Uber has scale, they are processing $15+ billion plus in rides a year. Millions of customers and millions of drivers that need tools built to service them.
Uber isn't really a tech company, in the same way Amazon isn't really a tech company. The Secret Sauce(tm) behind Uber is logistics - in managing a highly fluid workforce, dispatching, etc.
Not much of which transfers into this post-human-driver world. I like Uber, but I don't think Uber being Uber really confers a large advantage over new entrants when the autonomous cars become reality.
It would seem to me that, when the time comes, any number of companies run by reasonably talented people with capital backing can start a car service. Uber's edge applies to their human-driver business.
Uber isn't an on demand ride service. They're a logistics company. Also uber isn't waiting for autonomous vehicles to come along and save them, they're one of the industry leaders in developing autonomous systems, investing/acquiring autonomous systems, and collect more driver/vehicle data than any other company in the world. It's not just civilian transportation either. They've already launched an autonomous commercial shipping service. If there is an item, person, or service that could potentially need to be transported from point A to B, it's a safe to assume that Uber has already started collecting logistics data on it and will(or already has) raise funds to begin implementing a network to service said logistical situation. This all may sound a bit extreme at first glance, but look at amazon. Amazon isn't a revolutionary e-commerce market place, they're a revolutionary logistics company. It's the same story as uber just in a different phase. Years of massive losses and outside funding. Both companies fully understand the value/defensibility of heavily investing in operational logistics at massive scale.
Uber is a glorified ride haling app, Taxi providers has similar stuff before that. Without exploiting their drives to the extent Uber does. Logistics is a well understood problem, the only company I could think of that made a impact in logistics is Flexport. And they didn't solve any real problem, they managed to build the latest global freight forwarder. Very impressive, but at the core this is nothing revolutionary.
> Beyond that, Uber's electronic-dispatch technology has the ability to optimize garbage pick-up and drop-off; police, fire and medical resource routing; small-vehicle fleet management for sundry specialized logistics companies; and all manner of other logistical processes presently centrally dispatched like taxis were a decade ago.
But why is it going to be Uber providing those services? What's their moat? Google has an absurd amount of live data from shivers using Google Maps or Waze as they drive around a city, if they launch a "medical resource routing" service tomorrow it'll blow Uber out of the water.
The first is that self-driving is super difficult, they don't really have the expertise, and a lot of their progress seems to have come from being able disregard proper safety procedures. So to move forward with it they'd need to fess up to investors that it'll take much longer than anticipated and it'll be much more expensive. That'll damage the company value significantly, and it's not really relevant to what the core of the business is doing right now. I actually find it fascinating - Uber has built an app that disrupts the traditional taxi marketplace. Separate to that they've got a division working on a produce to disrupt Uber's current market place.
The second problem is that if they choose not to do autonomous driving their entire business proposition needs re-establishing. Can they actually make money doing what they're currently doing? Or are they doomed to sink huge venture capital sums into acquiring market shares, only to fail to reach a dominant enough position to actually raise prices and make bank. And part two to that question: Can they achieve that profitability and a good enough return to be worthwhile for investors before someone who does succeed in disrupting the taxi business with self-driving cars.
> a technology business that has a huge, real-life logistical component this fast
What? Nearly all the big and global freight/logistics operators like DHL, FedEx, TNT et al have a huge and sophisticated tech infrastructure to service their clientele and if I dare to say more advanced and demanding than what's in Uber's possession.
As someone who is extremely excited about the prospect of self driving cars, I have to say that I love the situation Uber is in.
They're flush with cash, and on a timeline to innovate. They NEED a solution, and they need it soon. An autonomous vehicle is their ticket out of this mess, and they know it
The takeaway I get is that Uber has an edge on Google in the race for a fully automated taxi service, because the have had more time to work on a more sophisticated routing algorithm.
I am skeptical. As the article points out, it will take a considerable amount of time to deploy any service, once the automated driving is good enough. If Google gets to commercially viable automated driving sooner, it will have plenty of time to refine their own routing algorithms during the rollout.
A company with billions in revenue, live updates routing around traffic, has complex machine learning modes predicting ride times and costs, and operates in something like 65 countries.
Uber is essentially a bet on automated vehicles. They cannot be profitable with human drivers, at least not as profitable as their market cap would require.
By the definition above, clearly a “tech company”, no? Uber produces highly scalable tech, and can deploy it rapidly amongst a sea of contractors and riders- who are essentially consumers of the app.
Well Uber is logistics/CS company which a tech approach. I would think that makes it a tech company. Their stack is complicated and there are plenty of logistic giants who could've beaten them if only they were as tech focused.
reply