The Prickly Partnership Between Uber and Google 77
HughPickens.com writes Google, with billions of dollars in the bank and house-by-house maps of most of the planet, seemed like the perfect partner for Uber, the hugely popular ride-hailing service. But Mike Isaac writes in the NYT that just two years after Google's venture capital arm poured more than $250 million into Uber there are signs that the companies are more likely to be ferocious competitors than allies. Uber recently announced plans to develop self-driving cars, a longtime pet project at Google. Travis Kalanick, Uber's CEO, has publicly discussed what he sees as the inevitability of autonomous taxis, saying they could offer cheaper rides and a true alternative to vehicle ownership. "The Uber experience is expensive because it's not just the car but the other dude in the car," Kalanick said at a technology conference in 2014, referring to the expense of paying human drivers. "When there's no other dude in the car, the cost [of taking an Uber] gets cheaper than owning a vehicle." Uber is also adding engineers who are experts on mapping technology. And the company, based in San Francisco, has been in talks with Google's advertising archrival, Facebook, to find ways to work together.
Not to be outdone, Google has been experimenting with a ride-sharing app similar to Uber's and both companies have long toyed with the idea of offering same-day delivery of items like groceries and other staples. Last month Google announced it would start presenting data from third party applications inside Google Now, a service that displays useful information prominently on the screen of Android smartphones. Google said it had struck deals to draw data from such apps as Pandora, AirBnb, Zillow, and the ride-sharing service Lyft. The company most obviously missing from that list? Google's old and possibly former friend, Uber. According to Isaac, for young companies, even one as well funded as Uber, dancing with giants is a part of doing business — even if there is always a risk of getting squashed. "There are some hard lessons about the dangers of cooperation that are strongly in the memories of these companies," says John Morgan. "Something that makes partnering harder, even when it might make economic sense to do so."
Not to be outdone, Google has been experimenting with a ride-sharing app similar to Uber's and both companies have long toyed with the idea of offering same-day delivery of items like groceries and other staples. Last month Google announced it would start presenting data from third party applications inside Google Now, a service that displays useful information prominently on the screen of Android smartphones. Google said it had struck deals to draw data from such apps as Pandora, AirBnb, Zillow, and the ride-sharing service Lyft. The company most obviously missing from that list? Google's old and possibly former friend, Uber. According to Isaac, for young companies, even one as well funded as Uber, dancing with giants is a part of doing business — even if there is always a risk of getting squashed. "There are some hard lessons about the dangers of cooperation that are strongly in the memories of these companies," says John Morgan. "Something that makes partnering harder, even when it might make economic sense to do so."
Zappos, Woot, etc. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I find open competition preferable to crony capitalism
If google was to turn a blind eye to uber and grant them that space (or uber to do the same with autonomous vehicles) then a lack of competition would result in stagnation in the market places and less innovation
There is a risk of stagnation if one company becomes so dominant that it eliminates all competition, but we are a long way from that scenario
Re: (Score:1)
Uber. Trying to make Google look less evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Woot came back at meh.com
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not fond of Uber (not an user, and read some horror stories about raping, etc).
I'm also a Google fan.
But this story reminds me of M$ eating up smaller fish who thought it is safe to partner up with the shark.
Re: (Score:2)
I only used Uber once. I was in Miami for a Bowl game and the police told me that the one mile walk to the train station was not safe. My wife and I called an Uber car and paid $5.
Worked great for us.
Self driving cars for taxis? Video every one and if anyone trashes the cab you charge them.
No drivers to pay.
Yea makes a lot of sense.
Re:So... (Score:4, Informative)
I've used both Uber and Lyft several times each (probably about 10-15 trips total, more of them with Lyft because it's cheaper). It's always worked out pretty well, though there's times when there's no drivers nearby (seems to be more of a problem with Lyft actually) so you'll wait a while. However, this compares favorably to regular cabs where I've taken those in the same area as I used Lyft/Uber and had to wait an hour for them to show up. The prices are much, much lower with Uber/Lyft too: taking a cab anywhere at all costs $20, but with Lyft/Uber it was usually under $10. And of course there's the massive convenience factor. The cab companies are stuck in the 1970s: you have to look them up in a phone book, call them, ask for a cab to come to your location, give them your street address, etc. Then you have to actually tell the stupid driver where to turn and navigate for him because he doesn't know where the hell anything is and doesn't use GPS.
