@aleximm@bgurley@yipitdata@Uber@lyft@WaymoCommunity Therefore there will continue to be a need for a demand aggregator like Uber. And rides per capita should probably increase with AVs, creating a larger opportunity for Uber.
@aleximm@bgurley@yipitdata@Uber@lyft@WaymoCommunity AV software is highly unlikely to be a winner take all market. There are real constraints to blitzscaling but probably more important, regulators will not want nor allow a single AV vendor to dominate, for economic but also security + privacy reasons.
@Rebrand_As_Y It’s an interesting analogy but all that really matters for Uber is if autonomous will be a 1-2 player market or a 4-6 player market, and it’s too early to know that. Trends in SF will change quickly if there are 4-5 new AV operators who all are looking for demand generation.
@modestproposal1 I see it as actually disincentivizing Apple to invest in search. Google can’t preference search on Android phones, but Apple can on iPhones and can own Safari? If Apple were successful they would likely be sued on the same grounds in the future.
Interesting to note that four of the five artists on Spotify’s Top 5 Songs of Summer are with Universal, particularly in light of the expanded relationship between Spotify and Universal focused on promotional tools and discovery announced earlier this year
@TechFundies What you are saying is fair if Waymo is the only AV operator. But the dynamics will change a lot if other AV operators come to market before Waymo has won. If 4 or 5 fleets have vehicles available on Uber, then it becomes harder for Waymo to run at the necessary utilization.
@dalibali2@Mr_Neutral_Man Right but on that basis the $50m of annual bookings that Waymo is doing is not noticeably impacting Uber or Lyft in 2024 or 2025 either
@dalibali2 Yea, the question is if Waymo can actually sustain their own network in an economically viable way or if they need to plug in to Uber to generate demand.
1/n
The fact that the DOJ may seek a divestiture of Android as a remedy in the Google lawsuit shows that the DOJ is not only willing to look past the consumer welfare standard, but is actually open to harming the consumer to book a headline win.
Google+Android would be better off, while consumers would suffer.
But the DOJ team would have their names enshrined in the antitrust history books, and at the end of the day isn’t that all that matters?