Uber Loses $900 Million In Second Quarter; Urged By Investors To Sell Off Self-Driving Division (bloomberg.com)

Last week, Uber reported a second-quarter loss of $891 million, even though it brought in $2.8 billion in revenue. "While it's a 16 percent improvement from a year earlier, the loss follows a rare profit posted in the first quarter, thanks largely to the sale of overseas assets," reports Bloomberg. As a result, the company is being pressured by investors to sell its self-driving cars unit, which Uber is spending $125-200 million a quarter to maintain. From the report: Even after increased spending last quarter, revenue growth is slowing. Sales rose 63 percent to $2.8 billion in the second quarter compared with the same period last year. The rate in the first quarter was 70 percent. [Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi] Khosrowshahi is pouring large, undisclosed sums of money into food delivery, logistics and autonomous-car technology. The San Francisco-based company has said the food delivery business, Uber Eats, represents more than 10 percent of its gross bookings. Growth in that segment may be masking a slowdown in Uber's main business.

Comments

B-b-but I contribute so much!! (seriously!)

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe there's a problem with the business model of pissing away money. After all, there's not gonna be an "exit" for Uber.

Re:B-b-but I contribute so much!! (seriously!)

[fluffernutter]

As long as people 'invest' their money willingly and executives get rich, capitalism doesn't see a problem with it.

Re: B-b-but I contribute so much!! (seriously!)

[Anonymous Coward]

"Capitalism" see the problem. You have just read an article in which "capitalism" is demanding to fix the problem.

Re: B-b-but I contribute so much!! (seriously!)

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, because capitalism was too stupid to see this as a business model that can't possibly be profitable--especially the self driving car part.

I'm no socialist, far from it, but I'll acknowledge flaws in markets where I see them and hype is a huge problem in today's financial decisions (see: everything Elon Musk does for examples)

Specifically, Uber has on the one hand an unsustainable model of drivers trading accelerated vehicle depreciation for (not much) short term cash, said model being vulnerable both to local regulations that may or may not be rational, and of course being vulnerable to it simply not being an original idea to tie GPS maps to an app and do some scheduling.

So with self driving cars they'll surely make all kinds of money because nobody wants to pay people, right? Too true in this dreadfully shortsighted society we have but then they'd be taking on all kinds of capital and maintenance expenses that they have zero of right now, plus let me tell you that what I really want out of life is to ride in a driverless car on a Saturday night that someone puked in on the ride before.

Throw in the fact that what made Uber expand in the first place was brashness and frankly ignoring local laws, and now they've done a 180 and are embracing the "get woke, go broke" theory of business with all kinds of SJW bullshit and you have a company that I wouldn't touch with someone else's money.

My point though is that any first year finance student should be able to see through all this and yet tons of professional investors, analysts, and of course media types have been shilling for this kind of economically unsustainable crap for years now.

Re:B-b-but I contribute so much!! (seriously!)

[hwihyw]

If only we allowed "stable genius" politicians to dictate how citizens and companies invested their money, things would be so much better.

Re: B-b-but I contribute so much!! (seriously!)

[Anonymous Coward]

Free market uber alles!

interesting

[hjf]

On one hand, it's interesting how investors are really interested in companies bing a one trick pony. They are investing in a "ride sharing" (LOL) company. They are not interested in a company that does ride sharing AND self driving. If they wanted a self driving car company, they would invest in a self driving car company.

On the other hand, it's interesting how companies refuse to be one trick ponies. Uber saw the writing on the wall. They know in a few years it will be all about self driving. They wan't to be ready for the change. Being first to game is the key.

Basically you have to shake investors off as soon as you can. These people are interested in "money now" as opposed to "money later". This is why companies that operate at a loss all the time have little future.

Re:interesting

[phantomfive]

They are not interested in a company that does ride sharing AND self driving. If they wanted a self driving car company, they would invest in a self driving car company.

I think part of the problem is they'd prefer to invest in a self-driving car company that doesn't kill people.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post is the most stupid read I ever put myself through. Companies that operate at a loss are unable to pay back loans, can't afford operating costs, and can't pay their staff, which eventually means they cannot operate and their investors take a loss. That's why they have "little future." In your anti-investor zeal you forgot that we live on planet Earth, with finite resources and economics. Never go full retard.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, but not in the US. Self driving cars are nonsense, there is no infrastructure investment. You think Detroit is going to have self driving cars? Seriously? You ever been to idk, Montana, Morth Dakota, fuck it, the United States of America? That shit is not going to happen. On the purely federal level, you will have interstate self-driving trucks to be sure. Far more efficient. Self-driving cars on the red mud roads of Alabama? LMFAO

Re:interesting

[110010001000]

I am pretty sure that smart people know that "self-driving" cars won't work as long as roads mix self-driving and human driving cars. It is a dead end and is wasting hundreds of millions of dollars.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I think part of the problem is they'd prefer to invest in a self-driving car company that doesn't kill people.

Good luck finding one of those. The software systems in manually driven cars kills people as well. It's unrealistic to expect death-free cars.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Billions. You mean billions.

Re:interesting

[fluffernutter]

It's unrealistic to expect death-free cars.

So are investors calculating the price of liability for not only deaths, but many fender-benders a day into their risk analysis?

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I think part of the problem is they'd prefer to invest in a self-driving car company that doesn't kill people.

Good luck finding one of those. The software systems in manually driven cars kills people as well. It's unrealistic to expect death-free cars.

nice try https://www.caranddriver.com/features/its-all-your-fault-the-dot-renders-its-verdict-on-toyotas-unintended-acceleration-scare-feature

From the June 2011 edition of Car and Driver:

"Earlier this year, the Department of Transportation released the results of its study into the blizzard of reports that various Toyota and Lexus models were accelerating out of control. The DOT concluded that, other than a number of incidents caused by accelerators hanging up on incorrectly fitted floor mats, the accidents were caused by drivers depressing their accelerators when they intended to apply their brakes. “Pedal misapplication” was the DOT’s delicate terminology for this phenomenon."

Re:interesting

[Rob Y.]

I think it's more that investors are interested in a company that eventually proves it can make a profit. I don't think they have a problem with Uber diversifying - they just want some indication that they're not going to lose their investment first.

Which brings me to the point I originally intended to make. What does it say about our American version of venture Capitalism that, increasingly, the model seems to be to fund a company through years of losses until they eventually achieve monopoly or near-monopoly status and start raking in the money. Would it be appropriate for antitrust legislation to consider running absurd losses while pricing your competition out of business a violation of antitrust law? There are certainly similar restrictions on existing profitable businesses from selling stuff at a loss in order to expand into new markets - so why not restrictions on running an entire enterprise at a loss with a similar goal?

Or does the fact that many of these ventures end up failing make it nearly impossible to enforce such a restriction?

Re:interesting

[quonset]

They should. It's what insurance companies do all the time, and look at how rich Warren Buffet has become because of it.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

On one hand, it's interesting how investors are really interested in companies bing a one trick pony. They are investing in a "ride sharing" (LOL) company. They are not interested in a company that does ride sharing AND self driving. If they wanted a self driving car company, they would invest in a self driving car company.

On the other hand, it's interesting how companies refuse to be one trick ponies. Uber saw the writing on the wall. They know in a few years it will be all about self driving. They wan't to be ready for the change. Being first to game is the key.

Basically you have to shake investors off as soon as you can. These people are interested in "money now" as opposed to "money later". This is why companies that operate at a loss all the time have little future.

first off, it's ride selling, not ride sharing, secondly, investors are motivated by greed first then fear later. We haven't seen the fear part quite yet ...

remember the tower of babel??

Re:interesting

[hjf]

hence the quotes on "ride sharing".

Re: interesting

[that this is not und]

Would it be appropriate for antitrust legislation to consider running absurd losses while pricing your competition out of business a violation of antitrust law?

The term for that is 'dumping' and it is well known activity that anti-trust laws address. Perhaps enforcement has not been vigorous enough.

Re:interesting

[hjf]

Anti investors? Investors are fine. Get the money, grow, and shake investors off (meaning: PAY THEM). It's YOUR company and you get to decide what to do with it. Otherwise they own you and they decide what your company does. No NO.

Re:interesting

[sfcat]

On one hand, it's interesting how investors are really interested in companies bing a one trick pony. They are investing in a "ride sharing" (LOL) company. They are not interested in a company that does ride sharing AND self driving. If they wanted a self driving car company, they would invest in a self driving car company.

On the other hand, it's interesting how companies refuse to be one trick ponies. Uber saw the writing on the wall. They know in a few years it will be all about self driving. They wan't to be ready for the change. Being first to game is the key.

Basically you have to shake investors off as soon as you can. These people are interested in "money now" as opposed to "money later". This is why companies that operate at a loss all the time have little future.

I will do you one better. Uber isn't a viable business without self-driving cars. The entire model is to lose money until they can replace their drivers and then recoup those losses when their AVs becomes viable. These investors that want Uber to sell off the AV division basically don't understand any of this. And this is the type of action that is why being a public company is a double edged sword. On one hand you can sell your equity whenever you want, but on the other hand accountants and financial journalists with no understanding of the business will try to intervene at inopportune moments. This is the CEO's version of "the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent." While accountants run Wall Street, this will remain the case. But the world is an increasingly complex place and its becoming the case that analysts just don't have enough understand of technology to accurately assess most companies today. Even Uber which is a relatively simple business when compared to some of the business models out there.

Re:interesting

[johanw]

They hope, and often openly speculate, that the government will ban non-self driving cars. How to deal with bikers and pedestrians is a question they usually won't answer.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I will do you one better. Uber isn't a viable business without self-driving cars. The entire model is to lose money until they can replace their drivers and then recoup those losses when their AVs becomes viable. These investors that want Uber to sell off the AV division basically don't understand any of this.

No, I think they do understand this. They may simply think that Uber stands little chance of being first to market, or close enough second or third, for the SDC tech to be a factor in its long term health as a company. So they are asking Uber to give up on the SDC tech they don't expect to be a valuable long term bet and concentrate on the short to medium term so they can get their money back and then bail if they want to. It seems pretty rational to me, as if the major manufacturers go with another SDC tech, then it's unlikely that Uber SDC tech will be going into vehicles unless Uber can find someone to build them at a competitive price without exhausting cash flow.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

At this point in time, it could potentially work in limited circumstances. Low-speed (~15 mph) driving seems fairly safe enough and could give the operator time to hit the breaks in case of an emergency. These features could help with turns or parking, even on commercial trailer trucks.

