
Google Takes on Uber with New Ride-Share Service - coloneltcb
http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-takes-on-uber-with-new-ride-share-service-1472584235
======
segmondy
This is not about taking on Uber. Google is testing AI for self driving cars.
Once we have self driving cars, the idea is that you deploy these cars and the
cars figure out who to pick up and who to drop off and possible doing group
pick ups along the way. Waze is going to predict who to pick up based on their
collected data thus far using ML, their data scientists are going to supervise
it and correct it. Once we have self driving cars, Google will have the tech
that can manage assigning cars and picking people up. This is what it is all
about.

~~~
wpietri
You don't think that's exactly the market Uber has been going for? There's a
reason Uber raided CMU for researchers:

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/is-uber-a-friend-or-foe-of-
carne...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/is-uber-a-friend-or-foe-of-carnegie-
mellon-in-robotics-1433084582)

And that reason became pretty obvious when they started testing self-driving
cars recently in Pittsburgh:

[http://www.techrepublic.com/article/ubers-driverless-
rides-i...](http://www.techrepublic.com/article/ubers-driverless-rides-in-
pittsburgh-whats-happening-and-what-it-means/)

I don't think Uber started out with this plan, but clearly at some point they
realized that they had to be a two-stage company like Netflix. Google's doing
the same thing, but with a different stage 1.

My bet, though, is that Uber wants to own the market, while Google is going to
go after a platform play. I expect it to be sort of like Android. Google will
make the software and own important parts of the consumer relationship. But
most people who can manufacture cars or otherwise acquire large fleets at low
costs will not want to do the software work, so they'll partner with Google.

So yes, in the same way that Android was about taking on Apple in a way that
makes decent money and keep Google from getting cut out of an important piece
of the tech/human intersection, this is ultimately about taking on Uber.

------
michaeldunworth
Google is emphasizing for low prices and people not to make careers from this
for one reason, automation. This is a pilot for them, and will be replaced by
autonomous cars in a few years. They don't want to be on the hook for hundreds
of thousands of jobs and fight that moral fight. Uber is about to have a huge
amount of people displaced from the jobs they created, and Google doesn't want
to share that reputational hazard imo. Good call for Google.

------
luka-birsa
Love it how Uber is getting Ubered by providing a service they were supposedly
providing but it was only a marketing scam to get around Taxi regulation.

This is proper "sharing economy" where the other party isn't doing this to
make a living out of it. I wonder who will Airbnb the Airbnb and is that at
all possible.

The end will be the same anyways - both companies are competing for a spot on
the customers mobile phone so that they could provide a service when
autonomous cars are up and running.

~~~
dzhiurgis
I do not like the fragmentation though. I want one app to work everywhere.
Uber in China is broken already and no way I could use Didi app.

Also, I do not think that there is any significant network or engineering
value in the app itself. If Google or Tesla finally starts delivering self-
driving car service for 10x less than Uber, users will flee in a jiffy.

~~~
dwightgunning
You're overlooking the importance of competition when it comes to things like
pricing and innovation.

------
mintplant
I've noticed Google Maps will sometimes give me Uber ads when I'm looking up
directions ("this route only $N on Uber" or such). Idle speculation but I
wonder if this was a mistake for Uber -- perhaps Google has seen a high rate
of click-through on these and will now try to get in on that action
themselves.

~~~
dragonwriter
In some places (all, IIRC, outside of the US), the Google Maps ride service
feature already supports non-Uber ridesharing services. In the US, I think it
only has Uber, but its basically a feature that lets GMaps be a platform for
commoditizing ride services.

~~~
HappyTypist
Nah. In many cities Uber is the only service.

