Does Waymo still need Uber?

Does Waymo still need Uber?

Why is Waymo reconsidering Uber right now?

Waymo is reconsidering Uber because the partnership has lately created almost as much strategic friction as operational help.

The clearest change came from the Financial Times, which reported that Waymo has discussed ending the broader relationship and operating independently in Austin and Atlanta once the current agreement allows it. The report described unusually practical disputes: Waymo complained about dirty vehicles and poor fleet routing, while Uber criticized Waymo cars suddenly becoming unavailable during bad weather and reportedly called the financial terms unsustainable.

Neither company has publicly confirmed a full breakup. Still, these are deeper disagreements than a routine contract negotiation. Uber wants a reliable supply of autonomous vehicles that behaves like another category inside its marketplace. Waymo wants tight control over how its technology, vehicles and brand are presented to passengers. Those goals worked together during the early launch period, but they are pulling apart as Waymo becomes large enough to operate directly.

The recent end of their Phoenix arrangement adds weight to the report. The Phoenix deployment was small, with just over a dozen dedicated vehicles, yet Waymo said it had completed hundreds of thousands of Uber trips there. Waymo then transferred those cars back into its own local fleet rather than renewing the arrangement. Phoenix was modest in size, but it showed that Waymo was comfortable removing Uber from a functioning market.

For now, Waymo still depends on Uber in Austin and Atlanta. Its recent actions suggest that it sees this dependence as temporary.

What would it actually mean for Waymo to need Uber?

Waymo truly needs Uber only if losing the partnership would prevent Waymo from finding riders, operating vehicles, entering cities or building a viable business.

Uber can remain extremely useful without being essential. A useful partner makes a service faster, cheaper or easier to scale. An essential partner controls a resource that the company cannot realistically replace.

For Waymo, the practical questions are fairly simple. Can the Waymo app generate enough bookings to keep cars busy? Can another company clean, charge and maintain the fleet? Can Waymo open new cities without being placed inside Uber’s existing app? And can Waymo afford the extra work involved in dealing directly with passengers?

We found strong evidence that Waymo can handle the first three. The economics remain harder to judge because neither Waymo nor Uber publishes the revenue split, operating costs or profit per autonomous trip.

Where Uber could be essential	What would prove dependence	What the evidence currently shows
Passenger demand	Waymo cars remain underused without Uber bookings	Waymo already attracts large direct demand in several cities
Fleet operations	No other company can manage charging, cleaning and depots	Moove, Avis and Lyft already perform these jobs
Market expansion	Waymo cannot enter cities through its own app	Waymo has recently opened several direct-app markets
Economics	Direct operations cost far more than using Uber	Public data remain insufficient

How much of Waymo still depends on Uber today?

Waymo currently relies on Uber in two of its eleven commercial US markets, so Uber controls an important part of Waymo’s network rather than the network as a whole.

Waymo’s current service information lists nine markets where passengers use the Waymo app: the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Miami, Orlando, Nashville, Dallas, Houston and San Antonio. Austin and Atlanta remain available through Uber.

That means roughly 18% of Waymo’s current city footprint uses Uber as the exclusive booking channel. The percentage of rides could be higher because Austin and Atlanta have hundreds of Waymo vehicles and may produce more trips than some newer cities. Neither company publishes ride volume by market, so city count cannot tell us Uber’s precise share of Waymo bookings.

Alphabet’s latest disclosed figure remains more than 500,000 fully autonomous rides per week, double the level reported less than a year earlier. Alphabet’s most recent earnings call discussed the introduction of Waymo’s new Ojai vehicle but provided no newer weekly ride total. Waymo also says its service now covers more than 1,400 square miles across the eleven cities.

The geographical pattern is already clear. Uber remains central in two large launches, while Waymo has built most of its current commercial footprint around its own app.

Waymo booking model	Current markets	Share of current city footprint
Waymo app	San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Miami, Orlando, Nashville, Dallas, Houston and San Antonio	9 of 11 markets
Uber app	Austin and Atlanta	2 of 11 markets

If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest autonomous vehicle market report.

Did Uber make Waymo’s Austin and Atlanta launches materially stronger?

Uber materially strengthened Waymo’s Austin and Atlanta launches by supplying immediate demand, local fleet operations and a fallback network of human drivers.