Consumer self-driving won't work because high grade electronics (LIDAR, infrared, etc.) are needed in low-visibility conditions. That's going to drive the cost of a vehicle up beyond $100,000. That's fine for a taxi service where you factor in revenue versus a human driver, but the average consumer can't afford that.

But I doubt true self-driving isn't "a couple years away". There hasn't been enough testing of every conceivable situation. It's at least a decade away, and more like 20-30 years until that happens.

Re:interesting

[evil_core]

Do you think it's the reason that bcachefs still doesn't have any real sponsorship?

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing though is that we don't particularly need completely autonomous cars any time soon. The ones that are currently available that can handle driving in gridlocked traffic, have lane departure warnings and auto-braking are just about all we really need right now. If you've got those things in place, the rest of the functionality of a completely autonomous car can be developed more slowly and responsibly.

Re:interesting

[Geekbot]

Yes, it's really a weird scenario. In the US our streets are excellent in much of the country. But even in those areas, people live out in the suburbs making real public transportation a serious problem. This takes half the problem, people in suburbs needing to get into the cities and kind of resolves it... except for the fact that people in suburbs bought cars because they all have to get to work on time in the morning and also go grocery shopping and also have kids. Uber can't realistically solve this problem without having a large number of the cars that we already have sitting in garages. And Uber can solve half the problem in a city, getting cheaply from one place to another without finding a bus... except that they can't. Because Uber can't function near-term without self driving cars and that's their division that's killing them. Even if the did solve it... no city would want them because they kill existing public transportation which is already a problem.
Companies like Uber can only be of any use if 1) Self driving divisions are successful and then approved in targeted communities 2) they are prey. After Uber dies, if it has put enough work into self-driving, another company eats it, puts its IP to use.
I just find the whole thing silly, because they are solving problems that kind of exist but not really, not how they think they do. Problem they kind of grasp, people need to get from point A to point B and they don't have convenient transportation. The solution to this isn't self driving cars, it's pulling people into the cities they have fled. That is a huge hurdle, but if investors threw money into making cities more liveable it has to be cheaper than throwing something like a billion dollars a year into a car that sits around and waits for your call to drive you from point A to point B.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Also prefer to invest in a self-driving technology that wasn't STOLEN from another company.

Re:interesting

[fafalone]

Wait I thought that was the entire game plan. Invest a fortune in supplanting the existing taxi monopoly by hiring armies of poorly compensated drivers using their own vehicles and providing service far below cost. Then right around the time that's complete, their self-driving cars will be ready and bam, they lay off all their drivers, jack up the price, and have a large profit margin by operating their own self-driving fleet.
Someone else said they didn't need to make self-driving cars, just purchase them. But that would seriously reduce their profitability. What if nobody would even sell to Uber, insisting on renting them out per mile? Or just run their own rideshare? No... if Uber's plan for world domination is going to work, having their own source of self-driving cars is critical.

Personally I think the whole thing is moot anyway; I can't see investors willing to sustain these losses long enough... you need minimum SAE Level 4, and the most important markets, major urban areas with their extreme congestion, poorly marked roads, poor maintenance, and complete inability to get anywhere without driving aggressively.. you need SAE 5. Also peak demand is during bad weather, again needing 5. 5 is just too far off.

Re:interesting

[Aereus]

Want to almost eliminate gridlock? Start enforcing lane discipline in the US. It's all the idiots driving slow in the left lane and then the inevitable lane jockeys trying to shave a few tenths of a second off their commute that cause all of that.

Re:interesting

[thegarbz]

I think part of the problem is they'd prefer to invest in a self-driving car company that doesn't kill people.

Well they can vote with their wallet, there are plenty to choose from.

Re: interesting

[phantomfive]

Apparently they're voting by voting. That's what you can do sometimes.as sharehooders.

Re:interesting

[AmiMoJo]

Waymo's cars seem to work pretty well alone side human drivers. What makes you think they don't?

Re: interesting

[thegarbz]

No they aren't. They are whining things that Shareholders chasing a quick buck often do. There's no formal vote on anything.

Re: interesting

[Rob Y.]

Yeah, I get that the term is 'dumping'. Just not sure how and when it applies to a startup that's not profitable enough to subsidize their dumping with profits from an existing monopoly product.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

what makes you think they want to invest in a one-trick-pony company. investors want to make money, if it means branching out, so be it. Get your head out of your butt and look at any other big company.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

You are incorrectly informed. Please read HIS 2015: Prof. Phil Koopman - A Case Study of Toyota Unintended Acceleration and Software Safety for more in depth details on what really happened, and more up to date information on the settlements and fines that Toyota received over this.

this covers the results of the NASA investigation that occurred in 2011, and was not covered by your Car and Driver article.

Also recall that Toyota settles for $1.6B. And Oklahoma court records clearly indicate that punitive damages were assigned in the Bookout trial.

And finally, in 2014, U.S. Attorney General investigation leads to $1.2B in fines for concealing safety defects

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Just short-term investors wanting to make a quick buck. If Uber can't eventually move to self-driving the company isn't going to make it long term anyway.

Get OUT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because millennial sci-fi delusions NEVER fall apart in the face of reality. It turns out that 25 year-olds *don't* know everything, and that they *weren't* born with magical powers of foresight and genius. Who knew? When I think about all of the money that has been dumped into nonsensical shit like this, my head spins. Don't get me started on the 'sharing' economy, either. Soylent, indeed. Uh, I mean, *Theranos*. No, wait, Uber.

Re:Get OUT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Did a millennial piss in your grits gramps?

Re:Get OUT!

[ph0rk]

Old man yells at cloud.

Re:Get OUT!

[hey!]

Well, the world definitely gets weirder as you get older. The thing to remember is that the sensible world of your youth was just as weird and arbitrary, you just took it for granted.

Re:Get OUT!

[Brett Buck]

But mommy told them they were the smartest boys on Earth and that they could do anything! Don't you go contradicting mommy!

Re: Get OUT!

[that this is not und]

Stepped in the dog shit on my lawn. Stay as long as you like, Fido ate a lot today.

Fuck you, Dara,

[Type44Q]

Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi] Khosrowshahi is pouring large, undisclosed sums of money into food delivery, logistics and autonomous-car technology.

"Throw shit at wall; see what sticks." -Unimaginative moron with finance degree

It really amuses me to watch these VC's incompetently try to monetize every aspect of our fucking existence... they won't be happy until they're the middlemen making 25% on all our transactions coming and going.

Fuck 'em with a huge stick... bigger even than they enjoy.

Re:Fuck you, Dara,

[Type44Q]

In the last few months, Uber bought a startup that rents electric bicycles, invested in another one that rents electric scooters and went to work on its own scooter-rental business.

Those desperate, incompetent motherfuckers...

Re:Fuck you, Dara,

[rsilvergun]

they won't be happy until they're the middlemen making 90% on all our transactions coming and going.

FYFY.

Seriously, this is why it drives me nuts to see so many anti-Union and anti-government folks. The mega corps & investor class have built large institutions to advance their interests. Meanwhile we hear in the working class are actively trying to tear down the ones that advanced ours.

Re:Fuck you, Dara,

[thegarbz]

"Throw shit at wall; see what sticks." -Unimaginative moron with finance degree

Interesting assessment and a good example of why you are incapable of running a company.

Uber - Not a ride sharing service: A software system for short term contract work moving things from A to B
Self Driving - An emerging technology trend that would make moving people from A to B using short term contractors obsolete.
Uber Eats - A logical extension of Uber moving something other than people. Interestingly not an original idea either. I have sent items via a Taxi before, when you absolutely need something now and a courier takes too long.

This isn't at all throwing everything at the wall, this is what is called exploring business opportunities and it is also what separates the $7bn revenue generating Uber from it's tiny (by comparison) competitors.

Re:Fuck you, Dara,

[Waccoon]

I remember when retailers were bitching their heads off about credit card companies taking 3% of every transaction. Today, every transaction service wants a 30% cut... and unlike credit card companies, the new kids refuse to offer arbitration in case the transaction goes awry.

Leeches suck.

Uber needs the self driving division

[rsilvergun]

because long term somebody is going to crack down on their flagrant abuse of the term 'contractor' and eventually make them treat their employees as such. Their plan is to replace the employees before it becomes an issue. But even if they never build a self driving car they're going to need patents to defend themselves and eke out favorable license deals with..

Re:Uber needs the self driving division

[110010001000]

Why do people assume that self-driving cars will EVER exist? It is like people just assume all things are possible. I guess that is what we get for generations being spoiled by progress based on the invention of the transistor.

Re:Uber needs the self driving division

[fluffernutter]

Because they watch too many movies.

Re:Uber needs the self driving division

[Anonymous Coward]

We've put men on the moon

We've invented things that let us see the atoms that make up all matter

We can even observer the things INSIDE those atoms

And you think we can't figure out a way to drive a car. OK, son, step out of the way. We've got this.

Re:Uber needs the self driving division

[Anonymous Coward]

None of those things follow.

Re:Uber needs the self driving division

[110010001000]

We haven't cured the common cold. We haven't made fusion commercially viable. Just because one thing is possible, not all things are possible. You guys always fall into the same traps.

Re:Uber needs the self driving division

[Anonymous Coward]

We already have self-driving vehicles

They just kill people some of the time. But then again, so do our human-driven vehicles. So I call that a tossup and just a matter of tuning the algorithms from here out.

Re:Uber needs the self driving division

[110010001000]

Nope. All the self-driving cars we have always have at least one driver behind the wheel (frequently there are two people). It isn't just "tuning". You can see where the Musk derangement syndrome comes from.

Re:Uber needs the self driving division

[fluffernutter]

If we took today's self driving car and replaced every normal car with one, we would see at least a fifty-fold increase in death rate. This is conservative, when taking into account the amount of miles Waymo is driving without an 'intervention' versus the amount of miles a human drives without an accident.

Re:Uber needs the self driving division

[Rob Y.]

I have no doubt that self-driving cars will SOMEDAY exist. Just not self-driving cars based on what passes for 'artificial intelligence' at the moment. Teaching a car to know the precise locations of street furniture and buildings - and arming it with algorithms that allow it to avoid crashing into things (as long as they've been trained to 'understand' the specific situations the algorithm handles, is a clever bit of data processing, but is not intelligence - artificial or otherwise.

