In what sense is self-driving “here” if the economics alone prove that it can’t get “here”? It’s not just limited coverage, it’s practically non-existent coverage, both nationally and globally, with no evidence that the system can generalize, profitably, outside the limited areas it’s currently in.
It's covering significant areas of 3 major metros, and the core of one minor, with testing deployments in several other major metros. Considering the top 10 metros are >70% of the US ridehail market, that seems like a long way beyond "non-existent" coverage nationally.
You’re narrowing the market for self-driving to the ridehail market in the top 10 US metros. That’s kinda moving the goal posts, my friend, and completely ignoring the promises made by self-driving companies.
The promise has been that self-driving would replace driving in general because it’d be safer, more economical, etc. The promise has been that you’d be able to send your autonomous car from city to city without a driver present, possibly to pick up your child from school, and bring them back home.
In that sense, yes, Waymo is nonexistent. As the article author points out, lifetime miles for “self-driving” vehicles (70M) accounts for less than 1% of daily driving miles in the US (9B).
Even if we suspend that perspective, and look at the ride-hailing market, in 2018 Uber/Lyft accounted for ~1-2% of miles driven in the top 10 US metros. [1] So, Waymo is a tiny part of a tiny market in a single nation in the world.
Self-driving isn’t “here” in any meaningful sense and it won’t be in the near-term. If it were, we’d see Alphabet pouring much more of its war chest into Waymo to capture what stands to be a multi-trillion dollar market. But they’re not, so clearly they see the same risks that Brooks is highlighting.
There are, optimistically, significantly less than 10k Waymos operating today. There are a bit less than 300M registered vehicles in the US.
If the entire US automotive production were devoted solely to Waymos, it'd still take years to produce enough vehicles to drive any meaningful percentage of the daily road miles in the US.
I think that's a bit of a silly standard to set for hopefully obvious reasons.
> ..is a tiny part of a tiny market in a single nation in the world.
Calculator was a small device that was made in one tiny market in one nation in the world. Now we all got a couple of hardware ones in our desk drawers, and a couple software ones on each smartphone.
If a driving car can perform 'well' (Your Definition May Vary - YDMV) in NY/Chicago/etc. then it can perform equally 'well' in London, Paris, Berlin, Brussels, etc. It's just that EU has stricter rules/regulations while US is more relaxed (thus innovation happens 'there' and not 'here' in the EU).
When 'you guys' (US) nail self-driving, it will only be a matter of time til we (EU) allow it to cross the pond. I see this as a hockey-stick graph. We are still on the eraser/blade phase.
if you had read the F-ing article, which you clearly did not, you would see that you are committing the sin of exponentiation: assuming that all tech advances exponentially because microprocessor development did (for awhile).
Development of this technology appears to be logarithmic, not exponential.
He's committing the "sin" of monotonicity, not exponentiation. You could quibble about whether progress is currently exponential, but Waymo has started limited deployments in 2-3 cities in 2024 and wide deployments in at least SF (its second city after Phoenix). I don't think you can reasonably say its progress is logarithmic at this point - maybe linear or quadratic.
Speaking for one of those metro areas I'm familiar with: maybe in SF city limits specifically (where they still are half the Uber's share), but that's 10% of the population of the Bay Area metro. I'm very much looking forward to the day when I can take a robo cab from where I live near Google to the airport - preferably, much cheaper than today's absurd Uber rates - but today it's just not present in the lives of about 95+% of Bay Area residents.
> preferably, much cheaper than today's absurd Uber rates
I just want to highlight that the only mechanism by which this eventually produces cheaper rates is by removing having to pay a human driver.
I’m not one to forestall technological progress, but there are a huge number of people already living on the margins who will lose one of their few remaining options for income as this expands. AI will inevitably create jobs, but it’s hard to see how it will—in the short term at least—do anything to help the enormous numbers of people who are going to be put out of work.
I’m not saying we should stop the inevitable forward march of technology. But at the same time it’s hard for me to “very much look forward to” the flip side of being able to take robocabs everywhere.
People living on the margins is fundamentally a social problem, and we all know how amenable those are to technical solutions.
Let's say AV development stops tomorrow though. Is continuing to grind workers down under the boot of the gig economy really a preferred solution here or just a way to avoid the difficult political discussion we need to have either way?
I'm not sure how I could have been more clear that I'm not suggesting we stop development on robotaxis or anything related to AI.