Sure, taxis are fast and convenient in Manhattan because they're plentiful and the drivers actually know where stuff is, but anywhere else in the country, taxis are a giant, expensive, pain in the ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the experience I have had seems enough like his description, and enough different to think maybe its different in different areas. Last time I used a cab it was about half as he said, they operate exactly as they have since the 70s, its a manual call in operation and if they are busy it just rings because the other end is just a guy taking calls and dispatching...for the 4 cab companies that all have the same address and phone number in my city.
OTOH I have only once had a cabbie who didn't know where
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
My description is 100% correct for northern New Jersey. If you don't like it, you can suck my dick.
Fuck off with *your* ignorant opinion, asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
man i saw that red "foe" icon, and you didn't disappoint.
you're a bright, shining example of humanity. don't let anyone tell you different.
Re: (Score:2)
So, I simply tell my honest experience with something, and some asshole tells me I'm wrong and to fuck off, and *I'm* the one with the problem? Fuck you.
Re: (Score:2)
So, I simply tell my honest experience with something, and some asshole tells me I'm wrong and to fuck off, and *I'm* the one with the problem? Fuck you.
how old were you when you discovered the "F" word makes you a big man?
Re:So... Business as usual? (Score:3)
One of my neighbors works for Google... he says this entire thing has been blown out of proportion. Someone found some old internal Google document fantasizing about future uses of Google's self-driving car tech. The ride-sharing app screenshots are from Google's employee vanpool service.
That said, I'd admit that there could well simply be Business dealings going on. If Google can convince Uber and its shareholders that they'd rather build their own autonomous taxi service from scratch, then they could
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not fond of Uber (not an user, and read some horror stories about raping, etc)
I have had the misfortune of using Uber. Haven't been raped or killed but the experience is definitely worse than using a licensed and insured taxi.
The last time I tried, a friend insisted we use Uber instead of taking a taxi that was parked right there with the vacant light on. So he booked one and we waited, and waited, and waited. After half an hour I just called a taxi and it was there in 5 minutes. Uber drivers can turn down fares they dont like, taxi drivers have to take them.
The time before tha
Self-driving cars and hacking (Score:3)
Re:Self-driving cars and hacking (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically, I think you'd be able to steal it without ever being near it. And this has been true all along.
And suddenly I'm picturing self-driving cars put into Mayhem Mode where you plow them through crowds or buildings.
Suddenly Google's self driving cars become WMDs.
It sounds far fetched, but if they're at all vulnerable, it seems like something which is going to happen just simply because it's an attractive target.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The juxtaposition of this article with the previous one on hacking cars made me realize: If you can hack into a self-driving car, you could steal it without having to physically break into it.
Why would you bother to steal it, when you can get one any time you want with an app?
Ride-share + Parcel Delivery (Score:3)
I could see this as being feasible for cases where delivery times are flexible. Have a queue of deliveries, and when a ride is called that takes a driver passed that location, they would pick up/drop off the parcel there while also giving the rides.
Re: (Score:2)
Well ... right up until your other passengers steal your parcels, or steal your car while you're dropping off a parcel.
If people were willing to accept their ride stopping to run a few errands along they way ... they'd take the damned bus.
I think you'd mostly piss off the people you're giving rides to.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, except for the fact also, that most folks likely wouldn't want to be riding next to the smelly, disheveled wino or other low lifes that usually seem to inhabit busses.
That and public transportation not being really "door to door" for destination travels, which down here in Summer during the high heat/humidity is important, or during the heavy rain times.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why we should be building SkyTran instead of continuing to push outdated transit solutions from the 19th century.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why we should be building SkyTran instead of continuing to push outdated transit solutions from the 19th century.
Star Trek transporters would be faster, more convenient, and just as realistic.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, are you really that stupid? SkyTran already exists; they've already built prototypes, and it uses technology even less complicated than self-driving cars.
I guess you were one of those people who said the internet would never amount to anything too.
Re: (Score:2)
SkyTran already exists; they've already built prototypes
Mass transit must pick people up where they are, and take them where they want to go. For most people, SkyTran would do neither of those things. It is only viable in dense urban cores, where decent public transit already exists.
I guess you were one of those people who said the internet would never amount to anything too.
Of course. But it is too soon to say whether I was right or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Skytran, and other PRT systems, combine the bad points of driving and transit [humantransit.org] - the low capacity of automobiles and the fixed routes of transit. They are not the optimal solution in any circumstance.
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell are you talking about? You think buses are more optimal? Which only go along linear, fixed routes and stop at every stop, and end up taking forever to get anywhere?
