AV
Corgi Aerospace & Commercial Aviation ETF
Mentions (24Hr)
200.00% Today
Reddit Posts
When/If autonomous ride-hailing succeeds, is Uber or Tesla the better investment?
AUR is worth $13B. KDK is worth $750M. Both run driverless semis, and KDK targets highway driver out in December... ($KDK DD)
Uber issues weaker-than-expected bookings, earnings forecasts for third quarter
Mentions
I think Cybercab will be begging Uber. Mercedes, Volkswagen, and Hyundai are all launch theirs this year with Uber. GM, Rivian, and Toyota will be in 2027/2028. Ford, Nissan, and Honda aren’t lying down. That’s not even mentioning BYD, WeRide, and MayMobility and others. Retail thinks Tesla and Waymo are the only game in town. At $70k-$200k per vehicle, Waymo won’t be able to manufacture efficiently enough to scale. They’ll probably end up being an AV component manufacturer for people like Toyota who can. Tesla as a stand-alone provider will likely be hurt the most by AV’s. Once AV’s eat 30-50% of their car sales and all the other major OEM’s are on Uber. Ironically, I think Uber sinks Tesla. Not the other way around.
I think Cybercab will be begging Uber. Mercedes, Volkswagen, and Hyundai are all launch theirs this year with Uber. GM, Rivian, and Toyota will be in 2027/2028. Ford, Nissan, and Honda aren’t lying down. That’s not even mentioning BYD, WeRide, and MayMobility and others. Retail thinks Tesla and Waymo are the only game in town. At $70k-$200k per vehicle, Waymo won’t be able to manufacture efficiently enough to scale. They’ll probably end up being an AV component manufacturer for people like Toyota who can. Tesla as a stand-alone provider will likely be hurt the most by AV’s. Once AV’s eat 30-50% of their car sales and all the other major OEM’s are on Uber. Ironically, I think Uber sinks Tesla. Not the other way around.
I think Cybercab will be begging Uber. Mercedes, Volkswagen, and Hyundai are all launch theirs this year with Uber. GM, Rivian, and Toyota will be in 2027/2028. Ford, Nissan, and Honda aren’t lying down. That’s not even mentioning BYD, WeRide, and MayMobility and others. Retail thinks Tesla and Waymo are the only game in town. At $70k-$200k per vehicle, Waymo won’t be able to manufacture efficiently enough to scale. They’ll probably end up being an AV component manufacturer for people like Toyota who can. Tesla as a stand-alone provider will likely be hurt the most by AV’s. Once AV’s eat 30-50% of their car sales and all the other major OEM’s are on Uber. Ironically, I think Uber sinks Tesla. Not the other way around.
I think Cybercab will be begging Uber. Mercedes, Volkswagen, and Hyundai are all launch theirs this year with Uber. GM, Rivian, and Toyota will be in 2027/2028. Ford, Nissan, and Honda aren’t lying down. That’s not even mentioning BYD, WeRide, and MayMobility and others. Retail thinks Tesla and Waymo are the only game in town. At $70k-$200k per vehicle, Waymo won’t be able to manufacture efficiently enough to scale. They’ll probably end up being an AV component manufacturer for people like Toyota who can. Tesla as a stand-alone provider will likely be hurt the most by AV’s. Once AV’s eat 30-50% of their car sales and all the other major OEM’s are on Uber. Ironically, I think Uber sinks Tesla. Not the other way around.
I think Cybercab will be begging Uber. Mercedes, Volkswagen, and Hyundai are all launch theirs this year with Uber. GM, Rivian, and Toyota will be in 2027/2028. Ford, Nissan, and Honda aren’t lying down. That’s not even mentioning BYD, WeRide, and MayMobility and others. Retail thinks Tesla and Waymo are the only game in town. At $70k-$200k per vehicle, Waymo won’t be able to manufacture efficiently enough to scale. They’ll probably end up being an AV component manufacturer for people like Toyota who can. Tesla as a stand-alone provider will likely be hurt the most by AV’s. Once AV’s eat 30-50% of their car sales and all the other major OEM’s are on Uber. Ironically, I think Uber sinks Tesla. Not the other way around.
Uber is way further ahead on their AV rides program. They’re quiet about it because it will cause a PR nightmare with their drivers. They’re quiet have the user base. They’ll rollout self driving in cities, and dominate regions where self driving isn’t possible due to fleet range, docking, charging, etc. the stock will rip when they announce they’re going all in on AV rides. User logs in, can choose between self driving and human. No brainer. Uber will break 100 on this news
Uber will be like expedia and telsa will be like a hotel.. AV whoever the winner may be if they dont use Uber as a platform will fail. Look at Nike.
The point is that there are going to be a lot of winners and losers on multiple levels of the industry. It is way too early to pick winners. AV driving is going to change the world economy. It's going to change the way we build highways, cities, homes and public transportation. Amazon already has ZooX, consumer taxis. BYD is ahead of Waymo worldwide in many aspects. Calling Waymo the winner is early and untrue. They have 3871 FSD taxis on the road. That's is a long way from the estimated 44 million, owned and shared vehicles, needed to fully saturate the market. It is even farther from the 600-800 million estimated to be needed worldwide.
How long and how much for Waymo to scale up? How many AV winners will there be? Do you think Waymo wins it all? Do Rivian, Apple, Amazon, VW, Ford, Toyota, and etc etc etc just throw in the towel? I could see some serious anti trusts concerns if google controlled that many levels of the industry and I don't see foreign nations allowing google to have that much control over their transportation system. Everybody is trying to pick AV winners, but it doesn't even seem like the game has started yet. Waymo could be the Motorola flip phone of AV driving.
Regardless of human ridehail or AV, people will choose whichever is ubiquitous, cheap and safe.
I don't think uber have much of a moat. It's a mobile app with geo routing and contractor workforce who usually work on multi platforms. In a world of AV all the lucky technical winner of the AV model that works -is price it cheaper than Uber - then this drives contractors out of the market and Uber and Lyft will start losing market share.
Now look at share of Uber ride in areas where Waymo does not exist lol... I live in an area where Waymo does not exist and likely wont exist for probably another 5-10 years... In that time, I will be taking Ubers. Then whenever AV cars get to my region, I would anticipate Uber's partners will show up at the same time Waymo does. Then why would I care about Waymo? I will just continue to use my Uber app.
