"Count Nefaria showed a lack of humanity. But here at H.Y.D.R.A., he does not have responsibility for communications strategy or plans..."
I think Uber is fascinating (the guy's zombie-West Wing tweetstorm is terrible, obviously). It feels like how Microsoft must have been back in the day. All that mattered was market-share.
(Some really unstructured thoughts follow)
On that front -- I'm not even sure whether even market domination delivers the kind of revenue growth (and margins) being baked into $XXbn valuations at each funding round (i.e. people are just maybe confusing the taxi market and the smartphone market in size...).
But also it could be irrelevant! Even if that market grows just as Uber wants - a future where owning your own car is quaint/a hassle, but you have lots of disposable income to spend on apps like Uber - this future looks like a pretty tight labour market.
And yet Uber's "flexible" model for its drivers assumes the drivers don't have much power to bargain with it, or exit. That's how taxi medallion companies have worked in the first place! So how is that sustainable if labour markets take off?
Which is why I think it's interesting this Emil Michael chap does have the responsibility of negotiating discounts with GM & Toyota, when Uber drivers want new cars. That's already a gesture of sorts toward captive financing by Uber.
But imagine if Uber has to go further -- providing the financing itself (like any old car company already) or buying all the cars itself, either to fill with drivers or robots because it really doesn't want this labour problem.
Either way, that will suck up capital. What's return on invested capital for existing taxi medallion companies? Not good I figure.
How does Uber not end up there?