~~~
dragonwriter
If the GMaps ride service functionality is _accessible_ to other services (it
currently is by specific negotiation/partnership only, apparently, so not
really, but as a platform that _could_ change), it provides an avenue for
weakening Uber's moat and making it easier for competitors to gain traction.

~~~
JorgeGT
In my city in Spain Uber is not available but GMaps offers rides with Cabify
instead, a local alternative. But I think it is negotiated on a case-by-case
basis.

------
hyperbovine
> Unlike Uber and its crosstown rival Lyft Inc., both of which largely operate
> as on-demand taxi businesses, Waze wants to connect riders with drivers who
> are already headed in the same direction.

Funny because that is Lyft's (né Zimride) original model. The more things
change, the more they stay the same.

~~~
coldpie
> Funny because that is Lyft's (né Zimride)

Holy crow, I've always seen it spelled née, and sure enough, it's because it's
almost always used when referring to a woman's name before marriage. Turns out
né exists for men! Are companies masculine, then?

(Gendered languages belong in the dumpster of history.)

~~~
ebalit
In French, a company (entreprise) is feminine. I don't know the rule of
agreement for loanwords, though.

------
camiller
Basically this is different from uber/lyft because it is trying to match you
with someone already going to the same area, say on their normal commute. You
are not just calling up a driver to get you from place to place.

I can't help but to think of Ford Prefect's Electronic Thumb from H2G2.

~~~
hooloovoo_zoo
If it's as successful as Google+, you'll also be stuck waiting for 15 years.

------
LordHumungous
I was actually just thinking about this the other day- why doesn't a large
tech company with lots of cash create a ride service which basically lets the
driver keep everything? Uber can't possibly compete. Google can destroy them
before they can become a threat in other tech spaces.

~~~
imaginenore
Network effect + first mover advantage. It takes a lot of time and money to
develop the community if there already are major players.

In this particular case Google would have so spend a shit ton of money on
advertising, and it's not guaranteed to work. They failed with Google+.

~~~
dzhiurgis
What network effects do you see in Uber?

~~~
yen223
Customers use Uber because there are enough drivers that service tends to be
reliable; Drivers use Uber because there are enough customers to sustain a
living.

It's the usual marketplace model.

~~~
ebalit
A concurrent could book a Uber ride for their customer using the API when and
where they don't have any driver.

Well, I checked the terms of use of Uber API and competing with Uber is
forbidden...

------
losteverything
Great news. As a PT worker at one of the articles mentioned companies, I know
there is considerable demand for rides to and from the retailer. This could be
huge if employees shift from dial-taxis or uber to "co-workers" via waze.

Other night a pizza server at a shop next door said she was very slow. It's
summer and nobody buys pizza. She added it costs her $10 one way cab ride and
makes nothing for the day.

This is the type of news I would post on employee board when it comes to my
area.

~~~
futureproofd
I interpreted "pizza server" as a computer that produces pizza and thought
about how cool that would be. I guess a pizza server could also be an oven.

------
Zigurd
Google is not "taking on Uber." An important point is that Google is not
making money off the payments for the ride, which presumably all go to the
driver.

For the driver that means defraying the cost of a commute in return for going
a few minutes out of his way. True ride-sharing, not a gypsy-cabs-plus-
reputation network. It's more akin to a transport-specific Splitwise than to
Uber.

What Google gets out of this is a real-world model of on demand automated
transport patterns, pricing, demand, etc.

------
fma
It's a good idea, and in Georgia there's a program to pay you to car pool
([http://gacommuteoptions.com/Save-Your-Commute/Earn-
Cash.-Win...](http://gacommuteoptions.com/Save-Your-Commute/Earn-Cash.-Win-
Prizes?_ga=1.167874657.1173807379.1472587947)).

I see this as something similar. But I was never able to find someone to car
pool with.

------
mmanfrin
Honestly I wish they wouldn't try to compete on price. Maybe I'm alone with
this, but I'd rather not feel obligated to tip a driver because the ride is so
cheap. Pay them a living wage, let me pay the exact fee, and let me not have
to carry goddamn cash like I used to in the era of Taxis.

e: Addressing common replies:

"This is for people commuting already" \-- okay, point taken; my point about
Uber/Lyft still stands.

"Tipping isn't obligatory" \-- yes, it kind of is. Uber used to bar drivers
form asking, but they recently lost a lawsuit over that rule and so now Uber
drivers will occasionally ask for tips (which will cause it to slowly become
the norm). When tipping becomes the norm, the low-base-wage of the driver
becomes less of an 'issue', and then tipping becomes even more of a necessity
as that is where the drivers will make their actual margins.