Youre probably right. I agree with you that a new rideshare app will come along half the price of Uber. Your idea that it will monopolize the market overnight is highly unlikely... But then tell me why [Booking.com](http://Booking.com) and Expedia have survived and been good investments over the years when new apps came out that are cheaper than them? They are the same thing to the airline and hotel industry as Uber is to the automotive industry.... The airliners have their own apps you can book your flight on. There has been competitor after competitor like Trivago, Google flights, credit card companies... Apps and websites left and right where you can purchase airline tickets. But somehow, Expedia and [Booking.com](http://Booking.com) stay relevant and around even though they are simply just demand aggregators. This goes further than just financials and fundamentals.... First, top tier business managers will manage the business to stay relevant. They will adapt to survive. They will buy up competition. They will venture into new markets. Uber will invest in AV. Which they already are doing. Second, human nature says that is very unlikely to happen. Typically once something is engrained in a persons head, they will go there first. Uber has become a verb in everyday language. It means more than just a company. It has become the word people use to just simply describe getting a ride from one place to another... Instead of call a "taxi"... Its can you order a "Uber". Another point, people dont like to have a lot of options to get the same result, especially with something as cheap as an Uber ride. Most people are not going to be interested in switching between 4-5 apps for a ride that may be 4-6 dollars cheaper.... For a flight that might be 100-200 dollars cheaper they will. Third, it has first mover advantage. They are already engrained in the industry. They already significant amount of data. I imagine they can build their own mapping system like Google Maps if they wanted to. They also have the advantage, since they were first, that they have the regular ridesharing revenue stream in their advantage. AV is going to be constrained by regulation and just the years and years of development that are still ahead. So what in 5 years Waymo and Tesla will be in the top 10 major cities? Well their geolocaiton will keep them in the city and limit their overall revenue ability. Where Uber can continue collecting revenues from normal ridesharing while they expand alongside Waymo and Tesla. I am going to stop because it doesnt need to be a novel. But the market is overlooking Uber on purpose because the market is waiting to see how the AV market impacts Uber all while Uber is becoming apart of the AV market. There will be a day in the future where Waymo and Tesla growth stalls because they max out the cities they are already in and regulation has not caught up yet, or AV hits a roadblock in advancement, or quite simply it hits an adoption slowdown. At that point Uber will likely get rerated.
Uber does about 12 billion rides a year. Tesla has done 2.4 million. If it's profitable for a customer to rent out his car. then it will be profitable for a company to do it. UBER has just as good a chance at being one of the money winners of AV driving as anyone else. We aren't even in early innings yet, we are still in the preseason.
Every Uber driver I’ve talked to in the past few months has said, in one way or another, “they are giving us less and less”. You can only cut the margins so thin before you start losing drivers. Not a great sign imo. They should have made a AV data play sooner.
Because they need demand... In a world of AV companies and aggressive competition, you go to someone who will give you demand. Same logic goes for the airliners. Why would Delta, United, American, etc sell their fleet of airplanes to [Booking.com](http://Booking.com), Capital One, Amex, etc???? The airlines have their own app and sell their capacity to demand aggregators. Of course this time is different but there will also be a large population of the consumer that wont want to search each app individually to find the best deal or ride.... Take the example of the airliners, me personally, I never search for a flight starting at the airliners website. I always start on a 'demand' aggregators website. Because it drives demand! Look at [Booking.com](http://Booking.com) stock and tell me that was a bad investment.
High institutional float. Expect a gap up to new ATH’s in like a month span then would sell as AV fears come back
I prefer “projections” to “guesses”. “Guesses” imply it’s random and without basis. Worldwide, consumers spend $3T on car purchases each year. Of course cars only get more expensive at an average rate around 10% a year. So if AV’s don’t disrupt consumer car sales, we can reasonably expect that to be $7-$11T annually between 2035-2040. It’s expected that AV’s will reduce consumer car sales 30-50% by then. That gives you the likely industry total. $2T-$5.5T. (JP Morgan went with $2-$4T). Uber has a very large established network and is expanding their AV access rapidly. I’d expect their market share to fall at least similarly to Netflix’s around 40%. But we can assume 25% if you wanted to be cautious. 25% market share gives us $500B to $1.3T in annual revenue. For simplicity’s sake, let’s use the mid-point of $900B by 2040. I like assuming a 3x sales multiple. It’s not only near their current multiple, it’s also a fair, generic low-end assumption for most low margin companies. 3x9,000=$2.7T market cap. At which point, even if we wanted to be ultra conservative again and assume an uncharacteristically aggressive 30% dilution between now and 2040, that gives us an implied share price of $1,019. Before you go thinking “that’s ridiculous growth”, it’s an implied 21% sales CAGR. For the last ten years, Uber has averaged a 38% revenue CAGR. Several companies with weaker current market positioning have averaged >21% the last 15 years (Salesforce). So while it is optimistic, it’s not unrealistic. That’s the difference between a guess and a projection. Might be lower. Might higher. But it will likely be $500B-$1T in revenue by 2040. What is it worth today? That’s less important than what it will be in the future. Current projections have them around $100B in revenue by 2030 and around $8 EPS. Which means you’re paying about 1.5x 2030 revenue and under 10x 2030 earnings. Given their growth profile, I would reasonably pay 4x 2026 sales of $58B. That’s a share price of $113.73.
You are completely overlooking a lot of big factors: primarily Volkswagen, Mercedes, Hyundai, GM, Toyota, and Rivian. The first three have L4 autonomy. The last three are nearing it. Ford, Honda, and Nissan ain’t rolling over, either. And those are just the legacy giants. Not even counting other startups like May Mobility and WeRide. You miss the fact that the industry is expected to 10x in the next decade and there’s a lot of major producers that manufacture cars for a lot less than Waymo can at their current $70k-$200k per car rate. Most manufacture cars cheaper than Tesla does, too. Tesla only manufactures less than 1.5-1.8 million vehicles a year. Waymo only produces about 2k a year. 100 million vehicles are sold each year. Let’s generously assume both will produce a combined 5 million AV’s each year. 100 million vehicles are currently sold every year and it’s projected that AV’s could reduce that by 30-50%, creating an implied demand for 30-50 million AV’s annually. So even with my generous assumptions, Tesla and Waymo combined can only supply at most 13% of the projected demand. This is why Waymo and Tesla’s efforts to be a stand-alone provider are unlikely to be successful. Even if one happens to be available near you (which appears improbable), maybe you want/need a Mercedes or Rivian. Most likely, you’ll just want the car that is available when you need it and not care if it’s a Waymo or Tesla or anything. That’s where Uber comes in.
You say they “only need advertising and market exposure” like that isn’t the biggest part. Uber drivers “only” need them to advertise the service and connect them with riders…because without that, drivers ain’t making any money. Do you realize the manufacturing costs of each Waymo vehicle are $70k to $200k each? They need to cut that by at least 50% before they can talk about “scaling” at all, let alone doing it cheaper. There’s a very real chance Waymo won’t be making cars at all very long. They’ll quite possibly leave the car part to Toyota while Waymo just integrates AV tech. Aggregating demand won’t work if you think demand will be like car ownership is currently: very brand-loyal. For example, I’m a Honda guy. Everything I own is Honda: cars, trucks, motorcycles, lawn mowers, and power washers. I don’t think it will be though. I think demand dynamics will be the same calling an Uber now. Doesn’t matter if they’re coming in a Honda or a Dodge all that matters is will they be here when I need them, will they get me and my stuff where I’m going.
