:"the source, who declined to be named" by jcr · · Score: 1

      If the numbers work out, I could see buying a couple of autonomous cars myself and vending them to the public through Uber.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    4. Re:"the source, who declined to be named" by peterofoz · · Score: 1

      So Uber buys the self driving cars, but leases them out to Uber drivers who just sit in the driver's seat and 'monitor' the car's safe operation. Driver/lessees have to gas/charge/insure/maintain the cars while getting paid a nominal $17/hr, but then have to pay Uber $500/mo for the car payments. Net income is about $3.00/hr.

  17. Re: This is just so typical of Republican-ruled.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whole people? Wtf does that mean? Is that like whole wheat?

  18. More shitty, abusive-of-human jobs, according to their detractors, about to b3 replaced by machines to take the risk.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  19. Re: This is just so typical of Republican-ruled.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the way of their kind. They want us to die.

  20. touche by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

    "We don't want to end up like Nokia's handset business, which was once hugely profitable... then disappeared,"

    then don't partner with Microsoft because that is exactly what killed Nokia's handset business.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:touche by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nokia made very good mobile telephones.

      And you're probably thinking, "see, people still buy mobile telephones, without Microsoft they'd be huge" but you'd be wrong

      People buy handheld computers. They're lousy as telephones, but it doesn't matter because they're rarely used as telephones. The Mac Pro makes a lousy telephone too, but people buy those too. We had to call the handheld computers "phones" to get people to buy one and understand why they needed a handheld computer. But go read a review of, say, the iPhone 6 or the latest Galaxy. Does it say "Wow, the phone calls were really clear and easy to make" ? No. Because nobody cares about phone calls. So Nokia's expertise is now completely irrelevant.

  21. I think it would be mostly beneficial for both by BlueCoder · · Score: 1

    Whatever technology is used it's would be a huge crash course that would most certainly remove the majority of the bugs and make the system more robust and secure city by city. Every inch of road would be mapped. The kinks could be worked out a lot faster than if they took the conservative route of slowly migrating driving from manual to auto.

    P.S. It would also mean that some gas stations would be contracted and need to have someone on staff for Full Service for these self driving cars. Or maybe provide a discount if the rider was willing to pump gas.

  22. in other news ... by swell · · Score: 1

    NASA Seeking To Buy Rocket for Mars Mission

    In light of the rarity of these things, today and in the foreseeable future, some expect disappointment. Like the self-driving car, the Mars Rocket is a figment of the imagination. There are models, there are concept prototypes, there are proposals but there is no such thing for sale.

    There is hope for the Rocket, but the massive infrastructure and legal wrangling and upset to powerful corporate interests will leave the Self-Driving Cars in limbo for a very long time.

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
  23. Already a truck in Nevada by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    There is currently no such thing as a 'self driving car', and there won't be for decades to come, and even if there is sooner than that, it'll still require, by law, a qualified driver behind the wheel at all times.

    There's already a self-driving tractor-trailer in Nevada.

    1. Re:Already a truck in Nevada by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Says 'hey there's a big rig that's self-driving!'
      Story has pic with driver behind the wheel

      Apples and oranges, friend.

      In the forseeable future any car with an autopilot feature will require a qualified driver behind the full set of manual controls at all times. Believe it.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  24. Schools of thought by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    [...] When the safety net of stable work is cut, no one is going to want to spend or procreate, and then we're really stuck.

    Modern economics isn't a science, it's a jumble of overlapping theories and schools of thought.

    By popular economic theory there will be massive starvation and general collapse.

    There are different schools of thought which include a guaranteed minimum income, which would give people a life of leisure to pursue whatever they liked. As more and more automation took over, we could have a sci-fi utopian society where everyone's basic needs are met.

    That's a worthy goal. Carping about "this change will reduce jobs" is ineffective and pointless.

    We should instead try to change the existing "schools of thought" to bring about that utopia.

  25. Stupid analogy. by jcr · · Score: 1

    Nokia didn't go out of business because of accepting large orders for handsets. They went belly-up because they were slow to react to innovation by their competition.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Stupid analogy. by orledrat · · Score: 1

      Agreed, there's no need for a car analogy. Let's just call it a race condition.

  26. Auto companies turning down profits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Auto industry executives are wary of doing deals with newcomers from the technology and software business who threaten to upend established business models based on manufacturing and selling cars.

    Auto companies are turning away customers now?

    Even if I could somehow believe that it would be bad for an auto company in the long term to sell more cars (a highly dubious idea in itself), it's inconceivable to me that any US company would actually have the discipline to put long-term concerns ahead of short-term profit.

    This makes no sense to me on any level.

    What's really going on here?

