Uber begins more active testing. Lyft will sell rides

Uber has announced the official start of self-driving tests in Pittsburgh. Uber has been running their lab for over a year, and had various vehicles out there mapping and gathering data, but their new vehicle is sleeker and loaded with sensors - more than on Google’s cars or most of the other research cars I have seen. You can see several lidars on the roof and bumpers, and a seriously big array of cameras and other sensors.

In addition, recently it was announced that the GM-Lyft-Cruise combination will be offering rides in 2017 in a self-driving Chevy Bolt. Of course, there will be a safety driver in the car supervising it so it would be an empty taxi coming to pick you up, but it’s a nice step.

These two announcements bring attention to two of the most important companies in the space, even though their technical efforts are much less mature than Google’s or Daimler’s. That’s because of one key forecast that I have emphasized from the start:

A large fraction of the automotive industry is going to switch to be about selling rides, not selling cars

As we all know, Uber has already become the #1 brand in the world in selling rides in just a few years. It’s a very important position to have. Lyft has #2 but other companies like Didi own China (and just got a $1B investment from Apple.)

As the owner of the ride brand, Uber has a lot of control. The brand of the car that drives you is less important and interchangeable. But that’s not the only advantage these ride companies have:

  • Ride companies have huge volumes of drivers on the road all day. They can be used as a resource for mapping, testing and verifying self-driving systems. Companies like Google had to pay staff and buy cars to do that.
  • Ride companies can combine human driven ride service with robotic taxis, to take you from anywhere to anywhere any time. It just costs more if you want to travel where the robots can’t.
  • Uber and Lyft can fail in their research program and still win. They just have to find somebody else to sell them the cars. Of course that does mean a power trade — it’s very nice to own the magic sauce that makes it all work, but the ride companies are among the few would could have another provider and still have a lot of control.

At the same time, Lyft is now bound to probably work with GM, and Didi possibly with Apple, which leaves Uber with more flexibility among these.

The ride companies are already doing big experiments in real ride-sharing, ie. multiple independent passengers in the same car. Today, using UberPool is popular and can save significant money. A more interesting question arises when robotic taxi service is available for 30 cents/mile. I don’t think people would share their ride to reduce the price from $1.50 to $1. Saving 50 cents does not move the needle for most people of even moderate income levels.

How will ride companies compete?

An important social question asks how many ride companies can compete in a market? Right now Uber has established a lot of dominance. In San Francisco, birthplace of Uber, Lyft and Sidecar, Sidecar shut its doors from difficulty competing with the other two. Is there room for only a few companies? That’s bad, because competition is good for the public.

The first intuition is that fleet size is a big competitive advantage because you can offer faster pickup times and more choices of vehicle. Customers will care a lot about how long they have to wait for a ride. That will vary of course based on random positions of vehicles, and also how good the predictive positioning is in the fleet management system.

At the same time, it is possible to have a successful limo company today with just one limo. You only do scheduled rides (or ad-hoc rides booked via networks like UberBlack) but you have a business. It is not the size of your fleet that fully governs your wait time, but rather the ratio of the size of your fleet to the number of customers you have. Lyft has a smaller fleet but also fewer users, so I find it can often match or beat Uber on wait time, though neither wins all the time. There is a natural balance here — the better your fleet-size/user-base ratio is, the shorter wait times you have, but that brings you more customers until the advantage starts reducing.

I’ll have more analysis of this in the future.

Couple typos?

I think people people would share their ride to reduce the price from $1.50 to $1.

Did you mean to type "don't" instead of the first "people," where it's doubled? Otherwise, if your point is that you think people would be willing to pay an extra $.50 to have a private ride, then this is the exact opposite statement.

In San Francisco, birthplace Uber, Lyft and Sidecar

Missing "of" after "birthplace.

That will teach me

To write a post during a meeting on my tablet!

Sharing Rides

People might not share rides with random strangers but I would be glad to share rides with my friends, or even any employee of my company even if I didn't know them. It just takes some software to make the match, as long as matches can happen frequently enough to make it worth people's effort (which won't happen if people are too picky).

Or imagine an app where you swipe right/left to potentially share a ride. It could even be paired with a dating site as a low-key way for singles to meet, even lower investment than getting coffee.

Already false

UberPool — which is now something like half of Uber rides in San Francisco, pretty much disproves the notion that people won’t share rides with random strangers. The strangers are identified (in that hey have credit cards, but not a lot more) and someday they might earn reputation scores, but for now it’s happening.

As I noted early, in a robotic taxi it could be different as there is not a 3rd party (the driver) to deter any problem between the riders.

Certainly false in some places

I live in coastal California and 50km from where I live, total strangers regularly pack into station wagons and minivans to share very economical rides. They've been doing this since cars were invented. Of course this is in Mexico, but still, the point is that real people of the world will definitely economize rides by sharing. Americans? Who knows.

Congestion charging and HOV lanes

Of course congestion charging and HOV lanes are potential ways to incentivise ride sharing.
Faster travel time, assuming it more than compensates for the detour to perform the pickup, could be adequate incentive for those with more money than time.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

His name is Brad Templeton. You figure it out.
Please make up a name if you do not wish to give your real one.
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Personal home pages only. Posts with biz home pages get deleted and search engines ignore all links
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options