All I'm asking is that we take a moment to reflect on the people who won't be winners. Which is going to be a hell of a lot of people. And right now there is absolutely zero plan for what to do when these folks have one of the few remaining opportunities taken away from them.
As awful as the gig economy has been it's better than the "no economy" we're about to drive them to.
This is orthogonal. You're living in a society with no social safety net, one which leaves people with minimal options, and you're arguing for keeping at least those minimal options. Yes, that's better than nothing, but there are much better solutions.
The US is one of the richest countries in the world, with all that wealth going to a few people. "Give everyone else a few scraps too!" is better than having nothing, but redistributing the wealth is better.
But this is the society we live in now. We don’t live in one where we take care of those whose jobs have been displaced.
I wish we did. But we don’t. So it’s hard for me to feel quite as excited these days for the next thing that will make the world worse for so many people, even if it is a technological marvel.
Just between trucking and rideshare drivers we’re talking over 10 million people. Maybe this will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and finally gets us to take better care of our neighbors.
Yeah but it doesn't work to on the one hand campaign for not taking rideshare jobs away from people on an online forum, and on the other say "that's the society we live in now". If you're going to be defeatist, just accept those jobs might go away. If not, campaign for wealth redistribution and social safety nets.
Public transit has a fundamentally local impact. It takes away some jobs but also provides a lot of jobs for a wide variety of skills and skill levels. It simultaneously provides an enormous number of benefits to nearby populations, including increased safety and reduced traffic.
Self-driving cars will be disruptive globally. So far they primarily drive employment in a small set of the technology industry. Yes, there are manufacturing jobs involved but those are overwhelmingly going to be jobs that were already building human-operated vehicles. Self-driving cars will save many lives. But not as many as public transit does (proportionally per user) And it is blindingly obvious they will make traffic worse.
Waymo's current operational area in the bay runs from Sunnyvale to fisherman's wharf. I don't know how many people that is, but I'm pretty comfortable calling it a big chunk of the bay.
They don't run to SFO because SF hasn't approved them for airport service.
I just opened the Waymo app and its service certainly doesn't extend to Sunnyvale. I just recently had an experience where I got a Waymo to drive me to a Caltrain station so I can actually get to Sunnyvale.
The public area is SF to Daly City. The employee-only area runs down the rest of the peninsula. Both of them together are the operational area.
Waymo's app only shows the areas accessible to you. Different users can have different accessible areas, though in the Bay area it's currently just the two divisions I'm aware of.
Why would you consider the employee-only area? For that categorization to exist it must mean it's either unreliable for customers or too expensive cause there's too much human drivers on the loop. Either way it would not be considered as an area served by self driving, imo.
There are alternative possibilities, like "we don't have enough vehicles to serve this area appropriately" or "we don't have statistical power to ensure this area meets safety standards even though it looks fine", and "there are missing features (like freeways) that would make public service uncompetitive in this area" to simply "the CPUC hasn't approved a fare area expansion".
It's an area they're operating legally, so it's part of their operational area. It's not part of their public service area, which I'd call that instead.
I wish! In Palo Alto the cars have been driving around for more than a decade and you still can't hail one. Lately I see them much less often than I used to, actually. I don't think occasional internal-only testing qualifies as "operational".
Where's the economic proof of impossibility? As far as I know Waymo has not published any official numbers, and any third party unit profitability analysis is going to be so sensitive to assumptions about e.g. exact depreciation schedules and utilization percentages that the error bars would inevitably be straddling both sides of the break-even line.
> with no evidence that the system can generalize, profitably, outside the limited areas it’s currently in
That argument doesn't seem horribly compelling given the regular expansions to new areas.
Analyzing Alphabet’s capital allocation decisions gives you all the evidence necessary.
It’s safe to assume that a company’s ownership takes the decisions that they believe will maximize the value of their company. Therefore, we can look at Alphabet’s capital allocation decisions, with respect to Waymo, to see what they think about Waymo’s opportunity.
In the past five years, Alphabet has spent >$100B to buyback their stock; retained ~100B in cash. In 2024, they issued their first dividend to investors and authorized up to $70B more in stock buybacks.
Over that same time period they’ve invested <$5B in Waymo, and committed to investing $5B more over the next few years (no timeline was given).
This tells us that Alphabet believes their money is better spent buying back their stock, paying back their investors, or sitting in the bank, when compared to investing more in Waymo.