~~~
speg
I took an Uber home from the train station last week and it was less than $15.
I'm not sure how much a taxi would've been, probably at least $25.

I don't feel good about it. How can someone provide good service if they're
taking home so little? I fear that soon Uber will be overrun with poor service
because all the quality drivers have been driven out by low costs.

~~~
Eric_WVGG
Talk to your drivers about it. So far they've all told me that they get more
passengers thanks to the app, and the pay from Uber's base rate outweighs
unpredictable tips.

[edit] NYC, and the drivers are pretty candid about still picking up rides
from black car dispatchers and competitors. I have no reason to question their
honesty.

~~~
secure
All drivers I’ve talked to (mostly in the London area) told me they are very
unhappy with their pay, but because Uber is so cheap, they can’t drive for
their old cab companies anymore (all business moved to Uber).

~~~
criddell
What shocks me is how slowly the taxi companies are responding to the Uber
threat. I use Uber when I can and the price has nothing to do with it. It's
better cars, better service, and friendlier drivers (usually).

Every time I get in some yellow cab that's a 5 year old Crown Vic with torn
seats, rattles everywhere, and a driver that can't (or won't) tell me how much
my ride is going to cost, I remember why I normally take Uber.

~~~
rodgerd
Feel free to explain how you think a small, regional company that actually has
to, you know, turn a profit, is going to compete with a multinational losing
billions a year to establish a global monopoly.

~~~
criddell
They are getting there, although slowly. They've had all the data and
infrastructure necessary to get something off the ground for years, but
haven't bothered because they've never had to bother.

------
dannylandau
With so many competitors in the marketplace, such as Lyft, Gett, Via, Juno,
and now Google, seems like Uber's leadership position is at risk. There
appears to be very little differentiation between all of them, and while
Google is starting out with carpooling, it is just a matter of time before
they expand. Not sure how any investor could ever justify Uber's $60B
valuation. In 10 years, will likely be 1/10 of that.

~~~
estefan
They've done everything right in terms of building a brand.

> seems like Uber's leadership position is at risk

You could have said that about any of the ex-Googlers who went off to try to
develop a 'better' Google. At this point, Uber have the mindshare, at least
amongst everyone I know, so unless Google have a 10x improvement planned then
they'll just compete in Uber's shadow like the rest.

------
mahyarm
There are a whole bunch of .54/mile commute carpool apps out there. Uber &
Lyft have them / have had them too. Usually they don't pan out because it's
not enough money for the hassle.

------
devy
Waze carpooling has been around since May [1]

[1] [http://www.wsj.com/articles/alphabet-unveils-program-for-
car...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/alphabet-unveils-program-for-carpooling-
via-app-fraying-ties-with-uber-1463428668)

~~~
dragonwriter
This is an expansion of the service area and availability.

------
hosh
Back in the day, when Google opened up a 411 service, Microsoft did the same.
It looked like a way to expand the search engine. After several years of
operation, they shut it down. Why? They were collecting voice samples to feed
into their voice recognition system, and they had collected enough.

I can't help but wonder if this ride sharing is a similar move. It sounds like
a stepping stone for the kind of services that might be practical with self-
driving cars. There might be some angle on collecting data that isn't obvious.

------
yalogin
Google had to get in at some point. They should have entered a year ago may be
but I think this is a good enough time. Google can afford to not take a cut
for their service and hurt Uber quite a bit. If they are not taking a cut they
can also reduce the price for the rider.

However, how can it be viable to the driver. I understand if someone is
already going in that direction they can make a little money but if I want to
live on it (like Uber is pitching) will the price be enough?

------
yefim
How are they vetting drivers? I wouldn't trust a driver if all they had to do
to qualify is download the Waze app.

