Uber may be looking to purchase thousands of autonomous cars, but it seems that no deal has been finalized:
Ride-hailing service Uber has sounded out car companies about placing a large order for self-driving cars, an auto industry source said on Friday. "They wanted autonomous cars," the source, who declined to be named, said. "It seemed like they were shopping around."
Loss-making Uber would make drastic savings on its biggest cost -- drivers -- if it were able to incorporate self-driving cars into its fleet. Volkswagen's Audi, Daimler's Mercedes-Benz, BMW and car industry suppliers Bosch and Continental are all working on technologies for autonomous or semi-autonomous cars.
Earlier on Friday, Germany's Manager Magazin reported that Uber had placed an order for at least 100,000 Mercedes S-Class cars, citing sources at both companies. The top-flight limousine, around 100,000 of which Mercedes-Benz sold last year, does not yet have fully autonomous driving functionality.
Another source familiar with the matter said no order had been placed with Mercedes-Benz. Daimler and Uber declined to comment.
Auto industry executives are wary of doing deals with newcomers from the technology and software business who threaten to upend established business models based on manufacturing and selling cars. "We don't want to end up like Nokia's handset business, which was once hugely profitable...then disappeared," a second auto industry source said about doing a deal with Uber. [...] Earlier this week Mercedes rival BMW said it was considering launching its own ride hailing service in what would amount to a rival business to Uber.
An order of 100,000 Mercedes S-Class cars would cost billions, even with a steep discount. Reuters hasn't removed the reference to the 100,000 Mercedes-Benz cars, as seen above.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Unixnut on Monday March 21 2016, @06:06AM
I mean, originally Uber argued that it should not subject to the laws of other taxi companies, because it didn't own its own cars or employed its own drivers. It was just an app that connected "self employed" drivers who owned their own cars, and those willing to be driven by them (for a commission). A brokerage service for car pooling, essentially.
Fair enough, the argument worked, but now Uber is looking to buy its own fleet of cars (apparently), and self driving ones at that. Assuming the self driving cars work as intended, and people are willing to be driven by them, hasn't Uber just become another taxi company (albeit without drivers)? At that point they would fall under the very same rules and regulations they argued they were not subject to, and would make their business model far more expensive and unsustainable (well, more unsustainable than it already is).
Also, as self-driving cars are not there yet, the best you can do is some sort of semi-autonomous option, you would still need drivers. So who would drive Uber's cars? Would the drivers then be employees of Uber? I guess they could rent/lease the cars to the "self employed" drivers, but the main attraction of Uber was that it was cheaper than taxis, because people drove you in their own cars, and didn't bother getting the right insurance to do so.
I doubt it will be cheap to lease/rent an S-class, let alone insure it (even on personal "non commercial" insurance).
Really, if the article is true, what Uber is doing makes little sense. ATM I am going to go with not trusting the article, but we will see.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday March 21 2016, @06:24AM
Same as before, except for a smaller share of the ride fee; after being scared by Uber they'll be replaced by self-driving cars.
Stupid, I know, but makes a bit more sense than the alternative.
Or... can it be that Uber's management is that desperate/stupid to believe self-driving cars are a reality already?
Maybe Jobs' reality distortion field still persists in their mind?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Monday March 21 2016, @07:59AM
> Same as before
Didn't Uber drivers drive their own cars? Uber didn't provide them with any kind of vehicle themselves, no? That was Uber's main argument for why they should not be regulated like a taxi service, followed closely by the fact they didn't "employ" their drivers in any shape or form. So how would it be same as before?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 21 2016, @08:19AM
By the very nonexistence of any self-driving car certified as capable to carry passengers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Monday March 21 2016, @08:28AM
Uber absolutely is providing vehicles to some drivers:
http://qz.com/563622/ubers-new-car-rental-program-for-drivers-doesnt-actually-make-much-financial-sense/ [qz.com]
http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/1/9831364/uber-is-offering-cheap-rental-cars-to-its-denver-drivers [theverge.com]
https://get.uber.com/cl/enterprise/ [uber.com]
There is a startup called HyreCar which tries to do the same thing:
https://www.quora.com/Are-rental-cars-still-not-allowed-to-be-used-for-Uber-and-Lyft-How-could-I-drive-for-Uber-if-I-don%C2%B4t-own-a-car [quora.com]
Uber is more like a monstrous shapeshifting beast that can transform itself to match the reality of the regulatory environment in which it is trying to invade. That's why the app has a slider allowing you to choose from Uber, UberX, UberPool, UberBlack, etc. So when you say "That was Uber's main argument for why they should not be regulated like a taxi service," you have to take into account that Uber is not nearly that monolithic, and is trying to hoodwink regulators on a country or city-by-city basis. In some cities, it is welcomed by politicians as a "sharing economy" savior, and in others, it has multiple methods to either avoid or conform to regulation that would treat it like a taxi service.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Monday March 21 2016, @10:17AM
Thank you very much for your reply, if I had mod points you would get some. I had no idea Uber had spread so far and in so many directions. It seems they can indeed just weasel out of local regulations that way.
