Uber's brand doesn't seem very strong to me ("Oh yeah! Uber! They're the ones who deny any responsibility for accidents and attempted kidnappings of users of their service, right?"), and in any case it's only going to be significant for the tiny fraction of the travelling population who currently use Uber. The vast majority (for whom the human chauffeur model is too expensive) will have no brand loyalty at all, and are there for the taking. Also, for Google, getting the necessary visibility is basically effortless. They have Maps (which Uber integrated their hail system into for a reason), and they have incredible robot cars that will be featured everywhere when they appear anywhere.
As for the trip data:
a) I don't think this is either worth as much or is as hard to get as Uber would like their investors to think. You only really need average bulk commuter flows in order to get a near optimal fleet distribution, and this is surprisingly easy to get surprisingly quickly, and especially easy to manage when you don't need to worry about the vehicle distribution constraints human drivers create.
b) Google have this data in spades through Android device tracking. It doesn't matter that it's anonymized and aggregated, because individual trips don't matter; only having your cars in roughly the right place to respond to specific demands.
I think Uber have grossly misrepresented the extent to which this market (personal transport using self driving vehicles) will be 'winner take most', and equally grossly misrepresented the extent to which their current position creates any sort of moat guaranteeing them the 'win'.