If they can cut that 15% to 1% and this field ends up being competitive then sure.
But, they're probably going for a monopoly play here.
So of course the percentage will be cut. That's how competition works.
Still, Uber is not sticky. Drivers aren't forced to use it exclusively (fun things would happen if they tried to pull it off, something something employees). Brokerage websites most likely will demand you don't post your apartment on multiple sites. This will encourage concentration.
Kind of like people looking for used textbooks will check eBay, Alibris, and Chegg.
Of course there will be concentration, that doesn't mean it's going to be a monopoly. It's just going to be the usual 2 main competing companies with a 3rd slightly-different company -- your Coke, Pepsi and RC, or your AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile. It's the usual market pattern.
Did you really think investors were willing to sustain a 12 billion dollar loss for a shot at a 1% margin?
Citation needed. They've raised prices in order to be sustainable, but you're going to need to show some kind of actual evidence of collusion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We can't just assume conspiracy theories between publicly traded companies here.
And who's talking about 1% margins? You're making that up. Healthy competition usually results in something like 10% margins. You don't need illegal agreements to get that.
I tend to assume the path of least resistance.
You realize that in publicly traded corporations decisions are made by whole teams of people? And that people talk? Word gets out, company gets fined more than they made, executives go to prison. The US actually prosecutes this stuff, the same way they vigorously prosecute insider trading.
A couple of neighboring grocery stores can realistically collude to raise prices. Multinational public corporations, not so much.
It certainly doesnt require whole teams of people. It requires a few senior managers to be in on it.
The just world hypothesis is a powerful thing.
You should realize that at a purely practical level collusion is far more difficult to achieve than you seem to think.
A few senior managers are going to do something super-risky without the knowledge of general counsel, the board, etc.? Something that can get them sent to prison? So their stock options go up a little bit? While 99% of the benefit goes to remaining investors? At the risk of being caught and the entire company being fined, to the detriment of all remaining investors as well?
Not to mention the senior managers need to justify to C-suite, board, etc. what their strategy is, and why raising prices won't result in the competition eating their lunch. And the C-suite and board aren't dumb.
On top of this, collusion can result in defectors as well -- company A raises prices, company B promised they would but doesn't (or lowers them again later) -- and then what?
It's not so easy. Collusion is unstable, risky in multiple ways, and difficult. I'm not saying that it never happens, but regarding large publicly traded companies, it's by far the exception, not the rule.
None of this has to do with what we wish the world was like. It's just basic incentives and coordination. But sure, have fun with your conspiracy theories.
Sure they can, someone on HN described the algorithm once:
...why sarcasm?
The entire premise of technological and economic progress is outsourcing repetitive mind-numbing tasks (whether farming or showing apartments) to automation.
You're just describing regular old beneficial economic progress -- the reason why we're not all still farmers.
And if Caretaker becomes a massive success, then competitors will appear, which is the basic economic force that prevents prices from rising too far. All of which would be wonderful.