I agree, ride sharing with self driving cars is going to be pretty normal in the near future.
What will be cool is once they are self driving, they will be able to auto calculate quickest routes to pick people up, drop off, etc while being able to re-calculate to pick up people along the way.
Vast segments of the population (that is to say: probably 90%+ of women and 40%+ of men) are going to be deeply uncomfortable with getting into an automobile in the company of exactly one totally random stranger. Even if there are cameras.
For $3 of savings I bet a lot more people than that will do it.
I think lots of times it might save more than that, I picked a low number because I expect even modest savings will convince people to do it, especially if the impact on convenience is small.
I think that lots of people have lots of very self-contradictory beliefs about driverless cars.
For example: An UberX ride today generally costs between $10 and $20 here in sunny San Francisco (outside of surge). Nearly 80% of that goes to the driver! The premise of driverless cars leading to massive rides-for-hire is that driverless cars could massively reduce that cost -- probably from $10 - $20ish to $5 - $10ish.
So just there -- is ride-sharing really going to save $3? Presumably not for a $5 ride. Not for a $6 ride either. A $7 ride? Maybe! But if so Uber is sure as hell not getting a lot for driving ride-sharing.
Okay, so let's say that a driverless car would ordinarily cost you $10 per ride, and you can reduce it to $7 by sharing. First of all, note that this reduces the value of the service for you -- even if you have no safety concerns, it takes longer. Then add in the non-safety awkwardness thing. It's pretty close quarters for a relatively long ride. What if the other person is just socially awkward?
And then imagine if you will that it's someone that you feel -- rightly or wrongly -- is genuinely threatening. And you're cooped up in a Toyota Camry for 15 minutes with this person and absolutely no one to run interference for you.
For $3?
Also: if getting a driverless Uber costs $10, you should at least contemplate owning your own driverless car. $10 at current business write-off rates is about 18 miles. It sounds like in this hypothetical Uber isn't a great deal. You could realize most or all of your cost-savings by owning your own driverless car, and as a bonus you won't have to share your car with a stranger, and as a further bonus you won't get gouged at high demand times.
It may be realistic to have single seat cars. But that's not ride sharing.
Public transit has (typically) more than one stranger. Indeed, crowds. That is, somewhat ironically, less threatening than being trapped in close quarters with a single stranger.
Absolutely, this a million times. Realistically public transport should evolve to a network of self driving (smaller) vehicles - and yes, optimise the heck out of it. Bus systems are pretty inefficient things (except at peak times)
They lack those things now. But who knows what the future holds. Personally, I believe that eventually those "necessities" you mention won't hold individuals back from exploring that new frontier.
I didn't really read it that way. I read it more like treat people with respect, don't force them to create work that is a nice or should when they should be relaxing... but people who love their job will be happy to go the extra mile, work weekends, etc when there are Must or Mission Critical things that need to get done.
Sure - and I agree with all that. The issue comes with the circularity of the reasoning:
- People who are a good cultural fit don't mind working all the time
Therefore:
If someone minds working on week-ends - then they weren't a great cultural fit. It's almost Calvinist in its logic.
As you said, there's absolutely no problem working on week-ends when it's needed, or getting really caught up in an exciting new tech and spending evenings getting it up and running. However - when this become (implicitly) expected as a marker of good cultural fit, you've basically placed it as a burden for everyone.
In this situation, It sounds like he got more out of life by following his original goal of hanging out with his family since they all die in the end anyways.
I am sure this is what you are already thinking, but I wouldn't spend to much worrying about a free plan.
We made this mistake on our last startup, we got a ton of feedback saying, oh it's too expensive, I'd never use it.. make something cheaper/free.
The truth is... until those businesses are making more money that justifies $20 a month, you probably don't want them as customers... they will take up a TON of time, with adding little to no value and will have no problem jumping ship when you say, hey, you reached the size you said you were interested in paying $20 and we would like you to upgrade.
People want the world... focus on customers that find $20/month to be a huge value to them.
In my case, I just want a free tier that is incredibly low (10 customers is fine) that won't cannibalize his main products, because I want to test his services. Yes, there's a free trial, but I don't plan on rolling out major client work for 4-6 months. In that timeframe, he can have me as a subscribed customer (paying nothing) but I've already gone through all the hurdles, and he can send me monthly "Hey, you ready?" emails.
Right now I have to trust myself that I'll remember this service in six months with all the other stuff that goes on in running a startup. If I DO remember, I will pay $20-100/month easily and will save thousands. But I also have to remember that about 300 other things, too.
Agreed to mailing list... but "oh well" is what I say to that. If it's easy to implement then great, but there is a cost to him for even 1 of your customers.
I would focus on the businesses that can pay $20/month (even for 1 month) to test something to see if it's for them than worry about someone who may need it in 4-6 months down the road, if there product doesn't go under before they "roll out major client work".
I am not trying to sound harsh but my guess is his money and time is better spent acquiring users who can pay $20 from the start. It's just basic marketing: How much would this cost to acquire a customer from. If he pays the girl $30 an hour to call delinquent accounts and she can call 10 an hour then that's a cost of $3 per delinquent customer of yours that it costs him and you are asking for a free tier that is incredibly low of ONLY 10 customers which actually = $30 of free value he is giving away. My guess is a Google Adwords campaign could get him paying users for less than that easily.
It's just not worth it to go after customers like you... yet..is my guess and I have been in his shoes... the people wanting free shit scream the loudest but bring in the least value.
>It's just not worth it to go after customers like you... yet..is my guess and I have been in his shoes... the people wanting free shit scream the loudest but bring in the least value.
I agree. And yet, that is not who I am. If you knew the first thing about my business and my yearly revenue, you wouldn't say that. Your assumptions are baseless, rude, and truthfully told, idiotic.
Hey Thanks a lot for replying. I tried to send you a message via the contact form on your page, but it kept saying "message NOT sent". Not sure if you have received it..
What will be cool is once they are self driving, they will be able to auto calculate quickest routes to pick people up, drop off, etc while being able to re-calculate to pick up people along the way.