Passengers in those cities did not need to discover Waymo independently, download another app or commit to choosing a robotaxi. They could order an UberX, Uber Comfort or another eligible Uber product and be matched with a Waymo vehicle when one was nearby. That placed autonomous cars inside a booking flow people were already using.

Uber also handled vehicle dispatching, cleaning, repairs and depot operations. The partnership was designed to grow to hundreds of vehicles, which allowed Waymo to enter both cities without building every local operating function itself.

An estimate from Wolfe Research helps measure the effect. The firm calculated that Waymo vehicles in Austin were completing around 28 trips per day, compared with approximately 21 to 22 trips in San Francisco. That would make Austin utilization roughly 30% higher, despite San Francisco being Waymo’s most mature direct market.

The estimate is based on Wolfe’s model rather than official Waymo data, and differences between the two cities may explain part of the gap. Even with that caveat, Uber appears to have solved the early demand problem very effectively. A new vehicle entering Austin could immediately draw bookings from a large pool of existing ride-hailing customers.

Uber gave Waymo a much better launch engine. Waymo’s growing direct operation shows that the engine can eventually be replaced.

Can Waymo attract enough riders through its own app?

Waymo can now attract substantial demand through its own app, especially after people in a city have seen the vehicles and understand the service.

Florida provides the strongest recent example. Waymo said more than 150,000 people from its initial interest lists had ridden in Miami and Orlando before both services opened to everyone. Earlier, nearly 10,000 Miami residents had signed up before the city’s first public rollout.

The pattern also appeared in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Orlando, where tens of thousands of people downloaded the Waymo app before the first invitations went out. These figures do not prove that every curious user becomes a regular customer, but they show that Waymo can create a large opening audience without being hidden inside Uber.

Waymo is also building features that make little sense for a novelty service. Its new Waymo Premier membership costs $29.99 per month and offers priority matching, 10% back in Waymo credits, early access and more flexible cancellations. The initial markets are San Francisco, Los Angeles and Phoenix.

A paid membership targets commuters and frequent riders rather than people trying a robotaxi once. It also gives Waymo direct access to purchase frequency, loyalty, promotions and customer feedback. Uber would control much of that relationship when the booking occurs through its app.

We still lack retention rates, acquisition costs and trips per active customer. Those missing figures prevent us from calling Waymo’s direct demand engine fully mature. But the available evidence already looks like a real consumer platform, with waiting lists, repeat riders and a subscription product.

If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest autonomous vehicle market report.

Has Waymo proved it can compete directly with Uber?

Waymo has already proved that a direct robotaxi service can take meaningful ride-hailing share from Uber, although the strongest evidence comes from San Francisco.

Wolfe Research estimated that Waymo had captured about 22% of rides beginning and ending inside its San Francisco operating zone. That placed Waymo within roughly one percentage point of Lyft, while Uber retained an estimated share of around 55%.

The exact percentages should be treated as estimates rather than official market statistics. Wolfe combined regulatory data with its own modelling, and the comparison excludes trips outside Waymo’s service zone. Airport journeys were also missing from the earlier analysis because Waymo did not yet serve the airport.

The scale of the change is harder to dismiss. Waymo had almost no commercial share when its San Francisco service began. Reaching roughly one-fifth of eligible local rides within around two years shows that passengers were using the service as transport, not merely trying it once as a technology demonstration.

Pricing has also become more competitive. Obi analysed 94,348 identical ride requests across Waymo, Uber, Lyft and Tesla in the San Francisco Bay Area. The average Waymo fare was $19.69, compared with $17.47 for Uber, leaving Waymo about 12.7% more expensive. Several months earlier, the Waymo premium had been approximately 30% to 40%.

For trips between 4.3 and 9.3 kilometres, Obi found that Waymo was only 2% more expensive than Uber per kilometre. The average Waymo pickup estimate was 5.74 minutes and was frequently shorter than Uber outside the afternoon peak.

Waymo may be supporting these fares while it expands, and public data reveal nothing about profit per trip. Even so, the direct service is already close enough to Uber on price and waiting time to compete for ordinary journeys.

Does Uber’s customer base still give Waymo a decisive advantage?