Cars are more energy efficient than buses. Many studies have proven this. And taking a car anywhere is always faster than taking a bus, because 1) it doesn't take you door-to-door, 2) it frequently takes an indirect route (possibly requiring a transfer), and 3) it stops too frequently.
Your article doesn't even make sense. What
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, use an unmanned delivery vehicle which has absolutely no dependence on human schedules. It would deliver a parcel (or groceries or whatever) to your curb at a time you specify, then give you a call to come outside and pick it up, then drive itself back to the warehouse. The ideal form would probably be a small vehicle like a tricycle.
So, Uber wants to eliminate its 'Employees' now (Score:1)
So the CEO complains about the cost of the Driver of the car!
Those are basically their employees who make their business work. It's like the head of a taxi company saying, if only we could get rid of these Taxi Drivers, we would have a much better company.
He's basically told the existing Uber Drivers, as soon as we can replace you with a trained chimpanzee you are out and putting the chimpanzee's on notice as well.
Well, it is a nice public admission about their view of the people who help them to make a pr
Re: (Score:1)
Ok, there are lots of other alternatives. But the original comment was about not getting rid of the drivers. So, within the realm of keeping the drivers, what are the options?
They can do nothing, essentially telling their customers they aren't trying to reduce costs or improve safety.
They can work on improving safety while keeping drivers which would likely increase costs due to increased overhead of researching the drivers or installing equipment in the cars which would impact the drivers because they woul
Re: (Score:1)
He's basically told the existing Uber Drivers, as soon as we can replace you with a trained chimpanzee you are out
How is that different from what any other company would (and should) do? Companies exist to make profits, not provide employment. Most employees are already well aware of this. I doubt if many Uber drivers expect their current job to be a permanent career.
"But hey come drive for Uber!" (Score:4, Insightful)
"The Uber experience is expensive because it's not just the car but the other dude in the car," Kalanick said at a technology conference in 2014, referring to the expense of paying human drivers. "When there's no other dude in the car, the cost [of taking an Uber] gets cheaper than owning a vehicle."
Be an Uber driver! Great way to make some extra cash! Gosh we love our Uber driving partners!
But they're sucking up all that sweet sweet moolah that could go into our coffers instead, so let's work to get rid of them. But in the meantime, keep driving for us so we can keep the money coming in for R&D to get rid of you!
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but do you feel this is somehow different from any large corporation?
Because, you know, they all seem to boil down to "We need our employees, our employees are our most important asset ... right up until we outsource your jobs to maximize executive bonuses".
Sorry, but pretty much every publicly traded company is looking for a way to fuck you over in order to maximize profits.
Which is precisely wh
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. But it's usually not so plainly stated. The boss doesn't usually come by my desk with the other managers and say "meta-monkey here costs us a lot of money. Find a way to get rid of him. Oh, but in the meantime, meta-monkey, keep that cash coming in so Johnson here can find a way to get rid of you."
Re: (Score:2)
I've known a number of people who had no need of a job for income, but worked anyway. I've known far more who could have found a higher paying job, but liked the one they had. Money is not the only motivator in the world.
Uber runs a risk in being so bold in trying to get rid of its workers. Until it has these cars in hand, it needs its driver fleet. Rational self-interest tells those drivers to maximize their income, but also to mitigate as much risk as possible. The most conservative when it comes to ri
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Better than "bitches" I guess. Unless you're a pimp.
"Our bitches here at Ford Motor Company build some nice motherfuckin' cars."
"Come to T.G.I Friday's and let our bitches serve you food."
"Sick? The bitches at Mercy General will heal you up good."
"Like a good neighbor, State Farm's bitches are there."
Re: (Score:2)
Someone is going to do it, so it makes far more sense for Uber to have a business model that allows the company to continue to exist once it reaches that point. If you're going to ask progress to stop so that certain jobs can be saved, why not get rid of your car and go back to a horse and carriage since the automobile wiped all of them out.
Re: (Score:2)
Finally! The JohnnyCab we've been promised.
Self driving? (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, the idea of Uber running self driving cars is kinda scary. The company already has a reputation for skirting or ignoring laws/regulations and treats things like insurance as 'customer beware'. In fact their general attitude of 'look out for yourself' would speak to some potentially scary vehicle behavior settings.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. However, the tech is rapidly maturing. There are several companies that offer 3rd party solutions for autonomous cars (i.e. MobileEye). They don't have to reinvent the wheel. They just need to get in on the ramp up so that when these stuff hits big time in the next 5 yrs they are well positioned to take care of it.
Alternatively, here are some interesting use cases...
