I'm not saying there wasn't excitement about AVs. The specific claim I'm disputing (which I've heard over and over again over the past few years) is that either company considered AVs to be the only path to profitability. The history is a bit complicated, because before the IPOs neither company was focused on profitability as a primary goal.

I agree for Lyft but Uber pretty aggressively pushed the vision as necessary for their future when they were burning so much cash on ATG.

They pushed it as necessary for their future because the future will be self-driving and anyone without access to that tech will be out-competed. That's completely different than it being necessary to their future because their present business model cannot be made profitable.

You contradicted yourself. You said anyone without access to self driving will be out-competed but that doesn’t mean it’s necessary for them. It’s extremely necessary for them. I’d much rather take a driverless Waymo than a ride with a random Uber driver that might be driving distractedly, might get lost, etc. Not to mention the robotaxi should be cheaper at scale as they can operate 24 hours a day.

"only path" is a much stronger statement than you were reacting to, which is that it was the chosen strategy.