In the coming decades there may indeed be a quantum leap in computer intelligence. And it will probably involve whole new approaches - perhaps in addition to today's approaches that might still be good at the basics of identifying objects and such. And at that point, we'll have self-driving cars, self programming computers and the end of civilization as we know it. But Uber's certainly not going to be the company that gets us there. And whether we want to get there at all is a question worth debating.

Re:Uber needs the self driving division

[LordWabbit2]

None of those things follow.

The do follow, you just seem unable to keep up.

When they said they were going to put a man on the moon, people (like you) said it was impossible and it would never happen. They were wrong.

When they said they were going to create a huge accelerator and smash atoms into each other at really high speeds so they could crack them open to see what was inside, people (like you) said it would destroy the planet and end civilization as we know it. They were wrong.

When they set out to write a computer program that could beat grand masters at chess, people (like you) said it was impossible, that the game was too complicated. They were wrong.

Can you see how it follows now?

I can go on if you like, when they said that they were going to split the atom and create a single bomb that could destroy a city, people (like you) said it was impossible. They were wrong.

When they created the internal combustion engine, people (like you) said it would never replace a horse and buggy.They were wrong.

Do you perhaps drive for Uber or are you maybe a truck driver? Are self driving cars going to replace you?
If the above is true, then I think they should keep working on it. You and people like you are holding humanity back.
Get to the back of the bus.

Re:Uber needs the self driving division

[serviscope_minor]

Why do people assume that self-driving cars will EVER exist?

Because humans are on average shitty drivers and there's nothing magical about driving that makes it perfectly possible for a human but not a machine.

Re:Uber needs the self driving division

[LordWabbit2]

We haven't cured the common cold.

Correct, we haven't. But we have cured lots of other things, like dying from a fucking splinter because infection set in. But maybe we should just stop figuring out how to heal things until we figure out the common fucking cold conundrum. Maybe if more people dropped dead from the common cold there would be more funding for something which is, in essence, not a big fucking problem.

We haven't made fusion commercially viable.

Also true, but once again, the keyword that should be in that sentence is Yet - but maybe we should just give the fuck up and stop? I mean, it's not like it will solve all of humanities energy issues for centuries to come.

not all things are possible

Citation needed - and no, the bible doesn't count.
I think they are, the problem is mouth breathers like you standing in the way.

You guys always fall into the same traps.

Yeah, we do, it's called scientific progress.

Re:Uber needs the self driving division

[LordWabbit2]

This is not about Musk, get your panties out of your crack, why did you even have to bring him up anyway? There are a lot of companies looking into self driving cars. Even if Musk and his unprofitable company died tomorrow - there will still be self driving cars at some point, because EVERYONE can see the value and EVERYONE is working towards it. EVERYONE except you, because you don't understand the technology. I can't cure your ignorance, only you can do that.

Re: Uber needs the self driving division

[that this is not und]

Anybody can list any number of things after the fact and put bold-face 'they were wong' after it. 'Flying cars by 1970.' Own the truth, bro.

Re: Uber needs the self driving division

[that this is not und]

Whoah! Do you have a newsletter to subscribe to?

Re: Uber needs the self driving division

[that this is not und]

Keep the faith, bro.

Ignore those ignorant infidels. Yer so smart.

Re:Uber needs the self driving division

[Powercntrl]

Why do people assume that self-driving cars will EVER exist?

Do you believe the Earth is flat, too? Self-driving vehicles already exist. Heck, you can buy consumer drones for less than a grand that can fly themselves.

Even if AI never gets good enough to fully replace a human, there are still workarounds to make the roads (and other cars) more "machine compatible". The humble old barcode is a perfect example of designing something to be machine readable, at a time when OCR technology wasn't up to the task.

Re:Uber needs the self driving division

[q_e_t]

Very few people said putting a man on the moon was impossible, just that it was very unlikely by the end of the 1960s. Chess is a bad example, though, as it is very controlled in terms of the allowable moves and does not have to be real time, unlike SDCs. But I think SDCs are coming, although the first researchers I met working on it were at a conference I was at in 1995, so it's taking a while.

Re:Uber needs the self driving division

[q_e_t]

Citation needed - and no, the bible doesn't count.

Mathematical proofs that some things are impossible, and the laws of thermodynamics.

Re:Uber needs the self driving division

[LordWabbit2]

laws of thermodynamics

You mean the laws "we" made based on our own limited knowledge? We still don't have a unified theory, why were we bothering to look for the Higgs Boson?

Our mathematical proofs are in the same boat, just because we think we can prove x cannot exist does that mean we are correct, or that we haven't figured out the math to do it?

I am not a mathematician (clearly) but we have repeatedly proven that our "laws" are incorrect, and that we need to rethink about how the universe fits together.

Just because we don't know how to do something does not mean that it is impossible, just that currently it's impossible for us.

Re:Uber needs the self driving division

[LordWabbit2]

Very few people said putting a man on the moon was impossible, just that it was very unlikely by the end of the 1960s.

But they were wrong

SDC's and their wide adoption probably won't happen in my life time (at least in my country) but it's coming, and people who say it's impossible annoy me. Fine, we won't have fully autonomous vehicles in chaotic areas like construction sites. Some construction sites I have worked on require special training and licensing (power stations, strip mines etc.) This is understandable, we are probably decades away from that. But to get onto a linear well demarcated highway and tell your car to stop at point x and then walk away from the controls... that technology is here. The thing is, with the space program they threw vast amounts of money at the problem, that tends to make problems disappear. I am sure the researchers you met in 1995 did not have nearly as much funding, and even if they did, nearly as much compute power available today. There are a LOT of companies working on this, it's not going to go away because people think Musk is an idiot (which I do in some cases) it's here to stay and grow. Soon a truck drivers job is going to be going to the "parking lot" outside of the city to drive the trailer into the city, no more long distance trips by humans who fall asleep, or had a beer or seven. I think that is a good thing.

My family went on a shortish road trip this weekend. My wife and I both hate driving, mostly because we get fucking bored, and we find it stressful watching out for assholes who do stupid shit. The most painful part was the long highway trip between the on ramp and the off ramp. If they automate that I will buy it. When the technology advances and it will they will automate highway driving, then town driving, then city driving and finally drive anywhere (if needed by the vehicle). If they can automate the highway part, I can sit in the back of the "car" and have breakfast with my family while we hurtle down the highway at a sustained 200. I said "car" because if SDC goes mainstream the cars as we know them will be radically different, at least internally.

Re:Uber needs the self driving division

[Swistak]

Lots of people thought Solar Freakin Roadways will revolutionize the word. they were wrong!

Re:Uber needs the self driving division

[jezwel]

One of my colleagues from another division sat opposite me for a few days last week, trying out a high-powered workstation (nothing super special, just a souped up workstation) that the hardware team are looking at. In that small amount time he cranked out first a CPU based then a much faster GPU algorithm for recognising and classifying road signs from our annually captured state road videos.

We're also working on a trial that retro-fits cars with devices that will allow inter-car communication plus also talk to smart roadside assets.

The rate of progress is too high to assume that machine vision and learning won't be able to handle self-driving vehicles in simple then increasing complex situations in the nearish future.

Re:Uber needs the self driving division

[Anonymous Coward]

'I know what you're thinking about,' said Tweedledum; 'but it isn't so, nohow.'

'Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'

Re:Uber needs the self driving division

[aticus.finch]

None of those things follow.

The do follow, you just seem unable to keep up. When they said they were going to put a man on the moon, people (like you) said it was impossible and it would never happen. They were wrong. When they said they were going to create a huge accelerator and smash atoms into each other at really high speeds so they could crack them open to see what was inside, people (like you) said it would destroy the planet and end civilization as we know it. They were wrong. When they set out to write a computer program that could beat grand masters at chess, people (like you) said it was impossible, that the game was too complicated. They were wrong. Can you see how it follows now? I can go on if you like, when they said that they were going to split the atom and create a single bomb that could destroy a city, people (like you) said it was impossible. They were wrong. When they created the internal combustion engine, people (like you) said it would never replace a horse and buggy.They were wrong.

"They" also said time-travel into the past is impossible. Just because someone once said something was impossible and then it became possible it does not mean that the things now being claimed as possible would ever be possible.

For example, Turing proved that there are classes of problems where, not only can we not determine the solution, we also cannot determine if there is a solution.

You need to explain why you believe that autonomous driving on current roads is a problem for which there can exist a solution, because from a software PoV it is not possible to determine if any given problem has a solution (other than trivial problems with no conditionals).

Re:Uber needs the self driving division

[fafalone]

So because your colleague solved the easiest problem in self-driving, you conclude that the hardest problems are also solvable in the near future?
When I was 13 I made a chatbot for AOL, that must mean GAI will be here in the nearish future too!

Of course level 4 type automation, geofenced areas in good weather conditions, is right around the corner. But you're missing the leap it takes to get to level 5, anywhere in any condition, able to handle unexpected situations, with no human available. It's a lot more than just expanding your object recognition. Although I suppose it depends on exactly how you're defining 'nearish future'... if that can mean 'minimum several decades' then sure I guess nearish future.

Re:Uber needs the self driving division

[q_e_t]

Some of the things you claim people said were impossible were said to be impossible with the engineering available at the time, not due to theoretical constraints. There's a huge difference. For example, Maxim (he of the machine gun) said that flight was possible in the late 19th century, just not with current engine power:weight ratios. He'd managed to get a steam plane to lift off a bit, in an uncontrolled way, so had an idea what he was talking about. That was pretty much the objection to the moon landings being possible - not with 1960s technology many believed, although they were wrong. But apart from flat earthers basically no one was saying with wasn't possible at all. But there are some things we can say with pretty much certainty, such as it not being possible to simulate the whole of the universe in arbitrary detail within this universe (and that comes down to thermodynamics, as well as information theory).

Re:Uber needs the self driving division

[LordWabbit2]

You need to explain why you believe that autonomous driving on current roads is a problem for which there can exist a solution

At the very least when we develop real A.I. instead of fancy algorithms we will have autonomous cars. Whether we class these artificial intelligence's as actual humans is another topic. Will we ever actually develop full A.I.? Who knows. But why not keep trying? VR headsets came out years ago, but they sucked, and it failed. Years later we have VR headsets back again, this time WAY better. Replacing humans with machines is a big cost saving for most companies. Sure the initial outlay may be high, but the savings in the long run are worth it. No more sick days, no more pension payments, no more mandatory works hours and breaks. No more unions. They will get self driving vehicles right, even if it's just for the long haul on clearly marked roadways at first, but as the technology matures it will be certain suburbs etc. and it will spread. If you try order an autonomous cab in some backwater region with only dirt road access it will be denied. People seem to think we need to get it all correct (dirt roads and all), but we don't. We can start using it now.