~~~
edoloughlin
Once they have a critical mass of robberies, stabbings, etc., then the machine
learning can easily filter out undesirable drivers. Not a problem.

~~~
tajen
Are you ironic? Do you see what's strange in that? Machine learning isn't
exempt of racism. Google has a lot of background on people, but it's generally
accepted as unethic to filter undesirable people based on generalizations,
even if they were statistically correct.

~~~
oldmanjay
I can't tell if you're continuing the jocular tone of your parent or if you're
serious that this is the concern that actually came to your mind first. I
charitably hope it's the first.

~~~
stevenwiles
Haha, looking through your comment history, you have absolutely no right to be
using such a concescending tone.

Does your resume include any position besides "old, disgruntled, unhappy,
friendless programmer"?

------
627467
This won't be the first true ride-sharing program, but it's high enough
profile to show people how ubers and lyft of the world have highjacked and
distorted the meaning of that word.

Uber is not part of the "sharing" economy. This is.

------
saisun1988
Doesn't Google give "directions" to Uber? Literally & metaphorically?

If Google starts charging a premium for consumers like Uber who use its
services with a major commercial reason, Uber wouldn't be able to sustain.

~~~
dbbk
Uber bought their own mapping company for this reason.

------
dano
This ought to be a boon for vanpool's where demand in terms of source and
destination can be matched to drivers and 6+ passenger vehicles. Researching
the necessary correlations would be fascinating work.

~~~
petra
It's exactly @ridewithvia

------
genedelisa
What if actual there were a licensed Taxi service that offered the online/app
capabilities of Uber? Do you think that would compete?

~~~
coldpie
Many do. There are several reasons they're not very competitive. They were
late to that market, just following Uber's coattails. Their advertising is not
as slick and the apps often have poor UI, so it's not as enjoyable and
effortless to use. And significantly, they actually follow the law, which
results in higher costs to the end-user than law breakers like Uber.

------
sequoia_semper
This is an actual ride sharing experiment instead of a taxi for hire business,
quite nice to see this.

------
josh_carterPDX
Wait, doesn't Lyft use Waze? So it's Lyft in a different interface?

------
swolchok
Why would you pay to carpool to/from work instead of arranging carpool with a
coworker, paying for your share of gas directly, and cutting out 1) the
(future) middleman 2) the tax man?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Why would you pay to carpool to/from work instead of arranging carpool with
> a coworker, paying for your share of gas directly, and cutting out 1) the
> (future) middleman 2) the tax man?

Because the middle man is charging nothing, and its easier to use the middle
man to find people that are good car pool partners by both desired
arrival/departure time and where you are going to work from or going after
work than trying to ask everyone around your work, and the tax consequences of
accepting money to defray expenses don't change with or without the presence
of the middle man.

