Even if self-driving cars were confined to only the USA that would still be a massive market and provide a huge ROI for the developers.
Thinking self-driving cars have to work everywhere or even most places to be useful is myopic. It's like saying cell phones will never work because you can't get reception in Antarctica.
I'm not saying that China and India will never have self-driving cars. There's obviously tremendous profits to be made in bringing cars to those markets.
My point is that a self-driving car doesn't have to be ready for those markets to be launchable as an excellent and profitable product. The iPhone very successfully launched in only select markets—and then made even more money after expanding to China. It'll probably be similar with self-driving cars.
Why exactly do you think a self-driving car has to be globally deployable before launching in the US?
I think it can launch in the US all-right, but I don't think it will easily export to the other markets because of the above reasons. In iPhone's case that was easily fixable by people in said markets reaching middle-class status, but in case of self-driving vehicles I don't see that happening because one would have to change very ingrained cultural traits (basically you'd have to re-teach most than half to three-quarters of the world on how to drive sanely, good luck with that).
I'd say that for such a capital-intensive market like the car industry only relying on the US and some select Western European markets (+ Japan and South Korea) won't be profitable on the long term, hence my pessimism that self-driving cars will conquer the world.
This is already happening in the wealthier parts of the world.
I don't think current self-driving cars will work very well in India. But I think they'd work just fine in the rich parts of Pune, to name one area I know well. That's because driving norms in this region are already becoming quite sane. From what I've seen the same is true in the wealthier parts of Mumbai. Lane discipline isn't quite as good as in the US, but I'm perfectly comfortable driving a two wheeler on these roads.
(I'd be a lot more scared driving in Delhi.)
I question whether "sane" driving is actually cultural. Is it possible that "sane driving" is actually just the natural human reaction to good roads and homogeneous vehicles capable of driving at similar speeds (as opposed to a mix of cars, auto rickshaws, pedal rickshaws, 3 wheeled mini trucks, etc)?
The difference in driving styles from Switzerland to its neighbor Italy is quite big, at least from my own experience as a tourist of both countries as a driver and as a pedestrian. The roads in Switzerland are a little better, I can agree with that, but the vehicles present on the roads of both countries are from the same class (no rickshaws and I don't think I've seen 3 wheeled mini trucks in Italy, though AFAIK they used to be quite popular in there not that long ago).
Perhaps the rest of the world will see the benefit and adapt to the cars.
More like 40,000 deaths yearly, these days. In 2015, it was 38,300 [1], and it had increased 8% (or 2067 deaths) in the first nine months of 2016 [2].
[1] http://www.newsweek.com/2015-brought-biggest-us-traffic-deat...
[2] http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/traffic-deaths-surg...
Signage is absolutely atrocious, there's too many signs, some of them wrong, some of the rules are implied(speed limit ends at any intersection, but if a road is going to a private property, then it's not an intersection, so good luck knowing where a speed limit ends), people drive like crazy, there's loads of unpaved roads.....and yet a person from a very rich western country(say UK or Germany) can drive over there in few hours driving time.
Every time someone makes an argument for self driving cars, I keep thinking if they would work back home - the answer is, they wouldn't.
On a separate note, try replacing "self-driving cars / normal cars" with "cars / carriages and horses" in such discussions. It make many answers obvious. (Hint: I am sure there were people who pointed out that the cars couldn't drive over narrow winding paths where horses ruled)
Secondary to this, it can be handled by GPS and history imaging. I think GM is doing this to handle snow conditions if I am not mistaken.
And experience the same issues that a self driving car could. But at least on the journey there and back they would be considerably safer.
You can't go after every single market at once with the same product. Building and selling for the high end to bring costs down and expanding the market is econ 101.
It's part of the reason the more-powerful-than-Apollo-computer I'm typing on was $1400.
Or to put it another way: "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed."
That's why, when the Uber self-driving car blatantly ran a red light, the joke was that it was learning from its environment.
Self-driving cars "confined" to anywhere are not self-driving cars, because you obviously need a human driver to get to and from that special place.
Millions of cars spend their entire existence confined to US highways, cities, and suburbs. In what way is a car not self-driving if it can successfully drive you on you everywhere you go in your daily life?
You don't "obviously" need a human driver if the car is used entirely in that "special place" (ie. where most cars spend their entire existence).
Your argument makes about as much sense as claiming cell phones aren't truly mobile because you can't use them in Antarctica.
Well, simply because I don't know everywhere "I would have to go in my daily life" when I am buying the damn car.
>Your argument makes about as much sense as claiming cell phones aren't truly mobile because you can't use them in Antarctica.
By that logic, your argument also makes only as much as sense as calling a walkie talkie with 100m range a mobile phone.
You can rent or take a cab or an uber. I don't own a car. I get around just fine at home or when traveling.
If your time for commute is that much valuable, just hire a driver or call a taxi. Like most people who's time is actually valuable, have been doing for years...
Quite honestly, it is quite a joke when people on HN brag about how "valuable" their time is....
* Safety - they'll be safer. Period.
* It's a natural extension for cos like uber - how else can they bring costs down enough?
* It meshes well with other aspects of tech reducing friction - deliveries will be cheaper (think dinner, groceries, taskrabbit)
* They damn near already exist.
No. I don't think so. Not in the foreseeable future at least..
>* It's a natural extension for cos like uber - how else can they bring costs down enough?
I don't know or care.
>It meshes well with other aspects of tech reducing friction - deliveries will be cheaper (think dinner, groceries, taskrabbit)
Well, why do you think the providers will reduce the cost? They can always add to their profit, instead of making the service cheaper.
>* They damn near already exist.
So does cold fusion.
> No. I don't think so. Not in the foreseeable future at least..
According to the NHTSA[1], they already are.
>>* It's a natural extension for cos like uber - how else can they bring costs down enough?
> I don't know or care.
The point is that they're dumping money into the tech for their own purposes, regardless of effectiveness as a consumer product
>> It meshes well with other aspects of tech reducing friction - deliveries will be cheaper (think dinner, groceries, taskrabbit)
> Well, why do you think the providers will reduce the cost? They can always add to their profit, instead of making the service cheaper.
I sure hope they do; I'd doubt any of those comapanies make any profit as is. And again, they'll be willing to spend lots of money on the cars, making them a viable product without the consumer market.
[1]: https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/19/nhtsas-full-final-investig...
You would think a level 5 autonomous car would not try this; unlike some human drivers.
Those places are also very far from the cutting edge of technology.
Even if self-driving cars are confined to US highways, cities, and suburbs they have terrific potential. The future doesn't have to be evenly distributed to arrive on time.
Seriously, I don't even understand you argument. Why would the existence of challenging backwaters in Peru prevent the development and deployment of self-driving cars in the US?