  27. soon ! Really ! Flying Cars and Clean Energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I were a classic car maker, who'd already spent millions in house on autonomous driving, and some startup that hit and got lucky came over, I'd be real, real leery, sitting on millions of euro/dollars of production plant and stock. Somehow I doubt the Uber boys have more going on than the Mercedes engineers, other than how to profit by surge pricing. I would not gamble my real world productive plant on their idea, especially as their idea can change over time (ask the drivers)

    That Flying car...any day now....

  28. Then who will shoot their customers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering Uber pays people to go around murdering customers, how will the self-driving cars work? Will they be equipped with on-board machine guns? Seems like their business model will suffer...

  29. Uk private hire car firms by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

    We have a system of separate 'taxis' and 'mini-cabs'. Taxis tout for business on the street, clutter up railway stations and airports waiting for customers and are relatively expensive. Alternatively you can phone a mini-cab to come and collect you. Cheaper per mile - just can't tout for business - you have to book it via the office.

    Along comes Uber and confuses the distinction. You book the ride via the app - fulfilling the requirement to be a 'mini-cab' - but the Uber cars can be hovering waiting for a client in a more aggressive way than traditional mini-cab. And being able to do it all trivially easily makes it as painless as getting a proper taxi. So we end up with a well regulated new competitor to both taxis and mini-cabs - and a lot of upset taxi drivers.

  30. this idea of robot employees is going to be by FudRucker · · Score: 1, Interesting

    the death of humanity, if every company can replace everyone with robots & AI pretty soon nobody will have a job, humans are being obsoleted

    the Luddites are right, Ted Kaczynski was right about technology, i did not agree with Ted's methods but his philosophy is spot on, high tech will eventually destroy us if were not careful

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  31. ooohh, Uber-built autonomous cars by swschrad · · Score: 1

    quick hack on some Chinese fender-flappers will probably aim for baby strollers. death wish three ways. four, if you count idiot investors. you have been warned

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  32. Those cars should need to pass a driving test. by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

    And by "driving test" I mean the exact same test that humans do, by following the instructions of a human examiner who is talking to them.

  33. Amen to that by bdwoolman · · Score: 1

    And let us not forget the texting morons, the gabbing imbeciles, the makeup artists, the doped up Cretans, the drunks, the wankers, the eaters, the video watchers. I cannot wait for autonomous cars. I like to drive, and pay attention, but it is getting crazy out there. Thirty thousand dead each year in the US. The cars are safer but the people are far more dangerous with all their distractions and bad habits.

    Volvo has a good practical road map to autonomous cars. And critically the company is willing to accept liability for accidents in their autonomous cars. They will soon have real world testing in Gothenburg -- 2017 -- with ordinary drivers in the car. The Volvos will drive themselves under certain conditions -- usually when driving is the most boring -- and will cue the drivers to take the wheel when the situation warrants, or if the driver simply wants to drive. If the car cannot get the driver's attention when things have gotten too complex for it... it will pull over. I am not a shill for Volvo but have been following the autonomous car story across the board and the Swedes are kind of sticking this IMHO This is what I am talking about

    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
    1. Re:Amen to that by shikaisi · · Score: 1

      ... the doped up Cretans...

      What's with all the racism against people from Crete?

      --
      No left turn unstoned.
    2. Re:Amen to that by RuffMasterD · · Score: 1

      And the Morons...

      --
      Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
  34. Smells like Bullshit by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

    So we are to believe a company that operates through contracters to avoid being classified as a taxi company has on the spur of the moment ordered somewhere between 5 and 10 billion dollars (that is assuming not top of the line and no premium for self driving) worth of S class Mercedes. smells like utter bullshit to me.

  35. Absurd by hackertourist · · Score: 1

    100,000 Mercedes S-class?
    1. that's a $10 billion order.
    2. that's the entire S-class production for I'd guess a year.
    3. Almost nobody buys $100k S-class as taxis. That sort of outlay only makes sense if you can go without a driver completely. Given the state of automation of the current S, you still need a driver, and at that point you might as well spend $50k on an E-class (a common cab) instead.

  36. but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i thought they were an "app" and a "software company" not a transportation provider.........

  37. Another way to eliminate human labor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we are truly against the one percent. Why are we allowing this kind of thing to happen which only affects the 99%? I laugh at how many people seem all on board with robots and eliminating human jobs. Mostly because those people are in management or CEO position who won't be affected. My suggestion is, let's have robots replace CEO's in America. You will get smarter decisions, no greed or corruption and better more logically run company. In fact let's put computers in Washington DC where you could have a decission made by more logical means then politically motivated and special interest. Because if all we plan to do is eliminate the middle class service jobs. We won't need self driving Uber cars, because all you will have is unemployed and a broke nations with nobody paying taxes.