[cryptoz]

I think it's pretty clear that this won't be their last effort in this area. In this case, you can take the very-close-proximity efforts by them - self driving cars - that they are taking very seriously, and extend that expectation here.

Does it really make sense that Google would build self-driving cars without also thinking about ride sharing technology and userbase? I think the primary use case of Google's cars will be optimal ride sharing, doesn't everyone think this as well?

Sure, their MO is to try things out and ditch the ones that don't work - and this one may not work. But if it doesn't, I'd bet that they'd try again. There's a perfect fit between self-driving technology and ride sharing (hence Uber's interest in self-driving cars).

[lem72]

I agree, ride sharing with self driving cars is going to be pretty normal in the near future.

What will be cool is once they are self driving, they will be able to auto calculate quickest routes to pick people up, drop off, etc while being able to re-calculate to pick up people along the way.

[aetherson]

Vast segments of the population (that is to say: probably 90%+ of women and 40%+ of men) are going to be deeply uncomfortable with getting into an automobile in the company of exactly one totally random stranger. Even if there are cameras.

[maxerickson]

For $3 of savings I bet a lot more people than that will do it.

I think lots of times it might save more than that, I picked a low number because I expect even modest savings will convince people to do it, especially if the impact on convenience is small.

[aetherson]

I think that lots of people have lots of very self-contradictory beliefs about driverless cars.

For example: An UberX ride today generally costs between $10 and $20 here in sunny San Francisco (outside of surge). Nearly 80% of that goes to the driver! The premise of driverless cars leading to massive rides-for-hire is that driverless cars could massively reduce that cost -- probably from $10 - $20ish to $5 - $10ish.

So just there -- is ride-sharing really going to save $3? Presumably not for a $5 ride. Not for a $6 ride either. A $7 ride? Maybe! But if so Uber is sure as hell not getting a lot for driving ride-sharing.

Okay, so let's say that a driverless car would ordinarily cost you $10 per ride, and you can reduce it to $7 by sharing. First of all, note that this reduces the value of the service for you -- even if you have no safety concerns, it takes longer. Then add in the non-safety awkwardness thing. It's pretty close quarters for a relatively long ride. What if the other person is just socially awkward?

And then imagine if you will that it's someone that you feel -- rightly or wrongly -- is genuinely threatening. And you're cooped up in a Toyota Camry for 15 minutes with this person and absolutely no one to run interference for you.

For $3?

Also: if getting a driverless Uber costs $10, you should at least contemplate owning your own driverless car. $10 at current business write-off rates is about 18 miles. It sounds like in this hypothetical Uber isn't a great deal. You could realize most or all of your cost-savings by owning your own driverless car, and as a bonus you won't have to share your car with a stranger, and as a further bonus you won't get gouged at high demand times.

[maxerickson]

Yes, I believe that many people will indeed put up with some shit for a couple of dollars a day.

Point taken on how many people that would apply to if miles were cheap.

[dzhiurgis]

I think it's realistic to have single seat cars.

Also people use public transport without too much hesitation.

[aetherson]

It may be realistic to have single seat cars. But that's not ride sharing.

Public transit has (typically) more than one stranger. Indeed, crowds. That is, somewhat ironically, less threatening than being trapped in close quarters with a single stranger.

[patrickdavey]

Absolutely, this a million times. Realistically public transport should evolve to a network of self driving (smaller) vehicles - and yes, optimise the heck out of it. Bus systems are pretty inefficient things (except at peak times)

[acgourley]

Buses are likely most efficient at peak times (assuming efficiency to mean is cost-per-rider and not mean-annoyance-of-riders)

[lewisl9029]

I'd love to see self-driving cars completely replace human drivers ASAP.

I'd trust software to drive me to my destination safely and responsibly much more than I would trust random strangers, or even myself for that matter.

[vxNsr]

It's possible that this is like what they did with motorola, initially it looked like they were trying to have vertical integration similar to apple, but then for other reasons felt compelled to give that up.

In any case this is dissimilar to most google projects because it looks like it's mostly under Waze's control which atm has a lot of autonomy, it's likely being called a google project by the Waze team because of the brand recognition and by reporters because it's more interesting to talk about how google might be putting itself in a precarious legal position (vis-a-vis a conflict of interest), instead of saying Waze created yet another ridesharing app.

[AdieuToLogic]

> I think it's pretty clear that this won't be their last effort in this area.

> There's a perfect fit between self-driving technology and ride sharing

In Google's case, that would be continuous advertisement inundation to the product(s)[1] as well as even more data collection on the product[1].

1 - product: previously known as "a user[2]".

2 - user: archaic form of the term "person".