Just curious, why would there not be a business model for robotaxis?
Driverless: the company needs an operation, real estate, and staff comparable to a big auto rental company to do all that. Plus the engineering and technical staff required for autonomy.
Even with startups doing autonomous shuttle buses, which works at low speed, nobody is making money in that space. It's all demos.
One additional factor seems to be that Uber drivers tend to underestimate the depreciation of their cars, so they effectively subsidize what otherwise would be Uber's capital cost.
And THAT's something you can't get a robot to do.
I recently listened to a podcast episode of the Autonocast[1], where they interviewed a Harvard Researcher who claimed the economics of Robotaxis just don't work. Very interesting listen.
[1] http://www.autonocast.com/blog/2020/3/11/177-ashley-nunes-on...
Early robotaxis will have tight geofences. Makes them particularly bad competitors to poorly paid people who are willing to drive wherever.
High level - Uber and Lyft have done a terrific job getting people to work for less than minimum wage. I've met quite a number of uberdrivers who work in Robotaxi-Ready cities (think Chandler, Tampa, etc) who work 12-16 hours/day, 6-7 days a week, and make $20k/yr after depreciation.
While sensors are getting cheaper, most teams respond by throwing more sensors on the vehicle. It seems unlikely there will be a <$20k robotaxi anytime soon.
TL;DR: Humans are cheaper than robots.
AKA - if people are willing to do it for cheap, it probably won't make sense to get a robot involved.
Probably won't help with any of those folks opposed to UBI because "people get meaning from work." Proponents of that view must know a hidden trove of self-actualized retail workers.