Thanks for the thoughtful reply. These questions fall into "the more I learn, the less I know" bucket ;-). Here are some frames I am kicking around:
1. In the next 5 years, I assume they double repeatedly.
2. Because they can't compete with UL for marginal supply (capital cost borne by driver), partnering with U to be base supply makes sense. I expect U to try to capture all of the margin in the short term.
3. To my knowledge, which is surely much less than yours, they have yet to demonstrate a repeatable rollout to freeways. That's a huge risk to their TAM. I assume non-freeways are permanently solved—an incredible achievement. (Disclosure: I am socially acquainted with one of the core individuals responsible for this achievement.)
4. A lot depends on the interaction between how quickly they can scale capital, how physically and legally suitable they are for the next few dozen cities, what the market for riders and UL drivers in those cities are, and the extent to which they repeat the U partnership. I have no data here.
5. I also don't have a good estimate for W's cost learning curve, but I assume it is strong. If that's correct, I agree with what I take to be your position that we need reasons why W (or a competitive equivalent) won't take over the US automotive industry by 2040. On the one hand, there may be reasons! On the other hand, a, say, $10,000 HW package plus a substantial monthly fee is a great deal in exchange for sharply higher safety for self and loved ones, sharply lower insurance, and sharply less lost time behind the wheel—especially in the form of not having to chauffeur kids and other non-drivers. I won't pay $70,000 for a conventional car, but I'd pay that in a second for a car that could drive me between SF and LA. C.f. Matt Bell: https://www.mattbell.us/what-i-learned-from-130-hours-in-a-waymo/
6. On that lost point, my instinct about the "rent your AV" market is that you're missing the labor dynamic. Uber and AirBnB arbitrage income-poor people whose modest wealth is locked in physical capital (car/housing). Initial Waymos will be bought mostly by affluent people who have better things to do than manage a $8,000/y side-hustle.
7. Behind all this, cars are deflating incredibly fast. Today's $40,000 EVs are 2030's $30,000 EVs, and both will last longer than the 12 years modern ICE cars survive, attacking unit sales. What stays expensive? Driving time for rich people, parking for urban residents, insurance for drivers especially young ones. Interesting question: what becomes *more* scarce when Ws are ubiquitous?
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. These questions fall into "the more I learn, the less I know" bucket ;-). Here are some frames I am kicking around:
1. In the next 5 years, I assume they double repeatedly.
2. Because they can't compete with UL for marginal supply (capital cost borne by driver), partnering with U to be base supply makes sense. I expect U to try to capture all of the margin in the short term.
3. To my knowledge, which is surely much less than yours, they have yet to demonstrate a repeatable rollout to freeways. That's a huge risk to their TAM. I assume non-freeways are permanently solved—an incredible achievement. (Disclosure: I am socially acquainted with one of the core individuals responsible for this achievement.)
4. A lot depends on the interaction between how quickly they can scale capital, how physically and legally suitable they are for the next few dozen cities, what the market for riders and UL drivers in those cities are, and the extent to which they repeat the U partnership. I have no data here.
5. I also don't have a good estimate for W's cost learning curve, but I assume it is strong. If that's correct, I agree with what I take to be your position that we need reasons why W (or a competitive equivalent) won't take over the US automotive industry by 2040. On the one hand, there may be reasons! On the other hand, a, say, $10,000 HW package plus a substantial monthly fee is a great deal in exchange for sharply higher safety for self and loved ones, sharply lower insurance, and sharply less lost time behind the wheel—especially in the form of not having to chauffeur kids and other non-drivers. I won't pay $70,000 for a conventional car, but I'd pay that in a second for a car that could drive me between SF and LA. C.f. Matt Bell: https://www.mattbell.us/what-i-learned-from-130-hours-in-a-waymo/
6. On that lost point, my instinct about the "rent your AV" market is that you're missing the labor dynamic. Uber and AirBnB arbitrage income-poor people whose modest wealth is locked in physical capital (car/housing). Initial Waymos will be bought mostly by affluent people who have better things to do than manage a $8,000/y side-hustle.
7. Behind all this, cars are deflating incredibly fast. Today's $40,000 EVs are 2030's $30,000 EVs, and both will last longer than the 12 years modern ICE cars survive, attacking unit sales. What stays expensive? Driving time for rich people, parking for urban residents, insurance for drivers especially young ones. Interesting question: what becomes *more* scarce when Ws are ubiquitous?