Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee
-
The whole car sharing thing - i.e. taxis... I kinda wonder if it's time for that to leave the private sector. Like city buses, should it be a service run by the municipality.
I'm almost, but not, saying that the driverless tech is so critical to the future, that it shouldn't be owned by anyone, the tech should be freely available to anyone who wants to implement it. If that was the case, then I'd move away from driverless taxis being municipality run.
-
Since Kalanick is the CEO of Uber, I would also suspect that he'd work to get legislation passed to enable driver-less cars. But I'd think driver-less cars would essentially put Uber out of business.
Car manufacturers or Taxi services would simply buy cars, and people might rent them like you'd rent a taxi today. You wouldn't have to worry about a creepy driver either in this case. And the whole concept of buying cars (at a consumer level) would disappear entirely.
Which means every car manufacture would be better suited to developing a driver-less car in cooperation with the existing systems and push this through.
Also with driver-less cars, you'd have to outlaw drivers licenses (no point in anyone knowing how to drive). Humans are the issue with cars, not the technology of the cars.
-
Along those lines- does anyone know if Cellular technology is open, or is it licensed?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
Since Kalanick is the CEO of Uber, I would also suspect that he'd work to get legislation passed to enable driver-less cars. But I'd think driver-less cars would essentially put Uber out of business.
I tend to agree with this - but only because why wouldn't the auto manufacturers just be the taxi provider themselves? why bother with allowing someone else to be in the middle?
-
@Dashrender said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
@DustinB3403 said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
Since Kalanick is the CEO of Uber, I would also suspect that he'd work to get legislation passed to enable driver-less cars. But I'd think driver-less cars would essentially put Uber out of business.
I tend to agree with this - but only because why wouldn't the auto manufacturers just be the taxi provider themselves? why bother with allowing someone else to be in the middle?
That is my thought, that car manufacturers would simply become the taxi service as well.
-
@Dashrender said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
Along those lines- does anyone know if Cellular technology is open, or is it licensed?
This is this open source cellular technology. I haven't read much into it, just a brief google search.
-
Other companies included on this committee include Alphabet (who's been working on self-driving cars) for a very long time now.
So with so many car based leaders in this organization, you'd have to assume we'll see driver-less cars in the very near future.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
@Dashrender said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
Along those lines- does anyone know if Cellular technology is open, or is it licensed?
This is this open source cellular technology. I haven't read much into it, just a brief google search.
Definitely not what I was asking.
I'm talking about the tech that AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc use for cellular phones. Is that tech open source, or does someone hold a license, and all those big boys pay that license holder for use? Does a part of the cost of our cell phone go to that license holder?
So Alexander Graham Bell patented the telephone - did someone for a while get royalties for using that tech? is someone still? or has the patent expired?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
Other companies included on this committee include Alphabet (who's been working on self-driving cars) for a very long time now.
So with so many car based leaders in this organization, you'd have to assume we'll see driver-less cars in the very near future.
Wait a second - we've already seen driverless cars. At this point, we're waiting to see laws that allow driverless cars on the roads in general.
-
@Dashrender said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
@DustinB3403 said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
Other companies included on this committee include Alphabet (who's been working on self-driving cars) for a very long time now.
So with so many car based leaders in this organization, you'd have to assume we'll see driver-less cars in the very near future.
Wait a second - we've already seen driverless cars. At this point, we're waiting to see laws that allow driverless cars on the roads in general.
That is what I meant, to get driver-less cars on public roads and used for day to day activities.
-
@Dashrender said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
@DustinB3403 said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
@Dashrender said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
Along those lines- does anyone know if Cellular technology is open, or is it licensed?
This is this open source cellular technology. I haven't read much into it, just a brief google search.
Definitely not what I was asking.
I'm talking about the tech that AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc use for cellular phones. Is that tech open source, or does someone hold a license, and all those big boys pay that license holder for use? Does a part of the cost of our cell phone go to that license holder?
So Alexander Graham Bell patented the telephone - did someone for a while get royalties for using that tech? is someone still? or has the patent expired?
I'm not certain, I would assume so, that each of the big boys simply pay a licensing fee (for the tech) and construction fee to use / control the service. As well as to build their own network.
Why would someone else come up with a open source wireless platform if the one that Verizon, AT&T and company use is already open source?
-
I read some CEO of a company I can't remember that buying cars will stop in 5 years. Not only is that unrealistic, but outrageous. It's the "flyover nation" syndrome with that kind of thinking. Where I live not only do I see a need for a car, but I have a need for a 2nd car (well, a truck) and many people have more than 2. It's simply not realistic in rural areas.
