[Noxchi]

It's a question if uber can race to self driving cars fast enough.

That's really the only way their financial model can make sense.

They should really be seeing this as essential to their survival, like nuclear bombs in WWII.

Nazi Germany had maybe 1000 people working on their version. USA had 180,000(!).

I suspect in this analogy, uber is not USA. Someone else will get this rolled out first. But I'm not 100% sure.

[Analemma_]

> It's a question if uber can race to self driving cars fast enough.

I'm not sure that's true though; I don't get the oft-repeated logic that self-driving cars will save Uber. OK, they save on labor costs, but right one now of Uber's (slimy, IMO, but significant nonetheless) major savings is pushing vehicle maintenance and deprecation costs onto their drivers. They won't be able to do that with self-driving cars: they'll have to pay operate a fleet, in direct competition with automakers.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

> Uber's (slimy, IMO, but significant nonetheless) major savings is pushing vehicle maintenance and deprecation costs onto their drivers.

This is fallacious. The end-user pays for vehicle maintenance and depreciation. There cannot be any savings by pushing around which party writes the cheque as the only source of income to pay that cheque can be the end-user.

[ghostly_s]

Oh really? So drivers are sending their maintenance bills into Uber and getting reimbursed for them?

[lmm]

You're assuming perfect information, rational behaviour, and the same maintenance standards. Uber can save money at the expense of their drivers if drivers underestimate maintenance and depreciation costs. If they manage to shift liability for inadequate maintenance onto drivers they could also save money by under-maintaining and then allowing the resulting fines to bankrupt individuals rather than cost the company profits.

[sidlls]

That's practically tautological, and therefore not terribly helpful in analyzing the distribution of costs across parties to the transaction.

[ethanhunt_]

Self-driving is an engineering problem so I think a good guess is that a strong engineering company will get it to market first: Google. If that happens, wouldn't Google just start their own ride-sharing service, and drop it right into google maps so customers never even try uber?

[meditationapp]

Waymo has already indicated they will partner with Lyft.

[yokaze]

But contrary to the atom bomb, it doesn't terribly matter, who rolls it out first.

You will find yourself hard pressed to find a company, which is the first to bring something market and being in the dominant market position.

Self driving cars will be a commodity. Whatever advantage it gives, any company will have it, so there is no way it will increase the margin.

[carleverett]

I disagree with the idea that self-driving cars will have the same commodity issue as today's car ride services. How could a significant decrease in operating expenses not increase the profit margin?

Let's put it this way - if you had the choice between paying 1/5th of what you pay now for the cheapest ride available, or half what you pay now for a ride in a nicer, cleaner car that picks you up within seconds, which would you pick? My guess is that with those choices, more people won't pick the cheapest option available.

[slantedview]

Not a chance they make it to self-driving in time. Maybe in 20 years we'll look back at Uber as just another company that was "too early".

[prostoalex]

> That's really the only way their financial model can make sense.

Theirs and Tesla's, Faraday Future's, Ford's, Waymo's, Nutonomy's, Apple's (?), Yandex's, Audi's, GM's, Land Rover's, Hyundai's, BMW' and a few others I missed but that can be found by Googling "* investing self driving".