5 ms·
> The first question I had though was "who extracts value here". Uber can't be profitable without autonomous vehicles, so the answer IMHO here is simple. For
by mbesto 3y ago
> The first question I had though was "who extracts value here".
Uber can't be profitable without autonomous vehicles, so the answer IMHO here is simple.
For Alphabet, the answer is similarly simple - they'll partner with literally anyone to get distribution.
- ramraj07 3y agoJust because uber is not profitable with human drivers doesn't mean it'll be the opposite without them.
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y agoThis is a win-win for Google. If the self-driving and/or roll-out is a disaster - blame Uber. Uber has a terrible reputation. I don't think too many people will think twice about Uber taking the blame.
- jonas21 3y agoYou say the answer is simple, but I can't tell what your answer is. The first half of your comment implies that Uber has a really bad negotiating position, so Waymo must be extracting most of the value. The second half says that Alphabet (the majority owner of Waymo) will "partner with literally anyone" which would presumably mean Uber is extracting most of the value. So which is it?
- bryanlarsen 3y agoNo contradiction. The second half said that Alphabet had choices on who to partner with, so they could play them against each other, so Waymo had the upper hand in negotiations.
- jonas21 3y agoGot it. Maybe I was reading too much into the tone. I read "they'll partner with literally anyone to get distribution" as them being desperate to get distribution and therefore willing to take a bad deal.
- Marazan 3y agoThey also can't be profitable with autonomous vehicles either.
- freejazz 3y ago> Uber can't be profitable without autonomous vehicles, so the answer IMHO here is simple. says who?
- trophycase 3y agoThey can be and very soon will be. Just look at their financials.