If there is no driver involved the cost structure for you and Uber is pretty much the same. Except Uber can probably negotiate better deals on new cars and service (due to volume) and also achieve higher utilization. On the other hand, Uber of course needs to make a profit.
It's more expensive than the train, but cheaper than buying a car, paying operating expenses, paying for parking at my apartment and paying for parking at work by a dramatic amount.
For longer uses or multi-stop errands, I grab a Car2Go or a Zipcar. For whole-day trips or longer, I head to National where I can pick any car from the Aisle for around $50/day.
Same argument could be applied to car rental businesses (some of which are owned by automakers which makes the relationship super-cozy), yet I've never seen a deal from Avis or Hertz to make it a worthwhile replacement to owning.
Big cities have an added cost of parking and extra miles driven to find a gas station or a public charger. But big cities also have low-cost public transportation (or so I've heard, I live in LA).
In smaller towns the cost of ownership tends to be lower and with sub-$10,000 products on the market http://jalopnik.com/5072303/new-pricing-of-9990-makes-2009-n... you have a reliable guaranteed ride whose cost is usually spread over 6-7 years.
Being able to book one to use for a journey then let it go home would be great.
Important to note that currently it's the Uber and Lyft drivers that are subsidizing the cost of getting the car to you - they are not getting paid for the miles driven. Whether or not this cost will be subsidized by Uber/Lyft in the future remains to be seen.
I have a feeling this is whats going to happen. People bought records, now they subscribe to Spotify.
Question is who will make money? Spotify does not, because labels have monopoly rights.
I cannot see a scenario where Uber is the winner here. Unlike record companies, there is competition between car companies, but still Uber has no entrenched position here to make a lot of money as far ad I can see.
You'd need Uber or another Uber-like alternative.
Scenario one requires that you make a massive investment in purchasing your own car - while using Uber's will be cheaper unless you're using cars all day long.
Scenario two requires an app for the coordination/hailing. That's where Uber would come in.
Second scenario is I am traveling and need a car/taxi as my local car is at home. If so, why would not other people in that city simply allow for their cars to pick me up while they are not in use. Every driverless car is now a taxi.
Basically all that is needed is an app and some service where owners subscribe and let their cars be used as a taxi. Perhaps uber controls the app and service as the dominant leader. But I bet there will be a lot of competition in that area with car rental companies, manufacturers, local cab companies, individuals and uber all competing.
I suppose the third scenario is that many people do not own a car in the future and we just subscribe to a car service. Perhaps in that area uber is the choice. But perhaps the manuacturers roll their own service too that you subscribe for a time share of a car.