As a few HN folks have observed recently, that turns Uber from a wage-heavy (but always on the lookout for corners to cut) business to a capital-heavy one. That wouldn't be a impossible transition, but it would be a transition.
In fact, its the perfect transition from startup to mature company with a substantial moat. With a proven business model then can raise $Bs in non-dilutive debt-capital to finance vehicle purchases.
And in the long run... I know there's this meme here that 100% autonomous vehicles are just around the corner. But (regrettably), I'm more inclined to side with the arguments that it's many decades away. [1]
Evil... And I'm almost certain it's what they'll do. Owner pays for purchase, upkeep, parking, and insurance, covering all the capital outlay, depreciation, and risk, while Uber skims off the profit. It's sort of "insurance in reverse."
Where do you get efficiency out of their plan? People tend to underestimate the true ownership cost of their cars, and Uber uses that to make them believe they're making a lot more per hour than they actually are.
Capital sitting idly in driveways is inherently inefficient. How is that hard to understand?
> People tend to underestimate the true ownership cost of their cars, and Uber uses that to make them believe they're making a lot more per hour than they actually are.
That isn't an argument about its efficiency though.
Maybe the marginal value of a car self-driving itself somewhere is $1 and the marginal cost of that driving is $0.99—it's still more efficient for that car to drive than not. Whether the owner thinks their profit is $1 or 1 cent doesn't really matter.