1) Mixed fleet of autonomous and driven cars. Autonomy mode is only used to "bring" the car to you, but you must drive it to your desti
Re: (Score:2)
That type of research really does not seem like something Uber really has the resources for. Google has money to burn so they can have these kinds of pie in the sky research projects, but what has Uber really done from a technological perspective? A cell phone app and some centralized logistics? They did an ok job scaling, but it is still not that impressive of a technical accomplishment.
That being said, the idea of Uber running self driving cars is kinda scary. The company already has a reputation for skirting or ignoring laws/regulations and treats things like insurance as 'customer beware'. In fact their general attitude of 'look out for yourself' would speak to some potentially scary vehicle behavior settings.
I agree but I'm not sure the issue is so much money as organization.
Google has been doing high R&D, including AI, for ages. They have the teams of skilled people who know eachothers skills and know how to work together, they have the experience of taking abstract research projects and developing them into products. Uber at this point is mostly an app, they don't really have a lot of proven managers and technical leads, they can get there eventually, but I predict a few boondoggles first.
Goober (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
the CEO once said he's getting so much action it should be called Boober.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, true story.
Free cars? (Score:4, Insightful)
"The Uber experience is expensive because it's not just the car but the other dude in the car," Kalanick said at a technology conference in 2014, referring to the expense of paying human drivers. "When there's no other dude in the car, the cost [of taking an Uber] gets cheaper than owning a vehicle."
I thought that when you signed up to be an Uber driver you had to have access to a less than 5 year old car. In other words you were footing the bill for the capital required to provide the service, as well as on-going maintenance etc.
If Uber ditches the drivers, then who is going to be paying for the cars that Uber uses?
Or If, in the future, you need to own a self driving car in order to sign up with Uber, won't Uber have lost all pretense that it is a ride sharing company?
Yeah man, I own a 2022 Ford Chauffeur and it pays for itself. I just let it drive around all day by itself and collect fares for me!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Uber is the modern tech company, who expects to build their fortune on someone else's dime, and then will abandon those people as soon as they can.
In other words, Uber is ran by a bunch of greedy assholes who want someone else to give them a business model, all while pretending local laws don't apply.
Kalanick sounds like an uber asshole to me. And, like most tech CEOs, completely out of touch with reality.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, Uber is ran by a bunch of greedy assholes who want someone else to give them a business model, all while pretending local laws don't apply.
Sounds like the robber barons of, well, every age.
Re: (Score:2)
Free cars? (Score:2)
You're missing the point.
Automation precedes scale. Once Google automates the vehicles, the cost of the vehicle should go down technically. Then we're looking at disposable cars or reusable car parts. The capital costs should go down a lot.
Of course, that's all theory in the non-Internet, physical world (i.e. it worked for the Internet, but there's not much physical in the internet world...)
Uber provide anything Google couldn't code (Score:2)
Should be an automatic hit w/ Indian women (Score:2)
Well, one advantage of this driverless car - in India, women could use this instead of Uber cars and not worry about getting raped. Of course, the taxi and other public transport unions will lobby heavily against it, since it would mean that women would stop using them, thereby drying up their income sources.
On a different note, since Uber is finding itself up against Google, they might wanna offer the Uber Partner app on Windows Phones as well, in addition to iPhones & Androids.
Finally (Score:3)
They're looking at fixing the issue of "Sorry, we just told you to hop in the car with a rapist"
Re: (Score:3)
Uber recently announced plans to develop self-driving cars, a longtime pet project at Google
Google has been developing self-driving autos for 5+ years pouring hundreds of millions into the project. Uber has a press release to announce plans to look into self driving cars.
Google should be worried.
Cheaper eh? (Score:1)
"When there's no other dude in the car, the cost [of taking an Uber] gets cheaper than owning a vehicle."
Considering that they still need to make a profit on use of their vehicle, I don't see how this is possible. Especially considering a vehicle with enough tech to be self-driving.
Not only would they have to make enough profit to cover the initial investment of the vehicle, they'd also have to cover the loss of depreciation to remain profitable. And lets not even try to guess what insurance will be. Ju
Re: (Score:2)
Economy of scale. They make a profit because they're always using it. Spending $10/day on uber (enough for a roundtrip to work, if its just borderline too far to walk without getting sweaty, and annoying in winter) would be about $300/month, even if we count weekends. If you include gas, maintenance, etc, thats cheaper than a lot of cars. Now, that doesn't get you very far, so its probably not a very good example.
If you take the subway to work and only need a car to do groceries and get the cat to the vet t