But it's way easier to enter the dispatch app business than the car manufacturing business, as is demonstrated by Uber's menagerie of competitors. While car ma

But it's way easier to enter the dispatch app business than the car manufacturing business, as is demonstrated by Uber's menagerie of competitors. While car manufacturers are hardly the nimblest they're not brain dead and are already exploring related stuff (example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2016/07/18/gm-launches-new-car-sharing-service-in-d-c/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2016/07/1...) If we reach a day where there is some company, call them company U which has a successful dispatch app business, and another company, call them company C, which has just successfully demonstrated (and passed regulatory hurdles for) a self driving car, what do you think will be easier and cheaper and quicker? For U to develop/acquire/license self-driving car technology or for C to develop/acquire/license a dispatch app? C could probably pay very little to license a dispatch app from any of the many vendors. Even if it's not popular before, it will be once it's the only dispatch app that dispatches SELF DRIVING CARS! But if U tried to license self driving from C, U would probably have very little leverage and end up signing a contract where U runs the show but ships most of the revenues to C. C would be like Microsoft in the 80s/90s, and U would be like a generic IBM PC compatible computer vendor.