So you're saying Uber is a tech company for being what it is. But it wouldn't be a tech company if it is exactly what it is today but also owns the cars the driver's use?
So by that logic if Uber ever does migrate completely to a self-driving taxi system, it is no longer a tech company.
> So by that logic if Uber ever does migrate completely to a self-driving taxi system, it is no longer a tech company.
That seems fair to say. If Uber transitions to self-driving taxis the whole business model will be radically different. They'll have to employ hordes of mechanics, and lease huge garages to store vehicles and run repair bays. They'll have massive capital expenses, a complex supply chain to manage, and a large distributed and probably unionized workforce to negotiate with. Their geographic distribution, legal exposure, exposure to economic shifts like tariffs, reliance on capital markets, number of employees, etc... will all be radically different. It seems fairly obvious to say that pre-self-driving and hypothetical post-self-driving Uber are totally different kinds of companies.
Yeah, pretty much. They would be a fleet management company at that point. They might be more high-tech than most fleet management businesses, but their core business would be fleet management, not tech.
So by that logic if Uber ever does migrate completely to a self-driving taxi system, it is no longer a tech company.