3 ms·

In this particular iteration of the game, what exact benefit does running a $800M losing ride-hailing service confer? If the entire value proposition is "taxi

In this particular iteration of the game, what exact benefit does running a $800M losing ride-hailing service confer? If the entire value proposition is "taxi using self-driving cars", then surely they would be much better off dropping the money burning ride-hailing operation with cars they don't own to spend more on R&D...

andrewksl 10y ago
> what exact benefit does running a $800M losing ride-hailing service confer Market share. Or more precisely, establishing market dominance by undercutting the competition.
- revelation 10y ago
  It's an app. If competitor X beats them to the self-driving-punch, I'll simply install their app and start saving. A first-to-market competitor will have 747s full of money landing on their doorstep begging them to take it. There is simply no scenario where having a network of poorly paid drivers, their heterogeneous fleet of unmaintained cars and a load of debt is an advantage in a rollout of self-driving cars, the first useful version of which will surely be limited to one particular manufacturer, model and sensor suite.
  - andrewksl 10y ago
    > If competitor X beats them to the self-driving-punch, I'll simply install their app and start saving. And Uber couldn't double down on their existing strategy of heavily subsidised rides to undercut self-driving cars? I mean, this is assuming that self-driving taxis are cheaper off the bat, which kind of ignores the fairly large capital expenditure of buying a fleet. > A first-to-market competitor will have 747s full of money landing on their doorstep begging them to take it. I don't think it's that simple. That's not taking into account how difficult it would be for Competitor X to build enough of a network to rival Uber, and how easy it would be for Uber to replicate/steal/buy the tech and steamroll Competitor X. Having superior tech and being first to market are not enough alone to trump market share.

andrewksl 10y ago

> what exact benefit does running a $800M losing ride-hailing service confer Market share. Or more precisely, establishing market dominance by undercutting the competition.

revelation 10y ago
It's an app. If competitor X beats them to the self-driving-punch, I'll simply install their app and start saving. A first-to-market competitor will have 747s full of money landing on their doorstep begging them to take it. There is simply no scenario where having a network of poorly paid drivers, their heterogeneous fleet of unmaintained cars and a load of debt is an advantage in a rollout of self-driving cars, the first useful version of which will surely be limited to one particular manufacturer, model and sensor suite.
- andrewksl 10y ago
  > If competitor X beats them to the self-driving-punch, I'll simply install their app and start saving. And Uber couldn't double down on their existing strategy of heavily subsidised rides to undercut self-driving cars? I mean, this is assuming that self-driving taxis are cheaper off the bat, which kind of ignores the fairly large capital expenditure of buying a fleet. > A first-to-market competitor will have 747s full of money landing on their doorstep begging them to take it. I don't think it's that simple. That's not taking into account how difficult it would be for Competitor X to build enough of a network to rival Uber, and how easy it would be for Uber to replicate/steal/buy the tech and steamroll Competitor X. Having superior tech and being first to market are not enough alone to trump market share.