|
|
|
|
|
by jessriedel
408 days ago
|
|
> 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. |
|
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.