[bloomer]

Weird that this is being downvoted because Uber has shown no interest in acquiring and managing assets (self-driving cars or even their own cars) which is a completely different business than being a marketer for independent taxis. If self-driving cars become a business it seems like rental car companies would be ideally positioned to take advantage of them.

[papito]

Once a VC-funded tech company starts maintaining inventory, actually assets, then things get real pretty quick. The only reason these companies become unicorns is because they don't have the overhead of owning stuff. Then you are just any other company.

[marcosdumay]

It's very reasonable for a small company to avoid owning assets and focus on markets where the flexibility of not owning them is an advantage. They don't have money anyway, nor enough people to manage those assets.

It is completely crazy to expect large companies that are burning money to grow not to go after the largest markets just because it needs investment... Yet, that's what you described, and AFAIK you are completely correct.

[Ididntdothis]

Uber is the ultimate middleman company. It would only work if people bought their own self driving cars and rented them out to Uber to make some extra money.

[Avshalom]

At which point of course owners would shop for top dollar and riders would shop for rock bottom and they'd still be stuck lighting money on fire to subsidize rides.

[ghaff]

And it's difficult to see how those ad hoc rentals can compete with a fleet management company that has economies of scale and optimizes for short-term rental. Car depreciation is more mileage-based than time-based so it's reasonable to assume that the rates people would get would tend to reach a point where they were pretty close to the cost--with perhaps an exception for times when there's extraordinary demand.

[RantyDave]

Yes and no. I can certainly agree on a theoretical basis, but the black cabs that have crawled around London since the 50's are privately owned and built to last.