> We went from fliphone to total smartphone domination in 5 years.

That's glossing over the Nokia video phone, the Treo, and all the Windows handsets.

> ABS is a sideshow, not a revolution.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

> Droves of people will ditch their old cars just for the purpose of upgrading.

That seems like something that would require evidence. Or at least a theory to back it up. My 10 mile round-trip is definitely not so onerous that I'd look to replace my vehicle for something that isn't going to make it any shorter or more pleasant.

Here's some context: Nissan has been working on the Titan XD for longer than that. That's just a pretty basic 3/4-ton truck without a lot of bells and whistles with an outsourced engine.

Tesla's Model 3 will have been in development almost that long by the time it's released, and as far as anyone knows, has no new tech.

You're talking about tech that doesn't even exist yet.

Antilock brakes are a sideshow because nobody cares. Yes, it makes cars safer, but few people bought specific cars because ABS was available. It was just another side feature. It was not something that people actively sought out like they'd seek out self-driving cars.

Not with anyone I know. But I guess we're just talking anecdata now.

But yeah, as someone who grew up driving old boats without it, I would never buy a car without ABS.

>We went from fliphone to total smartphone domination in 5 years.

Smartphones cannot kill multiple people on a highway if the software malfunctions. What happens if I am going 75mph and my self driving car crashes and has to restart? What if one the sensors malfunctions and thinks it needs to swerve to avoid someone merging into my lane?

With smartphones you arent putting the lives of whole families in your hand.

40,000 people a year die on American roadways right now. We are horrible drivers and get into hundreds of thousands of accidents per year. No software is perfect, but the bar is pretty low for computers to be better drivers than humans.

The bar might be higher than you think. There are a lot of fatalities true. But the number (which is closer to 30,000) represents about 1 fatality per 100 million miles driven. And a lot of those miles are at night, in snowstorms, etc.

> We went from fliphone to total smartphone domination in 5 years.

How can you even compare those things?!?

A car easily costs 100 times what a phone does, and is literally being trusted with your life and the life of people around you.

> Droves of people will ditch their old cars just for the purpose of upgrading.

Back in the real world, a car is a major purchase and the majority of people couldn't afford to drop their current car and upgrade even if they wanted to.

I think if anything, the change will come in the form of new generations not buying their first car, rather than people with cars ditching them immediately for autonomous riding. For the generation that grew with cars as a symbol of status and adulthood and even national identity, the change might never come or take a long time. Kinda like how I watch Netflix and Amazon and Youtube, and read my news online, but most in my parents' generation watch tv and read paper newspapers. It's not just about the tech, is also the culture.

Also, if anything, it might be more important to incentivize people to switch to electric cars more so than self-driving ones, given the ecological impact. Anyone up for a 500% tax on gas by 2025? ;)

A smartphone doesn't cost more than the average American annual salary.

You don't buy a 747 to fly across the country do you? No, you buy a ticket from Southwest or another carrier.

Kids will one day laugh at how we used to buy vehicles instead of rent them by the miles. "Auto loans?!?" The horror!

If I had a self-driving car and some time on my hands, I'd get rid of my home and be in that thing practically 24/7, seeing the land and enjoying having it drive me around. No way I would rent in that situation. I'd definitely buy. There will be a whole class of similar nomads who will spring up once it becomes truly viable.

The future is not one-size-fits-all. Just because Uber execs and investors are blathering about how personal car ownership will go away (meaning they will own everything, how convenient) doesn't mean it actually will happen that way.

This is something I never thought about. What an interesting shift it would be if remote workers became much more nomadic than most are now.

Companies that need to use planes a lot do sometimes buy their own (e.g. FedEx does not simply buy tickets from Southwest). Ordinary folks don't own planes because they don't fly around everywhere — they mostly drive.

We already have taxis, Uber and rental cars. People still seem to be buying cars even at their high price. Why do you think that is?

Because there is no self-driving option. If there is, and the price of rides plummets (no driver = cheap, all electric = even cheaper), it no longer behooves you to tie up so much capital in a vehicle you own.

Think how much consumer excess would occur from 300 million people not having to buy a vehicle outright.

And anyone driving their own car needs to pay for parking, plus for full insurance, registration and so on. Free street parking will gradually disappear and off-street parking is not going to get any cheaper.

> And anyone driving their own car needs to pay for parking, plus for full insurance, registration and so on.

Those costs don't go away just because you're renting. In the same way property taxes don't disappear just because you aren't paying them directly in a leased apartment.

> Free street parking will gradually disappear and off-street parking is not going to get any cheaper.

This applies to maybe 10% of the population. And I feel like that's pretty generous. You probably haven't seen much of the US outside of the North East if you think that's even remotely plausible.