In what way is the ride-share market any sort of monopoly when there's little barrier to entry. In fact, I see new entrants in this market all the time. Hardly any chance to be a real monopoly unless they can somehow carve their way to exclusivity in a market, which is never going to happen.
Their long-term play is driverless cards--buy or lease fleet cars, then charge people a subscription to commute or use the cars a certain amount per month. The current business is building brand awareness and inertia.
But for the manufacturers of autonomous vehicles- why would they sell cars Uber at a ~5% margin per car when they can offer the robotaxi service themselves and command a ~25% margin per trip?
That's easy. Because don't have to worry about finding customers, fighting off competition, and competing with their customers (like Uber). They just have to worry about building cars.
Further, they're also collecting massive amounts of data about commuting patterns that will give them an edge over new entrants once driverless cars are a thing.
The ride-sharing market stops being a free-for-all once many people start to share a car and it's critical to find the most optimal route for them. Than having large masses of users become critical.
The only thing i find curious - why is UBER/LYFT so slow in attacking the true sharing market ?
Yep. I've been creeped on by drivers before. Not many, but it's enough that I've taken to cancelling more rides than I would have in the past (generally: male driver I don't know + low rating + nighttime = cancel). Having to deal with sharing a car with not just one stranger, but two or more strangers? Nuh-uh. At least most drivers won't creep on me because they want to keep their jobs; fellow passengers, on the other hand, don't have that incentive.
