Waymo just launched a new $29.99-per-month "Premier" service in a select few of its cities. The member benefits include priority pickups, 10% cash back (sometimes more during busy times), early access to new Waymo cities, and flexible cancellations (up to five per month). Generally speaking, it feels pretty similar to Uber One, except it's 3x the cost. But if you spend more than $300 per month on Waymo trips, then the 10% cash back does pay for the service. We're now also talking about autonomous vehicles. Will that make a difference?

One of the early promises of Uber was that it was going to disrupt car ownership. People would just ride-hail. But as far as I can tell, that has not happened at scale. In the case of autonomous vehicles, one of the early promises was that if you took out the labour-cost component of ride hailing (i.e., the driver), you could then make rides really cheap and that would induce demand. But that too has not been the case thus far. In fact, riders seem to be willing to pay a premium to be in the car alone. This premium appears to be reflected in the price of Waymo Premier.

Where we got it wrong with Uber is that it ended up replacing taxis, not car ownership. But will autonomy and a nicer car experience change this? I like my car because I picked it, I use it to get where I have to go, and I store some of my stuff in it (including a fancy new car seat). But broadly speaking, I hate driving. If Waymo could fulfill my needs for, say, C$300/month, it would be in my economic interest to switch. I would have a very high willingness to pay if this is what I were replacing.

Changing consumer behaviour is hard, especially when we've built entire cities around a particular mode of transport. But sometimes products and services have seemingly subtle differences that surprise us in the way that the market responds to them. Will that be the case with Waymo? We shall see.

One of the great features of the so-called gig economy is that many of its businesses operate with an asset-light model. Uber, for instance, relies on drivers showing up with their own cars. This is the opposite of, say, the real estate industry, which, for a lot of business models, is both capital-intensive and asset-heavy.

But there is one problem with the asset-light model, and it's that it may not work forever. The Financial Times just reported that Uber has committed to spending $10 billion over the next few years on actual cars and on equity investments in various strategic companies.

For instance, earlier this month, electric vehicle company Lucid announced that Uber will be investing $500 million in the company and buying at least 35,000 of its cars.

This is gig-economy blasphemy, but it's very obviously an existential concern for the company. Uber needs to be in the AV race, or else asset-light could be an asset-liability. The thing that helped Uber become successful in the past now seems to be what they need to overcome in this new mobility race.

On a loosely related note, I find it somewhat amusing that cities are now starting to push back against robotaxis out of fear that they will displace Uber drivers. If you were following Uber in its early days, you'll know that cities fought the company vehemently because of the taxi lobby. Now they're trying to protect it.

Cover photo by Erik Mclean on Unsplash

One of the least understood aspects of self-driving cars is the extent and capacity to which they rely on remote assistance operators (RAOs).

When a self-driving car finds itself confused in an uncertain or tricky situation (like when one rolled into an active shootout), there are typically two safety valves. The first is a manual override, where someone like a first responder might jump into the front seat and take control of the steering wheel. And the second is assistance from a remote operator.

If the car gets confused, a human can tell it, "Hey, you, follow this path." But how often is remote assistance being called upon? And who is actually responding on the other end? Apparently, the answer is, "I don't know."

According to a recent report from Senator Ed Markey, every major AV company refuses to disclose how often they rely on an RAO. And in the case of Waymo, they rely on overseas operators in places like the Philippines.

This has led to new proposed legislation that would, among other things, limit the number of vehicles that a single RAO can oversee, mandate that the RAO be located in the US, and require the humans to hold a local driver's license. You know, so they're sure to know the rules of the road.

There's a lot to figure out, and it seems a bit messy. But that's what it takes. As one would expect, this is par for the course when you're trying to rewrite urban mobility.

Cover photo by Leo_Visions on Unsplash