Either they believe Waymo’s opportunity is too small (unlikely) to warrant further investment, or when adjusted for the remaining risk/uncertainty (research, technology, product, market, execution, etc) they feel the venture needs to be de-risked further before investing more.
Isn’t there a point of diminishing returns? Let’s assume they hand over $70B to Waymo today. Can Waymo even allocate that?
I view the bottlenecks as two things. Producing the vehicles and establishing new markets.
My understanding of the process with the vehicles is they acquire them then begin a lengthy process of retrofitting them. It seems the only way to improve (read: speed up) this process is to have a tightly integrated manufacturing partner. Does $70B buy that? I’m not sure.
Next, to establish new markets… you need to secure people and real estate. Money is essential but this isn’t a problem you can simply wave money at. You need to get boots on the ground, scout out locations meeting requirements, and begin the fuzzy process of hiring.
I think Alphabet will allocate money as the operation scales. If they can prove viability in a few more markets the levers to open faster production of vehicles will be pulled.
> Alphabet has to buy back their stock because of the massive amount of stock comp they award.
Wait, really? They're a publically traded company; don't they just need to issue new stock (the opposite of buying it back) to employees, who can then choose to sell it in the public market?
This is just a quirk of the modern stock market capitalist system. Yes, stock buybacks are more lucrative than almost anything other than a blitz-scaling B2B SAAS. But for good of society, I would prefer if Alphabet spent their money developing new technologies and not on stock buybacks / dividends. If they think every tech is a waste of money, then give it to charity, not stock buybacks. That said, Alohabet does develop new technologies regularly. Their track record before 2012 is stellar, their track record now is good (Alphafold, Waymo, Tensorflow, TPU etc), and it is nowhere close to being the worst offender of stock buybacks (I’m looking at you Apple), but we should move away from stock price over everything as a mentality and force companies to use their profits for the common good.
That's a very hand wavy argument. How about starting here:
> Mario Herger: Waymo is using around four NVIDIA H100 GPUSs at a unit price of $10,000 per vehicle to cover the necessary computing requirements. The five lidars, 29 cameras, 4 radars – adds another $40,000 - $50,000. This would put the cost of a current Waymo robotaxi at around $150,000
There are definitely some numbers out there that allow us to estimate within some standard deviations how unprofitable Waymo is
(That quote doesn't seem credible. It seems quite unlikely that Waymo would use H100s -- for one, they operate cars that predate the H100 release. And H100s sure as hell don't cost just $10k either.)
You're not even making a handwavy argument. Sure, it might sound like a lot of money, but in terms of unit profitability it could mean anything at all depending on the other parameters. What really matters is a) how long a period that investment is depreciated over; b) what utilization the car gets (ot alternatively, how much revenue it generates); c) how much lower the operating costs are due to not needing to pay a driver.
Like, if the car is depreciated over 5 years, it's basically guaranteed to be unit profitable. While if it has to be depreciated over just a year, it probably isn't.
Do you know what those numbers actually are? I don't.
Here in the product/research sense, which is the hardest bar to cross. Making it cheaper takes time but generally we have reduced cost of everything by orders of magnitude when manufacturing ramps up, and I don't think self driving hardware(sensors etc) would be any different.
It’s not even here in the product/research sense. First, as the author points out, it’s better characterized as operator-assisted semi-autonomous driving in limited locations. That’s great but far from autonomous driving.
Secondly, if we throw a dart on a map: 1) what are the chances Waymo can deploy there, 2) how much money would they have to invest to deploy, and 3) how long would it take?
Waymo is nowhere near a turn-key system where they can setup in any city without investing in the infrastructure underlying Waymo’s system. See [1] which details the amount of manual work and coordination with local officials that Waymo has to do per city.
And that’s just to deploy an operator-assisted semi-autonomous vehicle in the US. EU, China, and India aren’t even on the roadmap yet. These locations will take many more billions worth of investment.
Not to mention Waymo hasn’t even addressed long-haul trucking, an industry ripe for automation that makes cold, calculated, rational business decisions based on economics. Waymo had a brief foray in the industry and then gave up. Because they haven’t solved autonomous driving yet and it’s not even on the horizon.
Whereas we can drop most humans in any of these locations and they’ll mostly figure it out within the week.
Far more than lowering the cost, there are fundamental technological problems that remain unsolved.