------
aristus
Google likes to use software to eat the world. But sometimes their software-
only approach just ends up slobbering all over it. The point of Uber isn't the
"sharing" of a ride, but the availability and predictability of getting one.

~~~
drcross
On the point of software eating the world google may be uniquely positioned to
make something of this scale work- They have trend data for a majority of
people with smartphones and I often see from Google Now cards that they know
what I'll do generally before I have even decided. If used in the correct way
it would deliver huge value and disrupt the established patterns of car
ownership.

------
JOnAgain
I predict this will fail as it is described today. Because it pays little and
is meant to find people on the way already, 1) people won't be dedicated to
driving people, 2) which will make it unreliable to get a ride, 3) which will
cause people not to use it or at least not rely on it. Also, with little
money, 1) whole segments of the (population (especially in the bay area) won't
be incentivized by the money, 2) people will be less likely to go out of their
way to pick anyone up, and 3) one or two annoying ride sharers will cause
drivers to decide picking people up isn't worth the occasional annoyance.

------
ChuckMcM
Ok, not unexpected given that Drummond stepped back from being a board member,
of course they got that seat by buying nearly 7% of the company[1]. Which if
they had sold it to the other investors who came in on $62.5B round[2] they
could have taken about $900M out which they could use to start their own ride
sharing service. Sort of like drinking the Unicorn's blood to create a spell
that will kill the Unicorn. The irony here, especially after Google did the
same thing at Apple, big investment, board seat, oh wait you have a business
that seems to be a winner (iPhone) lets step back and do that!

I wonder if this will make it harder for GV to participate in any sort of
funding rounds.

[1] "Google Ventures invested $258M at $3.7B post-money valuation in 2013" \--
[https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-Uber-does-Google-
ow...](https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-Uber-does-Google-own)

[2] [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-03/uber-
raise...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-03/uber-raises-
funding-at-62-5-valuation)

~~~
euyyn
You're saying all that as if, right before Drummond stepping back, Uber hadn't
announced that they'd start doing self-driving cars, pretty much forcing him
to step down out of conflict of interest.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I'm not sure I understand, are you saying this is some tit-for-tat move after
Uber acquired Otto? Sounds a bit Machiavellian even for Uber and Google. Would
love to hear the actual back story if that is the case.

~~~
euyyn
Absolutely not saying that. You're trying to portrait him as some kind of spy,
waiting to see if Uber turned out to be a good idea to get out of the board.
What I'm saying is you can only construct an argument like that by omitting
the obvious reason he stepped out.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Not a spy, just not aligned well with the companies they partner with. Google
is doing its level best to find additional markets it can expand into. And it
has a history of expanding into the markets of people that it invests in. Your
typical VC won't generally invest in a second startup going after the same
market as one they are already invested in, and Google Ventures is nominally
"separate" from Google, but they seem to jump in when without their partner
from time to time. Once, maybe twice, can be a fluke but one of the things
startups always worry about is Google (or Apple or Microsoft or Facebook)
jumping into their space with infinite marketing dollars and hundreds of idle
staff members. One could be forgiven to think that if they were investing in
you they wouldn't do that, but this sort of behavior should make startups
think long and hard about taking a GV deal over an investor who wants them to
be successful.

I wonder if that impacts GV's ability to participate in future deals. It seems
like it should but business can be funny that way.

------
alkonaut
Can we stop calling every new taxi service "ride sharing"? Are people
"sharing" anything in any meaningful way? The drivers car isn't shared, he
sells a ride, that's a Taxi. A medallion or other arbitrary system doesn't
define what a taxi is.

Can I tell uber I want to share a ride to the airport with any stranger? (my
taxi co will do that)?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Can we stop calling every new taxi service "ride sharing"?

Yes, but this is a ridesharing service, not a taxi service.

> Can I tell uber I want to share a ride to the airport with any stranger? (my
> taxi co will do that)?

Isn't that exactly what UberPOOL is?

~~~
alkonaut
My point really that we always had ride sharing, it's car pools (which is
obvious from Ubers naming). The regular uber is a taxi service and a service
for organizing car pools is a car pool service.

I agree that uberPool and this is much more ride _sharing_.

~~~
theseatoms
"The Renting Economy" doesn't have the same ring to it...

------
iamcasen
Uber and Lyft have had to tackle so many legal issues already. Drastically
improving and modifying how they deal with drivers on a daily basis from both
an operational and legal standpoint.

If what the article says is true about google vetting problem drivers with
mere user reviews, they don't know what they are getting into.

I think the idea is great of course, and I imagine it would cut down on
freeway traffic during commute hours. It just seems that the legal web of
trust, insurance, safety, etc will be a lot to handle.

