undefined | Better HN

0 pointsSomeone10y ago0 comments

Only 32 rides per day? I would think that's pushing the limit. You will have to buy cars for peak times, so most of them will see only a few hours of use each day. At a guessed 6 hours of busy service a day, that's 5 trips an hour, or 6 minutes to drive to a customer and 6 to drive him where he wants to be.

Also, a risk here is that other large parties will make the same calculation, flood the market (anybody with money will be able to start a cab company with a lot less hassle from labor laws because you don't need that much personnel) and drive margins down.

To win in this space you probably will need both a lean model of operations and a good image in the customer's eye. Uber currently seems to have both, but committing _now_ to a provider of cars is risky (what if other manufacturers turn out to have better or cheaper self-driving cars?). On the other hand, it also may be necessary to commit now in order to stay lean (committing now probably gets them a nice price cut)

0 comments

5 comments · 4 top-level

icebraining10y ago· 1 in thread

6 minutes to drive to a customer and 6 to drive him where he wants to be.

You're assuming that each ride is independent, but that's already not the case with their Smart Routes - the driver picks up a customer, then picks up another one on the way, then drops off the first and picks up a third, etc.

The goal stated by their CEO is "perpetual rides", in which the car is never without a passenger.

SomeoneOP10y ago

Perpetual rides may be their goal, but I don't see how they will not get there. For example, there's no way they are going to find as many people wanting to go to sport stadiums as are wanting to get away from them, just after the end of the game, and stadiums typically are so far out of about every other destination that they cannot make a detour there with a paying passenger on board to pick up a second passenger.

That applies to a lesser extent to such things as theaters and cinemas, and even suburbs (who wants to get picked up there at 1 AM to fill the car that that theater goer took home?)

They will get below 50:50 for "at least one passenger on board", but it would surprise me if they managed to beat a 25:75 ratio.

mikejarema10y ago

Perhaps they're purchasing these to handle the constant/baseline load of riders throughout the day, and then will continue to use human drivers & contractors to supplement demand beyond that, eg. the peaks times you mention.

So it'd be the best of both worlds for Uber: being able to put the self-driving vehicles to use around the clock and not having to make a capital investment to handle spikes in demand, which would just continue to be handled by existing drivers (for now). Just call in the human backup to help out when required.

I'm also wondering if they made the huge order so that they'd be able to influence and guide the requirements for the vehicles to Uber's specs. It seems that the requirements for a self-driving car for an individual's use differs from that for commercial taxiing.

avn210910y ago

>> "...what if other manufacturers turn out to have better or cheaper self-driving cars?"

Cheaper, certainly. Everyone will have cheaper SD cars than Benz, just as everyone has cheaper cabs than an S-class today. But better? If history is any guide, German luxury will be the gold standard of automotive UX for our lifetimes and beyond.

jfoutz10y ago

I don't think they need to tackle peak driving time at the start. They still have all of those regular drivers. Surge pricing should still draw out humans.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse