True! But unless you’ve got access to something that shows you tomorrow’s news, then today’s news is all that you or I or anyone else have to go on in making any decision in our lives. So we’re stuck with it!
3 Likes
Some of we, not all of we. Don’t despair, it’s curable.
The Captain
Really? What’s your news source that isn’t today’s news? Do you have access to tomorrow’s news? Or news from even further in the future?
3 Likes
ok. I gotta ask.
If YOU were ‘rolling out an AV’… for the FIRST TIME (for YOUR company)… how would YOU do that?
For context, Waymo did the ‘supervised’ thing… n after a while (apparently 50,000 hours?) now offers ‘no operator in the vehicle, but rather a remote operator’…
Would YOU just pull a random car off your assembly line, push it out the door, without any kind of ‘pre-testing’ … just to make sure?
Would TPTB even allow you to do that?
This question is directed to anyone who wants to answer.
ralph
me? I’d do exactly what Tesla is doing. Multiple steps, multiple layers of ‘protection’. etc.
2 Likes
Of course not. But neither would I then claim that I was on the cusp of wide scale deployment of my AV service, either. I would recognize that a normal, safety-conscious firm that just started public road deployment of my AV would be several years away from a full-scale deployment of AV ride-hailing in multiple cities. It’s not that Tesla’s doing anything wrong - it’s that what they’re doing is inconsistent with the idea that they’ve got technology that’s ready for massive deployment as a rideshare service.
It’s good that they’re not trying to launch an autonomous service in California without having even applied for an AV testing permit. But then you have to ask - why haven’t they even applied for an AV testing permit in California? If they have a technology that’s ready for robotaxi deployment subject only to testing and verification, then why haven’t the started the process for testing and verification in the state with the largest number of existing Teslas? Especially since that’s apparently the second state they intend to launch in?
It’s completely inconsistent with the belief that they’ve reached a point with their AV tech where these things are ready to start bringing in a ton of revenue in just a few years. Which was my point to D20.
3 Likes
Waymo was launched in 2009.
They have 1500 cars on the road and are running large losses.
Tesla began their self-driving program in 2013.
They have barely one or two dozen robotaxis on the road, and are assuredly running proportionally large losses on each of them.
It may be that actual self-driving is beyond our ability to “solve” in an economically viable manner at this stage of technological development.
3 Likes
People said similar things about EVs and charging stations.
And they said similar things about the solar roof and Tesla’s projections of 50% annual growth in sales for the next ten years. So what?
Just because some people were wrong about EV’s doesn’t mean that different people are wrong about something else entirely. Just because Tesla was successful at doing one thing doesn’t mean they will achieve every goal they pursue.
5 Likes
Don’t forget to memorialize your predictions here:
make them specific and measurable
One thing that is interesting about these conversations is the Tesla-maxis always compare Waymo’s existing tech with an idealized view of Tesla’s future tech and the conclude Tesla is superior. But I think a more reasonable comparison is to look at where both companies are today:
Waymo has completed 100 million L4 ride hailing miles
Tesla has completed zero L4 ride hailing miles
Waymo is operating AV ride hailing in five cities
Tesla is operating AV ride hailing in zero cities
Waymo provides 250,000 AV ride hailing trips per week
Tesla provides zero AV ride hailing trips per week.
Waymo has announced AV ride hailing plans for three cities next year
Tesla has announced AV ride hailing plans for zero cities next year
Waymo requires mapping and geofencing for its L4 service
Tesla requires mapping and geofencing for its L2 service (as per Musk)
Waymo’s L4 tech requires an expensive sensor suite
Tesla doesn’t have L4 tech
Waymo’s L4 service is open to the general public
Tesla’s L2 service requires submitting an application
If we were black out the names, one could conclude that one of the companies is having trouble scaling, and it isn’t Waymo.