Re:Uber needs the self driving division

[LordWabbit2]

Your point being what exactly? The someone was wrong once? Yes they were, who knew? People are wrong all the time, that is the entire point of the post, I am sorry I could not make that clear enough. Just because someone says abc is not possible does not mean we should not at least try, especially since it looks like we have part of abc working anyways, just not to where we want it to be. So instead of replacing the human we assist him, reducing accidents by 90%. Ten years on, it's deemed the human is no longer required, and we have autonomous cars.

Doesn't need to invent the self driving car

[perpenso]

Uber does not need to be the inventor of the self driving car. They only need to be a user of the self driving car. And frankly they are behind in self-driving R&D and doing a crappy job at it as well.

Re:Doesn't need to invent the self driving car

[Kjella]

Uber does not need to be the inventor of the self driving car. They only need to be a user of the self driving car. And frankly they are behind in self-driving R&D and doing a crappy job at it as well.

But what value does Uber add to that? Self-driving cars don't have to be recruited, there's no need for background checks, there won't be any drivers mistreating customers or driving recklessly, there's no pool of additional cars that can be called in through surge pricing, no car cares what rides it takes or where it ends up or how long it stays idle and the car will probably have its own insurance for traffic accidents. It's basically a clone army on wheels. There's also no quick scale-up, to increase your market you need more cars rolling off the assembly line with your custom sensor/processing/control kit, you can't just use existing cars like Uber can and the whole area must be mapped out and tested first.

I guess the litmus test will be Phoenix when Waymo finally launches their service, it's on a massive ramp-up now so it can't be long - they've driven as many miles in 2018 as all the previous years combined. If Waymo essentially got "like Uber, but with self-driving cars" nailed down I predict a tough future for ride sharing and taxi companies. There's not really any reason for Waymo to share those profits with anyone else and there's nobody else even close to launching.

Re:Doesn't need to invent the self driving car

[q_e_t]

Just because a car is self-driving doesn't mean it necessarily turns up empty to pick someone up. There are still vectors for attack of the vulnerable, unfortunately.

Re:Doesn't need to invent the self driving car

[bluegutang]

Uber is a taxi company. Taxi companies do not deserve multi-billion-dollar valuations.

The only thing that makes them more than a taxi company is the possibility that they will be the first to produce a self-driving car, and thus become 100x more profitable than other taxi companies.

The chances of that happening appear dimmer now than 2 years ago, but it's still the only reason they are worth investing in.

Re:Doesn't need to invent the self driving car

[thegarbz]

Uber does not need to be the inventor of the self driving car. They only need to be a user of the self driving car.

Nope. The way the industry is going with everyone playing things as close to their chests as possible, if you didn't invent self driving technology you can bet your arse you are going to get absolutely screwed as a user of the technology. Uber isn't trying to create something to sell as much as it is Uber trying to avoid appeasing the rent seeking leeches of the future.

These aren't the cars of your childhood. They are bogged down by the EULAs of the modern technology world.

Re:Doesn't need to invent the self driving car

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber will have the customer base and the mindshare. They already do.

Re:Doesn't need to invent the self driving car

[drinkypoo]

Uber will have the customer base and the mindshare. They already do.

That's worth something, but I don't think it's worth so much. Everyone already knows there's a direct alternative to Uber (Lyft) and people have demonstrated a willingness to move from service to service in other industries in the past. Myspace was obsoleted by Facebook. If some other player offers self-driving vehicles before Uber does, then they will gain mindshare while Uber loses it, and the market will switch. To the user, it's a small matter to stop using the Uber app, and start using some other app.

Re:Doesn't need to invent the self driving car

[perpenso]

No, the numbers don't add up. What they are spending, losing, seems far beyond any "rent seeking".

Re:Doesn't need to invent the self driving car

[perpenso]

Sorry but even two years ago the chance of them being first was quite dim. And we're talking about a project that will take a decade, probably multiple decades. That's the way AI projects work.

Re:Doesn't need to invent the self driving car

[perpenso]

People often talk about mindshare and network effect but often forget about switching cost. The former only work with high switching costs. Uber is very easily replaced by a consumer.

Re:Doesn't need to invent the self driving car

[Waccoon]

Uber does not need to be the inventor of the self driving car. They only need to be a user of the self driving car.

But that's not where the money is, because anyone can be a user.

Re:Doesn't need to invent the self driving car

[thegarbz]

Don't confuse technological development with a single outcome.

The drive on one side is to prevent rent-seeking. The driver on the other is to become the landlord. It's not a case of paying royalties or not. It's a case of paying royalties or being paid royalites. There is no "do nothing" case which doesn't involve the long term demise of Uber's business as a cheap people mover (which is also why they expanded beyond moving people).

Re:Doesn't need to invent the self driving car

[stub667]

Why would the inventor of the self driving car allow Uber to use their cars? The inventor of the self driving car will be running the profitable fleet and taxi services themselves and taking the profit themselves. And the software licensing can easily block competitors, unless they pay a premium to use the commercial version. The cost will be what the market can bare, which will be a lot. This is why lots of people are trying to invent the self driving car, rather than waiting for someone else to do it and license it to them.

Re:Doesn't need to invent the self driving car

[perpenso]

The odds of Uber ever receiving rent is quite low. They were behind and highly unlikely to catch up, more likely to slowly fall farther and farther behind.

Re:Doesn't need to invent the self driving car

[perpenso]

It is questionable that the inventor/manufacturer of the self driving car would want to get into the taxi business. Its not their area of expertise. Using you logic Ford and GM could have taken over the taxi business decades ago.

The taxi business is highly regulated, as uber is increasingly aware of. And once you are operating those self driving cars yourself you no longer have the facade of the independent contractor to attempt to isolate yourself from those regulations.

Re:Doesn't need to invent the self driving car

[thegarbz]

The odds of Uber ever receiving rent is quite low.

That's entirely dependent on their R&D producing patents.

They were behind and highly unlikely to catch up, more likely to slowly fall farther and farther behind.

Really you should know better than to make claims like that in the technology sector, especially where technology is in its infancy and development depends on R&D + poaching the right people from the competition or getting in first to capture some new PhD research.

Re:Doesn't need to invent the self driving car

[perpenso]

poaching the right people from the competition or getting in first to capture some new PhD research.

Apple, Google, Tesla, etc will overwhelmingly get the better people. Uber seems not to be operating with the top people: "Uber's self-driving car system detected an Arizona pedestrian about six seconds before the vehicle it was in killed the woman in March. But the system never took action to prevent the incident, according to the preliminary results of a National Transportation Safety Board investigation. Uber engineers had intentionally disabled the Volvo's emergency braking system "to reduce the potential for erratic vehicle behavior" but did not program the system to alert the human operator to manually brake the vehicle, NTSB reported Thursday."
https://www.usatoday.com/story...

If I had to guess, they were operating on the public roads prematurely rather than the closed test track in order to give the illusion of better progress on their R&D. I've seen other companies play games to manufacture the impression of progress to acquire or maintain investments.

And it makes sense to me that Uber is not able to recruit the top tier, they aren't really a high tech company, a serious research organization. Sure they are a raise investment capital success, but their success lies in a unique business model not in any technological development. I.e. they use ordinary citizens and their cars for a taxi service. They organized these citizens with a phone app. A novel business process, quite mundane technology.

Uber Should Switch To Linux!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear it is a panacea for all business woes. Open source software with many eyes will fix everything ailing Uber. It'll cost less, to boot!

Re:Uber Should Switch To Linux!

[Anonymous Coward]

The year of self driving Linux

Re: Uber Should Switch To Linux!

[that this is not und]

Throw off the yoke of Micro$oft and be freeeee!

You'll be free, hackers!

The question no one is asking

[MikeDataLink]

How is this even possible?

Seriously. Look at their business model. They have a frakin' smartphone app. They don't own the cars or have employees and they take a 25% cut of every ride.

Please tell me how they can spend $3Bn a year in the first place? What are they spending it on? Two college kids in dorm room could write the app and keep it updated.

Mike

Re:The question no one is asking

[perpenso]

Well there is also the professional to design, maintain and operate the database on AWS. And the business development guy to sell rider's location data to facebook and others.

Re:The question no one is asking

[MikeDataLink]

My two college kids in a dorm room is an obvious exaggeration. I was simply trying to make a light of the fact there is no way it costs $3bn a year to run Uber without a LOT of unnecessary spending.

Re:The question no one is asking

[perpenso]

One DB guy and a business development guy is also an exaggeration. :-)

Re: The question no one is asking

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you did not start a Software company of you own then. Uber has about 5k highly paid engineers, well north of 10k operational/supporting staffers, to maintain, update and operate the apps that you think you can do with just a few nerds.

Re: The question no one is asking

[Anonymous Coward]

Another hint: providing insurance to drivers alone can chop 5~10% out of the 25% withholding. People did not ask this question probanly because those with experiences understand, and those without trust Uber employees are not incompetent.

Re:The question no one is asking

[jeffasselin]

Bribes. Bribes to politicians to either ignore their flagrant violations of laws and regulations or to make sure same laws are changed.

Re: The question no one is asking

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do they need 5k engineers? To update 1 app.

Re: The question no one is asking

[that this is not und]

Why does the entire Internet need anybody to support it? We have the browser already....

Re: The question no one is asking

[MikeDataLink]

trust Uber employees are not incompetent.

Losing $900 million in a quarter with no road to profitability in sight. Let that sink in for a second and then re-read what you wrote.

Re: The question no one is asking

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, who do they think they are, Elon Musk?

Re: The question no one is asking

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, who do they think they are, Elon Musk?

There is a difference you know? Tesla actually has a plan to profitability and so far has executed it pretty flawlessly. Which is why their investors keep buying more stock.

Uber on the other hand is in a spending free-for-all with no real plan. Which is why investors are not happy.

Re: The question no one is asking

[djinn6]

Nope. Uber is a private company and don't need to tell you what their plan is.

