Waymo the Leapfrog
Waymo’s growing robotaxi service is prompting comparisons with Tesla’s Full Self-Driving, raising questions about differing technical approaches (lidar-heavy geofenced fleets vs. camera-only consumer cars), incentives to partner or compete, and whether any one player can dominate autonomous mobility. Commenters describe largely positive real‑world experiences with Waymo in cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco, but point to high costs, narrow geographic coverage, and complex edge cases as signs the technology remains early and expensive to operate. A major point of contention is whether fleets of self-driving cars can or should supplant traditional public transit, with some seeing potential for flexible “third-generation” mobility and others warning about congestion, induced demand, and the limits of car-based systems in dense cities.
Tesla vs Waymo and Why They Don’t Partner
- Many argue Tesla has strong incentives not to partner with Waymo: it would signal Tesla’s vision-only FSD is insufficient and undercut its high valuation premised on owning the autonomy stack.
- Waymo also gains little: it could source EVs from many automakers and avoid the reputational and bargaining risks of tying itself to a single, volatile partner.
- Some frame it like Google vs Apple in phones: competing stacks and business models where competition, not collaboration, is expected.
Technology Approaches (Sensors vs Vision)
- Waymo uses an expensive, lidar‑heavy sensor suite; Tesla pursues camera-only with heavy AI.
- Commenters note both rely on AI/computer vision; the real divide is “vision-only vs multi‑sensor.”
- Waymo’s hardware is seen as too costly and maintenance-heavy for mass consumer vehicles today.
User Experience and Safety Perception
- Multiple riders report Waymo in SF and LA as smooth, predictable, clean, and often “mundane in a good way”; some feel it now drives better than they do within its geofenced areas.
- Tesla FSD is described as improving but still anxiety‑inducing, like supervising a teenage driver.
- There are anecdotes of Waymos blocking traffic or entering a wrong-way alley; remote staff can give “advice” but not direct control, with roadside assistance as a fallback.
- One commenter dismisses Tesla FSD as essentially a live prototype with customers as test subjects.
Public Transit, Congestion, and “Leapfrog” Claims
- Strong skepticism that robotaxis can replace well‑run mass transit, especially in dense Asian/European cities.
- Critics stress geometry: low-occupancy cars, even autonomous, can’t match buses/trains for corridor capacity; self-driving fleets risk induced demand and more congestion.
- Others imagine shared, cooperative autonomous fleets (small shuttles, dynamic “flocks,” point‑to‑point minibuses) that could outperform today’s often-empty, infrequent U.S. buses.
- Debate over buses: some claim underused buses cause net congestion; others counter that at peak times they clearly remove car trips and that service must run off‑peak to be viable.
Economics, Scale, and Market Structure
- Disagreement over unit economics: some think cheaper hardware and high utilization will make robotaxis very cheap; others note current billion‑dollar losses and heavy ongoing engineering.
- One side argues autonomy is not a natural monopoly: multiple firms could reach similar safety levels.
- Another side claims scale-driven utilization advantages create winner‑take‑most dynamics similar to ride‑hailing.
Scope, Availability, and Endgame
- Waymo is praised but seen as geographically narrow; rollout to new cities and to harsher conditions (e.g., snow) is expected to be slow.
- Some see potential to reshape suburban commuting; others say that’s already possible with Uber and would mainly worsen sprawl.
- Speculation on Waymo’s endgame: Uber‑like service, tech provider to automakers or transit agencies, or a platform that Google could eventually monetize with advertising—prompting worries about future ad‑ridden rides.