Yet another reason to not support them with my business. Thankfully round my end the established taxi companies, rather than lobbying to ban Uber, just started their own app based cab hailing. So yay for competition!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 21 2016, @03:22PM
I don't understand how Uber has avoided being considered an employer at least in Washington State. Our Worker's Comp system covers employees and independent contractors where the essence of the contract is personal labor. As for independent cab drivers who lease their vehicles, it has already been decided in WA that those drivers are workers and the cab companies responsible for Industrial Insurance premiums.
In WA, many employers try to escape workers comp by calling their workers "independent contractors" -- except in this state, they are covered if the essence of the contract is personal labor. For example, if you have a crane mounted on a barge that can haul up sunk boats and you get hired by someone, the essence of that contract is the use of the major piece of equipment. If you have a truck and get hired to deliver stuff, the essence of that contract is personal labor.
http://www.leagle.com/decision/198214831WnApp117_1136/ [leagle.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Zz9zZ on Monday March 21 2016, @06:29AM
Agreed, all the taxi cabs need to do is make their own app / web portals and be competitive on price. Also, eventually the government will step in and regulate Uber more heavily. If they are serious about this move I will be glad when they get an axe to come down on them. Selling out the very people who have literally made their company succeed is such a large sellout it will put all the previous offshoring to shame. There really wasn't much genius to the Uber business plan. Create an app that uses the government sponsored GPS system and Google's map services to let people hail cabs. A technical hurdle that could be solved by any group of coders. The smartest move was making it easy for just about anyone to get a job by putting up their own vehicle as a company asset, who needs venture capitalists?
So basically they sold out their own investors, the working people.
/tangent: We need a resurgence of ethics, choosing the difficult options over the convenient ones. Eschew Uber, Facebook, Google, Yelp. They all sell out the people in various ways. Most of those services can be replaced by personally owned or open source software and subscription based servers. The SaaS and Cloud based ecosystem is going to crash and burn, there are too many coders and eventually projects will evolve that are easy to deploy on any server. Then who needs these centralized systems that abuse their power for increased personal gain?
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday March 21 2016, @07:01AM
Taxi cab companies lobbied long and hard to get cab hailing apps outlawed (for one bogus reason or another). So it will be interesting to see how they wiggle out of that trap.
But you got all these different parties, cab companies, car manufacturers, Uber, Rental companies, Google each one missing one thing or another. Maint depots, hailing apps, autonomous technology...
Pay attention folks, and keep your pantry stocked with pop corn, this is going to be a 6 or 8 party Jump Ball, and its all going to happen before our eyes.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Monday March 21 2016, @07:08AM
No more points or I'd mod you up, time for bed anyway :D
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 21 2016, @01:38PM
They dont even have to do it 'right away' either.
They can leave their human guys for the more difficult areas. Then use the auto taxis in areas where they are just regulated as a taxi service or it is easy to drive in.
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Monday March 21 2016, @09:43PM
Have we had the year of Linux on the desktop yet? Your faith in the ability of open-source to take over markets is touching. Servers is about it.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Tuesday March 22 2016, @03:02AM
Uber's plan is to oust entrenched regulated monopolies and become an entrenched monopoly before the regulatory response occurs.
Honestly, this automated car thing seems a bit out of character since it's a little early to be pursuing that when they're still burning money in pursuit of their earlier plan. Maybe the theory is that owning a fleet of autonomous capable cars before anyone else will keep them ahead of the next iteration of taxi service. Seems a little silly since they're still in the middle of step 1 of their taxi domination plan.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Monday March 21 2016, @06:51AM
what did this "news" do to Uber's share/IPO launch price?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Monday March 21 2016, @06:32PM
Either raised it or kept if from falling. This is a defensive move against a Google/Apple self-driving car story making them look passe and having their price drop. It may also be an attempt at an acquisition by one of those two (or similar) to have a giant user-base for their self-driving cars.