~~~
imgabe
If this is strictly to more easily facilitate carpooling during rush hour,
there's some precedent. In the Washington DC area, for at least a decade,
possibly more, there have been "Slug Lines" outside the city for people
commuting in. The idea is you go to a specific place via public transportation
or park there, then drivers heading into the city pick you up so they can use
the HOV lane. There's a similar setup in the evening where you'll catch a ride
back with a different person.

I've never used it, but as far as I've heard it works well. I don't think
there's any compulsion to pay, but maybe it's generally polite to offer a few
dollars for gas. This sounds like a more automated version of that.

~~~
vthallam
This happens in many places i guess. But when a company gets into picture to
facilitate this, things like safety/insurance comes into picture. I am sure
Google might have already figured that out, if not any small crime incident by
a driver would cause huge reputational damage.

~~~
bduerst
It's different because it's carpooling, which is typically covered by most
insurance policies.

[https://www.waze.com/carpool](https://www.waze.com/carpool)

>Auto insurance policies in many states including California typically allow
not for profit, share-the-expense carpooling. Waze Carpool is designed to help
riders and drivers share the cost of carpooling on a given ride. It is not
designed to allow a driver to make a profit or to earn a salary. Payments to
the driver, by the rider, will always be less or equal to the cost of the
particular drive, taking account of such factors as gas and vehicle
depreciation.

~~~
dgacmu
Underscoring that, the WSJ article notes that "Waze’s current pilot charges
riders at most 54 cents a mile". This is equal to the federal standard mileage
reimbursement rate for 2016 ([https://www.irs.gov/uac/newsroom/2016-standard-
mileage-rates...](https://www.irs.gov/uac/newsroom/2016-standard-mileage-
rates-for-business-medical-and-moving-announced)). Which suggests they're
trying to aim for exactly that, using an established standard for the per-mile
cost.

------
ianamartin
Am I the only one who laughs when I see, "Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc., . .
. ."?

Umm, who reading this article doesn't know who Google is? That construction is
almost always there to let you know who some no-name subsidiary or division of
a much more well-known company is.

In this case it functions in the reverse if at all--reminding people that
Alphabet is a thing, in case you didn't know.

Anyway, I just think that's funny.

~~~
rjbwork
WSJ's primary audience is folks in business or finance. From my understanding,
they have automated aggregators and algorithms that consume those articles,
and look for constructs like that for tagging/categorization.

~~~
dingdongding
Well algorithms can be advanced enough to reference Google with Alphabet
automatically without putting need to write Alphabet in article itself. I
don't think what you're saying is the reason to write it in the article

------
bluejekyll
> Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc., began a pilot program around...

So, basic question, What is the difference between Alphabet and Google again?
It seems like everything is still being branded as Google. I know it's
slightly off topic, but I am honestly confused as to when something is not
Google.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
It's just your average shell company thing. People only make a big deal of it
because it's a thing Google did.

~~~
bluejekyll
Yeah. I realize the shell company thing, but I also seem to remember them
talking about brands being differentiated from Google, but every announcement
continues to be the Google brand.

------
JohnMF
Lyft recently shut down their commute share program due to lack of interest...
and now Alphabet is restarting it.

~~~
sequoia_semper
Was it a lack of interest or poor economics? My coworker found that he could
take a Lyft commute share, which was often empty, get to where he was going
and pay much less. So, just like a Lyft on discount.

------
sredniv
"Google takes on Earth by building a new mechanical planet"

------
symbolepro
The best part of the interview is the way Sam has asked questions.

------
jdauriemma
Goober

------
known
Wondering why Napster was ruled illegal :)

------
TheOneTrueKyle
When I was younger and financially unstable, I had a decision to make. Take a
crappy restaurant job or live out of my car. I chose to live out of my car.
Every time I hear the argument that people in the restaurant industry are
getting unfair pay, I ask myself, "I wonder who made that decision to work
there in the first place"

Stop this bullshit tipping. These people made a choice and then chose to
complain about it.

Also, this only seems to occur with FOH employees in the restaurant industry.
You don't really hear BOH employees (you know, the people who actually do the
work of cooking your food) complain.