We have a sort of a tortoise and the hare situation. The Tesla-maxis say that Real Soon Now™ Tesla will get into the race and leave the tortoise in the dust. In the meantime, the tortoise just keeps getting farther and farther away…
5 Likes
As we all know Tesla was willing to endure operational for many years while they developed their tech. You could argue the willingness to invest money against losses shows confidence in the outcome.
But just for grins, we know Telsa provided 7,000 miles of robotaxi trips in one month using 10-12 vehicles. Assuming each trip is five miles, that means 1400 trips at $4.20 a trip = ~ $6,000, or ~$72,000 income for those 10-12 vehicles.
Now include capital costs for 10-12 vehicles, plus drivers, plus fuel, plus plus maintenance, plus whatever else. Put all that into the pot and I conclude Tesla is losing a bundle on Robotaxi.
And whatever Waymo is losing, Tesla is losing more. Waymo has higher capital costs, but they operate their vehicles 24/7 in most locations (as opposed to Robotaxi, which shuts down at night), and they don’t require human operators, which are expensive. Plus Waymo charges higher rates.
So I don’t think Waymo losing money is really the own the Tesla-maxis make it out to be.
2 Likes
Would you agree that the discounted present value of all future cash flows is a reasonable investing metric? If you do then figuring out how companies will be able to monetize their products is a good way to look at investing in them.
Technology, per se, is not investing relevant, monetizing the technology is. I have often said to invest only in companies that will bounce back, a very expensive lesson learned after investing based on the Gilder Technology Report [GTR] which highlighted several satellite ventures including Globalstar. The technology made a lot of sense but the timing was not right.
On February 15, 2002, the predecessor company Globalstar (old Globalstar) and three of its subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.
(Link below)
Compare to SpaceX’s Skylink. The real difference is that SpaceX is able to fund and monetize the service.
Another relevant bankruptcy, Global Crossing.
Prior to its acquisition by Level 3 Communications, Global Crossing attracted widespread media attention after filing for bankruptcy in January 2002.
(Link below)
This bankruptcy was much harder to predict, prices dropped so fast that Global Crossing was unable to pay off its valuable infrastructure investment. With the bankruptcy DeepPockets acquired the infrastructure for pennies on the dollar and it has been serving us well ever since.
Look at autonomous driving investing through the money lens!
The Captain
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
3 Likes
Waymo has 1500 cars on the road in 16 years. Maybe the first 10 years were pure R&D in autonomy. It seems that they cannot scale with their technology.
2 Likes
We are all prisoners of our past, at least to some degree. My parents, raised in the depression, kept a giant freezer stocked with food in the basement their entire lives, you know, just in case.
Google has a history of, and is comfortable with losing money for long periods of time if they thing the eventual payout might be worth it. The most obvious example is YouTube, which now leads Netflix and all other video sources - including historical TV - as the place where people consume moving pictures. There were years and years of losses while people mocked them for starting a business for which they had no coherent business plan. It was about scale, and they figured out how to grow the business afterwards.
(I note that Rupert Murdoch bought MySpace and insisted it start making money right away, which led to a surfeit of advertising and destruction of the brand. Zuckerberg ran Facebook the opposite, eschewing ads for bigness at first, and now has a tidy little business in Facebook. But I digress…)
Google’s Moonshots division has done this before, heck even Google started losing lots of money until…
I believe “self driving” is a big big big market - someday. That might be soon or it might not. Meanwhile Waymo is learning a lot, and for some reason continuing to expand, while Tesla is just getting out of the gate. That doesn’t mean Waymo is predestined to win, but neither is Tesla showing a lot of “scale”, either. It’s early. It’s way way early. It will settle out in due time; at this point I think it’s entirely speculative.
Meanwhile, one self-driving company is having some success, they’ve moved from experimental to driving long distances without drivers and seem to be expanding at pace. They, incidentally, use Lidar:
Texas Highways Have a New Nighttime Creature: Autonomous Trucks
Aurora Innovation says its driverless system can detect objects further than the length of three football fields—in the dark
Autonomous trucks are now driving highways at night, hauling food and dairy between Dallas and Houston.It’s a big step forward for autonomous trucking. While Waymo for years has been operating driverless robotaxis around the clock in cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles, autonomous trucks until recently have stuck mainly to daytime hours and good weather.
