[GrahamB]

Indeed, and they are regressive in wealth distribution as well, by making it cheaper for those that can afford it anyway, creaming off a fat margin for a small number in another continent, and driving down the income of the actual service providers, i.e. the lower earners.

I have used Uber on two occasions for its convenience, not price, and in fact tipped the driver personally with an amount sufficient to offset the Uber slice.

I'm not a loony lefty by a long chalk, but I find the whole gig-economy unsettling and IMHO it's storing up trouble.

[rikur_]

One of my troubles with the likes of Uber is not what they do but the whole idea of "disruptive" companies that can only be disruptive and change markets due to the depth of the pockets of their backers. Not simply due to innovation or service.

Uber's business model does not work. They make a loss and always will unless their long-term plan works.....

As one of the founders of a disruptive company that nowadays has about 75% market share I probably ought to disagree, but actually think it is a more mixed picture.
In our case we were first to market, scale helped us on cost, and to provide a better service, and when we sold out a couple of years ago, no competitor had got to over 10% of our size. Many factors lead to that, but the depths of our investors pockets to invest in advertising was a key to it. Brand awareness puts you at the top in apps stores, and at the top of Google search .... and because you are at the top, Google's/Apple's algorithms keep you there because there's a feedback loop that popular trusted brands float to the top of the organic results. Particularly with apps, once you're installed, providing you do what the user needs - they don't go back to the app store looking for alternatives.
That said, if I look at the market that uber is in, within the past few years I remember people complaining about Add Lee's monopoly, Hailo, and then uber - so things can change quite quickly.
Mini-cabs/taxis in cities has always been a somewhat dubious business that relies a lot on scale .... it's not as if the mini-cab barons before them weren't milking the system either.

It's widely thought that uber's strategic plan is autonomous vehicles - the pool of licenced drivers is just a transient phase on the way there.... but that's where I also think their business model is flawed.
I'm convinced that we will see Google/Alphabet deploying autonomous taxis directly, booked directly from Google maps/Android - with no need for middlemen like uber, their local franchisees, or their drivers.

The real worry is will everything eventually be run by Alphabet

[eltonioni]

I suspect that the car manufacturers will just leapfrog Alphabet anyway and put their own fleets straight onto the streets, probably with Alphabet data. Uber does seem to be a problem looking for a solution but they ultimately don't have much more than IP to their name.

The Johnny Come to The Party Lateley's like Tesla / Dyson / Apple will probably get swallowed up by the people who actually know how to make, distribute and finance vehicles in the tens of millions like Ford / GM / VAG / Toyota. Disruptive data is surely where it's at for the tech companies, not building hardware in an existing hardware marketplace.

[johnm]

Actually the car industry pretty much eliminated its old competitors the horse and carriage suppliers, few if any moved into car manufacturing, so maybe Tesla/Dyson et al will eliminate Ford and GM I doubt it frankly.

[rikur_]

The Johnny Come to The Party Lateley's like Tesla / Dyson / Apple will probably get swallowed up by the people who actually know how to make, distribute and finance vehicles in the tens of millions like Ford / GM / VAG / Toyota. Disruptive data is surely where it's at for the tech companies, not building hardware in an existing hardware marketplace.

May be .... albeit Google (in the form of Android) do ship a lot of hardware .... admittedly mostly made by others on their behalf.

I suspect the size of traditional car manufacturers could be their downfall. Some people estimate that connected autonomous vehicles could cut the demand for vehicle production to below 20% of current levels (as vehicle utilisation should in theory be much higher) .... add to that the reduced complexity/lower maintenance overheads of all electric vehicles and within a decade motor manufacturers and their traditional dealer/maintenance networks (and PCP providers) could be looking for a very different business model and an acquisition by Google might look attractive (remember the market capitalisation of Alphabet is 10x that of Ford)

[eltonioni]

Adjusting the market to account for 4% vehicle utilisation seems to make it ripe for disrupting the ownership model rather than the need for a new technology entrant. I saw that Volvo just launched a compact SUV with a single monthly payment covering all costs which surely is the start of getting people ready to think differently about the rusting metal on the drive. We rent aeroplanes without a second thought, cars should be the same if the utility and availability is there.

I'm also interested from the property and town planning aspect as it's going to change everything. Councils are in trouble when there's no parking fines or fees, highway planners don't need to design endless junction improvements, congestion charging is gone... we're going to see massive implications. Then we'll need central vehicle charging infrastructure and maintenance, but no car parks, maybe fewer road. Car dealers will go the way of the dodo. Etc.etc.

Interesting times.

[rikur_]

Adjusting the market to account for 4% vehicle utilisation seems to make it ripe for disrupting the ownership model rather than the need for a new technology entrant.

I think it's the coming together of various factors though that make it attractive, and ripe for disruption:
- migration from ICE to electric
- migration from owning/leasing your own vehicle, to an on-demand vehicle
- which is in part enable by autonomous vehicles, because you can have the convenience of a vehicle from your door
- which in turn potentially mitigates some of the limitations of electric vehicles as they can drive themselves off to charge somewhere
- cost of the traditional model becoming increasingly onerous for a generation with less disposable income, and greater receptiveness to using services rather than ownership (there's already evidence of teens shifting from bus to uber, and some said that they have put off learning to drive due to uber)

The 4% utilisation is not quite the right stat to look at - the number of cars will depend more on the peak hour utilisation, where it is estimated around a third of cars are in simultaneous use. The transport planning implications are quite profound .... CAVs will make more efficient use of road networks - but may well create more car demand; vehicle flows will change, as people will want their CAV to drop them off near the office door, and then take itself away to park (or the next passenger); there is an expected migration from buses to shared ride (i.e. a smaller bus with an optimised route); there's much debate about the impact on 'rush hour' as it's likely that a ride in an 'on demand' vehicle at off-peak will be a lot cheaper than peak time.

Much as we love the current system, objectively it is rubbish - spending large sums of capital on something that we use 4% of the time; that costs us money to maintain, park, insure, fuel and in some places just drive - that invariably too big/too small/wrong size boot for a given need at a particular time ....

[Flyingfemme]

The real worry is will everything eventually be run by Alphabet

One day all restaurants will be Taco Bell?

[eltonioni]

Guilty secret - I quite like Taco Bell once in a blue moon.

[MikeB]

It seems that SkyUber are throwing in the towel....

We built something we were incredibly proud of, but got to the point where we realised that this business would not scale in a way that would meet our goals. It was a tough decision emotionally, but it was the right move from the rational perspective.

[cockney steve]

As @rikur_ pointed out, Peak hours are when 1/3 of cars are on the road.....but the roads are gridlocked in many commuter-areas. so, there's very little growth option there. Attempts have been made to promote car-sharing,with little success. Perhaps this will alter, when hailing a "cab" is the norm, but in areas like London, Glasgow, Manchester etc. sharing with strangers, except in unusual circumstances, such as Public Transport strikes, fuel-rationing, etc., still seems the exception. The country isn't teeming with "Smart" -cars, (IMO, a brilliant solution killed by overpricing.)
Thousands of buses stand idle for 20 out of 24 hours....likewise trains.....Anyone care to explain the economics of the special yellow school-buses, that , again sit idle most of their life.....at least, the general commuter-parc, which also ran "school-specials" could also supply transport for classes shuttling to local sports facilities, etc,in off-peak hours.
the problem is not a lack of transport,- no, it's too many people all wanting to move at the same time on this overcrowded patch of land.