[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....

[crazygringo]

> This shifted from owning to riding.

No, it's just sampling.

> and not something I'd personally accept as an owner for a few bucks.

Fine, that's you. But it's not a few bucks, it's probably going to add up to thousands of dollars if you do it regularly.

> Uber churns through 96% of their drivers per year

That has nothing to do with car condition and everything to do with people changing income sources.

> but a relatively insignificant portion of people will be willing to loan out their personal vehicle

You have no basis for saying it will be relatively insignificant. People tend to be incentivized by money, that's the whole basis of microeconomics. If people can make back a decent portion of the cost of their car by renting it out when they're not using it, of course it's going to become a significant proportion of people.

I don't see how you can argue against something that's such a no-brainer. You seem to have the luxury of allowing a fear of small amounts of wear-and-tear to override any monetary concerns; but for many people, the additional income is going to take priority because they need the money end-of-story.

[ProfessorLayton]

> You have no basis for saying it will be relatively insignificant.

People can already make a few bucks by letting strangers use their car on services like Turo, and it is relatively insignificant. That self driving capabilities will change that is a baseless assumption.

[crazygringo]

No, it's a realistic assumption because currently there's enormous friction in both getting the car to the person who needs it, as well as installing systems for electronic access.

Self-driving capabilities will get rid of the friction, and so the market will take off.

If we followed your logic, then AirBNB would never have happened because short-term rentals of people's homes and rooms were "relatively insignificant" in the 1990's. But of course it did, because AirBNB removed friction and provided a platform for reputation management and dispute resolution.

You don't want to rent out your personal car, I get that. But tons of other people prefer to make money instead.