Re:The question no one is asking

[Anonymous Coward]

They have a security division active 24 hours a day to wipe all computers in any of their world wide offices in case of a police search. They have a research team tasked with the identification of law enforcement personal from their phones location data in order to avoid sending cars to plain clothes officers and avoid other unannounced checks. They most likely also spend a small fortune on social media to spread positive "news" and bury anything negative as far as they can - remember was the pedestrians fault for crossing a "pitch black" road, why of course it is normal to drive 70 mph when I could not even see my own hand in front of me (reality: well lit road, bad dashcam footage, Uber disabling all patented non visual sensors). Basically they spend a lot of money on doing questionable things in order to protect their questionable business model.

Re:The question no one is asking

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. The company is too old to be able to say they are still working the kinks out.

Either they are incompetent managers or their business model doesn't work, or both.

Re:The question no one is asking

[Anonymous Coward]

I love ignorant comments like this. "Uber is just a smartphone app, its fucking trivial!" Is it? Hint: No.

Do you know the infrastructure needed to handle a trip in the app? How about thousands of them per second? Uber has over 90k physical servers across multiple datacenters - none of that is free. Next, look at boots on the ground in every city that Uber operates. I'm not counting drivers here because they aren't employees - just global staff. Uber employs about 18k full time employees globally - 5-6k of which are in the SF Bay Area. Do you know what Senior Engineers in the Bay Area at a top tier tech firm make? Salary alone is around 200k per engineer. That's not counting all the other costs Uber incurs to pay for benefits. And yes it takes a large team of engineers to maintain and improve the Uber app and infrastructure. You could probably task two kids in a college dorm room with making something that *looks* like the Uber app, but it wouldn't do anything. It certainly wouldn't get you a ride at the press of a button.

Then we have R&D... Uber is reinvesting about 100-200million each quarter into ATG, the autonomous car division.

I didn't even get into the other products like Eats.

Self driving division a vanity project

[perpenso]

The self driving division is a vanity project. Their R&D is behind others and they are doing a crappy job at it in general.

Replacing drivers is absolutely the goal but they can do that with a self driving car that someone else invents.

Re:Self driving division a vanity project

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I agree with rsilvergun. In the long term, practical self-driving cars will be the reality. The average consumer will happily get their ride through an app from Uber or Apple or Google or Lyft or Walmart or Ford -- a ride is a commodity to them. If Uber finds itself more than a year or so behind that footrace, it will be completely crushed. Crushed as in 99%-100% of their valuation will evaporate.

At this point, it is conceivable that the race is a 10+ year marathon rather a 5 year jog. If the former, maybe throwing money at the problem today will prove unwise. OTOH, assume it is a long and be wrong, and Uber loses ~$50 billion in valuation.

Re:Self driving division a vanity project

[perpenso]

Self driving cars are likely to come from an existing auto manufacturer, uber won't be locked out of purchasing these. Apple, Google, whoever is not going to be able to tell their manufacturing partner who they can and cannot sell cars too.

Re:Self driving division a vanity project

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Good point.

Re:Self driving division a vanity project

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple, Google, whoever is not going to be able to tell their manufacturing partner who they can and cannot sell cars too.

Sure they will be able to dictate that kind of deal if they wanted to. But they won't because they will make more money with unrestricted sales.

Day traders,...

[Archfeld]

The short term stock investors seeking instant profit sure make it difficult for a company to do any sort of long term growth plan or invest in anything for a potential future.

Re:Day traders,...

[perpenso]

The short term stock investors seeking instant profit sure make it difficult for a company to do any sort of long term growth plan or invest in anything for a potential future.

Well the President is working on that problem, he wants to get rid of quarterly SEC filings. ;-)

Re:Day traders,...

[LynnwoodRooster]

Uber was founded in 2009. It's been 9 years, and there is still no path to profitability in sight. They had their time as a "startup" to grow and get established; at what point do they move from being a growing startup to being a money-losing operation?

Re: Day traders,...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was waiting for someone to bring some anti Trump bullshit into this debate like is done on every other topic on Slashdot lately.

However, your statement this time is doubly ignorant because focusing on a longer time horizon for reporting is EXACTLY what this economy needs. I say this, btw, as an options trader who loves to make money on tech companies screwing up their quarterlies. FB and TWTR were comical goldmines, and don't even get me started on TSLA. I'd gladly give up half of that excitement to be able to trade and invest in companies with serious sustainable business models though.

Re: Day traders,...

[Anonymous Coward]

How is a comment that the President potentially did something helpful an anti-Trump comment?

Your political lens/insecurities is causing you to have a whoosh moment, the point of the comment was that quarterly reports feed the short term thinking problem.

Re:Day traders,...

[djinn6]

I guess nowadays a multi-billion dollar company can be a startup.

Re:Day traders,...

[ayesnymous]

You realize that Uber isn't even a publicly traded company yet?

Re:Day traders,...

[Archfeld]

Yes I do but its' value is still compared to and hugely effected by a market that is ruled by currency speculation, and innuendo as much as actual performance. A butterfly shits in Katmandu and a financial speculator with questionable skills and knowledge decides that a large corporation wasn't up to par and the entire market shivers.

Logistics

[fluffernutter]

Whether or not anyone can get self driving to work, the logistical problems are the real killer. Who is responsible if the car makes a mistake? Not the owner, because they aren't controlling it. Who will insurance companies charge for liability insurance? When there is a construction site, who pays for the time to set it up so that autonomous cars can navigate it? I hope not tax payers. Who is responsible if they make a mistake? How do you stop people from simply walking in front of them whenever they want, knowing they will stop? Lots of things to figure out.

Re:Logistics

[fluffernutter]

I forgot my point, automated driving is simply too far away for Uber to consider as a business model right now, so they had better get their act in gear and get profitable without it. Also, six taxi drivers have already committed suicide as their medallions become worthless, other cities are using taxpayer money to compensate taxi drivers. Huge messes to figure out.

Re:Logistics

[MikeDataLink]

Also, six taxi drivers have already committed suicide as their medallions become worthless, other cities are using taxpayer money to compensate taxi drivers. Huge messes to figure out.

Times change. We advance. We can't be held hostage to the old ways. If we worried about that we'd still be driving horse and buggies around because the wheel makers (blacksmiths) and horse breeders would have lost their jobs.

Re:Logistics

[fluffernutter]

You still can't take a person's livelihood and throw it in the dumpster. They trusted their jurisdiction to uphold the laws. It's not like they were participating in a known risky venture like investing. How would you feel if Uber decided to make your house a parking lot and the city gave them approval to bulldoze it without any compensation for you?

Re:Logistics

[110010001000]

That is wrong. We don't always "advance". Sometimes we go backwards, sometimes things never happen at all. Progress is not guaranteed. As of right now self-driving cars DO NOT WORK and there is no evidence that it ever will.

Re:Logistics

[MikeDataLink]

As of right now self-driving cars DO NOT WORK and there is no evidence that it ever will.

Remember when Blackberry said "PC Guys" (apple) will never figure out a better phone?
How about when Western Union's CEO said no one will ever use the internet to send money?
How about when Time Magazine called Amazon's model "sure to flop"?

You should learn from others mistakes before making statements like that.

Re:Logistics

[Anonymous Coward]

None of your examples involve multi-ton vehicles hurtling around at speed by the thousands among millions of people every day.

But if you think they're relevant, more power to you I guess.

Re:Logistics

[fluffernutter]

Ten times more dangerous and complicated than flight, with 2% of the regulation and oversight, if that.

Re:Logistics

[Anonymous Coward]

Times change. We advance. We can't be held hostage to the old ways. If we worried about that we'd still be driving horse and buggies around because the wheel makers (blacksmiths) and horse breeders would have lost their jobs.

It’s far more likely that the personal automobile will be relegated to a novelty and disappear from the lived experience of the average person.

Cars epitomize an old way of thinking that has hit a dead end. Not because car tech has stagnated, but because of all the problems cars created (energy waste, sprawl, etc.) that it was assumed would be resolved by. . . something. . . eventually.

Electric cars, self driving cars, flying cars. These are all extrapolations of “old ways”, rather than actual advancement.

Re:Logistics

[hey!]

It's more complicated if you insist on a solution that makes sense a priori, or at least clearly makes more sense a priori than any other solution possibly could.

What human beings do when faced with situations like this is they adopt a set of largely obvious conventions that seem objectively correct and more sensible after we get used to them. That's pretty much how everything that is governed by law works. Something like private property seems as natural a part of universe as gravity or momentum, but if you look closely you find a number of weird corner cases (like easement-by-necessity or theft-by-finding) that demonstrate that property is just a set of useful conventions.

Re:Logistics

[110010001000]

You are missing the point: just because set of things happens, doesn't mean all things are going to happen. You should learn to actually make something that is successful first. Just because you can do 90% of something doesn't mean the last 10% is possible. You are probably a computer guy who has been spoiled with rapid progress in that fields. Well guess what? That gravy train is over. Digital computing is hitting a dead end, hard. And the success of all this "progress" is dependent on that train continuing on.

Re:Logistics

[fluffernutter]

That's just it. There is the common 80-20 rule.. 80% is easy, 20% is a real bitch. For a spreadsheet application, maybe you don't need all of that last 20% for it to be perfect. For automated heavy machinery cruising around at high speed in public with manual cars and people and animals; you do.

Re:Logistics

[fluffernutter]

So you're proposing a subway that comes through my basement, even though I live 15 mins away from the nearest city?

Re:Logistics

[fluffernutter]

As a tax payer I'm afraid I must insist that I know how it is going to work before hand, before cities are forced to close these gaps with my money.

Re: Logistics

[Anonymous Coward]

Myspace, Napster, every Internet grocery delivery scheme ever, Yahoo, Altavista...I could go on. Don't rattle off the fortunate few as proving that Internet businesses as a whole do anything besides ruin lives and fortunes.

Re:Logistics

[drinkypoo]

Times change. We advance. We can't be held hostage to the old ways. If we worried about that we'd still be driving horse and buggies around because the wheel makers (blacksmiths) and horse breeders would have lost their jobs.

You still can't take a person's livelihood and throw it in the dumpster. They trusted their jurisdiction to uphold the laws. It's not like they were participating in a known risky venture like investing.

What? Yes, that's exactly what they were doing. They invested in their own business, which was risky given the prospects for that business going forward. As an investor in their business, they are responsible for being familiar with the risks involved, and investing accordingly.

