[jmchuster]

i think you mean taxis?

To the end customer, the only difference would be cost, and if you are rich enough, or the service is subsidized enough by investor cash, or the cost of living in your area is low enough, then it all ends up roughly the same.

[gambiting]

Yep, that's what I post every single time. Taxis are already self driving cars, so any argument for a self driving car should apply to them as well, yet people still prefer owning their own car than being "automatically" driven everywhere. It would already be cheaper for me to take a taxi to work every day than pay for my own car, yet.....I would rather pay a bit more and have a car that is mine and that I can do whatever I want with. The self driving aspect is just not appealing in the slightest.

[keenmaster]

I think most Americans will choose the subscription service over ownership. Subscribers will have instant access to any type of vehicle at any time. The subscription cost will be lower than the cost of ownership. The whole fleet will always be new and incorporate the latest technology. Robotocized cleaning centers and user ratings will mitigate “tragedy of the commons.” I think even at the high end people will use luxury subscription services more often than whatever car they may own as a backup.

It’s not cheaper vs. better. Subscriptions will be both cheaper and better.

[gambiting]

I don't believe that for a second. Free market will always do what it does best, which means that whoever can get away with running their robo taxis cheapest will win. So the most common ones will rarely if ever be cleaned inside(cleaning costs money after all, even if it's automatic). Once the technology is common, they will run the cheapest version of it, just like regular taxis today don't all drive Mercedes S class cars, they drive 15 year old priuses because those are the cheapest cars that do the job. Yes, there will be market for higher end, clean and high tech cars. But the most common service will be nothing like this. A good example is something like Ryanair - yes, the planes are shit, they are dirty, the service is poor, but they are immune to ratings because.....what else are you going to pick? On several European routes that I travel on, they are the only choice.

[keenmaster]

The cars will certainly be designed for robo-cleaning by the time we have self-driving fleets. In a free market with free choice, people will obviously pick the more hygienic fleet (which I don’t believe will cost much more, controlling for other factors).

The airline industry doesn’t work very well as an analogy. It’s not a completely free market, and costs are so high that it’s genuinely hard for airlines to provide a better experience without charging a lot.

[keenmaster]

>subsidized enough by investor cash

Investors have no reason to subsidize costlier transportation modalities that customers may not even prefer half the time. As for the verbiage, I don’t think self-driving car subscription services will brand themselves as taxi fleets. They will replace the vehicle that you own and that sits on your driveway 97% of the time (that’s a general “you”). However, Americans like the feeling of ownership over their vehicle. The name of the service should take that into account.