Aurora Innovation (https://www.wsj.com/ma, the startup behind the trucks on the Dallas-Houston route, said Wednesday it had reached a new milestone with its Lidar system, which bounces lasers off surrounding objects to “see” its surroundings in 3-D. Aurora said its system is now able, in the dark, to detect objects further than the length of three football fields, enabling the vehicle to identify pedestrians, other vehicles or debris on the road about 11 seconds sooner than a human driver.
Not far away, driverless trucks from another company, Kodiak Robotics, are now operating around the clock in parts of West Texas and Eastern New Mexico, delivering loads of sand for use in fracking. These five trucks—which operate on leased roads, not highways–don’t have a human on board.
3 Likes
It is one thing to lose money. It is another to have wrong expensive tech that cannot scale.
Google’s core search business and cash cow is under assault.
Waymo is like Amazon phone, Apple car and Metaverse. Dead man walking.
Aurora is also a dying company.
Thanks for the tip. Appreciate your concern.
Overall performance
- Strong Revenue Growth: Alphabet continues to demonstrate robust revenue growth, with a 14% year-over-year increase in Q2 2025, reaching $96.4 billion. This reflects momentum across various business segments, including Google Search & other, YouTube ads, Google subscriptions, platforms, and devices, and Google Cloud.
- Double-Digit Growth: Google is experiencing double-digit revenue growth rates for several quarters in a row, a positive trend, though not quite matching pre-COVID or 2021 growth rates.
- Operating Income Increase: Operating income also increased 14.0% year-over-year in Q2 2025, from $27.4 billion in Q2 2024 to $31.3 billion, with a stable operating margin of 32.4%.
Doesn’t really look so horrible to me, but heck, you’re the expert.
Segment-specific performance
- Google Search & other: This segment remains a primary revenue driver, growing by 11.5% year-over-year in Q2 2025 to $54.1 billion.
- YouTube Ads: YouTube ad revenue increased by 14% year-over-year in Q2 2025.
- Google Cloud: This segment shows strong performance, with revenue surging 32% year-over-year in Q2 2025 to $13.6 billion. Notably, Cloud’s operating income more than doubled, and operating margin significantly expanded, indicating increased profitability. The backlog in Google Cloud is also growing, reaching $106 billion in Q2 2025, showcasing strong customer demand.
- Google Network: This segment has experienced a negative trend, with a 2% decline in Q2 2025, continuing a trend that started in 2023. Quo Vadis | Tom Triscari even suggests that Google might exit the open web by 2029, with Google Network revenue potentially dropping to 0%.
3 Likes
This is looking backwards.
Consumer habits are changing. More and more people are using Chatgpt now.
Waymo will not survive for long. Aurora is dead too.
Absolutely. Let me start off with an assumption about the present and see if you agree: Waymo engineers are no smarter than Tesla engineers.
So why does Waymo have AV ride hailing and not Tesla? Must be the hardware. Tesla can’t monetize their current tech in this area.
But I don’t think either company sees AV ride hailing as the end game. Waymo has made it clear they intend to license their tech, developing “a driver, not a vehicle.”
Tesla said they also intend to license their tech. So I think being the first mover will be important. Tesla’s simpler sensor suite might be an advantage, but I’m certain Waymo is trying to simply their sensors as well.
Can’t scale or is in the process of scaling? And the end of last year Waymo logged 50 million AV miles and doubled that in six months, and has plans to add another 2000 vehicles by the end of the year. That’s exponential growth.
Tesla’s tech requires a safety operator in each vehicle. How well does that scale?
3 Likes
You do know that Google didn’t start You Tube?
They were one of the fastest growing web sites and were constantly outgrowing their capacity to scale. They outsourced the needed big servers from Google who had failed in creating their own video streaming business. Google bought them later that year (2006)
Mike
1 Like