[vkou]

> How about the frequency and the fair price?

The case looks even worse for Uber, than it does for Alaskan in that case.

The capital costs and logistics of getting more airplanes, more (highly limited!) slots at airport terminals, working this out for point-to-point connections, getting all your staff moving from flight to flight efficiently, are horrific.

The capital costs and logistics of scaling up a self-driving taxi network, in comparison, are peanuts.

> It's more difficult for in-app uber purchases that are more frequent for less money.

It's a simple as checking the ride price in two apps.

> The biggest network will have the best cost structure.

No, the network with the lowest profit margins will have the best cost structure.

Uber will either be a defensible business, or a profitable, but entirely indefensible one.

[southerndrift]

The limit of the airline metaphor is that uber doesn't have to own the fleet. The fight is in subsidizing rides, like with lift. Then comes softbank and they pick the winner because they have the deepest pockets. Who would go up against those pockets but a bigger player? And then, uber can offer them shares and the fight is over and uber keeps on winning.

Regarding the price checkking: it's one thing to compare ride prices if you fly once a month but it is something else if you buy a ride 5 times a day. Like businesses buying flights from one supplier, consumers will buy rides from one app.

Uber will be profitable once nobody is willing to burn more money. That day will come sooner than later.

Uber has thought this through because their name is not lift, but uber.