Why would Ford stop at dealerships? They famously revolutionized manufacturing. Surely they could set up their own store-fronts, right? Yes, but dealerships addressed a lot of issues like local sales infrastructure, financing, trade-ins, warranty work, service centers, and parts distribution that Ford didn’t have to deal with and only costs them a portion of their economics. So it made sense for major manufacturers. You seem to think Waymo and Tesla are the only games in town. They aren’t. Volkswagen, Mercedes, and Hyundai all have L4 autonomy. Toyota, GM, and Rivian, all have L3 and are nearing L4. My guess is that auto manufacturers, which are already a low margins business, will not want to spend $4B developing their own platforms with the hope that could be marginally successful. Nor do I think people will want to own 12 different AV apps. That leaves the obvious door open for an aggregator like Uber. You seem to think it’s AV’s vs Uber like Uber isn’t the biggest player. They will literally have the most AV availability on earth next year. They won’t own any of it (yet). But that’s not necessarily a bad thing until the tech and demand is more proven. I’d hate for them to spend $40B on a fleet only to find out Mercedes has the better product. I keep comparing Uber to Netflix. Do you realize all the arguments you’re making are identical to the ones made against Netflix around 2013/2014 (before they started making their own content). Everyone like you was on here saying, “Disney/Paramount/HBO will all launch their own streaming service and then Netflix will have nothing”. How’d that turn out?
You think Uber should get out of ride-hailing? Do you realize how crazy that sounds? Uber is to ride-share what Google is to search engines and Coca-Cola is to soda. Their brand name is synonymous with their industry. And their industry is expected to 10x over the next decade. I don’t think you actually understand Uber’s role or the potential for AV’s. AV’s are coming up at the same time remote work is expanding and increasing housing costs are moving more people towards urban living. Car ownerships costs (vehicle, financing, insurance, maintenance, and parking) right now average $12-$14k a year and it’s increasing 10% annually. That means at the current rate, the cost of car ownership will be around $33k a year in 2036. It’s projected that 40-50% of jobs will be remote by 2035-2040. For those people, we can reasonably expect their driving habits to be cut in half to around 6k miles a year. That means they’ll be paying over $5 per mile. Uber costs only $1.10/mile (with drivers). Mature robotaxi’s project to cost 50-80 cents per mile. So the thesis is car ownership goes the way of owning DVD’s/CD’s and Uber becomes the Netflix/Spotify of transportation. Do you think Toyota, GM, Volkswagen, Honda, Ford, and Hyundai are going to abandon/significantly reduce their auto manufacturing? Do you think they’ll all successfully launch their own networking platform? Or do you think they’ll become like film studios, who license their content to Netflix, use Uber as their new “dealership” to connect cars with riders? Just like Netflix, I expect more competition. Maybe Waymo and Tesla will be among them. But I have doubts. My guess would be Tesla is at the most risk. Amazon has the most potential since they already have a massive logistics network. But just as Prime Video didn’t sink Netflix, I don’t expect Zoox to sink Uber.
What if you need to drive on the highway? Uber also delivers food, and will offer a variety of AV’s on its platform. To be clear, I think both TSLA and UBER win in the future
That is a very real possibility. Their partnership with Toyota is likely a fail-safe for just this potentiality. People don’t realize Waymo spends between $70k and $200k in manufacturing on each vehicle. That’s not counting the costs of creating their own platform (which will cost another $1-$4B) or fleet management costs. If they don’t refine their process, even if they charged $1/mile (Uber with drivers only costs $1.10/mile), they’d still need to get between 70k and 200k miles on each vehicle just to breakeven. That’s a lot of miles for a commercial fleet. Uber’s approach of employing/acquiring their own AV’s from people with a strong track record of making vehicles is a better bet of being successful than Waymo’s, Amazon’s, or Tesla’s approach of successfully creating their own vehicles and their own network. I especially like Uber’s odds of acquiring a company like Hertz. That will give them experienced resources and locations for fleet management/maintenance, along with their platform/network, and their AV manufacturing partnerships. If they are successful in all that and JP Morgan is correct in their projections of the ride-share industry hitting $2-$4T by 2040, Uber will very likely be a $1-$2T company.
You realize Volkswagen, Mercedes, and Hyundai have L4 autonomy right now, right? Uber has major partnerships with all three and are testing hundreds of their AV’s on the Uber network this year. Toyota, Rivian, and GM are developing it right now. Uber has partnerships with Toyota and Rivian (Toyota is actually a stakeholder in Uber), and still have a relationship with GM after their Cruise program ended. Most likely scenario: robotaxi networks replace a large chunk of consumer car sales in the next 10-15 years. At which point, Uber becomes like the Netflix of cars, an aggregator of taxi’s from other providers and, since they have all the demand data, are likely to purchase their own fleet from various OEM’s and deploy them based on where what type of vehicles are most popular/needed. I don’t think you (or the market) appreciates just how far ahead Uber is in this game. Having cars is nice. But 200M monthly users is where the money is. People often assume everything any Mag7 touches turns to gold, but that’s far from true. Remember Google+? Amazon Spark? Goodreads? Tesla’s battery-swap stations? Tesla’s 1 million robotaxi fleet by 2020? Amazon’s Fire Phone? Metaverse? Shit, remember the first time Amazon tried to compete with Uber when they launched “Amazon Destinations” and “Amazon Restaurant”? They lasted about 6 months.
The deal is for up to $1.25B for Rivian. Initial payment is for $300M and subsequent payments are dependent on regulatory approval and AV milestones being met. It’s very interesting for both parties because Uber is essentially helping Rivian finance their AV program and for their risk, Uber gets up to 50,000 robotaxis in their own fleet for around $40K a piece. Add the initial $1.25B, that brings the total cost per AV to \~$65k. That’s significant because the cost for Waymo to manufacture their AV’s is up to $200k per vehicle. Elon claims he can manufacture Cybercabs for $30K. But he also said Cybertruck would cost $39K and be out by 2019. When it finally came out, it cost about $90k. I’d expect around the same for Cybercabs. Big benefit for both Uber and Rivian.
