[fckgw]

Those don't exist. No one is taking their self driving car to work and then lending it out to Uber. Not to mention if a company like GM gets their self-driving tech off the ground, why wouldn't they just spin up an app and beat Uber at their game?

[crazygringo]

> No one is taking their self driving car to work and then lending it out to Uber.

To the contrary, tons of people will be doing that.

There's going to be a big group of people who logistically need "their own car" for various reasons (live out in the suburbs, need stuff in a locked trunk, can't risk a delay in getting to work, etc.) but couldn't be happier to make money on it by lending it out as a taxi downtown during business hours. Or when they're traveling for a week, or whenever.

Especially when you don't even need to worry about messes/damage because internal cameras will catch and bill whoever was responsible, and the car will drive itself to the nearest garage for cleaning/repair.

Just as we now have hotels and AirBNB, I totally foresee different self-driving taxi services that are either fleet-owned or consumer-shared. I can't imagine why this wouldn't happen.

[ProfessorLayton]

> To the contrary, tons of people will be doing that.

Yeah, until they get their car back and there's puke in the backseat, which requires more than a basic cleaning to get the smell out (Yes, uber charges a fee for puking, but no it doesn't cover a proper detailing that'll get the smell out). Or they find a bunch of little dings on their car from slamming the door into an unretracted seat belt. There's also the vegan pleather that'll rapidly start to deteriorate from passenger traffic that's 20x more than intended etc.

Some may still do it of course, but I don't believe most will want to destroy their car's value from the depreciation that uber will cause.

[crazygringo]

The Uber's I take, the cars seem in perfectly fine condition. I've never smelled puke in a backseat ever, so whatever cleaning is happening, is working fine.

> but I don't believe most will want to destroy their car's value from the depreciation

It's simple math. If you're making much more money from renting it out than depreciation is causing, then it's an economic no-brainer.

[ProfessorLayton]

This shifted from owning to riding. As a rider, I agree, most of the Ubers I've taken have been just fine, though not particularly clean, but fine nonetheless. Still, the cars are in far worse condition than a similarly aged car, and not something I'd personally accept as an owner for a few bucks. Again it's not just puke, but the tons of wear and tear that happens during ride sharing.

Uber churns through 96% of their drivers per year, so it's clearly not a no-brainer for the vast majority of them [1].

Self driving cars may help uber and its ilk lower their fleet costs if and when they get them, but a relatively insignificant portion of people will be willing to loan out their personal vehicle to them.

[1] https://www.cbinsights.com/research/report/how-uber-makes-mo....

[crazygringo]

> This shifted from owning to riding.

No, it's just sampling.

> and not something I'd personally accept as an owner for a few bucks.

Fine, that's you. But it's not a few bucks, it's probably going to add up to thousands of dollars if you do it regularly.

> Uber churns through 96% of their drivers per year

That has nothing to do with car condition and everything to do with people changing income sources.

> but a relatively insignificant portion of people will be willing to loan out their personal vehicle

You have no basis for saying it will be relatively insignificant. People tend to be incentivized by money, that's the whole basis of microeconomics. If people can make back a decent portion of the cost of their car by renting it out when they're not using it, of course it's going to become a significant proportion of people.

I don't see how you can argue against something that's such a no-brainer. You seem to have the luxury of allowing a fear of small amounts of wear-and-tear to override any monetary concerns; but for many people, the additional income is going to take priority because they need the money end-of-story.

[ProfessorLayton]

> You have no basis for saying it will be relatively insignificant.

People can already make a few bucks by letting strangers use their car on services like Turo, and it is relatively insignificant. That self driving capabilities will change that is a baseless assumption.

[HDThoreaun]

I know multiple people that drive uber and go to late night drunk spots then drive crazy with the explicit goal of getting the passenger to puke for the fee uber gives. You'd be surprised by what people will put up with for some quick cash I guess.

[JumpCrisscross]

> until they get their car back and there's puke in the backseat

Super-strict reputation scoring solves this. Also, if you're paranoid, burgers don't puke.

[renewiltord]

I use GM's cars all the time. Pretty good in SF. They're slower but sometimes when you're not time sensitive, it's nice to grab the ride since they don't cancel or anything.

The first ride was novel. Everything after felt so routine I didn't even look at the road. As far as my girlfriend and I were concerned, we got in and then talked for a while and hung out and then got out elsewhere.

The speed is the only constraint right now.

[louzell]

> No one is taking their self driving car to work and then lending it out to Uber

Sounds like a business opportunity