[parfe]

Uber's insane valuation hinges on growing from a cab service into a Dominoes competitor? A Peapod competitor? A Zipcar competitor? An Amazon competitor? All of them? It just seems so improbable that one company would capture every single market segment that falls under "Cell phone app to get things in near-real time"

[AJ007]

It hinges on them getting public transportation agreements locked down with cities before Google or Tesla do. Imagine a major city where 80%+ of the vehicles are run by a single company and the rest are paying a toll to be on the road.

Uber doesn't appear to be any more overvalued than stocks and bonds, broadly. It may be a big gamble but so is buying $1 billion of bonds that yield .25%.

[JonFish85]

"Imagine a major city where 80%+ of the vehicles are run by a single company and the rest are paying a toll to be on the road."

Wait, what? Is that really the goal? Is that even legal? I guess the closest approximation of that is legal monopolies for companies like the telecoms and maybe utilities like electricity & gas, but I doubt if Uber et al. want to be treated like that?

[AndrewKemendo]

Of course it's the goal. Every company should have a goal of being a monopoly in what they do (big or small) it ensures the highest efficiencies.

[JonFish85]

But they're not your standard monopoly in the sense that they can charge anything they want. The city retains at least nominal oversight on what they charge. If it's a utility, they're subject to more scrutiny than is probably worth it. And even if we get to a point where such a monopoly exists, Uber isn't really in a position to bring much to the table that Ford/GM/Honda/whoever can't also do easily.

[Fricken]

Uber wants to become public transportation. To become infrastructure. They want to get their hooks in before anyone esle has a chance. Their labour will organize. They'll be regulated as a utility. They'll be too big to fail. The government(s) will subsidize them.

In theory, with autonomous vehicles, public transportation will be 10x what it is today. Maybe even 100x if private vehicle ownership goes the way of the dodo.

Their Otto aquisition signals an interest in shipping. With the right kind of network effect, they could be in charge of everything that moves. You can't get to that kind of scale unless you merge with the state.

That's the plan, anyhow. We'll see how it plays out.

[prostoalex]

One needs a core advantage that's exclusive to them to become such a monopoly. In other words, not only they must win, everybody else must lose. What's the core advantage that other players won't be able to replicate?

[rhizome]

The protective changes (cf. rent-seeking) they hope to make through lobbying efforts are still in process.

[prostoalex]

Why would rational city residents vote for such an exclusive and extremely punitive proposal? Usually firms that are vying for public monopoly status lose their flexibility, e.g. each electric rate increase has to be approved by the state regulator.

[freyir]

As I see it, the only acceptable outcome for Uber at this point is gaining a huge lead in the establishment of an autonomous driving fleet.

I don't see any way its current businesses (e.g. app-based taxi service, food delivery, etc.) justify its valuation. The question then is whether reliable fully-autonomous cars are 2 years out, 10 years out, or more; even the experts can't agree. Uber needs it more than Google needs it, more than Tesla, more than anybody.

[parfe]

Uber needs it, but so many companies began moving towards self driving cars as well. Is Uber even doing any in house research? Does Volvo need Uber?

Volvo can just license the Dominoes app and have the same technology backbone Uber has, plus cheesy bread.

Sidenote: I thought of another market segment to compete in: AirBNB! Except instead of daily rentals it'll be half-hourly rentals. Brilliant!

Ignore those pesky anti-prostitution laws. They're outdated regulations that just stifle the market. Plenty of guys named John that just need a bed for 30 minutes or less.