> what exact benefit does running a $800M losing ride-hailing service confer
Market share. Or more precisely, establishing market dominance by undercutting the competition.
Market share. Or more precisely, establishing market dominance by undercutting the competition.
There is simply no scenario where having a network of poorly paid drivers, their heterogeneous fleet of unmaintained cars and a load of debt is an advantage in a rollout of self-driving cars, the first useful version of which will surely be limited to one particular manufacturer, model and sensor suite.
And Uber couldn't double down on their existing strategy of heavily subsidised rides to undercut self-driving cars? I mean, this is assuming that self-driving taxis are cheaper off the bat, which kind of ignores the fairly large capital expenditure of buying a fleet.
> A first-to-market competitor will have 747s full of money landing on their doorstep begging them to take it.
I don't think it's that simple. That's not taking into account how difficult it would be for Competitor X to build enough of a network to rival Uber, and how easy it would be for Uber to replicate/steal/buy the tech and steamroll Competitor X. Having superior tech and being first to market are not enough alone to trump market share.