Just another reason why we need UBI, so that when people get those things wrong, they don't wind up on the street — which winds up costing everyone money.

Re:Logistics

[fluffernutter]

Well, I guess you would consider it fortunate that they are committing suicide; for it means your tax dollars don't have to support them.

Re:Logistics

[fluffernutter]

Besides, that's not how local governments represented the taxi industry when these people went in and you know it. These people were completely duped, and that's why they get so backed into a corner they are now killing themselves.

Re:Logistics

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're proposing a subway that comes through my basement, even though I live 15 mins away from the nearest city?

I’m proposing that you will live in a location where walking/mass transit can meet your needs.

Re: Logistics

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the proposition is that you loose your house and move to the city. There is no reason for you to live in the suburbs. You and your entire family should live within an apartment with 90 sqft. per person and 100 sqft worth of common space. One bathroom per family no matter the size.

Re:Logistics

[Anonymous Coward]

As I have said many times before, (widely available) self-driving cars will not happen in our lifetimes. It's clear even the investors understand this.

Re:Logistics

[fluffernutter]

Considering I moved where I am now to get away from huge populations, I doubt it. My house is private and surrounded by nature, yet I can drive 10 minutes to a Costco where people don't fight over parking spots because the one store that is here is actually reasonable to serve the population. I'm not breathing in pollution. It shows in everyone here who are friendly because they are happy.

You can keep your dystopia that has everyone crowded into one small space as people scrap each other to keep their own little piece of it.

Re: Logistics

[fluffernutter]

"Here is your assigned residence, citizen!"

Re:Logistics

[hey!]

Sure, we'd all like to know that everything is going to work out perfectly. I'm just saying we have a consistent habit of learning to live with much less than perfection.

I don't think we'll solve the problems intrinsic to self-driving cars, I think we'll learn to live with them, just like we've learned to live with all the problems highways create. We won't see those problems as the consequence of choice, although they will be. We'll see them as just the way things are.

I have no doubt self-driving cars are coming, and when they do they'll be a huge PITA, and the costs and benefits will be distributed grossly unfairly. I have no doubt self-driving cars are going to cost the taxpayer a bundle, much of which will be spent dubiously or even irresponsibly. But that doesn't mean they won't happen; it's no different from any other huge thing that burdens the public, like highways or national defense. We really *should* keep a critical attitude towards all those things but it's almost deviant behavior politically speaking to question spending that's become habitual, like highway construction or big ticket weapon systems.

Re:Logistics

[fluffernutter]

So what you are saying is that self driving cars will cause more problems for people. In that case I don't agree with them at all, until someone can demonstrate one that is MUCH safer than humans.

Re:Logistics

[Anonymous Coward]

Your lifestyle will become a luxury that few can afford. This will drive the cost even higher, as fewer people are willing to shoulder the infrastructure burdens that make it possible. It will also wipe out the value of these properties that nobody can afford to occupy.

If you are rich enough to maintain your own roads etc and don’t rely on propert values, then no problem. I’m am truly envious, though I would spend the money differently.

I agree that many cities suck now. But there will be no alternative to improving them (and likely lowering expectations).

Living in the suburbs/exurbs and visiting the city regularly is a dead end lifestyle that will collapse under the weight of its resource requirements. The idea that people will continue to commute for hours a day, but that this okay because they will be able to spend the time watching/clicking the idiot box or working is absurd.

Re:Logistics

[fluffernutter]

I doubt society will last long with everyone crammed into cities. With increased density comes increased crime, more insensitivity, and greater conflict. Authorities have a more difficult time keeping up, since any small issue can flare up quickly. It becomes more difficult to get help to people who need it. You can't treat humans like sardines and still expect them to act human. As I alluded to, there is a notable difference in how people behave to each other here and America is already on the brink of major civil conflict as it is.

Also, everyone around me pays property taxes to support the services we have, which are much lighter because we don't need maintained water supply, gas supply or sewage. We would live without a paved road or without garbage pickup every week. I don't see anything getting that bad.

Re: Logistics

[Anonymous Coward]

"Here is your assigned residence, citizen!"

Funny how the sky is limit when we are talking about advancements for cars, but there is no hope of improvement when it comes to human dwellings.

Re:Logistics

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at Japan. It doesn’t have these problems with crime that you assume are inevitable. I’d take the humanity of the average Tokyo resident over the humanity of the average rural American. There are cities all over the world that function just fine. American cities don’t suck because they are cities. They suck because they are American.

Moreover, the alternative to more people moving to cities is more people moving to your neck if the woods. So what problem are you really solving by writing off the idea of better cities?

Re:Logistics

[fluffernutter]

Where I live, there is so much space it doesn't really matter; I know someone personally who just purchased a 169 acre lot. The Japanese are inherently far more polite and accepting of their environment than Americans are. Due to gun control, they have near zero gun deaths a year. I doubt America could easily reach the density of Japan without conflict.

Re:Logistics

[hey!]

Yep, but they'll solve problems too. Most things are like that.

Re:Logistics

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, everyone around me pays property taxes to support the services we have, which are much lighter because we don't need maintained water supply, gas supply or sewage. We would live without a paved road or without garbage pickup every week. I don't see anything getting that bad.

Are you ready to pool your money and buy all the land needed to run your dirt road to the city limits? Even the remaining regional arteries are going to be exorbitantly expensive to access with a private car, because they will cater to commercial transport and mass transit.

Rural America has been America’s most spoiled, least efficient welfare society for generations. It’s no surprise that the true costs are beyond what people can “see”.

Re:Logistics

[edi_guy]

"You still can't take a person's livelihood and throw it in the dumpster. They trusted their jurisdiction to uphold the laws"

Seriously? I appreciate the sentiment, but this idea that the law/govt or whomever is looking out for you is not reflected in current society, nor any society since time immemorial. Folks with the money and/or influence have and always will tilt the game their way at the expense of others and as other posters have written, that is a risk that the 'pleebs' need to be aware of an account for. People are getting screwed over all the time...union busting, 340b, tax cuts for the mega-rich and corps, weird loopholes for wall street types, the list is endless.

Re:Logistics

[fluffernutter]

So you have made preparations for someone to come and take your house without notice? Because that's essentially what you are saying people should just deal with.

Re:Logistics

[fluffernutter]

As long as they don't create problems for people who never asked for autonomous driving. I sure don't care how long it takes.

Re:Logistics

[Comrade Ogilvy]

You may well be correct that practical automated driving is too far off to throw so much money at today. I do not know, I can only guess.

However, not getting the game and being wrong could cause the Uber company valuation to evaporate to nothing. Rides are a commodity. And if Apple or Google or Walmart or Ford can offer an app that provides a cheaper ride than Uber, Uber is over.

Re:Logistics

[Kjella]

Whether or not anyone can get self driving to work, the logistical problems are the real killer. Who is responsible if the car makes a mistake? Not the owner, because they aren't controlling it. Who will insurance companies charge for liability insurance? When there is a construction site, who pays for the time to set it up so that autonomous cars can navigate it? I hope not tax payers. Who is responsible if they make a mistake? How do you stop people from simply walking in front of them whenever they want, knowing they will stop? Lots of things to figure out.

But it's just that, decisions.

Who is responsible if the car makes a mistake? Not the owner, because they aren't controlling it.

Legally, probably the car company as a condition of their "license" to drive.

Who will insurance companies charge for liability insurance?

Even if somebody else is driving today the owner must have insurance, then the insurance company goes after whoever is at fault.

When there is a construction site, who pays for the time to set it up so that autonomous cars can navigate it?

There's probably rules for how a construction site should be marked today. That's what autonomous cars have to deal with.

Who is responsible if they make a mistake?

Who is responsible now? Lots of people cause traffic jams, I'd say mostly nobody. Like if you have an accident and block the road those blocked don't get paid.

How do you stop people from simply walking in front of them whenever they want, knowing they will stop?

How do you stop that today? Cops and fines, I'd wager. I mean they could probably get this recorded + live streamed with GPS coordinates to the nearest police cruiser.

Re:Logistics

[Powercntrl]

As of right now self-driving cars DO NOT WORK and there is no evidence that it ever will.

This isn't "warp drive" where we're constrained by the laws of physics. We can equip human-operated cars with transponders (as part of vehicle registration, to ensure it rolls out to everyone), and make changes to roads (QR codes on signs, perhaps?) to make things more machine-compatible.

Re:Logistics

[hey!]

I sympathize with your position, but in all probability it will cause problems for people who not only never asked for autonomous driving, because that's how the world works. If everything that caused problems for people who didn't ask for them didn't happen, then practically nothing would happen. Cars create problems for people who never drive; bike lanes and mass transit create problems for people who prefer to drive.

Re:Logistics

[fluffernutter]

Who funds the modification of the signs? Yes I know the technology is cheap, but city labor isn't. Automated car companies can feel free to start a fund to do it, but it shouldn't be on the taxpayers. Perhaps the city could do it but charge a fee to autonomous car owners to recoup the money.

Re:Logistics

[fluffernutter]

Well, I'm in Canada. Our government is actually interested in keeping us safe. This means roads are paved so snow can be cleared. If snow doesn't get cleared and someone gets hurt, it's on the government if they don't have a reasonable way into the hospital. I didn't realize America was that bad.

Re:Logistics

[fluffernutter]

Even if somebody else is driving today the owner must have insurance, then the insurance company goes after whoever is at fault.

Because it is within the power of the person driving to control the vehicle, so the owner must ensure the person is reliable. If no one is actually controlling the car, you have a different situation. It's like riding a bus or taxi all the time. You don't insure a bus to ride on it.

There's probably rules for how a construction site should be marked today

Yes there is, but none of it involves mapping an exact route digitally on a map so cars don't go bombing through the construction site. Cones and blockades and signs need to be set up a certain way, but will what they do today be enough for autonomous vehicles? If there is extra time or extra technology required then there is extra cost. Tax payers should not be footing the bill if there is only a minority with autonomous vehicles.

Re:Logistics

[BrianMarshall]

So why hasn't another big player moved into ride-sharing. Uber's 25% cut would seem to provide a lot of room for competitors to offer a better price.

Re:Logistics

[Anonymous Coward]

There -are- other apps in the marketplace. Lyft, for example. They just do a better job of not getting sued.