Plus...people LOVE their cars!! That will not go away for a long, long time. If not ever.
Edit: Found the article http://www.businessinsider.com/former-tesla-vp-georg-bauer-autonomy-will-kill-car-ownership-2016-11
-
There is no way I could live without a car and a bigger vehicle for hauling stuff where I live. We also live in a rural area and there is NO public transportation at all here.
-
@Son-of-Jor-El I'd disagree with you that you have a need for a car, you have a need for transportation / work-tool vehicle.
If you could avoid paying $300-600/month and have Toyota worry about the maintenance of the vehicle (and it cost you pennies in comparison) wouldn't you want to save that money?
-
The argument I'm trying to make here is that car ownership (much like home ownership) cost more people way more than just renting (hiring a taxi of sorts) for when you actually need the transportation.
Think of how much time you spend in a car (and what the car cost). Most of the world doesn't need to own, they just need transportation on demand.
Which if all cars were smart cars (and taxi in essence) you'd tap on your phone and have a car at your door in a matter of a few minutes.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
@Son-of-Jor-El I'd disagree with you that you have a need for a car, you have a need for transportation / work-tool vehicle.
If you could avoid paying $300-600/month and have Toyota worry about the maintenance of the vehicle (and it cost you pennies in comparison) wouldn't you want to save that money?
No because my guess is it would work like a lease where you cannot do certain things to the car because technically, you don't own it. A simple matter of changing the radio would be a hassle.
Also, and your talking to a car guy, one of the BEST things about owning a car is customization. Even something small like replacing a diverter valve to a full blown blow-off valve just for the noise is fun as all hell!!
-
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
@DustinB3403 said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
@Son-of-Jor-El I'd disagree with you that you have a need for a car, you have a need for transportation / work-tool vehicle.
If you could avoid paying $300-600/month and have Toyota worry about the maintenance of the vehicle (and it cost you pennies in comparison) wouldn't you want to save that money?
No because my guess is it would work like a lease where you cannot do certain things to the car because technically, you don't own it. A simple matter of changing the radio would be a hassle.
Also, and your talking to a car guy, one of the BEST things about owning a car is customization. Even something small like replacing a diverter valve to a full blown blow-off valve just for the noise is fun as all hell!!
But that isn't the goal of driver-less cars. There will always be hobbyist. People who build or customize a car. And it will disappear eventually as people realize that buying a car, new or used is not the smart choice.
Sure you may purchase a used driver-less car to customize, but why? Make the "taxi" company deal with maintaining it. Imagine if you could hire a ferrari for $100/day?
-
Hobbyist guys will never not own cars. Some of these guys have $100K into customizing a 50 year old plus car. So it has nothing to do with $$
-
@DustinB3403 said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
@DustinB3403 said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
@Son-of-Jor-El I'd disagree with you that you have a need for a car, you have a need for transportation / work-tool vehicle.
If you could avoid paying $300-600/month and have Toyota worry about the maintenance of the vehicle (and it cost you pennies in comparison) wouldn't you want to save that money?
No because my guess is it would work like a lease where you cannot do certain things to the car because technically, you don't own it. A simple matter of changing the radio would be a hassle.
Also, and your talking to a car guy, one of the BEST things about owning a car is customization. Even something small like replacing a diverter valve to a full blown blow-off valve just for the noise is fun as all hell!!
But that isn't the goal of driver-less cars. There will always be hobbyist. People who build or customize a car. And it will disappear eventually as people realize that buying a car, new or used is not the smart choice.
Sure you may purchase a used driver-less car to customize, but why? Make the "taxi" company deal with maintaining it. Imagine if you could hire a ferrari for $100/day?
I guess I see it different from you. Not only are there "hobbyists", but there are people who love the freedom of a car. There's really nothing like jumping in whenever you want. And it's YOUR car, not some company's car. I don't even want to get into how bad these cars would be abused because people don't own them (see rentals).
A Ferrari wouldn't work for me here...at least today. Plus at $100 a day needing to get to work would run me $500 a week and some days $600 a week. I'm in IT brother!! I can't afford that!! LOL
-
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
No because my guess is it would work like a lease where you cannot do certain things to the car because technically, you don't own it. A simple matter of changing the radio would be a hassle.
And it would be a on-demand hire, not a lease. Just like you'd hire a taxi if you needed one. Never buy a vehicle again, the car makers build and hire them out.
What do you need, a truck, how big, ok it'll be there in 5 minutes.
And @Minion-Queen answered it, there will be hobbyist, people who want to tinker and customize. I'm sure it'll happen, but at far lower levels than today.
