I think the Uber model they mean is the more general "sell your service at a loss today to increase market share, hoping it will become cheaper for you tomorrow".

If we're talking about Uber without self-driving, then the vast majority of costs are outside of Uber's hands. Even if they get their servers, payment processing, and customer support down to $0, it only helps the business model a mild amount.

On the other hand Waymo is paying enormous amounts to design systems and outfit their cars, and when that gets significantly cheaper the entire service gets significantly cheaper to provide. If they get those costs down then they're simply buying and running cars, which is much better than needing cars and drivers.

But probably not better than just needing drivers who you can trick into providing cars.

If you start driving for Uber with some vehicle that’s extremely expensive to operate, like a Land Rover or something, maybe you’d lose money, but that’s not the norm. It’s common for Uber drivers to finance their vehicles by driving for Uber. This obviously only works if there is a surplus of value created by driving that vehicle for Uber. It’s not like independently wealthy people are subsidizing Uber by donating the equity of their cars. The cost of cars used by drivers is ultimately paid by customers, there is not some magic trick here.

People heard the news Uber is profitable these days, right? The plan worked.

Turns out, the fixed cost of technology has less of an impact on your margin when amortized across a larger business. So growing by losing money can make you more profitable later.

I don't know the details, but I heard Uber Eats is what tipped them into profitability.

Luckily for all of us, a second order effect of this was that the experience of getting a taxi has been jolted forward 20+ years.