This isn't e-mail. The cost and hassle of switching to a competing service is nearly zero.
I mean, look at McDonalds and Coca-Cola, for example. I'm skeptical about the idea that simply having the SDV technology somehow also translates to being in a leadership position in terms of regulation, customer support, branding/marketing/being-installed-on-peoples-phones, etc etc.
Uber already had to fight uphill regarding regulation in many places so it definitely has some moat now (see, e.g. Uber and Ola in London). Waymo is on completely uncharted territory, regulation-wise.
I'm also curious about how the economics and logistics will play out. One criticism of existing ride sharing is not accounting for vehicle depreciation and wear and tear (and this on mass produced vehicles). Waymo vehicles have a lot more expensive technology on board, so I'm curious how that balances out in terms of lidar/etc shelf-life + specialized tech inspections vs ROI.
Also, cost of switching goes both ways. If this forces the hand of the other players to roll out SDV (via Cruise partnerships for example), Waymo doesn't necessarily stand to dominate the market, since it's already so crowded w/ well-funded/well-positioned players from all sorts of directions.
But at least for the next few years, technology is the barrier. So Google can partner with Lyft, for example, to get a good brand, app, customer service, regulation, etc.
But on top of that, the brand in this market is the promise "our cars are safe". Google is in a distinct place to own that, because of all the press they had, they press they will have, and by really leading technologically.
As for this being a commodity ? I believe we're really far from that.
I think a bigger challenge for Waymo is going to be getting trust and regulatory favor. Everyone keeps clinging on to the "oh, comparing prices, waymo is cheaper than uber because there's no driver!" narrative, but from what I've seen from the few reports so far, the prices aren't all that different from other services.
I can also imagine quite a few other not-so-flattering narratives being relatively realistic:
- "I'll never trust some faceless AI w/ my kids in the car! I'd rather pay a bit more and get a real person behind the wheel. Support the local economy, you know?"
- "Oh, so you want a license to put an entire class of workers out of jobs under MY government term?"
- "I got a trashed waymo car and customer support ignored me when I asked for a refund!"
- "I took a waymo after partying a bit too hard and now I'm locked out of all my google accounts with no recourse!"
- etc
I think people on HN often give way too much weight to the "cool tech" aspect of waymo, and disregard the very real and very significant meat bag aspect.
Not that particular company no, but the longevity of taxi service in general, yes. Although, it depends on why I'm riding in a taxi. If it's an occasional ride, it's not a big deal if taxi service disappears, I can pay for long term parking at the airport, or call a friend, or something. If it's an everyday ride, loss of service means a big change.
The danger of using a Google service is two-fold. The obvious part is, you might get used to it, only for it to be dropped. But also, they may run competitors out of business before dropping it, leaving you without any options.
Your cited risk is not realistic.
> The obvious part is, you might get used to it, only for it to be dropped.
> But also, they may run competitors out of business before dropping it, leaving you without any options.
It's a taxi. You call a number, or click a button on an app. A car arrives and drives you somewhere. The value delivered by the guy in the beat-up Prius, to me, is the exact same as Waymo. It's the most homogenized, commoditized industry in the world. Waymo could corner the entire market, and then go out of business, and the very next day, the streets would be full of independent taxis picking up passengers.
Some people care. They buy directly from the same families for many decades.