~~~
Amezarak
It is very interesting. I worked in restaurants for many years and I never
knew a server who made less than the back staff - usually they made several
multiples of their pay in a night.

I assume it's because servers (and I was one!) feel generally more empowered
when it comes to their pay; they think complaining will accomplish something
(strengthen social norms to tip), while kitchen staff know that what they get
is what they get.

No doubt server pay varies _wildly_ , but I worked at a cheap buffet
essentially just bussing tables and I _never_ made less than kitchen staff and
sometimes made up to 6x what they would make in a shift - usually about 3x,
and management directed that we report the minimum amount possible, to get out
of their payroll tax contribution, I assume.

On top of that, employers are in fact _nominally_ required to pay the
difference between their tipped wage and the "real" minimum wage if they don't
get enough tips (for some reason this isn't commonly known) to make the
difference, but that situation is probably rare enough that businesses skate
by without fulfilling their legal duty. [1]

Frankly, I liked waiting tables and I'd do it again if it paid as much as
programming. It's not all that crappy. :) And at the same time, I have a lot
less sympathy for servers than I used to. Save your sympathy for the people
who are paid minimum wage and _don 't_ get tips. Yes, that server is getting
$2.15 instead of $7.25, but a) the business is required to make up the
difference between $2.15 + tips and $7.25 and b) no server I have ever heard
of, anywhere, is making less than $7.25/hour with tips.

[1]
[https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/wages/wagestips](https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/wages/wagestips)

~~~
lsc
This is what I find interesting about the situation, and why I see tipping as
a cultural rather than ethical imperative. If it was about poverty or social
justice, it is a terribly inefficient way to go about fighting those battles.
If instead you theorize that Tipping is largely about smoothing interactions
between those of a higher economic class and the people who immediately serve
them, the whole thing makes more sense.

Even taking class out of it, tipping when you are out drinking kind of makes
sense like "hey thanks for working so I can go have fun. Here is a little
extra so you can treat yourself when you are off work." The idea is to make it
less awkward for the customer to drink in front of someone who is sober and
working, Because that is kind of an awkward situation for many folks

~~~
TheOneTrueKyle
Is there a possibility for smoothing out this social awkwardness that didn't
involved monetary value?

Is there a way for society to make these jobs appear simply as a job and not
some exchange of money for this psuedo caste system I am placing on you while
I eat my salmon?

I am generally curious. I don't eat at restaurants for this reason. I have no
interest in being involved with this human interaction. Which is a shame
because food is my life...

~~~
lsc
Sure, there are plenty of places where you Walk up to order and pay and then
walk up to get your food, and tipping norms seem super different there, I
would assume because it seems a lot less like you are being directly served.
If we are running with my model, the idea would be like they are manufacturing
your food and you are buying it, rather than someone coming and serving you at
your table.

If you are in the South bay, try dish n dash for super good food sold in that
style.

To be clear, I am not super clear on tipping norms in that case, but
observationaly, most people seem to tip a lot less, and some people just tip
the change.

~~~
TheOneTrueKyle
These types of establishments are the places I'm finding myself if I decide to
go out to eat these days. Me personally, I come for the experience of the
food, not the service.

~~~
nommm-nommm
I much prefer this system too!

------
salomelunarojas
We should stop calling this ride sharing. It's still taxi. Modern taxi.

------
dirtyaura
Larry finally got his way :D

~~~
hosh
That's an interesting comment. Would you care to elaborate?

