> Drivers will only be able to make two trips per day, and the software will ensure they only travel from their home neighborhoods to their workplaces.<p>> There also won’t be a ton of money changing hands as a passenger will pay the driver only a nominal fare for the trip<p>I'd hardly call it a Uber rival
The title is misleading. RideWith isn't a direct Uber rival, as it's a feature of the Waze app matching people doing similar trips on a regular basis. It is therefore closer to ride sharing/carpooling than to private transportation.
Note: We have built a marketplace to connect drivers and passengers, so we understand some of the challenges in scaling a business like this.<p>Like all marketplaces, you are faced with the chicken and egg problem. The market place is supply constrained. There is demand for rides but not enough matching supply. People with cars much prefer to travel alone due the inconvenience of picking up others.<p>So, in order to get the drivers you need to give them a VERY convenient option. Someone that is along their route, that would not add more than 5-10 mins of extra commute time, this is also dependent on how long the total commute is. You also need to reach these drivers, without them searching for a solution. Which is insanely expensive since the cheap acquisition strategies do not work.<p>The best way to solve this IMHO is seeding the market with drivers (supply side). Once you have the scale to guarantee a ride in a specific area you open up ride-sharing.<p>* Uber is doing this by incentivizing drivers who want to make a profit.<p>* Google is uniquely positioned to do this as well, since they have the treasure trove of Wayze data
This article in Haaretz has a lot more information, including pricing and details about how rides are set up in advance, typically the night before.<p>"Google's Waze to launch worldwide carpooling pilot in Israel"<p><a href="http://www.haaretz.com/business/1.664577" rel="nofollow">http://www.haaretz.com/business/1.664577</a>
Sometimes when I read about Google dipping their hands into totally new things (another example is Google +) I think, "those greedy ...", etc., but then sometimes I read it and think, "perhaps Google is simply trying to prevent monopolies in tech fields where competition is sparse.".<p>If the latter possibility is sometimes the true motive, even if it is done out of self interest, the result tends to be good for all of us (except for the monopolists themselves), because Google doesn't tend to be able to maintain a monopoly in any techs other than search and advertising.<p>One example of the benefits of this kind of competition is the advent of larger iPhones. If not for Google's Android and subsequent proliferation of large-sized phones that evolved out of customer demand, Apple might have ignored (or not been nearly as aware of) the demand for a larger iPhone.
Forgive if I am misunderstanding, but Google Ventures invested in Uber, not Google itself. Wouldn't this statement from the article be half incorrect: "This puts Google squarely in competition with Uber, which is both an investment and customer of its Google Maps product."<p>1. <a href="https://www.gv.com/about" rel="nofollow">https://www.gv.com/about</a>
2. <a href="https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/uber/funding-rounds" rel="nofollow">https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/uber/funding-rounds</a>
The premise behind uber's valuation is that they could own the marketplace for transportation. But what if the market is not monopolizable? If users (drivers and riders) can costlessly participate in multiple transportation markets, then it's impossible to form a monopoly. Users will just frictionlessly move to the cheapest market. I operate in multiple of these markets (check all of the apps before committing to a ride) and I know that many drivers do too (lyft on this phone, uber on that phone, etc). So shouldn't this monopoly unravel to the point that all of the transportation markets aren't able to capture any value from the transaction?
It heard that the branding team ruled out using "Google Hitchhiker".<p>What's the difference? Google's/Uber's/Lyft's imprimatur that your passenger is trustworthy? More surety of payment? If I want to take the risk, why won't cities let me give hitchhiker's rides for cash (or even credit card payments)?
Fix what you have, Google.<p>Every time you launch into something else, like this, I become a bit more convinced that commentators are right and you are slowly turning into Microsoft.<p>I get the sense that, internally, things are still significantly different than they are or ever were at Microsoft. But I become increasingly concerned about some encroaching "inevitable".<p>De-fuck Hangouts and your rats nest of "instant" products/services. Beat Verizon over the head until they actually update the Moto X that, at the time of purchase, <i>you</i> sold me. Stop launching the "next great thing" only to kill it 18 months later, over and over.<p>And as some have said, um, search? Give at least optional specific control back to the power users. And someone the other day raised the pertinent question of why it's not well-integrated into Hangouts.<p>I suppose RideWith is supposed to eventually overlap with your autonomous cars, or something. But I don't give a crap about the new, until the old and erstwhile reliable -- and so critical to so many -- starts working better, again.<p>Thanks.<p>P.S. Ok, that last paragraph is partially rhetoric. But, damnit, if I'm going to invest in your products -- in both dollars and time and effort -- I want some consistency, and an upward trend in features and usability. (See also Tim O'Reilly's recent comments about the -- cough -- "improved" interface in Contacts. (Pop-ups and clipped text -- really?))
