Uber hemorrhages cash. Why is this so hard for people to understand? It is not a business success and we shouldn't be modeling our infrastructure after it.

It might be successful someday, maybe, but how about we wait until then.

The point is that there's a market for rides in nice cars. It's unreasonable to think that's going to suddenly go away if they become driverless.

I lease a car for about $200/month. I don't own it but until the lease is up it's my car. I can put the driver's seat the way I want and it stays there. I know where all the features are and how to use them. It's comfortable, clean, and smells nice.

I find it hard to believe I'll still get all of this for the same relative price in a future when I'm renting rides from an autonomous fleet.

I think the profit motive will increase margins.

I think the profit motive would lead to somebody serving the top end of the market. People aren't going to give up their BMWs unless the experience is better.

You mean like how Uber itself began with black cars only, then started moving further and further downmarket with increased investor pressure, even reaching the humiliating step of dealing in subprime loans?

You're right to imply that initially there would (probably) be a luxury factor to get the sector off the ground -- what's the opposite of a loss leader? -- but the invisible hand reaches through the centuries and demands satisfaction, or so the story goes.

People will pick based on cost. Look at air travel: everyone bitches about the low-cost airlines with their narrow seats and $5 sandwiches, but they fly with them anyway.

First, there isn't an individual plane coming to pick you up (not for most flyers).

Second, you can still fly first class if you want a better experience.

Most people don't buy BMWs either, but enough do that they stay in business. Uber doesn't compete with public transit by bus, either.