Uber looks rather negative because driver reclassification, consumer cutbacks and easy switching threaten its business. Making drivers employees could raise costs and push ride prices up around 40%. Food delivery and comfort rides are cut when budgets tighten; riders switch to Lyft or Bolt for a few euros. Tesla or Waymo could bypass Uber with their own apps, and Google can scale quickly. Despite being a great company, Uber has too many unknowns; it is preferable to stay on the sidelines. x.com 

Uber cannot be owned until its robotaxi strategy and economics are clearer, including whether it stays asset-light or pivots to asset-heavy. Calling it 10 times 2027 free cash flow may be unfair if an asset-heavy pivot sends that cash into capex. Google puts global ridesharing at $150-180 billion in gross bookings a year, reaching $200 billion by decade's end, likely not big enough for Waymo, Tesla and Uber to all win while each spends tens of billions on fleets. x.com  x.com  x.com 

Uber looks cheap, and insiders who know the company best are buying, a point @SteurJonas69716 raises. The stock is a solid buy as long as robotaxis do not kill the business, which is doubtful. x.com  x.com 

Uber's demand-side scale could let it aggregate fragmented or commoditized autonomous vehicle supply, though judging by the stock price nobody believes this. @WaterworldCapi1 argues autonomy at scale removes the need for its driver network and invites many competitors. But scaling rivals may not be cheap, Uber need not build its own fleets, and the shift will take decades, giving a hybrid network time. The stock becomes interesting only if the price gets low enough. x.com  x.com  x.com  x.com 

Tesla and Alphabet do not need to destroy Uber to hurt its shareholders; they only need to change the industry's economics. If autonomous vehicles lower cost per mile, pricing pressure follows, so Uber could post record ride volume and still earn less per ride. Uber's fight with Lyft already brought lower prices, incentives and margin pressure; two well-funded rivals with a far lower cost base will fight for the densest, most profitable markets, so assuming Uber's economics hold is aggressive. … Show more

Uber is cheap because it is priced as a self-driving loser, yet self-driving tech should become commoditized, making off-peak demand management the key differentiator; if private cars become autonomous and shared, Uber would likely manage that. Its own autonomous plans look viable, a Delivery Hero takeover would be very good, and Appaloosa, which did well buying Lyft, is very long. Longer term, managing fleets of shared robots for cleaning, cooking or home care could be big. x.com 

Uber remains a stock to avoid because robotaxis threaten its take rate. That view could change if Uber adapts, pivots and proves it wrong. x.com 

Uber's valuation is out of balance with its fundamental trajectory over the medium term, and the long-term thesis is less convincing than it once was. It became a cash-flow machine sooner than expected, but the past couple of years have been a grind. It is a hold now and a sell if it reaches the top of its technical channel around $100. x.com  x.com 

Uber trades as if its entire business is already doomed by robotaxis, even though it is doing extremely well right now. The setup resembles software stocks after the AI scare: investors assumed software was finished, then many of those stocks rallied 50% when reality proved less disastrous than the narrative. Robotaxis may eventually disrupt Uber, or they may not. x.com 

Uber's alleged fight against robotaxis in Washington, D.C., favors Tesla over Uber. @wholemars says Uber is trying to keep them out of the city and that riding in one builds public support. Sell Uber, buy Tesla. x.com