They’re currently getting them from Rivian and Lucid. Uber also has a long partnership with Toyota. I like Uber’s flexibility more than Zoox, Waymo or Tesla. General Motors expects to have hands-off/eyes-off driving on the road by 2028. Toyota, Mercedes, and Volkswagen are also developing their own with a less certain timeline. Ford and Honda have tried but appear further behind. So I can see two possible scenarios, both of which are good for Uber. Scenario 1: Uber becomes like Netflix, both an aggregator for other AV providers and a provider of their own fleet (original content), which will be purchased from Rivian, Lucid, GM, Toyota, Volkswagen or anyone they want. Scenario 2: If AV’s become the future, car sales are likely to decline 30-50% in the next 15 years. This would be ruinous for most auto makers. If this is the case, Uber probably won’t be the loser in the AV movement. I suspect it will be car dealerships. In this scenario, Uber essentially takes the place of dealerships: the person connecting the car to the customer. Toyota, GM, Volkswagen, and anyone who wants to remain in the car business builds AV’s to use as Robotaxi’s on the Uber network. Uber may even provide fleet management services and make it a seamless transition for OEM’s. Scenario 1 provides more total revenue and profit potential. Scenario 2 keeps Uber lean and has greater margin potential. I think the whole market misunderstands Uber’s position. Either they take off and Uber benefits or they don’t and Uber still benefits.
It isn't. You just didn't think of it so you don't want to consider it as an option. Cost per mile will determine the viability and depth of AV's - including vehicle ownership. Why own a vehicle, pay insurance, have a garage or pay for parking, worry about depreciation, etc., when you can just ride an AV? The AV takes business AWAY from insurance companies, parking, etc., and takes a % of that business. You have people who own a vehicle, drive 5k miles a year, pay $3k in auto insurance annually, pay for parking monthly or pay for parking in city strreets and then have to repair their vehicle, pay for inspection, etc., All of that goes away and becomes profit for AV companies at every level. JP Morgan and GS have already done studies on this tracking the TAM if the cost per mile decreases drastically. Auto revenue from vehicle sales will essentially be revenue for AV companies. You and I both know TAM explodes with this. Why pretend otherwise?
Mobility is Ubers bread and butter they will never give that up without a fight. They would rather buyout or license a fleet of AVs to keep their marketplace healthy before shutting it down or losing market share. They are really hoping that AV commoditizes so their take rate can remain healthy. If not their margins compress severely.
There are many because they're all trying to compete for the end-game. That end-game hasn't been decided yet so they're going to keep competing. I don't see that as them succeeding. I see that as them realizing how lucrative of a business this will be and they want in on the action. Also, lots of these companies are trying to come up with the technology so they can get funding and cashed out as well. Huge incentives going on in this space so people go where the money goes. Much like how everyone is trying to get in on data centers as well. We'll see. I just don't see a place for Uber. I think they should just focus on the delivery side of the business and buy a fleet of customized locker vehicles for delivery instead. Drive to localized areas and deliver multiple packages and repeat. Get out of the AV business while you can. The food delivery business is something AV's don't want to be a part of and UberEats and other companies have that on lock. Just stick with that.
This is way too off topic from the original point. Yes in a fantasy world where the cost per mile of AV is $0 we will all have our own personal AVs and the point is moot.
All your arguments are made in present tense. The future with AV's will rapidly change every industry from deliveries, freight, flight travel, etc., Oh, the vehicles will be idle? Why does that matter? They can still be profitable even if their vehicles are idle most of the day. The real cost of a driver-vehicle is labor. Down-time = lower charging rates, time to charge the vehicles, clean the vehicles, and get them ready for primetime. But you ignore TAM in these situations as well. People might opt to travel with an AV at night to go across states whereas they normally would travel through flight or a bus. The product is no longer just a car to drop you off at a friend's place or supermarket. It replaces other modes of transportation at all hours of the day. Not all businesses shut down at night and I suspect many businesses may even stay open with a wider accessibility of cheap transportation. Lots of people who still drive into late shifts to stock shelves, bring inventory, etc., There might be fewer Uber drivers at these times but AV's can fill that gap much better to meet demand. Then you're looking at businesses such as hospitals, freight transportation, deliveries, etc., that may increasingly look at lower priced off-peak hours to take advantage of AV's whereas it wouldn't have made sense if you hired an Uber driver. Hospitals might have a partnership with AV's exclusively to drive their employees to-and-from or their patients. A whole range of opportunities exist when AV's cost per mile plummets and accessibility increases. The way I see it, driverless vehicles will change how business is done in many ways which increases AV ridership throughout the day that Uber vehicles wouldn't possibly be able to capture.
That remains to be seen whether every AV provider will have their own app. There are many players in the AV space you seem to be focused on two right now, but I don’t think they will all be open to managing a marketplace and logistics. Much easier to license your technology to someone else for an easy profit margin and not deal with the operational headache of fleet ownership. By the way IMO Waymo does NOT want to be a fleet owner. That is a shitty shitty capital intensive business. If anything your bear case for Uber should be that they will need to become capital intensive by purchasing Waymo vehicles to put onto their platform as AV supply which will heavily compress their margins.
Why would Waymo scale more vehicles if they will sit idle? . Do you even understand the reason they can’t scale to meet peak demand? Because human rideshare demand is not uniform during the day. We sleep. We commute. Let me just ask you a simple question, do you think AV technology be a duopoly of just Waymo and Tesla? Or will it commoditize into a plug and play platform like a Wayve or NVIDIA L4 system?
I think you're being overly optimistic on the amount of AV's that will succeed. At the core level of self-driving, the difference will be a race to margins. Not many companies will survive this. The kings will be the ones who can scale profitably and offer a ride that people are willing to pay for. Whether it's cleanliness, response time, amenities, etc., 50+ other AV OEM's is ridiculous. There will be 3-5 max in any given city once scaling is done. This is where differentiation comes to play. People will want the Tesla robotaxi that allows you to change the temperature, have heated massaging seats, is clean, you can play movies on it or your songs, etc., What can Uber offer here of benefit to Tesla if Tesla can scale and make their robotaxi's a lounge chair that drives itself? It will sell itself and Tesla pays no fees to Uber.
Where does Uber get their AV's from? Unless you mean AV's listed on their platform by other companies? I don't put onus on investments in other AV's and then using that as your own especially when it's all about scaling. Zoox will be put out of business if they can't scale profitably so how would a partnership like that help Uber long-term?
Price isn’t the only factor. It’s probably the least important factor. The most important factor is availability. Even a free ride does me no good if it isn’t available when I need it. Range is also more important. A free ride also does me no good if it doesn’t get me where I’m going. The logistical network is the moat. That’s very difficult to disrupt. Not invulnerable, but Uber’s chances of success integrating AI and AV’s are greater than anyone disrupting it.