Uber’s customer base still gives Waymo a powerful launch advantage, but Waymo’s survival no longer depends on access to it.

Uber reported 199 million monthly active platform customers and 3.643 billion trips during its latest reported quarter. It also reached 50 million Uber One members, who generated half of the company’s mobility and delivery bookings.

For a rough sense of scale, Waymo’s latest weekly run rate would produce around 6.5 million rides over a thirteen-week quarter. Uber’s total quarterly trip count is roughly 560 times larger. The comparison includes food delivery, international markets and cities where Waymo is absent, so it overstates the customer pool Waymo could actually use. The order of magnitude still explains Uber’s bargaining power.

The real advantage comes from density within each city. Uber receives requests at almost every hour, across many neighbourhoods and for several types of vehicle. Adding a few hundred robotaxis to that system gives Uber many chances to find a nearby passenger and reduce the time each car spends empty.

Waymo must create enough concentrated demand inside its own service boundary. That is difficult during a launch and easier after the local brand becomes familiar. San Francisco shows what happens once Waymo reaches that point: the direct network can fill cars, charge competitive prices and take a meaningful share of local trips.

Uber’s audience is most valuable during the first stage of a city. Its importance falls as Waymo’s own local demand grows.

If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest autonomous vehicle market report.

Does Waymo still need Uber to run the physical fleet?

Waymo still needs companies to clean, charge, inspect and maintain its robotaxis, but Uber has already been replaced in those roles across several markets.

Moove manages vehicle operations, charging infrastructure and facilities for Waymo in Phoenix and Miami. Passengers continue to order those rides through the Waymo app.

Avis provides end-to-end fleet management in Dallas, including vehicle readiness, maintenance, infrastructure and depot operations. The customer again books through Waymo.

Lyft’s Flexdrive division manages the Nashville fleet. Waymo opened the city through its own app and plans to add Lyft bookings later. That arrangement separates fleet management from passenger distribution instead of giving both responsibilities to one partner.

Uber currently combines these functions in Austin and Atlanta. The structure is convenient because one company handles demand, dispatch and daily vehicle care. Waymo’s other partnerships show that the individual jobs can be purchased separately.

This approach requires more coordination from Waymo, but it also gives the company more freedom. A problem with one operator can be addressed locally without handing over the wider customer network or autonomous-driving technology.

Waymo remains dependent on an operating ecosystem. No single fleet operator appears indispensable.

What does Uber offer Waymo that fleet managers cannot?

Uber gives Waymo a combination of passenger demand, fleet coordination and human-driver backup that Moove or Avis cannot match alone.

Uber has turned that package into a formal product called Uber Autonomous Solutions. The company offers partners demand generation, dispatching, fleet support, customer service, remote assistance, financing help, event management and access to local operating knowledge built across billions of trips.

The human-driver network is the hardest part for Waymo to reproduce. When autonomous vehicles are unavailable, Uber can give the customer another car. Waymo’s own app cannot currently replace a robotaxi with a human-driven Waymo vehicle.

Recent disruptions show why that flexibility has value. Waymo temporarily paused service in several southern cities during severe storms after vehicles encountered flooded roads. The company also suspended freeway rides while updating how the system handled construction zones. A Waymo customer affected by those restrictions had to arrange another form of transport, while an Uber customer could still be matched with a human driver.

The mixed network also helps during unusual demand. A concert, airport disruption or sudden storm can overwhelm a fixed robotaxi fleet. Uber can shift bookings toward human drivers instead of leaving the passenger without an available ride.

Waymo can reduce these interruptions as its software and fleet improve. The company may also decide that passengers will tolerate occasional limitations, just as they tolerate delays or cancellations from other transport services. Today, though, Uber provides a broader promise: the customer receives a ride even when the autonomous option cannot complete it.

That advantage improves reliability considerably. Waymo has already shown that a robotaxi-only network can operate without it.

Are the Waymo-Uber economics still attractive?

The Waymo-Uber economics remain the least answerable part of the debate because neither company discloses the revenue split or the true cost of operating each ride.

The Financial Times reported that Uber viewed the partnership’s financial terms as unsustainable. The same report described disputes over who was responsible for vehicle availability, routing and cleanliness. Those complaints suggest that both companies believe they are providing the more valuable part of the service.

