You say the answer is simple, but I can't tell what your answer is.

The first half of your comment implies that Uber has a really bad negotiating position, so Waymo must be extracting most of the value.

The second half says that Alphabet (the majority owner of Waymo) will "partner with literally anyone" which would presumably mean Uber is extracting most of the value.

So which is it?

No contradiction.

The second half said that Alphabet had choices on who to partner with, so they could play them against each other, so Waymo had the upper hand in negotiations.

Got it. Maybe I was reading too much into the tone. I read "they'll partner with literally anyone to get distribution" as them being desperate to get distribution and therefore willing to take a bad deal.

This is a win-win for Google.

If the self-driving and/or roll-out is a disaster - blame Uber.

Uber has a terrible reputation. I don't think too many people will think twice about Uber taking the blame.

Just because uber is not profitable with human drivers doesn't mean it'll be the opposite without them.

> Uber can't be profitable without autonomous vehicles, so the answer IMHO here is simple.

says who?

They also can't be profitable with autonomous vehicles either.

They can be and very soon will be. Just look at their financials.