In this scenario, Uber should be able to maintain their own cars at a lower cost than individual car owners can, due to their scale. They would also probably be able to buy the cars for less to begin with.
Keeping in mind that Hypercar would have to pay car-loaners at least the amount that the car loan is costing them in maintenance & depreciation (or else who would loan their car), Uber would come out ahead.
Maybe in the short-term, this Hypercar company could rely on car-loaners to underestimate maintenance/depreciation costs but surely that would only last so long.
Isn't your last sentence also entirely true of Uber's current business model?
if "Uber should be able to maintain their own cars at a lower cost than individual car owners can", then Uber should be buying cars today and leasing them out to their contractor drivers. Truck fleets do this, pretty much, so it's not a completely crazy idea. Uber isn't doing that, which suggests that Uber thinks its a better deal for them to have their drivers shoulder the ownership, maintenance and depreciation costs of the capital. Why does self-driving change this?
Only reasons that seems to make sense is because people think that Uber is only compensating their drivers for their labor - but they're not; they are compensating them for their labor as a driver plus the lease and use of their car.
In German Cities Car Sharing is becoming very popular and a lot of Manufacturers have introduced their own car sharing offers or formed Partnerships with existing Companies. Tesla probably would do the same, because otherwise they would risk that Uber buys their cars elsewhere next time.
Your ignoring time value of money. Car depreciation is far from 1:1 with miles driven.
Also, I might need a self-driving car to do a 60 mile trip to work and home every day. But, during work I may be better off letting the car drive others than pay for parking.
Comments
In this scenario, Uber should be able to maintain their own cars at a lower cost than individual car owners can, due to their scale. They would also probably be able to buy the cars for less to begin with.
Keeping in mind that Hypercar would have to pay car-loaners at least the amount that the car loan is costing them in maintenance & depreciation (or else who would loan their car), Uber would come out ahead.
Maybe in the short-term, this Hypercar company could rely on car-loaners to underestimate maintenance/depreciation costs but surely that would only last so long.
Isn't your last sentence also entirely true of Uber's current business model?
if "Uber should be able to maintain their own cars at a lower cost than individual car owners can", then Uber should be buying cars today and leasing them out to their contractor drivers. Truck fleets do this, pretty much, so it's not a completely crazy idea. Uber isn't doing that, which suggests that Uber thinks its a better deal for them to have their drivers shoulder the ownership, maintenance and depreciation costs of the capital. Why does self-driving change this?
Only reasons that seems to make sense is because people think that Uber is only compensating their drivers for their labor - but they're not; they are compensating them for their labor as a driver plus the lease and use of their car.
Without self-driving cars, there's not a good way to have contract drivers who can just work whenever.
In German Cities Car Sharing is becoming very popular and a lot of Manufacturers have introduced their own car sharing offers or formed Partnerships with existing Companies. Tesla probably would do the same, because otherwise they would risk that Uber buys their cars elsewhere next time.
Your ignoring time value of money. Car depreciation is far from 1:1 with miles driven.
Also, I might need a self-driving car to do a 60 mile trip to work and home every day. But, during work I may be better off letting the car drive others than pay for parking.