Waymo supplies the autonomous-driving system, expensive vehicles and much of the safety responsibility. Uber supplies bookings, local fleet work and customer support. Both contributions involve real costs, and each side has a credible reason to demand a large share of passenger revenue.

Moving bookings into the Waymo app would allow Waymo to retain more of each fare. The company would also gain control over pricing, promotions, subscriptions and customer data. That extra revenue comes with additional expenses: marketing, payments, support, refunds and the risk that cars remain empty while Waymo develops local demand.

Using Uber could still be cheaper in some cities, even after Uber takes its share. No public evidence lets us calculate the difference.

Waymo has more freedom to tolerate short-term inefficiency after raising $16 billion at a $126 billion post-money valuation. That capital allows the company to choose direct customer ownership even when outsourcing everything to Uber might produce faster near-term growth.

Financial independence remains unproven. Strategic independence is already affordable.

Why would Waymo leave Uber when Uber still helps?

Waymo would leave Uber to avoid becoming one anonymous robotaxi supplier inside a marketplace controlled by someone else.

When an Uber customer is matched with a Waymo, Uber controls the starting point of the transaction. Uber decides how prominently autonomous rides appear, what alternatives surround them and which autonomous company receives a booking. The passenger may remember ordering an Uber more clearly than riding in a Waymo.

Direct bookings give Waymo control over the entire relationship. Waymo sets the price, presents the service, handles loyalty, sells Premier memberships and learns which passengers return. That information becomes more valuable as robotaxis move from an occasional experience into a routine transport habit.

Uber’s expanding autonomous portfolio makes the issue more urgent. Uber is signing agreements with Zoox, Rivian, Nuro, Lucid, Motional, Avride, Wayve and several other companies. Its long-term strategy is built around offering many autonomous fleets rather than making Waymo the permanent default.

Waymo has the opposite incentive. Its advantage comes from having the strongest proven autonomous-driving system at commercial scale. Allowing Uber to treat that system as interchangeable inventory would weaken Waymo’s consumer brand and give Uber more influence over pricing.

The reported plan to offer direct service in Austin and Atlanta after the current restrictions expire fits this logic. Waymo could use Uber to establish local familiarity and later invite riders into the Waymo app.

Some customers would remain with Uber because they value the human-driver fallback or prefer keeping every journey in one application. Waymo does not need to convert everyone. It needs enough direct riders to keep its fleet busy and protect control of the product.

If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest autonomous vehicle market report.

Would a split with Uber slow Waymo’s expansion?

A split with Uber would probably slow some Waymo launches, particularly in cities where the Waymo brand has little existing demand.

Uber removes several early problems at once. The app already has users, payment details, support systems and a constant flow of local bookings. Uber also knows where passengers gather, how demand changes during events and how to manage large fleets through difficult operating periods.

Waymo would need to build or purchase those capabilities separately. A depot delay, poor vehicle positioning or weak initial demand could leave expensive robotaxis idle. Those risks become more serious when several cities are opening at the same time.

Waymo’s recent expansion shows that the company is learning to manage the process. It opened Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Orlando to selected public riders at the same time. Nashville followed through the Waymo app, with Lyft handling the fleet. Miami and Orlando later moved from large waiting lists to unrestricted public access.

The next-generation Ojai vehicle also recently began carrying public passengers. Its sixth-generation Waymo Driver uses a more streamlined hardware setup intended to lower costs and support deployment across more vehicle types and weather conditions. Waymo is manufacturing the vehicles with Magna and has said it is laying the groundwork for operations in more than twenty additional cities.

These launches remain early, and aggressive expansion could expose weaknesses that mature markets hide. Uber would reduce that execution risk.

The likely cost of leaving Uber is slower and less predictable expansion. Waymo now has enough capital, direct demand and operating partners to accept that cost.

Could Uber replace Waymo with other robotaxi partners?

Uber cannot replace Waymo at comparable driverless scale today, although its growing partner pipeline could change the balance after 2027.

Waymo is already completing hundreds of thousands of weekly rides without safety drivers. Most rival programmes on Uber are operating in restricted zones, using safety operators, testing without passengers or preparing for launches several years away.