Re:Logistics

[q_e_t]

Why shouldn't tax payers pay, as they gain the benefit via SDCs in this instance? Sat navs might also benefit from being able to read signs as an additional form of assistance. In reality, reading individual warning signs or other directive signs in good light is relatively easy, but what is not simple is making sense of the multiple signs leading up to a junction, possibly with some missing or obscured, or incorrect, including significant amounts of text. That can be a problem for humans too, though, so the answer is fix the signage.

Re:Logistics

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference in crime rates between countries is larger than the difference in crime rate between urban and rural within countries. For example, the UK violent crime rate per 100,000 in urban areas is 22, in rural, 11. It's difficult to get exactly comparable figures for the USA, but for metropolitan areas in the USA the figure is 400, non-metropolitan 100. So not only is the figure in either location much higher in the USA, the disparity is greater. If violence in rural areas of the USA was the same as the urban rate in the UK, it would probably be a reduction

Since Japan was mentioned, crime there is falling (halved since 2000), yet the population has not become more rural.

Re: Logistics

[q_e_t]

Isn't a loose house only legal in Nevada?

Re:Logistics

[q_e_t]

Almost all things that happen in the world create an issue for someone who didn't ask for it. Not everyone can have a veto over everything they don't like, although I am all for the maximum freedoms given the need for others to exercise their freedoms, everyone to get along, and to have a functioning economy. Where the dividing line is between those is the difference between most parties in Western democracies.

Re:Logistics

[q_e_t]

Cars create problems for those who do drive (pollution, accidents cause by others, accidents cause by cars when a driver isn't driving, etc.), as well as benefits (personal mobility, employment, economic activity, logistics)

Re:Logistics

[q_e_t]

I think it is highly likely they will appear in my lifetime. If might be ten years, or it might be twenty, but probably in that sort of time frame. There are plenty of issues to work out, such as general issues, such as dealing with edge cases (e.g. diversions, road works, flocks of sheep, processions, etc.) but also how to ensure that cars obey the rules, and the variety of rules in numerous countries and across countries. I am not sure how they deal with the latter via training sets or other options.

Re:Logistics

[q_e_t]

We won't see large scale adoption of SDCs until they can handle edge cases like poorly marked construction sites. That may take 10 years (I'd be surprised if it took less, but it's not impossible) or 20 years. There may be an additional regulatory hurdle after that, but there don't seem to have been many so far, and it might be done in parallel. I expect the legal issues to also be worked out largely in parallel.

Re:Logistics

[thegarbz]

who pays for the time to set it up so that autonomous cars can navigate it?

WTF have you done with your construction sites that make them unnavigatable?

Re:Logistics

[fluffernutter]

Because there is no evidence SDCs can WORK, never mind having the critical mass required to make a dent in traffic fatalities.

Re:Logistics

[drinkypoo]

Besides, that's not how local governments represented the taxi industry when these people went in and you know it.

They trusted politicians not to be liars? Too bad their parents didn't raise them to think critically. Mine didn't either, I had to learn that lesson on my own.

Re:Logistics

[fluffernutter]

So once they prove that SDCs will actually benefit society like a car or a bicycle; meaning they work, are BETTER than a human, and can be scaled to a proportion of traffic enough that they can make a statistical difference, THEN people should accept some cost. Right now there is no evidence these things will happen. No, Uber coming into my city with a fleet of SDCs isn't going to change much. SDCs being affordable for everyone will be the turning point.

Re:Logistics

[drinkypoo]

Cars create problems for people who never drive; bike lanes and mass transit create problems for people who prefer to drive.

Bus transit causes problems for people who like to cycle, and people who like to drive. Self-driving vehicles will reduce and eventually eliminate buses, while maintaining the existence of mass transit. It's difficult to imagine self-driving vehicles actually causing much new trouble, so long as they are at least as safe as human drivers. They're an improvement on taxis, since they will be parked when idle instead of driving around looking for a fare. And they're an improvement on buses because they don't perturb traffic so much, nor do they require as much infrastructure, or as much fuel (so long as they are electrified.)

Re:Logistics

[drinkypoo]

Uber's 25% cut would seem to provide a lot of room for competitors to offer a better price.

Uber is losing money on many rides, by subsidizing them to make them cheaper than Lyft. It's difficult to imagine how another entity could make a profit and undercut Uber at the same time. They're already grossly underpaying their drivers whenever possible.

Re:Logistics

[redlemming]

Whether or not anyone can get self driving to work, the logistical problems are the real killer. Who is responsible if the car makes a mistake? Not the owner, because they aren't controlling it. Who will insurance companies charge for liability insurance? When there is a construction site, who pays for the time to set it up so that autonomous cars can navigate it? I hope not tax payers. Who is responsible if they make a mistake? How do you stop people from simply walking in front of them whenever they want, knowing they will stop? Lots of things to figure out.

Nothing you mention is that difficult of a hurdle to overcome, certainly not a killer. There are well established legal precedents that will simply be adapted to the self-driving car scenario.

The existing system of human liability is predicated on a high rate of mistakes by human beings - including mistakes before they get into the car, and while driving. It is part of the common law legal tradition that nobody is responsible for Acts of God - but people are responsible for their own actions. This is ultimately what drives liability - and liability protection is the majority of what people are paying for when they get insurance.

With self-driving cars, for all practical purposes that liability will disappear provided the vehicles are properly maintained (this will be established with sensors and automated records, including video). The self-driving cars will make FAR fewer mistakes then human beings. There will probably be some requirement for regular maintenance - but you have to do that anyway today so it won't be a huge change.

An accident involving a self-driving car will be a rare scenario, and will almost always be treated as no-fault. There are already no-fault laws in a number of jurisdictions, with various features (some good, some bad). See Principles of Risk Management and Insurance by Rejda for more details. The new laws would simply represent an evolution of these laws, combining together those features that make sense given the new reality of self-driving cars that don't make nearly as many mistakes as human beings.

All parties involved in an accident will get their health care paid for by insurance (or - perhaps more likely - by a government single party health care system). There won't be any lawsuits for the common accident (for this reason, we can expect a LOT of opposition to the self-driving car concept from less scrupulous members of the legal profession).

Insurance rates will go way down. Insurance companies will probably require maintenance records to be automatically transmitted to them when work is done. It might instead be the government that requires this, and keeps the records. There will probably be some sort of system on vehicles that can be queried by law enforcement to ensure that vehicles are complaint with the rules - an electronic equivalent of the "license plate" with more features.

The software and sensor designs for self-driving cars will probably be subject to public review in some countries, as a condition of removing liability from the manufacturer and as a matter of public interest. In other cases, manufacturers will have to meet standards set by government - not all different from what they have to do today.

A person walking in front of a properly maintained car will be held responsible for their own actions, just as they would be responsible for other stupid actions such as drying their hair in the tub with an electric dryer. In most such cases, the car would be able to stop despite the negligence or stupidity of the pedestrian. The pedestrian can be ticketed for jaywalking if they didn't have the right of way, which will be established by sensor and video records. Just like today, in situations where this sort of thing is likely (such as the vicinity of a college sports stadium), the police will be on scene to make sure (perhaps with electronic overrides of the lights) that everybody gets fair access to the road.

Constru

Re:Logistics

[q_e_t]

So you think nothing should be done ever to promote new technologies or to ease their adoption, as anything new is small scale initially? How is that buggy whip business going?

Re:Logistics

[fluffernutter]

When I go to the hospital, should I pay a fee to support experimental drugs? No, the drug is proven to work with a serious of studies and then I cover that cost if I need it. Same thing should be done with SDCs.

Re:Logistics

[fluffernutter]

Or for another, possibly more apt comparison, should tax dollars go towards building labs to test these drugs in?

Re:Logistics

[Anonymous Coward]

Japan isn't filled to the brim with n1ggers and spics. If America was as White as Japan is Japanese, we wouldn't have this problem. Instead, a bunch of retards decided--based on a shitty poem on a fucking statue, mind--that diversity was our greatest strength and must be pursued to the maximum at all costs. Thanks a lot, progressive dipshits, we really fucking love the crime-ridden shitholes our cities turned into, it's just fucking great. It's a good thing you listened to the Jews (who refuse to diversify their own shitty little country, makes ya' think..) about how great diversity is! Your daughter getting raped by Diversity is part and parcel of modern society, goy. Sit down and shut the fuck up, white man, your day is up!

Re:Logistics

[Anonymous Coward]

It's difficult to get exactly comparable figures for the USA, but for metropolitan areas in the USA the figure is 400, non-metropolitan 100. So not only is the figure in either location much higher in the USA, the disparity is greater.

It's the blacks, dummy. You morons need to get this shit through your soft, progressive heads. The UK can expect their crime rates to go through the roof (and they are!) now that Diversity is priority number one in Europe these days.

But go ahead, keep scratching your chins wondering why there might be such gigantic disparities in crime rates between countries with high ethnic homogeneity and those without. It's life's greatest mystery, that one.

Re:Logistics

[q_e_t]

When I go to the hospital, should I pay a fee to support experimental drugs?

You pay to support the hospital system, which supports the administration of experimental drugs. You just don't see that as a line item in your bill.

Re:Logistics

[q_e_t]

Yes, tax dollars should go to building those labs, and do in the USA, and most Western countries.

Re:Logistics

[q_e_t]

Because there is no evidence SDCs can WORK

What is the basis for your assertion?

Re:Logistics

[fluffernutter]

Well then new drugs shouldn't be so expensive then, since the taxpayer has already footed the bill for all the R&D that went into it.

Re:Logistics

[fluffernutter]

The hospital is not paying for the R&D on those drugs, only the administration of the drugs, when some other drug would have been administered anyway.

Uber should invite Elon Musk

[Anonymous Coward]

to sit on their board and manage their social media accounts.

Contempt for software has its price

[hcs_$reboot]

Bad quality software is everywhere nowadays ; it's only when faulty software kills that people realize programming requires skills.

Re:Contempt for software has its price

[Anonymous Coward]

...it's only when faulty software kills that people realize programming requires skills.

That's silly and fake news. Faulty software that kills is just one class of errors/faults. What about faulty software that doesn't work? Wouldn't people start to realize that something is wrong if software always reboots/crashes? Wouldn't people notice if software gave the wrong answers all the time?

Your comment got rated informative because people no longer know how to read or think. They just choose whatever sound-bite, black or white, doesn't really matter.

