What about car dealers?

They make a lot of their profits off of maintenance which would likely be far less with SDCs and especially if the SDCs were electric. Guessing fleets would have in-house maintenance. Although possibly they could provide the taxi fleet space+maintenance and transition their business model.

If more SDCs were used for taxis and less car sales were happening that would obviously hurt them too.

Can't really see this working out too well for them. That business model is becoming antiquated with the internet making direct to consumer more feasible anyway.

http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...-than-expected

What had long been rumored is now pretty much confirmed.

Apple is developing an SDC and they seem very far along in the process.

Don't hold your breathe this tech won't be around for 20-30 years. Plus what are the insurance ramifications of something else guiding your car?

I think we get there in 10

Look how long it to Satellite radio to gain traction and that tech is very easy compared to self driving cars.

satellite radio can't save people and families 5-15k a year

Apple wouldn't be putting time and resources into something they couldn't monetize for a quarter century. Neither would Google, Tesla, Uber, etc

Not sure if I say this in the thread but I think it will mostly start on the West coast where the weather is better, college areas, old folks areas and then move to higher adoption after.

The regulation and industry disruption is the bigger issue than the technology IMO

Insurance ramifications pretty easy 1 to figure out. It'll be on the manufacturer or software company. Considering it'll be like 90% more safe than humans I'm sure it'll be pretty low rate.

Sputnik went up in 1957.

By 1969 the entire world was watching Armstrong walk on the moon via satellite TV footage (rebroadcasted via local TV towers to be sure).

Flying cars exist but they never went mainstream. People love driving cars horsepower is going up not down. I've never seen the Lexus that parks itself yet. Things move much slower in the car world and even if that option is available how much is it going to cost?

Don't forget, Segways were supposed to be the next thing in transportation and that was a complete bust.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...-almost-double

Morgan Stanley saying Tesla positioned perfectly to get into autonomous driving, says stock undervalued by 70%.

What is the easiest way to get access to these analyst reports?

Stock only went up 5% so you're already in early just buy buy buy. My stock portfolio basically looks like: Tesla and Tesla equivalents

Sent from my LG-H810 using 2+2 Forums

Oh I was just showing the link. I'm not sure I totally agree with that. Not sure this is the thread to talk about TSLAs valuation either though. To give a segment within the company a 30B valuation for a industry that doesn't even exist yet is really bullish. They will be plenty rich with competitors.

I love TSLA, they've already won even if they fail. They forced the big automakers to innovate or die which is awesome. Not sure they should be a 60B company anytime soon though.

http://www.sciencealert.com/the-uk-i...r-as-you-drive

This looks pretty damn cool. I'd think if you could designate a lane in a major city for gas guzzling transport vehicles that would be it's best use if it has real potential.

This post was my biggest takeaway from this thread. The rental price increases in big cities are not sustainable. The middle of the country is incredibly undervalued.

That's why they have mass transit

Young folks will still wanna live in the city though and because of the increase in land, it should be cheaper.

I do agree though that this should open up more exurb/suburb living. Less congestion, 10 minute longer commute won't really matter anymore so I could see housing be more decentralized. Could see suburban prices around cities stagnate as living 5-15 miles further out is no big deal now.

Also think teleconferencing getting better is going to play a role in this as well.

wonder if it will cut both ways a little though, I know a bunch of people who would like to live in various downtown areas but dont "because driving is such a pain" or its too expensive to find somewhere to park/etc.

I definitely think it will have more younger people living in the cities. Also, not needing a car makes the rest of the budget stretch further.

In areas like Boston/SF/NY with land constraints/NIMBYism, prices skyrocket. There is an insatiable demand to live in these cities that gets balanced out by by being cost prohibitive.

Autonomous vehicles make no sense for commuters. They do make sense in the long haul trucking routes or mass transit vehicles.

to everyone besides this guy

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/pr...=ignore&u=4089

You're welcome

Groupthink is bad so I don't like to ignore anyone but yes he is talking out of his ass

Why don't one of you use some facts and get out of fantasy land. Just because it is possible doesn't make it practical or cost effective.

Yeah but on the surface if you looked at people owning their own cars that doesnt look cost effective either, tons of people own something costing greater than 1/4th of their yearly income and only use it for like 5-10% of the day and then you have to use up huge amounts of land to store these things the other 85% of the time. Would be much better to have like 50% less total cars out there that are all rented out uber style as needed.

Show your work.

In a nutshell - ultra-safe taxis without the cost or space needed or intrusion of a driver.

Look at the ubiquity of uber in certain cities - imagine that 70% cheaper and without rapey drivers. In fact, without a driver seat or steering column or gearbox or windshield at all.

Imagine you could travel to work in a car-sized limo, where the windscreen (or side) is a giant screen you use to watch movies or get work done (powered by your phone + a keyboard and mouse).

Or you could travel say from SF to LA in a sleeping pod, called to your door in minutes, that takes roughly the same time as a plane when you factor in end-to-end travel and waiting times?

Why would this service not be incredibly popular, displacing an ultra expensive own car for most people?

The biggest cost by far of a taxi is the driver. Let's say the car costs $50K for its life including servicing, garaging, cleaning, administration. Let's say a five year life. Cost of the car is $10K/year.

Taxis do about 60K miles per year, and gasoline at 15c per mile @$3.20/gallon (this will improve a lot, particularly with electrics), cost of fuel is another $9K/year.

In contrast, manning a taxi for 100 hours/week costs 2 x $33,000 average taxi driver salaries, or $66K/year. The actual cost is far higher (health, 401k, staff turnover costs, licensing, etc), but let's take the lower number.

80% of the cost of a taxi is the driver.

Imagine if taxi fares were 1/4 of their current cost, 10x safer than driving yourself, faster (due to on-road inter-car messaging of upcoming hazards, total awareness, millisecond reaction, and taking the driver out of the equation), private. How many people would own a car?