Except network of drivers, network of riders with the app installed, name recognition, capital to run the backend systems and delve into mapping algorithms, etc.
Of course it's possible to build some app that tells people nearby to pick them up with metering/billing services built in.
From a business standpoint, it would almost be impossible to duplicate what they have today.
If someone can get the cost down to 1/10th or speed it up 10x etc, then uber may find itself down and out (or racing to catchup).
i.e. I could build "the Uber for when you want to go out on a date and impress someone in the car" as an overlay service.
There is a service for that. It's called Uber Black.
Ultimately, this space will operationalize out to the company that can manufacture safe and reliable self-driving cars most efficiently. That's kind of how you can tell uber hasn't won yet: if a company came along that was doing that, it would eat their lunch.
Further, faced with the awesome self-driving car company, uber's hungry huge capital needs thus far will be nothing but a burden.
I believe they timed this all wrong -- they are myspace and in the wrong business.
Assuming, of course, the fleet cap- and opex makes autonomous vehicles a more profitable proposition than driver share without fleet costs, and it gives them a competitive advantage over smaller autonomous taxi fleets. I'm curious what their internal projections look like in that regard.
"The most common cause of failure in leadership is produced by treating adaptive challenges as if they were technical problems" - Ron Heifetz
That's my point: Uber has done a lot of the hardest work for their competitors, but now has to match them on price or watch them eat away at their market. I don't see any strong network effect – what's the advantage to me as a passenger or driver of using Uber because you use Uber?
Good thing Uber has conveniently created that for you.
2. Uber Pool requires a large number of drivers and customers to make it work. This is a real network effect and benefit, as having 2-3 customers in a car is more efficient than 1. This requires having other customers on a similiar route.
3. Customers want the closest car to them, meaning the company with the most cars gets a benefit
4. There are driver and customer acquisition and switching costs
Once you've got one city down, scaling it isn't that hard.
Uber and Lyft should relaunch there with self-driving cars (the mayor is all about self-driving cars) and change their logo to a fingerprint.
So, that would be why the city was overwhelmed fingerprinting drivers. Uh, yeah, let's see some evidence behind your statements.
And Austin didn't kick them out, Uber and Lyft LEFT. Uber and Lyft tried to hold Austin hostage, and, surprise, the Austin VOTERS bit them.
The same rules that Uber and Lyft seem to have no problem working under in Dallas and Houston.
Austin didn't kick anyone out, they left and good riddance I say. Fare and Fasten aren't perfect, but I will much more readily support a local company than Uber.
Uber is, in fact, launching self-driving already in, wait for it...Pitsburgh.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-08-18/uber-s-fir...
So, maybe that's the deal.
If that's true, why isn't Lyft doing well?
The point of the parent is: How does Uber turn all these subsidies into an actual profit someday? It's easy to undersell your competitors when you're burning money. Once the VC dries up, how does Uber compete with any other entrant?
`
Uber = Network effects. And not just that, but a two-sided market too! Combine that with the verb "to uber" and you have huge barriers!