Re:Contempt for software has its price

[q_e_t]

With SDCs software, in the traditional sense, is only part of it, as the choice of parameters for the ML and the training is also part of it. It's much more intertwined.

AI project notorious for being a "decade away"

[Anonymous Coward]

None of those are AI projects. AI projects are notorious for being a "decade away", decade, after decade, after decade, after decade, ...

It took about 50 years to beat a human at chess and that was mostly through brute force exploration of many possibilities.

Because they already do

[rsilvergun]

and the amount of money to be had by automating away 2 million driving jobs with an average pay of $50k/year (+ taxes, benefits, training, etc) is staggering.

Self driving cars are this generation's moon landing. Ok, not quite ( it takes a government with the full support of the populace to put that much towards a goal) but it's the one thing every single nation is working towards. It will happen.

Re:Because they already do

[Mashiki]

and the amount of money to be had by automating away 2 million driving jobs with an average pay of $50k/year (+ taxes, benefits, training, etc) is staggering.

Your average cab driver makes nowhere near $50k and truck drivers have long moved over the $60k hurdle in the US and are moving on $70k, with some companies now offering flat $80k/year plus $0.55-0.78 per mile. At that rate clearing $100k USD driving a truck isn't only possible, it's downright easy.

The real push for "self driving" vehicles like trucks is because there's such a huge shortage of drivers it's stupid. It's not just the US, but Canada as well. 10 years ago they were saying that it was the "best time" to become a truck driver, and they thought they had the shortage all wrapped up. It's far worse now because more companies use trucks instead of warehouses as well as using them as JIT, which greatly reduces the overhead costs of having a large building.

By wrapped up, I mean companies were offing full reimbursement of training. In some places, schools had legal agreements with insurance companies so if you passed a written test you were automatically granted 1yr driving behind the wheel, 100,000mi safety bonus, and 50% reduction in insurance rates for the first 5 years as a owner/operator. Now companies are pushing all this, and tossing in 20k-45k signing bonuses, free satellite, free internet, company cellphone, large sleepers, fridges, for O/O's offering to cover 50% of the cost of a new or used truck, massive discounts in fuel, freedom to pick whatever load you want and on and on and fucking on. Just to get people to sign on.

Re:Because they already do

[q_e_t]

Is that $100k as an employee, or as an owner-operator? If the latter then presumably that comes with all sorts of costs to be paid out of that $100k? How does it stack up as take home after those costs compared to a standard employee in another industry?

Re:Because they already do

[djinn6]

I took a brief look at truck-driving job ads, pay seems to top off at $75k if you're using their truck, and these are numbers offered by the company so you can expect it to be somewhat inflated.

Moreover, all of them require previous experience so a newbie is going to have a hard time landing that first job. Now if they were really hurting for drivers, they'd offer training.

Re:Because they already do

[Mashiki]

Both. It fully depends on "how much work" you want to put into it. O/O's are an interesting breed because if you have specific other tags, you can haul more dangerous stuff. But on the other hand, you can take dozens of small jobs a week and live comfortably. You're right that there's costs, but keep in mind that companies are absolutely desperate for drivers. I think it was JB Hunt offering 40% off fuel. Not to be out done, another company was offering "100% mileage + dock time" coverage, that means if your ass is stuck sitting in a dock for 8 hours, they're paying you for it and the miles you would have been rolling. Remember that the clock is always ticking, and depending on the state/province, some only allow a maximum of 12hrs on the road. Those 8 hrs eat into that.

As for how it stacks up? That depends, if you're an O/O you can write off significant amounts of your costs as it counts as a small business.

Re:Because they already do

[Mashiki]

Schneider is offering 80k flat+mileage in team driving right now, with a 35k signing bonus. Single haul they're offering $68k+mileage with $20k signing, those aren't outside the norms for the biggest hauler out there right now. Those are still with their trucks, and offering more if you're an O/O.

They are offering training, and many of the reputable truck schools in the US and Canada are offering with the insurance companies blessings that 1yr "good driving record" automatically now. Hunt, Landstar, TH, Verspeeten, Overland, Schneider and dozens of others are all offering training on hire, or 100% reimbursement of truck driving school. Meaning you can be hired on, get the loan from a bank for the cost. And once you pass your in-company cert they'll pay you the entire loan amount for driver training.

Re:Because they already do

[q_e_t]

Well, you can write significant amounts off against tax, but tax is only a fraction of the cost, so you don't end up ahead, just less behind than you might be. I'd be interested to see a break down of the revenue into employees and O/Os and the actual effective take home of an O/O (granted you might leave some of the business rather than drawing it, but I am trying to do an apples-to-apples comparison) to see if $100k works out as $100k wage, or maybe effectively a $50k wage when including costs.

Re:Because they already do

[Mashiki]

Well trying to see if $100k works out to $100k wage doesn't really work well in most places. In Canada for instance if you're working for a regular company(i.e. 9-5) you're looking at 43% of that going directly gone in taxes. As a O/O it's around 23% because you can incorporate.

Capitalism, like science, is self correcting

[Anonymous Coward]

... capitalism was too stupid to see this as a business model that can't possibly be profitable ...

Capitalism, like science, is self correcting. Unlike socialism which demands adherence to the ideologically pure solution, like religion. :-)

Re:Capitalism, like science, is self correcting

[Anonymous Coward]

... capitalism was too stupid to see this as a business model that can't possibly be profitable ...

Capitalism, like science, is self correcting. Unlike socialism which demands adherence to the ideologically pure solution, like religion. :-)

Even though it is self correcting, it still requires all the right actors to correct itself. It can go seriously wrong and can't fixed itself if there is even one bad actor.

They need patents

[rsilvergun]

so they can negotiate better deals. Otherwise the companies with the patents will shut Uber out of the market by making direct deals with the manufacturers ala Foxconn + Apple's relationship.

Re:They need patents

[perpenso]

How could a self driving car inventor with patents prevent uber from buying cars? How much better a price on a car could uber get, and how many such deals would it cost to make back both the actual R&D and the opportunity costs of that money that went in their R&D?

Re:They need patents

[Anonymous Coward]

How could a self driving car inventor with patents prevent uber from buying cars?

What makes you think that self-driving cars will be for sale? The big companies doing self-driving cars are going to do their own taxi/"ridreshare" services. People aren't going to own them and put them in their garage. There is no sense in owning a car when you have an on-demand personal car service that comes at the touch of a button (or schedule).

And the companies that will be offering this service have names like "Ford" and "Toyota", not Uber.

What will Uber have to offer? No human drivers, too expensive. No self-driving cars: they're not for sale. I guess maybe they can sub-contract them, like the off-brand cell phone providers.

Re:They need patents

[g01d4]

What will Uber have to offer?

Good question. Theoretically they've already got the infrastructure and brand. However since their business model isn't capital intensive there's a relatively low barrier to entry. There's something of a network effect where you're more likely to find a ride with the more popular app. However the ride likelihood is based on human drivers. Thus there's a fair chance that the company with the best/popular self--driving car comes up with its own ride hailing app to capture that revenue stream.

I recall from my days in aerospace when the $bigName company decided it wanted to be system integrators and subcontract everything else. No capital, a few (albeit expensive) laborers and profit. The problem was that this was a highly specialized market and the subcontractors said hold on, we can do system integration too. There went that market.

Re:They need patents

[perpenso]

The companies named "Ford" and "Toyota" will have self driving cars long before Uber ever would. Its questionable if the existing auto makers want to get into the delivery business (human or freight). Apple and Google too, more likely they would simply want to license the tech to the automakers. Tesla may be the exception.

Re:They need patents

[Anonymous Coward]

There's something of a network effect

Which can evaporate only slightly more slowly than you can say MySpace.

Re:They need patents

[Anonymous Coward]

GM has a partnership with Lyft, doesn't it? I suspect Uber's SDC research is about having a patent portfoilio to extract a better deal from one of the major car manufacturers. I wouldn't be surprised if Uber does a deal with a major car manufacturer, or possibly two - one for the basic brand and another for the premium offering. I imagine that Uber would prefer, though, for people to be able to buy retail SDCs and then loan them to Uber, as then Uber doesn't need to carry inventory.

Losing almost 1 billion every three months is impressive if it really is a technology company, as it looks more like a business subsidising its own offering to be able to offer it below cost, to try to grab market share, but it already has good market share.

Re:They need patents

[perpenso]

Get a better deal with a traditional auto manufacturer ... a deal that will recoup losing $1B every three months? :-)

Not according to stuntman mike.

[CaptnCrud]

Stuntman Mike: [as he drives] Hey, Pam, remember when I said this car was death proof? Well, that wasn't a lie. This car is 100% death proof. Only to get the benefit of it, honey, you REALLY need to be sitting in my seat.

[slams his boot to the brake and sends Pam flying face-first into the dashboard]

Looking at our cost...

[aepervius]

... I am also doubtful on those cost from Uber are on development or AWS cost. No, far more likely they are spending the crushing majority 90%+ of that on 1) marketing and 2) subsiding the price of share down to try to crush competition and 3) as a minor cost comapred from the previous 2 the self driving research.

Welcome to the Internet of Middle-Men

[Anonymous Coward]

Now you (yes, YOU!) can pay an extra 5-30% for the opportunity to deal with a middle-man on the internet. Whether you're buying something or just making a payment, let our middle-men take a cut so you can do it ON THE INTERNET. You'll never again have to save money by dealing directly with airlines, hotels, drivers, restaurants, or software companies.

IPO

[Anonymous Coward]

They are interested in making the company's financials *LOOK* good in the short-term so that they will get the most money when it goes public.

Investing in self-driving cars, if done intelligently, is about making the company's financials *BE* good in 8-15 years.

good

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they go under

Uber scares people away from autonomous cars

[Anonymous Coward]

With Uber's extremely problematic history of bad behavior, scandals, and even death, Uber should get out and stay out of the self-driving car business for good. Uber does more to scare people away from autonomous cars than anyone else.

Nor profitable

[manu0601]

Repeat after me: this business has never been profitable.

Rural rideshare (drunk driving)

[Aereus]

I think one of the most promising parts of self-driving vehicles in the next decade or two are when they are certified to not need someone behind the wheel. It's a frequent occurrence around here to read about rural crashes/deaths/arrests due to DUIs due in part because there are no other options to get home than by car. I could see rural communities pooling tax revenue for a "drunk rideshare" to make sure people get home without being tempted to drive drunk.