I’m old enough to remember when people were certain Google+ was going to kill Facebook. Turns out it’s easy to launch an app. It’s very hard to build a regular user base. History is full of these examples. “Amazon is going to kill Walmart”, “PayPal is going to kill Visa”. I think you (and the market as a whole) have the Uber thesis exactly wrong. AV’s are an opportunity for Uber, not a threat. Waymo/Tesla AV’s can fall behind or fail to meet regulations in many markets. If GM/Toyota/Volkswagen (or whoever) comes out with better vehicles, Uber can purchase a fleet from them much more easily than Waymo/Tesla can build and maintain Uber’s network.
Uber projects to have 120k AV’s by 2030 Very similar to Waymo’s 125k. More than Tesla’s 100k. (And Elon promised 1M before 2020) Uber is AV’s/robotaxis. Odds are the first time most people ride in one, it will be an Uber.
I disagree with “the strongest disruptive force to Uber’s business is a world where all cars are autonomous” I compare Uber to Netflix. The biggest threat to Netflix was never other streaming services inevitably popping up. It was broadband expansion and getting people to cut the cable. Similarly, I don’t see AV’s as a threat at all. The biggest barrier to Uber’s growth is car ownership. Currently Uber is mostly used as a designated driver and a ride to the airport. Hard to become a $1T company with just that. However, if car ownership costs continue rising 10% annually as driving habits continue decreasing due to more reliance on delivery services and remote work, the TAM will grow so large it doesn’t matter what Waymo, Tesla, or Uber does. So the largest disruptive threat is actually auto manufacturers finding a way to sell affordable vehicles people actually want to own again. Ironically, that means Amazon’s Slate is arguably a greater threat than Google’s Waymo.
Waymo having its own app doesn’t really prove Uber’s network isn’t a barrier. Waymo spent years building demand, yet it still chose to integrate with Uber in multiple markets. That’s the important signal. The hard part isn’t convincing someone to download an app—it’s efficiently matching millions of riders with available vehicles across different cities, times and demand levels. AV operators also have a utilization problem: an idle robotaxi is an expensive depreciating asset. Uber can aggregate demand across human drivers, Waymo, and potentially multiple AV providers, which can increase utilization without any one operator having to build Uber-scale demand themselves. Tesla could absolutely build a successful competing network, especially with a huge installed customer base. But ‘people can download another app’ and ‘Uber has no moat’ are two very different claims. In a mature AV market, the question is whether consumers want five robotaxi apps or one marketplace that gives them the fastest/cheapest available ride. Uber’s bet is that aggregation wins
I don’t have an exact growth rate for earnings. I don’t think that’s the right way to really think about Uber. As revenue grows, earnings will grow. I think Ubers earnings will be much more in 2030 than today, and will at least have the same multiple as the market overall. I think there are far more drivers and call options that Uber has (including investments in AV companies) that will boost earnings over time. As bookings continue to accelerate, revenue accelerates, and margins improve with scale, which flows to the bottom line.
Ubers bookings have reaccelerated from high teens in 2025 to low 20% in 2026 as more AV’s come on the road. You can keep checking App Store data though.
Definitely agree the stock could go lower from here, but still pretty cheap considering the opportunity ahead in my opinion. I think its much more likely that Uber grows than every AV OEM building their own Uber competitor app. Uber, Tesla, and Waymo can all win here when the market believes Uber will lose.
lol. They launched with Wayve in London last week and just got a permit to operate in Spain yesterday. "Trying to desperately find a winner" - that's funny if you think the only AV companies are Tesla and Waymo. If Uber wasn't investing and participating in the future, this would be a much different investment conversation.
I agree. The more AVs on the road is better for Uber. Lets say Waymo and Tesla do offer their own apps, what about Zoox and the 50+ other AV OEM's putting their cars on the road? So it could very likely be Waymo, Tesla, and then everyone else on Uber with the best customer experience (i.e. when Uber says 5 mins, its actually 5 mins). Also, what about when ride share is slow, and cybercabs want to do food deliveries. This is infrastructure that Uber and Doordash have already built out, and it's far easier for a cybercab to tap into uber's demand than to build it by itself.
Yes, cost is the reason. Tesla is the *only* company trying to run an autonomous cab without LIDAR. The fact is that it's standard tech for every other company. These are fleet vehicles and higher individual cost. That's what it comes down to, unit cost. This is an incredibly simple concept and why consumer vehicles aren't running lidar AV software. Again, just look at the accident rates and Tesla's inability to scale it's cybercab network as quickly as Waymo. AV tech with LIDAR is simply more robust. Why wouldn't it be? It has cameras like FSD but also LIDAR and radar sensor redundancy. Please stop coping lol.
You’re talking about current state, I’m talking about future state. The thesis in OP’s post is Uber wins in an AV future. We are not in an AV future yet. Once we are, AV supply will not be an issue.
Apples and oranges. Uber is just a demand aggregation marketplace. AV fleets will likely operate on multiple platforms this is already the case where Waymo, zoox etc are tapping into Ubers marketplace. An aggregator have an inherent advantage on supply (e.g. 2 and 3) since they can pull from multiple supply sources vs a fully 1P solution.
They have no market to expend? They have been growing every quarter for the past I don’t know how many years. Also ironically 2 of the AV company you mentioned are already on the Uber app in multiple cities….
People will choose an AV ride sharing service based on safety record (can I get from point A to B without dying?), cost (what’s the cheapest way to get there?), and convenience (how quickly can an AV get me there?). The company with the largest fleet can win on #2 and 3, and the company with the best tech will win on #1, to the extent that there is a difference among major competitors. Uber can’t win in any of these areas. Waymo is light years ahead on self driving capabilities, Tesla is a full stack company.
I agree with you that the highway part may be a hurdle for AV, i disagree that its tough for people to download a new app, and the shortest wait time. In my experience talking to people around me, most people choose the cheapest option out of all the rideshare apps, and most have multiple apps downloaded. Ride sharing network thats as good as uber or lyft may be tough to build, but with AI/ML, i wouldnt be surprised if a big tech like tesla or google can easily make one. They have all the money and resources to make one, just like they made a LLM
Maybe, but when you want to get somewhere on time with the shortest wait time, you'll check Uber. It's tough to get people to download a new app. Also, if you want to ride on the highway, you can't take an AV. Yes the partnership with Waymo is ending soon, but announced a new one with Lyft, so while all the AV OEM's may want their own ride sharing network, its tough to build and it probably easier to tap into Uber's demand.
