There seems to be a notion among futurists, probably slightly incorrect, that “driverless” vehicle is the next-big-thing in automotive, and especially in the “alternative-taxi” segment.
Perhaps we should could refine this into a more likely version, by saying “virtually driverless” or not quite computer controlled. By “not quite” there is a likely scenario where there is both an intelligent control system in the car itself - but also a cadre of “remote drivers” in an office somewhere (preferably local, instead of India). And all interactions are recorded, of course. Imagine an entry level office job of the future, requiring no college education – only communication skills… and not involving hamburgers … which is at the heart of this “OnStar-on-Steroids” proposal … where the employee sits behind a desk which has 8-10 flat screen monitors, each of which is connected to the intelligent control system of a corresponding driverless taxi or personal vehicle. Thus, when required, the customer can actually communicate with a real person, in real time, for a fraction of the cost of a human driver. Or when the vehicle makes an Amazon Prime delivery, or picks up the kids from school – there are human eyes watching over the situation. This could be a substantial improvement over the completely autonomous vehicle, where everything depends on software and there is nothing equivalent to personal responsibility. And it is a step forward from OnStar too – so no doubt this has not gone unnoticed in Detroit. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The fact that there is a China connection to the Faraday/Apple automotive venture should come as no surprise. It is the obvious partial answer to the “how and why” question, as explained here: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/542111/how-might-apple-manufacture-a-car/ In short, they use the iphone business model – design the product here, add features (or an entirely new concept) that the competition lacks, build it Asia, and sell the sizzle. The surprise is that they apparently didn’t steal any talent from Uber/Goggle, since the car itself will (eventually) be driverless - maybe not the first generation, but eventually. The second surprise is that the market they are going for in not the family car per se, but the 2nd car of a two-car family. Make that: the market is the elimination of the second car. In short, the target market is for that percentage of mostly urban consumers who do not care to own a vehicle, if it involves parking it on the street - but will contract with Faraday for (a portion of) their transportation needs ala Uber, but with no driver – and a net savings over actual ownership. This means instant guaranteed access to a ride, and at a cost much less than Uber is now. Many consumers will still have one car, but if they live in a big city – no car. In San Francisco, New York, and a growing number of other locales, the former car owner can convert the former garage into a studio apartment and rent it for $3000/mo. That is not a joke.