My prediction number 5 :)<p>5. New functionality - e.g. If you're going somewhere while using Google Maps for navigation and turn on "Carpool" mode, people can see your path and message you for a pick up. They pay you for partial journey via the app.<p><a href="http://www.quora.com/How-will-Google-monetize-Google-Maps" rel="nofollow">http://www.quora.com/How-will-Google-monetize-Google-Maps</a>
When google announced Uber integration in their maps, I called it a trojan horse [1] Basically making maps the interface for ride sharing and then adding their own service on top.<p>[1] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7705706" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7705706</a>
Does this mean we can look forward to fleets of self-driving cars roaming the streets and waiting for someone to hail them with Google's app?<p>Or maybe your personal self-driving car will inform you that there are people travelling your route that you can share fuel costs with.
One big advantage of Google's solution over Uber's is the relative climate change impact of your transportation choice. In reverse order of benefit, based on my amatuer analysis:<p>* For a baseline, let's use one party (generally a person or a couple) with a personal car. Traveling someplace creates P marginal greenhouse gasses (GHG), plus there is the fixed cost of manufacturing the car (but I have no idea how much that is).<p>* Uber and taxis net GHG emissions should be worst and greater than P: Your trip uses P but added to that is the GHG generated when the taxi/Uber car has no passenger and is 'cruising'. Also, I expect taxis/Uber cars are larger on average than personal cars, and thus less fuel efficient, because they need to fit several adults comfortably in the back. If you give up a personal car for Uber/taxis, then you get the manufacturing benefit.<p>* Car share services (e.g., ZipCar) should net less than P emissions, if you give up a personal car when you join. The car is parked when nobody is driving it, so the marginal cost of one trip is P. But it also eliminates the emissions created from manufacturing the car, whatever that is. EDIT: As hayksaakian points out below, this is the same as buying a used car.<p>* Google's RideWidth's net GHG emissions should be much less than P: For every added passenger, one less car is on the road emitting P.<p>* Public transit probably is second best. The marginal GHG emissions of the bus/train carrying your fat a-- on its normal route probably don't amount to much. On the other hand, it probably depends on the average passenger load of the vehicle -- certainly a train/bus with only you on it costs much more per passenger than P, but those fixed costs are spread over many more passengers than Uber/taxis.<p>* Best of all, of course, are biking or walking. Though has anyone calculated the GHG emissions of the human energy cycle, from growing the cattle feed to transport to refrigeration to cooking to human methane emissions?<p>Also not calculated are the effect your use of one service or another has on demand, driving up the number of Uber/taxi/busses, etc. on the road.
Carpooling has fundamental challenges that are perhaps impossible to overcome.<p>For one, dynamic routing for two or more people is always going to hurt the user experience. Imagine you're running late and your car re-routes to pick up another passenger - ugh!<p>Shared transportation for anything more than a neighbourhood trip should be professionally driven and to a schedule. That schedule can be dynamic as anything but must be solid and offer guarantees BEFORE the trip starts as to start point, route, etc.<p>Basically a very smart and discoverable bus.
Correct me , I don't find it as a Uber rival . I think they are trying to promote car pool which is much needed here in India , only problem I see is security of passsengers
Doesn't sound like a play against Uber -- seems more like a companion concept to self-driving cars, which would naturally be good candidates for commuter ride-sharing.
This sounds more like Lyft's "Line" service which connects driver and passengers going the same way on regular trips. I'm not familiar with Uber's offerings though so maybe they have a similar service?
Is it just me or does that page have an annoying ad network which AUTOMATICALLY redirects your mobile browser to the app store? I've seen a proliferation of these now.
Could be just a very limited service for a narrow use case. Google may want to better know which techie in Israel goes where. Say, for the purposes of optimising hiring, investment, product development, security ...
Even if this isn't quite an uber rival, this is ultimately Uber's problem. All they are is an app with some marketing, and anyone with a bit of money can easily come up with a competing app.
Do you really think that Google snoops into paying customers map data?<p>Why in the world would uber just give it away? No, no, why would they pay to give it away?<p>Even as a 5% investor, do they have such intimate data access?