Zoox is one of the closest alternatives. Uber plans to offer Zoox rides in Las Vegas and later Los Angeles, while Zoox will continue operating its own app. The initial geography and fleet will be much smaller than Waymo’s current network.

Uber’s Rivian agreement could eventually become far larger. Uber or its fleet partners expect to purchase 10,000 autonomous R2 vehicles, with an option for another 40,000. The first commercial deployments are planned for 2028, leaving substantial technology, manufacturing and regulatory work ahead.

The Lucid and Nuro programme has begun on-road testing and targets initial commercial service, followed by Houston in 2027. Again, planned vehicles should not be counted as existing driverless supply.

Uber is building credible alternatives, but Waymo remains the partner with the largest proven US operation. Over time, Uber’s portfolio could turn Waymo from a scarce supplier into one option among several.

Uber robotaxi partner	Current position	How close it is to replacing Waymo
Waymo	Large-scale fully autonomous commercial service in multiple US cities	Uber’s most proven autonomous supplier
Zoox	Commercial service developing in limited markets, with Uber distribution planned	Credible technology with a much smaller footprint
Rivian	Up to 50,000 vehicles contemplated, starting with deployments planned for 2028	Potentially large, but mainly future capacity
Lucid and Nuro	Autonomous testing underway, with commercial launches planned	Serious programme that has not reached Waymo’s operating scale

If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest autonomous vehicle market report.

Could Waymo and Uber keep working together without depending on each other?

Waymo and Uber could keep working together through a looser, non-exclusive model even if the current partnership ends.

The industry is already moving in that direction. Zoox intends to offer rides through both its own app and Uber. Waymo is doing something similar with Lyft in Nashville: riders started with the Waymo app, and Lyft access is expected to follow.

A future Waymo-Uber arrangement could use the same structure. Waymo might keep direct booking as its main channel while allowing Uber customers to access some vehicles during new launches, periods of low demand or specific types of journey. Uber would gain autonomous supply without becoming Waymo’s exclusive route to passengers.

This would reduce the conflict over control. Waymo could maintain its subscriptions, pricing and customer relationships. Uber could keep offering the convenience of a mixed network with human and autonomous vehicles.

The reported disputes may have damaged the relationship enough to prevent that compromise in Austin and Atlanta. Commercial incentives often survive personal and operational tension, especially when both sides possess something the other still values.

Waymo and Uber no longer need a permanent alliance. Selective cooperation could remain profitable for both.

Does Waymo still need Uber?

No. Waymo no longer needs Uber to build a viable robotaxi business, although Uber can still make Waymo faster and more reliable in selected cities.

Waymo’s own app already serves nine commercial markets. The company has attracted large direct waiting lists, launched a paid membership programme, approached Lyft’s estimated market share in part of San Francisco and brought its prices much closer to Uber’s. Moove, Avis and Lyft have also shown that Waymo can outsource fleet operations without surrendering the passenger relationship.

Uber retains two major advantages. Its enormous booking network can fill new vehicles immediately, and its human drivers can complete journeys when Waymo pauses service or runs out of autonomous capacity. Those strengths make Uber an excellent launch and reliability partner.

The unresolved issue is cost. We cannot determine whether Waymo earns more by operating independently because the companies hide the partnership economics and Waymo publishes no standalone profit figures. Direct control may be strategically attractive while remaining financially expensive.

Even with that uncertainty, the direction is now difficult to miss. Waymo has ended the Phoenix arrangement, developed several alternative operating partnerships and reportedly prepared to enter Austin and Atlanta independently when allowed. A company that lacked a workable alternative would be strengthening the partnership rather than designing an exit.

Uber has shifted from a potential gatekeeper into an optional distribution channel. Waymo may grow more slowly without Uber, but Uber can no longer decide whether Waymo grows at all.

If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest autonomous vehicle market report.

Who is the author of this content?

NEW MARKET PITCH TEAM

We track new markets so founders and investors can move faster

We build living "market pitch" documents for emerging markets: AI, synthetic biology, new proteins, and more. Instead of outdated PDFs or hallucinated LLM answers, our clients get a clean, visual, always-updated view of what's really happening: key players, deals, regulations, and signals that matter. Learn more about us.