More likely Uber puts Tesla out of business. Tesla makes money by selling cars. That’s where 80% of their revenues come from. What happens when AV’s make car ownership as rare as owning movies/CD’s now? A lot less car sales. If that happens, in order to avoid becoming Tower Records, Tesla will have to pivot to becoming an Uber business. They will have to build the network to compete with Uber’s current 200M monthly active users, which they’ve never done and is much more difficult than buying cars. I’m old enough to remember when people thought Google+ was gonna put Meta out of business. PayPal was going to put Visa out of business. And Amazon was going to put Walmart out of business. Turns out it’s difficult to disrupt the king of an industry especially when you have no experience in that industry. Uber is synonymous with their industry. Just like how every internet search is “Googling”. And every soda is a “coke”. Every ride share is an “Uber”…even if it’s a Lyft. That alone has historically been a very strong moat.
Waymo 200 million miles versus 1 million robotaxis miles. Unsupervised FSD with 4x the crash rate of human drivers while Waymo is 68% safer than human drivers. FSD is a nice quality of life perk for personal vehicles with drivers, but AV tech using LIDAR and radar is clearly superior for fully unsupervised autonomous driving.
You mean the cybercab that Elon promised 1 million on the road by 2020? Or the cybercab that Elon promised coast-to-coast autonomous driving by 2017? Eventually, people will realize the guy is full of shit. \#1 Uber is buying AV’s cheaper than Tesla can manufacture them. \#2 even if Tesla managed to mass produce enough to compete with Uber, they’d still have to also produce the networking platform to compete with Uber’s 200 million monthly users. This is much more difficult than building/buying cars. \#3 Uber is operational on every continent except Antarctica. The biggest burden to AV’s is government regulation. If Uber wants to launch a European fleet, they are very likely to acquire one from Volkswagen, who is already road certified. If they want a North American fleet, they can acquire one from Ford/GM/Rivian. If they want a Chinese/Japanese fleet, they can acquire one from BYD/Toyota. Tesla is very unlikely to do any of that. \#4 Tesla/Waymo hype is no more of a threat to Uber than HBO/Hulu/Paramount was to Netflix. In fact, it could benefit them. Netflix’s threat was never other streamers, it was getting people to cut the cable. Similarly, Uber’s threat is getting people to “cut the car”. If car ownership continues waning, the TAM will grow so ridiculous, that Uber could lose 2/3rds of their market share and the share price will still 10x in the next 10-15 years. The real threat to Uber is if manufacturers can find a way to sell cars people both can afford and actually want to own.
Great company, but their market share drops in markets that have Waymo. While they're partners in some cities I worry that Waymo and other AV companies eventually cut Uber out.
Uber will have the largest AV fleet on earth next year
You are so impatient my friend. You are just scalping at this point. $700k in TTWO for a few days, then in AVGO for a few days and now in UBER. You probably sell it before the end of the week. I think TTWO was a risky bet, but I like both AVGO and UBER. Uber should not be under $100. It is a great company and AV will prove to be a tailwind for them, and not a headwind. I also like LYFT a lot. same story, but even cheaper.
The issue stems from how AV's are certified, specifically in Texas and Florida. Essentially these particular states leave it up to the manufacturer to certify them as 'Autonomous', with no state/federal certifying standard. NHTSA requires there to at least be brake pedals involved with AV's, Zoox receiving a very particular exemption in this case. I think Tesla launched Robotaxi because they felt comfortable there being a precedent with Zoox. But that's pretty questionable because Tesla's autonomy and Zoox's autonomy are very different approaches.
Or he thinks the AV threat is overblown.
Tesla's networks are far more limited and geofenced than Waymos. All AV networks are geofenced.
Here is my question. What Elon lead company is the best at what they do? Tesla doesn't make the best cars, they don't have the best AV driving capabilities, they don't have the best battery tech. By the time Tesla gets it's shit together they will have been surpassed by everyone. Space X relies on government money. Elon's companies depended on massive government subsidies and many now see him as a national security risk. I wouldn't touch his companies outside of my index funds. Too many what ifs.
Honestly crazy to me how Uber is at the same price I sold it at in January 2025 Countless times I've thought about re-entering, but when I think of all of the bad/negative narratives surrounding it I get put off (huge investments in failing AV companies, constant acquisitions of unprofitable delivery companies in second/third tier markets, growing threat of Waymo, Zoox, etc.)
I think deep down we all know where the market wants AV to GO 🔻
I work in setting federal transportation policy with a focus on the deployment of AV/CV freight and supporting infrastructure for the past decade. Trust me when I say this is not happening on a large scale (that would generate windfall profits) anytime soon.
This is such a speculative business case. US highway/interstate system is at least a decade away from allowing large scale deployment of self driving trucks. Probably longer given current administration is incompetent and getting harmonization of federal and state regulations overseeing AV implantation is a pipe dream.
Uber does have good positioning for AV market imo. Unless Waymo destroys their partnership that is
From ceo "Yeah. I would say, relative to management's long-term view of the company, I think it's a mistake. I'm incredibly excited about where we're going with the company. What I'd say is, I think this is something we should talk about, we want to just talk about directly. The question that comes to mind is, did they know something I don't know, right? The answer definitively is no, that this is really just a natural function of the capital cycles that are associated with these businesses. We have been blessed to have early investors that stuck with us and have been with us for the 9+ years that the company has been around. In the VC world, those funds, the way they work is they take capital from a limited partner, and they have a time horizon that they ultimately have to return that capital to the partner. What we're seeing is those early funds cycle through and cycle out. The unfortunate thing for us is that because we went public through a SPAC, there's this SEC technicality which complicates the transfer of those shares. Effectively, to return the capital, they're having to sell the shares in the market. For us, this is a normal part of the capital cycle. It's not anything indicative of the state of the business. It's really just a testament to the patience they've had with us, and the progress we've made in the company. We're incredibly thankful for the companies who've supported us and been investing with us. The other thing that we've seen out is Uber moving out of their position in Aurora. Again, this is both a natural thing and I think a good thing. Uber is not a holding company, right? They're not Berkshire Hathaway. They're not owning companies just to see the appreciation of the value. They're actually trying to put that capital to work to build their business. The management team at Uber has been transparent about needing to take the investment they made in Aurora, and use that capital to fund their somewhat fragmented approach to ensuring there is AV robotaxi players out in the market. Robotaxi is just not our business today. Again, this is a natural thing. As a shareholder of the company, a significant shareholder of the company, I'm actually quite excited to see capital that's not going to be here for the long term rotate out and get replaced with folks who are going to be holding shares. We have this incredible investor base. It's just proud to have the folks that are with us along for the ride, and excited to see that stage of capital investment be able to ride along as we continue to execute and hopefully see a lot of value creation here."
**Q: Who are the main competitors, and how large is Aurora's lead?** A: Kodiak (closest; driverless off-road today, **highway readiness measure at 91%,** year-end target), Torc/Daimler and Plus (2027 targets), Waabi, Bot Auto, Stack AV — plus generalist-AI entrants. **My central lead estimate: \~18 months (80% interval 6–30), decaying on observables.** The safety-case clock is the best base rate: **Aurora's own last 7% took \~16 months** (§6, Figures 13–14).
