8 ms·

Some cute tech projects do not justify a massive monopoly. Google is financing Waymo using the ~300 billion dollar it extracts annually from consumers via ad sp

by fsh 14d ago

Some cute tech projects do not justify a massive monopoly. Google is financing Waymo using the ~300 billion dollar it extracts annually from consumers via ad spending. I would rather pay substantially less on anything I buy, and have the free market sort out self-driving cars.

lotsofpulp 14d ago
A product/service that can drastically reduce the top cause of injury and death, as well as give safe mobility to so many who do not currently have it is not a "cute tech project". >I would rather pay substantially less on anything I buy, and have the free market sort out self-driving cars. Alphabet's entire revenue divided by the total amount of goods and services sold is miniscule, so I don't see how it could be mathematically possible to pay substantially less on anything you buy. >and have the free market sort out self-driving cars. This is the free market sorting out self-driving cars.
- fsh 14d ago
  Google is one of many monopolies that are collectively bleeding society dry. Of course, the others should be broken up as well. Waymo is currently financed by a monopolist and has negligible revenue itself, so it is not part of the free market.
- franga2000 14d ago
  Self-driving cars are an absurdly inefficient way to reduce traffic deaths that exists only because it makes substantially more money for shareholders than the alternatives. You are being witheld a good and cheap solution now for the promise of a worse and expensive solution some time in the future. All the while people keep dying. Oh, and what's this "those who don't have it" bullshit? If anything, turning driving into a subscription service will mean mobility becomes harder for many people, as dirt-cheap used cars slowly stop being available. As for people who can't drive for whatever reason, they already have taxi apps. And don't think for a second that self-driving taxis will be cheaper in the long term than regular ones, only the margins will go up.
  - lelanthran 14d ago
    > Oh, and what's this "those who don't have it" bullshit? If anything, turning driving into a subscription service will mean mobility becomes harder for many people, as dirt-cheap used cars slowly stop being available. Too many people are in the "You Will Own Nothing And You Will Be Happy" camp. Apparently the thought of lifelong indenture is a plus to these people :-/
  - inglor_cz 14d ago
    * a good and cheap solution * You mean public transport? I live in a country with one of the best public transport systems in the world. I enjoy it, but please don't fool yourself into thinking that it is cheap. It is not, very much NOT. All the big Czech cities spend between 25 and 35 per cent of their municipal budgets on public transport, and those are mostly already mature systems where the most expensive work like laying track is already amortized. New trams and buses, repairs, drivers wages, electricity, nothing is cheap nowadays. Sure, an American city can decide to build a new tram or subway system from scratch, but don't promise anyone that it is going to be cheap. It won't, doubly so if the mayors stipulate high wages for the workers, like NYC does. And even the best public transport system fails at the peripheries, where density of the population drops under a limit of viability. Then you have two buses a day even here in CZ.
    - franga2000 14d ago
      Compared to every person owning their own car, but now it has a bunch of extra sensors and a cloud subscription? And the city still needs to build and maintain the roads. Or a bunch of robotaxis, which reduce the up-front cost and amount of parking needed, but the operational and infrastructure costs remain.
  - lotsofpulp 14d ago
    I prefer to live in reality, where American suburbs are nowhere near dense enough for public transport to pencil out, plus there is no political will from the voters for it. No one is tearing up existing roads and replatting all the detached single family homes to more dense housing. Waymo is a real solution to reducing injuries from distracted and drunk drivers, as well as reducing insurance costs. Obviously, if Waymo is the only game in town, then prices will be high but hopefully there will be competition. Owning a car 24/7 along with space to store it and insure it is not necessarily always cheaper than renting it per trip. A robotic car can be utilized for far more hours per day amortizing its costs over far more trips making each trip cost less. Which, if there is competition, should result in lower prices.
idndnfjfj 14d ago
[flagged]
- vincnetas 14d ago
  free market :) (forgets about patents, tax cuts, excessive regulations thats unbearable for small players). Can it be that is not so free after all.

by fsh 14d ago

lotsofpulp 14d ago

A product/service that can drastically reduce the top cause of injury and death, as well as give safe mobility to so many who do not currently have it is not a "cute tech project". >I would rather pay substantially less on anything I buy, and have the free market sort out self-driving cars. Alphabet's entire revenue divided by the total amount of goods and services sold is miniscule, so I don't see how it could be mathematically possible to pay substantially less on anything you buy. >and have the free market sort out self-driving cars. This is the free market sorting out self-driving cars.

fsh 14d ago
Google is one of many monopolies that are collectively bleeding society dry. Of course, the others should be broken up as well. Waymo is currently financed by a monopolist and has negligible revenue itself, so it is not part of the free market.
franga2000 14d ago
Self-driving cars are an absurdly inefficient way to reduce traffic deaths that exists only because it makes substantially more money for shareholders than the alternatives. You are being witheld a good and cheap solution now for the promise of a worse and expensive solution some time in the future. All the while people keep dying. Oh, and what's this "those who don't have it" bullshit? If anything, turning driving into a subscription service will mean mobility becomes harder for many people, as dirt-cheap used cars slowly stop being available. As for people who can't drive for whatever reason, they already have taxi apps. And don't think for a second that self-driving taxis will be cheaper in the long term than regular ones, only the margins will go up.
- lelanthran 14d ago
  > Oh, and what's this "those who don't have it" bullshit? If anything, turning driving into a subscription service will mean mobility becomes harder for many people, as dirt-cheap used cars slowly stop being available. Too many people are in the "You Will Own Nothing And You Will Be Happy" camp. Apparently the thought of lifelong indenture is a plus to these people :-/
- inglor_cz 14d ago
  * a good and cheap solution * You mean public transport? I live in a country with one of the best public transport systems in the world. I enjoy it, but please don't fool yourself into thinking that it is cheap. It is not, very much NOT. All the big Czech cities spend between 25 and 35 per cent of their municipal budgets on public transport, and those are mostly already mature systems where the most expensive work like laying track is already amortized. New trams and buses, repairs, drivers wages, electricity, nothing is cheap nowadays. Sure, an American city can decide to build a new tram or subway system from scratch, but don't promise anyone that it is going to be cheap. It won't, doubly so if the mayors stipulate high wages for the workers, like NYC does. And even the best public transport system fails at the peripheries, where density of the population drops under a limit of viability. Then you have two buses a day even here in CZ.
  - franga2000 14d ago
    Compared to every person owning their own car, but now it has a bunch of extra sensors and a cloud subscription? And the city still needs to build and maintain the roads. Or a bunch of robotaxis, which reduce the up-front cost and amount of parking needed, but the operational and infrastructure costs remain.
- lotsofpulp 14d ago
  I prefer to live in reality, where American suburbs are nowhere near dense enough for public transport to pencil out, plus there is no political will from the voters for it. No one is tearing up existing roads and replatting all the detached single family homes to more dense housing. Waymo is a real solution to reducing injuries from distracted and drunk drivers, as well as reducing insurance costs. Obviously, if Waymo is the only game in town, then prices will be high but hopefully there will be competition. Owning a car 24/7 along with space to store it and insure it is not necessarily always cheaper than renting it per trip. A robotic car can be utilized for far more hours per day amortizing its costs over far more trips making each trip cost less. Which, if there is competition, should result in lower prices.

idndnfjfj 14d ago

[flagged]

vincnetas 14d ago
free market :) (forgets about patents, tax cuts, excessive regulations thats unbearable for small players). Can it be that is not so free after all.