[Arizhel]

You don't need thousands of engineers to keep a mobile app up-to-date, and the driverless vehicle thing is a boondoggle as there's already other companies doing that work, which are much better at it (Google, GM, etc.), and don't need tons of VC for such a risky endeavor.

[sosborn]

> there's already other companies doing that work

In your opinion, is work not worth doing if those mammoth companies are pursuing it?

Also, you say it is a risky endeavor. Would you argue that the driverless vehicle is not an inevitability? I would certainly argue that betting on Uber to come out on top is risky, but that doesn't mean there isn't money to be made.

[Arizhel]

>In your opinion, is work not worth doing if those mammoth companies are pursuing it?

Depends on what it is, and what kind of resources you have. In this case, you're talking about a massively difficult task (between the technical and regulatory aspects and the safety-critical nature), and at least two mammoth (i.e. well-funded internally) companies are already working on it. What exactly is a company with zero expertise in the field (a mobile app? Please), with absolute reliance on VC funding, likely to bring to the table? A lot of risk, that's what.

Yes, I think driverless vehicles are probably an inevitability, but I wouldn't look to Uber to come out on top here, any more than I expect Tinder to come out on top in asteroid mining.

[freehunter]

Saying that if they're not working on self-driving cars, then they must think self-driving cars aren't worth pursing is a non-sequitur. Every Uber I've been in has had music playing, why don't they buy some satellites and build a SiriusXM competitor?

Uber isn't even profitable with their core business of being a not-quite-taxi company. They quite obviously don't have the money to build their own self-driving cars, too.