From OP: I put this in the long post before I cut it down because so many people were shitting on the length. Uber is involved in this business as a logistics manager with Uber Freight. It makes sense for it to invest in some companies in the sector to help them get off the ground but it's not an investment company that intends to long-term hold shares of other companies to make an investment return. Here's your answer directly from the CEO. This is a word for word quote from the retail investor town hall. "Yeah. I would say, relative to management's long-term view of the company, I think it's a mistake. I'm incredibly excited about where we're going with the company. What I'd say is, I think this is something we should talk about, we want to just talk about directly. The question that comes to mind is, did they know something I don't know, right? The answer definitively is no, that this is really just a natural function of the capital cycles that are associated with these businesses. We have been blessed to have early investors that stuck with us and have been with us for the 9+ years that the company has been around. In the VC world, those funds, the way they work is they take capital from a limited partner, and they have a time horizon that they ultimately have to return that capital to the partner. What we're seeing is those early funds cycle through and cycle out. The unfortunate thing for us is that because we went public through a SPAC, there's this SEC technicality which complicates the transfer of those shares. Effectively, to return the capital, they're having to sell the shares in the market. For us, this is a normal part of the capital cycle. It's not anything indicative of the state of the business. It's really just a testament to the patience they've had with us, and the progress we've made in the company. We're incredibly thankful for the companies who've supported us and been investing with us. The other thing that we've seen out is Uber moving out of their position in Aurora. Again, this is both a natural thing and I think a good thing. Uber is not a holding company, right? They're not Berkshire Hathaway. They're not owning companies just to see the appreciation of the value. They're actually trying to put that capital to work to build their business. The management team at Uber has been transparent about needing to take the investment they made in Aurora, and use that capital to fund their somewhat fragmented approach to ensuring there is AV robotaxi players out in the market. Robotaxi is just not our business today. Again, this is a natural thing. As a shareholder of the company, a significant shareholder of the company, I'm actually quite excited to see capital that's not going to be here for the long term rotate out and get replaced with folks who are going to be holding shares. We have this incredible investor base. It's just proud to have the folks that are with us along for the ride, and excited to see that stage of capital investment be able to ride along as we continue to execute and hopefully see a lot of value creation here."
Thanks for the response. I love this sector, AV driving is going to change the world. Don't know a ton about it, but learning more. There is going to be a ton of winners and losers on a shitload of different layers of this industry. Still very early innings. I guess my question is what is the hardest problem to solve and who is closest to really solving it.
I put this in the long post before I cut it down because so many people were shitting on the length. Uber is involved in this business as a logistics manager with Uber Freight. It makes sense for it to invest in some companies in the sector to help them get off the ground but it's not an investment company that intends to long-term hold shares of other companies to make an investment return. Here's your answer directly from the CEO. This is a word for word quote from the retail investor town hall. **"Yeah. I would say, relative to management's long-term view of the company, I think it's a mistake. I'm incredibly excited about where we're going with the company. What I'd say is, I think this is something we should talk about, we want to just talk about directly. The question that comes to mind is, did they know something I don't know, right? The answer definitively is no, that this is really just a natural function of the capital cycles that are associated with these businesses. We have been blessed to have early investors that stuck with us and have been with us for the 9+ years that the company has been around.** **In the VC world, those funds, the way they work is they take capital from a limited partner, and they have a time horizon that they ultimately have to return that capital to the partner. What we're seeing is those early funds cycle through and cycle out. The unfortunate thing for us is that because we went public through a SPAC, there's this SEC technicality which complicates the transfer of those shares. Effectively, to return the capital, they're having to sell the shares in the market. For us, this is a normal part of the capital cycle. It's not anything indicative of the state of the business. It's really just a testament to the patience they've had with us, and the progress we've made in the company. We're incredibly thankful for the companies who've supported us and been investing with us.** **The other thing that we've seen out is Uber moving out of their position in Aurora. Again, this is both a natural thing and I think a good thing. Uber is not a holding company, right? They're not Berkshire Hathaway. They're not owning companies just to see the appreciation of the value. They're actually trying to put that capital to work to build their business. The management team at Uber has been transparent about needing to take the investment they made in Aurora, and use that capital to fund their somewhat fragmented approach to ensuring there is AV robotaxi players out in the market. Robotaxi is just not our business today. Again, this is a natural thing.** **As a shareholder of the company, a significant shareholder of the company, I'm actually quite excited to see capital that's not going to be here for the long term rotate out and get replaced with folks who are going to be holding shares. We have this incredible investor base. It's just proud to have the folks that are with us along for the ride, and excited to see that stage of capital investment be able to ride along as we continue to execute and hopefully see a lot of value creation here."**
Because AV Trucks are way harder than passenger vehicles.
I am long some 7 and 10 28 leaps. Playing devils advocate what is to stop Waymo or any another AV driving tech company from using their data for the same purpose. Aurora could be the Motorola flip phone of AV trucks.
There is 14k Uber and Lyft drivers in Nevada. Of which more than half operated I'm Las Vegas metropolitan area. Tesla cybercab alone just got approval for 5k. Tesla stated interest in ramping up to 2.5k in the first year. They already built a 36k sqft cleaning and charging facility to service cards. It won't be long before they hit their cap. The only bottleneck I can think of infrastructure wise is parking. But if Tesla goes through with their crowd share strategy to allow people to send their own cars out, issue solved. Also, the advantage of AV is that you don't need to park the cars in the middle of crowded cities. Park them in an empty lot in the middle of nowhere. They'll just drive into the city when they need to.
Tesla and Waymo has their own app. Their rides are significantly cheaper than Uber rides. Even if Uber integrates with them and takes a cut, it'll be a significant cut in revenue. The base revenue goes down and they don't even get the full % they're used to. They might survive but the stock definitely crashes. The only upside scenario I can come up with is that AV will lead to drastically lower car ownership. This will lead to higher food delivery. If they can pivot their drivers to Uber Eats and best Doordash, then maybe they can sustain or win. I doubt it though.
goldman sachs : [https://www.bfmtv.com/economie/entreprises/energie/probable-que-les-prix-depassent-les-pics-de-2008-et-2022-goldman-sachs-anticipe-un-baril-a-150-dollars-si-le-trafic-ne-reprend-pas-a-ormuz-d-ici-la-fin-du-mois\_AV-202603070183.html](https://www.bfmtv.com/economie/entreprises/energie/probable-que-les-prix-depassent-les-pics-de-2008-et-2022-goldman-sachs-anticipe-un-baril-a-150-dollars-si-le-trafic-ne-reprend-pas-a-ormuz-d-ici-la-fin-du-mois_AV-202603070183.html)
Goldman Sachs : [https://www.bfmtv.com/economie/entreprises/energie/probable-que-les-prix-depassent-les-pics-de-2008-et-2022-goldman-sachs-anticipe-un-baril-a-150-dollars-si-le-trafic-ne-reprend-pas-a-ormuz-d-ici-la-fin-du-mois\_AV-202603070183.html](https://www.bfmtv.com/economie/entreprises/energie/probable-que-les-prix-depassent-les-pics-de-2008-et-2022-goldman-sachs-anticipe-un-baril-a-150-dollars-si-le-trafic-ne-reprend-pas-a-ormuz-d-ici-la-fin-du-mois_AV-202603070183.html)
NVDA chips power nearly every AV stack out there. Not a secret, but most people still price them separately. No position, but watching both.
