re: Uber opens its books to bloomberg

Let's use work for example.

A large number of folks get to work at 7AM and promptly park their car for 8 to 10 hours. Another group does the same thing at 8AM and another at 9AM.

If those cars weren't parked but going to get the next batch of folks, you wouldn't need the same amount of vehicles. Also, think about all the people who don't go to work a certain day or at night. Now even less cars are needed to move the same amount of people.

Uber wants to own those cars and wants you to have it come pick you up.

Of course this will start? in metro areas and work itself out. Long road trips to another city of any relevant size also wouldn't be a problem as cars reposition themselves.

I agree it will take time to get specialty vehicles replaced that go very rural/off-road or are involved in things like mining but it will get there.

quote:

---

If those cars weren't parked but going to get the next batch of folks, you wouldn't need the same amount of vehicles. Also, think about all the people who don't go to work a certain day or at night. Now even less cars are needed to move the same amount of people.

---

Why does anyone care how many cars it takes to move these people? If it takes 100 cars to move 100 people or 1 car to move 100 people, it makes no difference to me.

The only thing that matters is how much will it cost the consumer to buy his own self-driving car versus taking a self-driving uber everyday. People are still going to prefer to have their own car anyways if the price is even close.

It might work in the big cities with people that are used to taking cabs but that's it.

quote:

---

Uber's whole thing now is their app with the logistics of their employees

---

Logistics of their cars, it will be not much different once its driverless. Having this entire network of fleet management is what will have them ahead of the game.

quote:

---

Eta: let's take Walmart and online business. With self driving cars if you know where you are going or what you need, Walmart could simply pick you up or deliver to your house. If you know where you are going and there are self driving cars, said business could have a way to send you their own self driving car. Seems like a terrible thing for Uber to rely on unless they are going to plan on subcontracting out to those businesses.

---

What are you talking about? Why would Walmart own its own self driving cars? Do they own their own shipping company now?

quote:

---

What are you talking about? Why would Walmart own its own self driving cars? Do they own their own shipping company now?

---

Um, to compete with Amazon? If what Uber thinks happens and much fewer people own cars than delivery in generally will continue to increase greatly like Amazon is planning. If Amazon has drone plans, it's not crazy at all to think Walmart could make deliveries in driverless cars.

Bars could easily get driverless cars to pick people up and take them. Options like this are endless

All I'm saying is I can see many ways how Uber would be less practical potentially with driverless cars.

If cars become driverless truly and people don't actually own their own as much, it makes sense for businesses to start owning them to deliver and shuttle people around.

Given, I don't think any of that actually happens.

quote:

---

Relying on self driving cars as a price determination for Uber is absurd imo. How is Uber going to corner that market for one? Uber's whole thing now is their app with the logistics of their employees, I don't see self driving cars guaranteeing them any kind of business at all? I certainly see 100s of ways for self driving cars to actually not just hurt but crush their business.

---

>Be Uber
>Develop an efficient app for people to get rides to places
>Give everyone cheap rides at the expense of drivers
>Don't profit very much at first
>Get people in urban areas reliant on your services while becoming a household name
>Develop self driving cars in the meantime
>Start buying and sending self driving cars to people instead of human drivers
>Take all $$ from rides instead of paying drivers
>Profit

I look at Uber as kind of the segue between human and self driving cars. It's an ambitious goal for sure, but I think this is where they are headed.

quote:

---

Uber is Doomed

Interesting take from Jalopnik. I've followed Uber for a while now and tend to lean towards the "they're doomed" camp now. I may very well be wrong, but with another top-level exec departure yesterday, the warning lights are flashing awfully bright.

---

There problems are very fixable with some professional management.

I do tend to agree that they won't corner the market on self driving cars. I think a much more likely model will be a car manufacturer owning that market. Or at least someone already with fleet capabilities, avis, hertz, etc. That infrastructure will be tough to build out.

quote:

---

This makes no sense. Why would those businesses own fleets of cars? The reason they don't own them now has nothing to do with drivers. It's the logistics and capital tied up in owning those assets. What does a bar know about managing a fleet of vehicles?

---

You do realize that food delivery, grocery delivery, bar's providing their own taxi service, hotel shuttle service, etc. all happen NOW right?

I'm not saying that will happen, but I am saying its an extremely good possibility. If Driverless cars make Uber's job easier, would driverless cars not make many facets of business related travel easier?

Again, Uber's current business model they do not own a fleet of vehicles. They only pay the drivers'. So how do we expect for Uber to learn how to maintain a massive fleet of vehicles while they currently own almost 0 and that project into a better business model?

ETA: I guess my point is, I would think driverless cars would help many other businesses just as much and possibly more than just the "taxi" industry where a large portion of their customers use a "taxi".

here's an example, airports. Why would airports need parking? Airports could charge a vast amount for parking, but instead offer a cheaper "driverless" car option. Why don't they do it now? I don't know, maybe its still unlikely, but there's an infinite amount of factors we don't know how driverless cars could change things.

They have huge insurance costs too; Uber insures rides.

I don't know how or if they can solve this, but yes a huge part of their issue is they are "too cheap". There are times they are 25-33% of the cost of a taxi.

In DC, which I know the Metro is notoriously expensive, but it was cheaper for me to Uber to the airport than take the metro. It was like $8 for two of us instead of like $11 for the metro, I'm guessing a cab would of been $20-25.

I can't tell you the amount of times I've said "I can't believe it was that cheap" for an uber. But at the same time, I get frustrated when its not dirt cheap now because I'm used to it.

Their problem is competition like Lyft in the major markets. But smaller markets I don't understand why they don't raise their rates 10-20%.

quote:

---

Why does anyone care how many cars it takes to move these people? If it takes 100 cars to move 100 people or 1 car to move 100 people, it makes no difference to me

---

Efficient use of resources leads to better economic output, so I don't know why you dismissed that so easily.