It's hard to imagine Uber really wants this. They pay out 80% of the cost of the ride to the driver. Maintenance on a self-driving car, detecting if it needs to be cleaned, etc. will almost certainly run more than this. To say nothing of the capital outlay.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RedBear on Monday March 21 2016, @07:05AM
Just in case anyone is still unclear on the undeniable fact that no capitalistic corporation has the slightest interest in wasting one thin dime providing employment for a single member of humanity if there exists any cost-effective means to avoid it.
Job creators my foot.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 21 2016, @07:19AM
Sooo, if we amputate your foot we get jobs? FOOT! FOOT! FOOT!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Monday March 21 2016, @01:23PM
You're an economic Luddite.
We can't have motorized vehicles, it will put buggy whip makers out of work.
We can't have machines make things, it will put craftsmen out of work.
We can't have telegraphs, it will make mailmen destitute.
We can't have refrigerators in homes, what will happen to icemen and ice houses?
We can't have sprinkler systems, firefighters will become redundant.
These vehicles aren't going to be self-cleaning, so there will be some people working to keep them fresh and neat.
You're also ignoring the benefits of cheaper personal transportation. Bars and restaurant patrons will be more able to drink knowing there is a safe, non-surge-priced ride available to them. Too-young-to-drive teens will be able to get around without moms in minivans. Elderly people who are unsafe driving themselves won't be housebound. DUI drivers can be taken off the road without taking them away from the economy. Travel to the airport and back will be cheaper. In many of these cases, the money isn't taken out of circulation but spent elsewhere. Then these Uber drivers will get other work that produces something, perhaps, instead of just a service.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bitstream on Monday March 21 2016, @01:49PM
You are right that for most people the money will be spent elsewhere. But the problem is that the money will be drained from most people and be spent on the coffers of the top earners (not by work). Thus taking them out of circulation and shrinking the economy.
Anybody heard about a shrinking economy as of late with difficult to find jobs? ;-)
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Monday March 21 2016, @04:52PM
Spent on the coffers? You mean re-invested in newer ways to make money?
And yes, thanks for reading my journal here. I'm working on another certification to increase my value in the job market.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by RedBear on Monday March 21 2016, @06:30PM
I never said any of that. I made the simple statement that the relationship between capitalism and human employment is antagonistic rather than symbiotic. When corporations can no longer afford to employ any humans, no humans will be employed. And as usual in these conversations, you're ignoring the fact that we are no longer in a rapidly growing economy and population where we are discovering (and using up) vast new natural resources every decade. What saved our economies in the past will not necessarily save us in the future. There were never very many buggy whip makers. There are millions of taxi and Uber drivers that could be quite rapidly replaced as autonomous vehicle technology arrives. The situations are not comparable.
Sure, 30 Uber drivers who were all making some kind of living wage will be replaced with one guy at the local Uber depot who vacuums cars out all day long. Sounds like a fair trade.
I don't want you to take this the wrong way. I don't intend to insult you, I'm just making a factual statement. You are a fool. I've seen people say things like this a million times about a million different different reasons that corporations have used to justify reducing their workforces. The implication is always that somehow the company's products or services will get cheaper and better. Never seen it actually happen in the real world. If anything in my observation products and services always get worse, and more expensive.
I cannot fathom why you would believe that giving your money directly to Uber rather than Uber drivers will cause transportation to be cheaper. Uber will still be happy to charge exactly what the market will bear, and will use surge pricing when they think it will benefit their profit margins without impacting their public relations too much. Everything in that whole paragraph is already available with the way things are now. The only difference when the cars drive themselves will be that a million or so Uber drivers will be looking for another new career in an extremely depressed economy. Yay!
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Monday March 21 2016, @08:45PM
The inherent beauty of the capitalist model is everyone tries to improve the efficiency of the system. People will continue to prefer the human touch for decades, if not eternally, so competitors like Lyft will stay in business. The market will respond appropriately, rather than this fantastical ideal that businesses should exist to employ people. We all know how the USSR turned out, and it was killed by frozen Jell-O Pudding pops [chron.com] and the intentional over-employment of workers doing busywork.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Tuesday March 22 2016, @02:35AM
Innovation is great so long as there's enough jobs for everyone, in our current economic system.
>Then these Uber drivers will get other work that produces something, perhaps, instead of just a service.
