[kajecounterhack]

I don't think the Jaguars are particularly spacious or nice. They just got a good deal on the platform. If anything, given the commodity nature of vehicles I'd expect car quality to improve.

Cleanliness doesn't seem that related to how expensive the tech is either - if anything it would only go down if it ceased to affect willingness to pay. As it stands, clean cars are important to their customers. If usage increases, cleaning can ostensibly increase too, no?

[jessriedel]

> Cleanliness doesn't seem that related to how expensive the tech is either - if anything it would only go down if it ceased to affect willingness to pay.

If a service is necessarily expensive, it will more by wealthy people, who have a higher willingness to pay for cleanliness.

> As it stands, clean cars are important to their customers.

This varies depending on the customer.

> If usage increases, cleaning can ostensibly increase too, no?

Greater usage can lead to economies of scale that push down the cost of cleaning, but I think we're already at the scale (hundreds of cars) where most of the economies of scale have been reached. I expect it's close to linear from now on.

[kajecounterhack]

Higher willingness to pay does not matter unless the market is segmented. So if the tech gets cheaper, unless they explicitly make an expensive "oft-cleaned" tier and a less expensive "less-oft-cleaned" tier, what matters is average willingness to pay.

"Once the tech becomes cheap, expect the car quality and cleanliness to go down" -- here you were positing that the _average_ willingness to pay for cleanliness will go down enough to affect things, barring any market segmentation. And I disagree:

1. You're assuming that the reason _why_ Waymo's cars tend to be cleaner than your typical Uber / Lyft is to satisfy a wealthy clientele. This elides a big reason for the existing gap: Uber / Lyft drivers aren't professionally managed. You don't directly pay for your Uber driver's interior car cleaning when you buy a ride, but the salary of folks managing Waymo's fleets is factored directly into pricing. Even if Waymo's clientele were less wealthy, you have to clean your cars and pass the cost on to all users. Additionally, interior cameras are pretty motivating to not mess up cars!

2. You're assuming that the cars today don't get maximum utilization, and that with more utilization you'd see dirtier cars. This is a pretty bad assumption - the cars are being utilized about as heavily as you can hope. In SF for most of Waymo's existence demand has outstripped supply. And the cars are still very clean :)

So if the usage is the same, and peoples' expectations for cleanliness are the same, why would rate of cleaning change as time goes on for the service?

The only thing I can think is if no reasonable alternatives to Waymo arise - in that case, cleanliness could go down but it has less to do with the clientele / willingness to pay, and more to do with competition / monopoly.

As another note, I just don't see how cleaning-based market segmentation would make good operational sense. Is cleaning the car slightly less frequently really gonna help the bottom line? Is the price differential big enough at single-ride scale? Do even rental car companies do this for their fleets - the cheap ones still seem to clean their cars.

[jessriedel]

> Higher willingness to pay does not matter unless the market is segmented.

Incorrect.

> unless they explicitly make an expensive "oft-cleaned" tier and a less expensive "less-oft-cleaned" tier,

That's exactly what I'm saying would happen. We already have it with Uber Black.

> You're assuming that the cars today don't get maximum utilization, and that with more utilization you'd see dirtier cars.

No, I'm not assuming that.

> As another note, I just don't see how cleaning-based market segmentation would make good operational sense

Again, Uber Black.

[kajecounterhack]

> That's exactly what I'm saying would happen. We already have it with Uber Black.

But I'm saying we _don't_ have that for Waymo, and it's very unlikely to happen, for many reasons. A big reason is simply that managing a fleet in heterogeneous fashion as you're describing (different cleaning schedules for the cars) doesn't really make sense IRL. It's a purely imagined scenario on your part.

> Incorrect.

Pray tell how I can pay for a cleaner car when there's only one option, car or no car?

> No, I'm not assuming that.

Then please explain how cars would get dirtier as the service scales up? If today is already seeing the cars at full utilization, barring a cost-cutting measure that determined that cleaning less frequently would be a significant cost savings (which is a big assumption on your part), then we should be seeing roughly how clean the cars will be into perpetuity.

> Again, Uber Black.

Uber Black achieves higher standards for cleaning by farming that out to the people renting out their personal vehicles. The drivers are incentivized to clean the cars more (than UberX drivers) to get more expensive fares.

But again, fleet management companies already do this for _all_ their cars. So for Waymo this is moot.

[jessriedel]

> A big reason is simply that managing a fleet in heterogeneous fashion as you're describing (different cleaning schedules for the cars) doesn't really make sense IRL.

Of course it does. Pre-Uber, we had both standard yellow cabs and black car services at different levels. (The main reason you see relative homogeneity within yellow cabs is that the government forces it by setting prices, not because of anything intrinsic about a fleet. Black cars are excluded from these rules.)

In shipping we can pay for different speeds and types of handling. On planes and trains we have different class tickets. In the rental car market, we have Hertz and we have rent-a-wreck. And even within Hertz, there are different car quality levels, which somewhat decreases flexibility (since you need to have more cars on hand than you would with a homogeneous fleet), but it's worth the upkeep to charge the wealthy customers more. Etc.

> Then please explain how cars would get dirtier as the service scales up? If today is already seeing the cars at full utilization, barring a cost-cutting measure that determined that cleaning less frequently would be a significant cost savings (which is a big assumption on your part), then we should be seeing roughly how clean the cars will be into perpetuity.

1. Tech prices come down, so the average customer willingness to pay for cleanliness comes down.

2. Services often launch with non-scalable attention to detail to control the initial public impression (eating the cost), and then relax over time.

3. Segmentation that's not feasible at the current scale but will be in the future.

[kajecounterhack]

> Segmentation that's not feasible at the current scale but will be in the future.

So you _do_ agree that willingness to pay is only helpful if there is segmentation.

> Pre-Uber, we had both standard yellow cabs and black car services at different levels

There is more to the gap between yellow cab and black car than cleanliness. Stuff like service / helping you with bags, ETAs, partitions between yourself and the driver, niceness of the car itself, etc.

I'm sure we'll see segmentation along the lines of vehicle size and capability, but I expect cleanliness to be the same across those segments.

> Services often launch with non-scalable attention to detail to control the initial public impression (eating the cost), and then relax over time.

I don't think cleaning is the burden you're making it out to be. These cars return to depot when their battery is down. If you're to clean them at all, you should clean them when they return for charging, and then to your set standard. It's not a big knob for controlling costs.