The only way they survive as such a richly valued company perhaps, my point is they could provide the current level of service with vastly lower spending and be a sustainable company. The financial problems aren't they charge too little for rides, it's that they have thousands of people working on bullshit that brings in little to nothing.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. R&D is the life blood of a tech company. Some problems are hard. Hard problems take a lot of time and money to solve. If they spend $2B solving a problem that allows them to make $10B in revenue long term, I would say that is a worthwhile investment, wouldn't you?

Frankly, the R&D spend is the least of their worries. They recently trimmed some fat from their marketing department[1] but the subsidized rides problem continues to be the biggest issue they face financially.

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/29/technology/uber-job-cuts....

I'm suggesting that ride sharing doesn't have to be a tech company. I just want to get across town, there's no requirement that the company that does this has to fund flying car research or have fancy offices around the globe.

I travel across Asia Pacific for work. The global nature of ride hailing apps are convenient in this context in a similar way to MacDonalds (fast, convenient and you kind of know what you’re going to get).

Try hailing a cab in Thailand, Indonesia or Malaysia. They will ask your destination and quote you 5-10x meter fare. Use a ride hailing app and you get approximately the meter fare.

Speaking for Thailand, the ride hailing apps are usually 1.5x - 2x the price of the meter.

That's fair but the vast majority of cabs I hail refuse to use meter (sometimes quite aggressively).

> R&D is the life blood of a tech company.

Uber is not a tech company. It’s a taxi-company with a fancy app.

There’s literally no reason their operating expenses should be this big.

I hope they don't actually think that. Autonomous vehicles will turn a two sided market into a one sided market. Just think about all the companies working on self driving cars that don't currently compete with Uber. As soon as they succeed, they'll build an app, buy thousands of cars, and cut the per ride price to nothing.

Edit: misread comment. What I meant was that even with autonomous cars, there will probably be a huge market leader (but it won't necessarily be Uber).

It doesn't take dozens. GM, Tesla, and Google are already making the expensive part of the investment (developing ai cars in the first place). Will Uber make more money with one competitor or four?

I mean, is there a chance these three companies develope autonomous vehicles and decide NOT to compete in ride sharing?

Well we already know Tesla (RoboTaxi) and Google (Waymo One) are entering the ride sharing market (Waymo One is currently live), not sure about GM's ambitions.

But if autonomous vehicles are ever a thing, where does Uber actually add value? Wouldn’t Tesla etc just “cut out the middleman” and capture that value themselves?

Also Uber as a company has zero experience of owning and maintaining a fleet of vehicles. They’ve entirely sidestepped that problem. What evidence is there they can do it better than anyone who does do it, like say Hertz?

Autonomous vehicles replace the drivers, not Uber.

The vehicles get told to go from point A to point B and does safely and effectively. Uber still plays the role of interacting with the customers, "booking" a car for them, collecting payments, etc.

DACs need to disrupt Uber and all the other P2P marketplaces. Eventually they will, IMHO (maybe starting with P2P rides?).

Yeah, that's not going to happen in large parts of the world.

Autonomous vehicles will never work in the chaos of Delhi or Jakarta's traffic

“AI will never” is a phrase you should remove from your vocabulary. No hate just facts. Right now is the beginning of the end.