Like what, exactly? We throw away so much food, electronics, and consumer goods every year (in the US), we clearly aren't lacking anything.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Monday March 21 2016, @01:41PM
Just in case anyone is still unclear on the undeniable fact that no capitalistic corporation has the slightest interest in wasting one thin dime providing employment for a single member of humanity if there exists any cost-effective means to avoid it.
It's not their job, buttercup. It's your job to show that it is cost-effective to employ you.
(Score: 2) by RedBear on Monday March 21 2016, @06:03PM
Yeah, I'm absolutely certain that's what I just said. Buttercup. Your comment is quite redundant. And you missed the point entirely.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 22 2016, @12:52AM
Yeah, I'm absolutely certain that's what I just said.
Then you should have said something else rather than "Job creators my foot." It's quite clear from that statement that you don't get it. A lot of people wouldn't do stuff for money, if they could just get the money. Employers are not unusual in that. But they can't get something for nothing. In the case of employers, that means that they have to pay someone to work for them.
(Score: 2) by black6host on Monday March 21 2016, @10:40AM
The last word in the summary, "aboved" doesn't seem quite righted. :)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday March 21 2016, @12:05PM
at least 100,000 Mercedes S-Class cars ... The top-flight limousine, around 100,000 of which Mercedes-Benz sold last year ...
Worth pointing out the well known walmart effect where a dying brand can sell its soul by providing any price point imaginable when selling to walmart due to the enormous volume.
I'm not claiming it'll be a $3K yugo from the 80s, but I could totally see vinyl seats that are easier to clean drunken puke off than fine corinthian leather. Or if the car always parks itself in nice areas or away from other cars or rarely parks at all or no one cares the door panels can be thinner and less dent resistant. I'm sure a deal for 100%+ of annual production comes from the factory and no cut at all for a stealership. The AI driver isn't going to appreciate a large fast engine. The AI can be told to steer around potholes instead of fancy suspension.
Something rarely considered is the price curve of what marketing can get people to pay for cars is extremely wide compared to the actual cost of production which is darn near a constant. The cheapest car on the road that meets modern federal requirements costs about $16K to manufacture and the biggest most obese truck ever seen costs about $25K to manufacture. So the average new car on the road nationwide might result in $5K of profit out of $30K, but due to statistical deviation that does NOT mean that a $150K car costs $150K * 25/30ths to manufacture. Likewise the commuter car I bought a couple years back was basically manufactured by Toyota as a public service in order to gain access to sell giant pickup trucks for 300% profit or whatever. The mashable link claims 100K cars would cost $10B list. But I would be surprised if the total contract cost exceeded $3B. It'll probably be NDA'd to hell and back to protect the marketing brand but it should show up in the financial statements somehow.
There's an interesting euro angle, where Mercedes is seen as an aspirational brand in the USA but in euro-land Mercedes means "taxi". I hesitate to say all the taxis in euroland are Mercedes but... One time in Ireland I did get a taxi ride in a weird volkswagon giant hatchback "thing", like a Gremlin but slightly cooler looking. So aside from the obvious surface story, its a shout out to expansion in euro-land, a direct attack on almost every human German Mercedes-driving taxi-driver.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday March 21 2016, @06:20PM
> The cheapest car on the road that meets modern federal requirements costs about $16K to manufacture
That would mean anything sold under $20k is losing money. Badly.
You may want to check the sales volumes of the subcompact and compact category. They're not loss leaders. I doubt Nissan loses $5k on every Versa they sell, just because.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Monday March 21 2016, @01:55PM
This is an interesting development because they will now offer a machine only service and not one that involve paid humans. The books of laws are likely not prepared for this.
Once you hire or pay humans it will involve employment taxes, work environment laws, unions, rights organisations etc. With robots it's more like capital and transaction costs period.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 21 2016, @02:33PM
And as noted above,
Travel to the airport and back will be cheaper.
Until house robbers crack into the database and mark your house for theft. How the heck will the cops trace this kind of racket?
I've read at least one story over the years where a dishonest cabbie was working with a thief, but at that level the damage will be limited.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Monday March 21 2016, @03:17PM
Send an empty cab from a bait-house? ;-)
Also works for oh-we-know-where-ev1lz-of-whizblow lives!
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday March 21 2016, @05:20PM
That'll really help. Of the 40 or so uber journeys I took to the airport last year, only 1 was from an empty house, and in all cases the pickup location isn't specific enough to pick my house up rather than the neighbours on either side, or the other side of the road.