5 ms·

I think you miss the point. Just like Amazon disrupted themselves by pioneering ebooks with the Kindle to compete with physical books, along with streaming vid

I think you miss the point. Just like Amazon disrupted themselves by pioneering ebooks with the Kindle to compete with physical books, along with streaming video against DVDs. Uber will disrupt themselves by introducing self driving cars[1]. They are not vulnerable, they are pioneering because they will have the platform to do it with. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37117831 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37117831

krschultz 10y ago
But their valuation may not hold. It is currently based on the defensibility of a monopoly position. That position is predicated on the network effect in a 2 sided market (e.g. Ebay). With autonomous cars now you are talking about defensibility from consumer brand + economies of scale in a commodity market (e.g. United Airlines).
- martin-adams 10y ago
  If I understand you correctly, then that means they are screwed either way with regards to the valuation. Go driverless and the valuation may not hold, or don't go driverless and let someone else make them irrelevant.
tlrobinson 10y ago
Google and Tesla and GM and other actual car manufacturers quite literally have the "platform" to build on, not Uber. Self-driving cars are a lot harder to build than a ride-sharing platform. If one of those companies were to launch a self-driving taxi service that cost half as much as Uber it wouldn't take long at all for it to utterly decimate Uber's business.
- martin-adams 10y ago
  Good point. Time will tell I guess. Since you've pointed out that there are a lot of actual manufacturers working on self driving cars, for any second place players who don't enter the B2C taxi service market, the next obvious step is to licence the technology to someone like Uber. Then they can compete on supply and price. The question is whether it's better for a manufacturer to enter the taxi service industry, or licence their technology and focus on direct consumer sales of the vehicles.
  - martin-adams 10y ago
    Well, Ford now see themselves creating a taxi service. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37106570 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37106570

krschultz 10y ago

But their valuation may not hold. It is currently based on the defensibility of a monopoly position. That position is predicated on the network effect in a 2 sided market (e.g. Ebay). With autonomous cars now you are talking about defensibility from consumer brand + economies of scale in a commodity market (e.g. United Airlines).

martin-adams 10y ago
If I understand you correctly, then that means they are screwed either way with regards to the valuation. Go driverless and the valuation may not hold, or don't go driverless and let someone else make them irrelevant.

tlrobinson 10y ago

Google and Tesla and GM and other actual car manufacturers quite literally have the "platform" to build on, not Uber. Self-driving cars are a lot harder to build than a ride-sharing platform. If one of those companies were to launch a self-driving taxi service that cost half as much as Uber it wouldn't take long at all for it to utterly decimate Uber's business.

martin-adams 10y ago
Good point. Time will tell I guess. Since you've pointed out that there are a lot of actual manufacturers working on self driving cars, for any second place players who don't enter the B2C taxi service market, the next obvious step is to licence the technology to someone like Uber. Then they can compete on supply and price. The question is whether it's better for a manufacturer to enter the taxi service industry, or licence their technology and focus on direct consumer sales of the vehicles.
- martin-adams 10y ago
  Well, Ford now see themselves creating a taxi service. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37106570 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37106570