Exactly. This is the equivalent of Netflix mailing DVD's and transitioning to streaming. If Uber can pull it off they'll survive the regulatory assault.
Not necessarily. As other people have pointed out, Uber's business model, margins, and valuation are based on shifting their costs onto their drivers (especially the capital costs of vehicles).
Switching to driverless raises the question of who owns the vehicles they'll be using, and if they're the ones owning the vehicles in their fleet that represents a major shift in capital expenses and ongoing maintenance costs.
Good point about ownership of the vehicles. Maybe it's more of an "insurance" policy in case their regulatory battles go poorly.
I think if cities and states had to choose between Uber with people (more jobs) and Uber with autonomous vehicles (less jobs) they would or should pick the former.
> I think if cities and states had to choose between Uber with people (more jobs) and Uber with autonomous vehicles (less jobs) they would or should pick the former.
As much as cities and states can regulating employment rules, and taxi rules, they can also regulate rules for use of autonomous vehicles. So, when it comes down to it, they don't have to choose a regulatory regime that makes either of those options viable.
"regulatory assault" is a funny term to apply to the Uber situation where Uber ignores existing regulatory frameworks only to then whine when regulators do what regulators exist for.
I was being loose, or casual with my wording. I don't believe that Uber is being targeted, however disruption is part of their model, and that normally involves choosing which rules to obey and forcing the rules you do not want to obey, to change.
They probably wouldn't if these were applies globally. Thankfully (for them) each country, state, district etc. has their own sub contractor vs. employee threshold.
