I guess, but if I'm getting a taxi, replacing a human with a computer is not a huge benefit to me, as I'm already not driving. If I'm driving myself to work every day, replacing that repetitive and boring task with a computer is a huge user benefit and thus I'd be more willing to pay and at a higher price for the tech.

I just think that's the only real way to make this thing pay off. Also potentially it might work for long haul trucking.

the benefit to the user isn't the computer, it's lower cost. the bushes model makes sense because you can lower user cost while increasing profit

The benefit absolutely is the safer computer driver. I'd pay more for that.

Maybe? Not that I use Uber/Lyft/taxis much but, when I do, I of course prefer them to be cheaper but +/- 30% pricing pretty much wouldn't affect if I take them or not. It's still a significant premium relative to driving myself at home and, if I'm traveling, I may not have much of a choice.

> but +/- 30% pricing pretty much wouldn't affect if I take them or not

But it's enough to prefer Waymo over Uber and that's all it takes.

if +/-30% pricing isn't significant, then the benefit isn't lower fares, it's higher profits for the company operating the cars. either way you slice it, not having to pay drivers would be a significant win for a taxi company.

Not necessarily if the technology (both development and hardware cost) to replace the drivers costs enough. I don't doubt it will get there someday but Waymo certainly isn't making money off current riders.