Whilst I’m invested in Uber and this forms my own thinking, it not all smooth sailing. Waymo has terminated their partnership with Uber, ending in 2028. I view Uber as a safe platform regardless as nothing transitions overnight, and being a platform with AVs as well as human drivers that can flex depending on demand and need in any given moment is the benefit of Uber’s platform over a pure AV one. For a start up with a small number of vehicles, nobody is downloading their app in the off-chance a vehicle is available, but plugging into Uber and connecting with that much larger pool makes it make sense.
The connection is real and underappreciated. The way to think about it: NVDA is the picks-and-shovels play on autonomous driving, and Uber is increasingly one of its best customers. Uber's real moat in the AV race isn't building self-driving tech — it's the demand aggregation layer. They have the rides, the payment rails, the routing infrastructure. They don't need to win the AV hardware race; they just need to be the platform every AV operator deploys on. Waymo is already on Uber in some markets. That's not a competitor relationship, it's a distribution deal. NVDA wins if AV training scales the way everyone expects — each robotaxi fleet is essentially a rolling CUDA compute customer. More deployment = more model retraining = more GPU demand. The relationship compounds. The thing worth watching is the margin trajectory on both. Uber's take rate goes up when drivers are replaced by software. NVDA's auto revenue is still tiny but growing fast. Keeping both on the tape at the same time — I literally watch UBER and NVDA side by side on my ticker wall via MarketCast — is useful for catching when the market starts repricing that relationship.
> The co-host subbing in for AV mentioned in a cryptic way that Cronos will not be using their cash for US M&A. Who was the co-host? I'm nearly positive I've heard Gorenstein say the exact opposite at some point in the last few months.
I usually don't listen to TDR until the weekend. They actually had a few juicy leaks on it this week. Credit card companies are actually allowing cannabis purchases in some states, according to Boris. The co-host subbing in for AV mentioned in a cryptic way that Cronos will *not* be using their cash for US M&A. Much to chew on.
Sounds more like they're talking about AV partners, like uber
Also not sure how to assess this stock. Quarterly numbers were strong and future short/mid term growth appears to be very healthy. Biggest unknown is simply their future role in the booming AV industry. Are they going to control the demand side or will AV companies build their own customer interface. The market simply hates uncertainty otherwise the stock clearly would have to trade much higher.
Your problem was that the AV overhang issue has not resolved and will not for some time.
This logic is extremely flawed. Few clarifications: 1) You mention Waymo gaining market share in SF, sure, but why are uber bookings in SF growing/accelerating? (The answer is self driving increases TAM) 2) Ok, now “if AI were to get 10x better”, yes that would be great for self driving companies, inclusive of the 20+ companies uber is partnered with? Are you suggesting every self driving player will try to build their own ride hailing network? If so, that is an insane assumption. That scenario strongly points towards a consolidated network 3) Where profit comes from - there is so much wrong here. But to simplify, you’re missing: a) how much of North America profit comes from mobility vs. delivery b) incorrectly extrapolating average booking $s with profit (id recommend thinking more through *why* booking amounts would be higher, think through things like cost of labor, insurance, etc) c) Uber’s advertising revenue is growing rapidly - this is one of the main catalysts for improving margins 4) Lastly, on AVs, I’d recommend imagining an extreme scenario, where an AV player takes 50% share in any market. That would mean: (a) there must be enough cars to match peak demand times such that wait times aren’t an issue AND (b) be profitable. You’ll quickly realize that (a) vs. (b) is a major issue, enough cars to match peak demand also means those cars will sidle idle most of the time as demand is variable. Hopefully it starts to click that a hybrid network is the most likely outcome here
Pay attention to how waymo's roll out in Tokyo goes. They're the probably the friendliest AV market. Also waymo bet isn't solely to replace rideshare. They plan to eventually lease/sell the AV package to BMW etc...
So you think all other major corporations cede the AV market to google? This is going to be such a huge industry, a sea change moment in world history. It's going to change the way we build cities and highways. It will change public transportation. This is so early innings, Waymo could be the Motorola flip phone for all we know. I agree there is some serious execution risk with uber, but thats why it is priced where it is. There are going to be a ton of winners (and losers) at many multiple layers of AV driving. Where does the money come for the scale up? How long does it take to scale up? How much does it cost to scale up? You could make the argument that Uber is going to be more profitable with AV driving. Does a Rivian have their now app when they have 20K cars. Do they roll out in cities where Waymo it saturated already? So many questions.
They have not understood what "entertainment" is, it's meant to be cheap and brainrelaxing. Cinemas are doing the same thing and talk "the experience" as why they charge so much. Fuck that, it's a movie, not a religious experience, I wanna spend 2 hours and be entertained but that's all, and if the price is high that's all I'll remember and never come back and enjoy youtube instead because my money when into my own AV setup
> brand, It's a brand in decline. > IP Not much there anymore. They're a consumer electronics company that takes Sony sensors, a battery, a SoC, and puts it in a box. It's not trivial, but other companies have been doing it. They have a codec that no one really uses since it's not baked into hardware like ProRes, H265/HEVC, AV1, etc. >stabilization tech It's good, but so is DJIs and Insta's. Stabilization tech isn't all that hard. > rugged hardware Not difficult to do so no competitive advantage > and camera platform for AI/computer vision Sony makes the sensor, and a consumer action camera is not a good "AI sensor", whatever that means. > drones GoPro tried making drones and they fell out of the sky. They blew something like $300 million trying to make it work and they have nothing to show for it. I think they even sold their drone IP. > robotics They've absolutely nothing to do with robotics. > defense use cases Their terrible financials would preclude them from any military contracts I would imagine. They've no money for R&D. So outside of a bulk order for consumer non-certified action cameras they're more likely to make coffee makers than anything in defense. > more important as sensors, Sony makes the sensors. The biggest issue I think is Nick Woodman. He's a terrible CEO and he's seen GoPro lose 98% of shareholder value.