------
readhn
RIP Uber. 8/29/2016.

~~~
estefan
More like "Google late to the party... again"

------
vegabook
read: "Google ride-share is to Uber as Windows Phone is to Android". Late to
the party, tragically deficient in first-mover network effect advantage, and
on the decline in credibility since they're shutting down all moonshots,
including, as we saw as recently as today, halving the staff at Google Fibre.

Talk about panic catch-up with no intrinsic advantage, nor vision. "Mountain
View, start your photo-copiers". We know where that ends...

Larry and Sergei have shown in the past 3 years that they have no staying
power on anything that isn't an obvious profit lay-up in short order. This
thing will burn through cash at a rate that will make any of their other ill-
fated ventures look like a bargain. I mean, UBER has already coughed 1.2 yards
this year!

Smells like Google+ all over again. Isn't this the sort of sham that the
Alphabet carve-out was supposed to avoid?

~~~
wtvanhest
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Treo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Treo)
was way before Andriod.

First mover advantage is rarely an advantage at all. My guess is that google
sees this as optionality and testing to get things right like insurance etc.
in anticipation of self driving cars. At the very least it allows them to
extract more value from Uber when Google finally have self driving cars ready
to sell them.

I really don't see how Uber is worth more than a few billion in a few years.
Google is playing the long game hard and I think they are going to win here.

~~~
estefan
> First mover advantage is rarely an advantage at all

Genuine question (not a snarky comment as it might sound), but can you link to
any research that indicates it's 'rarely' and advantage?

I've been reading books recently that emphasise the importance of being the
first to market with something innovative. Your brand then gets associated
with the product/service ("hoover", "Uber", "google") even when referring to
the general category.

Second-mover advantages do exist, but is there any research on whether it's
more advantageous than being a first mover who iterates? I know it can happen,
but in this case I'd rather be Uber with an established brand & mindshare
rather than Google playing catch-up.

~~~
euyyn
Those books aren't really mentioning Google Search as an example, right? It
didn't have first-mover advantage.

~~~
flukus
It kind of did, AFAIK it was the first functional search engine.

Everything else at the time was pretty terrible.

~~~
euyyn
Yeah, no true Scotsman ends up losing first-mover advantage.

~~~
flukus
It's not no true scotsman though. Google search was very different to what
came before it. The only similarity was the UI.

~~~
euyyn
That's nonsense. The only two differentiators were the minimalistic UI (at a
time when load speed of a web page was noticeable) and the better quality of
the results. There were a bunch search engines already, all of them with a
search box where you typed stuff and got a list of results.

------
ilostmykeys
This is a hitchhiking service, not a "I want to get from my hotel to the
airport" service. What are the chances that someome happens to be passing by
my hotel on their way to the airport and happens to have room for an extra
passenger. LOL. Retarded (to view it as competing with Uber/Lyft) Just part of
the media that is itching to start a new drama.

------
codecamper
This is it? Ha. Uber must be letting out a collective sigh of relief.

------
MrZongle2
I can't help but think that if Google is successful, the entire endeavor will
end up like Reader: Google wipes out the competition, decides that they no
longer want to run the service, end it, and there is no-one left to fill the
void.

------
Myrmornis
Has Waze quit using the childish cartoon stuff by default under Google?

~~~
Myrmornis
How should I reword this in order not to get downvoted? Is this better?

When I've used Waze in the past, I notice that the default UI features cartoon
spermatozoa moving around a road system. Such an aesthetic is going to be off-
putting to most serious adults, but it sounds from this article that Waze is
playing an important role in some actively developed Google products. I'm
curious whether anyone here can shed light on the marketing strategy.

~~~
euyyn
Come one, most serious adults don't give a rat's ass about how cartoonish or
not their mapping app looks, as long as it works well.

~~~
Myrmornis
When I said adult, I was thinking of people over 40. I think you're thinking
of younger people. There's no way, for example, my parents would use it.
They'd feel uncomfortable, that they were stumbling into some sort of "thing
for young people".

------
durga
Google is simply bored while making so much money so comfortably, with an
absolutely dominant market position in search. So every few months they need
to do these copycat things simply to entertain themselves ;-).

