[fckgw]

Why would they do that? If you automate the drivers then suddenly Uber needs to buy and maintain a fleet of thousands or millions of autonomous vehicles and their costs balloon astronomically. Kiss any profit out the window for another decade at least.

The current system is GREAT for Uber. No vehicles to purchase, maintenance is the burden of the driver and you only need to cut off a small slice of your profits for the driver in order to keep the whole thing going. If you need more profits you simply raise rates or lower driver pay.

[smcl]

They invested a tonne of money in self-driving vehicles. If they didn't intend to utilise them then what on earth were they doing, lighting money on fire for fun?

[adeelk93]

Uber sold off that division years ago, and is no longer focused on self-driving

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/12/uber-sells-self-driving...

[harambae]

> no longer focused on self-driving

Not quite. More like they're partnering with others and staying internally focused on their core competencies, like any good company does.

Section "Get to know our autonomous partners" https://www.uber.com/us/en/autonomous/

[smcl]

Weird, I remember a lot of talk around that time of self-driving cars being their future and the reason why they had such a sky-high valuation. Guess I missed this news mid-Covid

[thworp]

Lighting money on fire to increase valuation. Getting a cab dispatch service to get valued at insane multiples was a master stroke.

[HDThoreaun]

Uber can just use idle self driving cars. How many hours a day are you using your car? Most people are at like 2 or 3.

[fckgw]

Those don't exist. No one is taking their self driving car to work and then lending it out to Uber. Not to mention if a company like GM gets their self-driving tech off the ground, why wouldn't they just spin up an app and beat Uber at their game?

[crazygringo]

> No one is taking their self driving car to work and then lending it out to Uber.

To the contrary, tons of people will be doing that.

There's going to be a big group of people who logistically need "their own car" for various reasons (live out in the suburbs, need stuff in a locked trunk, can't risk a delay in getting to work, etc.) but couldn't be happier to make money on it by lending it out as a taxi downtown during business hours. Or when they're traveling for a week, or whenever.

Especially when you don't even need to worry about messes/damage because internal cameras will catch and bill whoever was responsible, and the car will drive itself to the nearest garage for cleaning/repair.

Just as we now have hotels and AirBNB, I totally foresee different self-driving taxi services that are either fleet-owned or consumer-shared. I can't imagine why this wouldn't happen.

[ProfessorLayton]

> To the contrary, tons of people will be doing that.

Yeah, until they get their car back and there's puke in the backseat, which requires more than a basic cleaning to get the smell out (Yes, uber charges a fee for puking, but no it doesn't cover a proper detailing that'll get the smell out). Or they find a bunch of little dings on their car from slamming the door into an unretracted seat belt. There's also the vegan pleather that'll rapidly start to deteriorate from passenger traffic that's 20x more than intended etc.

Some may still do it of course, but I don't believe most will want to destroy their car's value from the depreciation that uber will cause.

[crazygringo]

The Uber's I take, the cars seem in perfectly fine condition. I've never smelled puke in a backseat ever, so whatever cleaning is happening, is working fine.

> but I don't believe most will want to destroy their car's value from the depreciation

It's simple math. If you're making much more money from renting it out than depreciation is causing, then it's an economic no-brainer.

[ProfessorLayton]

This shifted from owning to riding. As a rider, I agree, most of the Ubers I've taken have been just fine, though not particularly clean, but fine nonetheless. Still, the cars are in far worse condition than a similarly aged car, and not something I'd personally accept as an owner for a few bucks. Again it's not just puke, but the tons of wear and tear that happens during ride sharing.

Uber churns through 96% of their drivers per year, so it's clearly not a no-brainer for the vast majority of them [1].

Self driving cars may help uber and its ilk lower their fleet costs if and when they get them, but a relatively insignificant portion of people will be willing to loan out their personal vehicle to them.

[1] https://www.cbinsights.com/research/report/how-uber-makes-mo....

[HDThoreaun]

I know multiple people that drive uber and go to late night drunk spots then drive crazy with the explicit goal of getting the passenger to puke for the fee uber gives. You'd be surprised by what people will put up with for some quick cash I guess.

[JumpCrisscross]

> until they get their car back and there's puke in the backseat

Super-strict reputation scoring solves this. Also, if you're paranoid, burgers don't puke.

[renewiltord]

I use GM's cars all the time. Pretty good in SF. They're slower but sometimes when you're not time sensitive, it's nice to grab the ride since they don't cancel or anything.

The first ride was novel. Everything after felt so routine I didn't even look at the road. As far as my girlfriend and I were concerned, we got in and then talked for a while and hung out and then got out elsewhere.

The speed is the only constraint right now.

[louzell]

> No one is taking their self driving car to work and then lending it out to Uber

Sounds like a business opportunity