4 ms·

> But the real play here is to use taxi service as a pretext/generator for building up an on-demand courier service [1] with superior returns So people will dr

by freyir 10y ago

> But the real play here is to use taxi service as a pretext/generator for building up an on-demand courier service [1] with superior returns So people will drive their sedans around the city delivering flowers and cakes and laundry? And instead of picking up flowers at the flower store, or laundry from the laundromat down the street, I'll pay $5 more for everything to have it delivered? Uber and Lyft's master plan for superior returns is to become Postmates? Somehow I'm skeptical. > picking up passengers serves as a baseline load ... to keep drivers incentivized to be on the roads, but the real prize will be the courier tasks. Why waste valuable space with bodies if courier tasks are the real prize? Drivers are incentivized by money. If drivers could make more money driving dresses than humans, most would fill their car with dresses and kick the humans to the curb.

alsetmusic 10y ago
I pay extra to get my groceries delivered because it saves me time. I also tested same-day delivery services from Amazon and Apple in the last several months. Amazon is a little different, but my local Apple Store and supermarket are pretty close. However, I used to suffer a grueling commute and it made me hate driving. I'm now happy to pay someone to reduce the time that I have to spend behind the wheel.
- freyir 10y ago
  I know that Instacart/Postmates/etc. exist, are convenient, and are used by some people. I'm just skeptical that this is Uber's plan for "superior returns." I'm skeptical that driving bouquets and salads and clothes around town will be significantly more profitable than driving passengers.
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  >I pay extra to get my groceries delivered because it saves me time. That vast majority of Americans do everything they can to save a few bucks, even when it's an inefficient use of resources (time and money). I'm not sure "nickel and diming" a few wealthy people for home delivery is a $60BB business. There's not a huge barrier to entry and margins are low. But what do I know.
  - adventured 10y ago
    > I'm not sure "nickel and diming" a few wealthy people for home delivery is a $60BB business A few? With between 11 and 13 million millionaires in the US, it's a $60 billion business. And that's ignoring the vast number of people in the US earning $150,000+ in a household while not being millionaires; people that can easily afford such services. And then there's this: "The Richest Generation in U.S. History Just Keeps Getting Richer" http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-12/the-richest-generation-in-u-s-history-just-keeps-getting-richer http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-12/the-riches... The boomers are getting older and richer, and will benefit massively from courier services.
    - forgetsusername 10y ago
      >With between 11 and 13 million millionaires in the US, it's a $60 billion business. What are you basing that on, without knowing any financial information? If the mere existence of millionaires makes a massive company viable, then what company isn't? Do you believe that the very wealthy, today, are doing these things themselves, and that an Uber courier is solving a huge problem for them? Paying people to deliver stuff isn't new. Neither is driving people around. What Uber has done is made in convenient and, thus far, inexpensive. Do you think Uber will reap massive margins here? The barrier to entry is very low.
    - freyir 10y ago
      By this logic, you can say "We'll do X for rich people. Since there are so many millionaires, it's a $60B business" for just about any hare-brained scheme. If Lyft is burning $50M/month driving me across town for $15, or me and two strangers for $5 each, how does substituting a person for a dress or a shaving kit or a bag of groceries suddenly make it hugely profitable? And if this is the case, why isn't Postmates / Instacart/ etc. getting billions in VC money to expand and corner this underserved market? Why did all the courier startups immediately go belly up in the dot-com bubble last time around?
- sfifs 10y ago
  In most economies, it's only the top 5-10% that really can afford to value time over cash. The rest are happy to trade off their time and effort to conserve cash. That's a market for sure - but really not such a big market.
  - jamesroseman 10y ago
    I think you might be underestimating the size of the "on-demand industry"[1]. I'm hardly in the top 5-10% and I tried out Drizly in place of my beer run on Friday night and paid a $5 premium for my 6 pack to be delivered. I valued my time in the moment more than $5 and told myself it was a once in a while thing. I'm sure on-demand groceries, dry cleaning, etc all just hope for that market of people who tell themselves they don't use these services too frequently. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/the-on-demand-economy-2014-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/the-on-demand-economy-2014-7
    - salemh 10y ago
      That entire article only speaks to investment of the on-demand industry, and its "potential". Citing "uberfication" of services and a "rise of 1099 contractors" means nothing for who will actually pay for the services.

by freyir 10y ago

alsetmusic 10y ago

I pay extra to get my groceries delivered because it saves me time. I also tested same-day delivery services from Amazon and Apple in the last several months. Amazon is a little different, but my local Apple Store and supermarket are pretty close. However, I used to suffer a grueling commute and it made me hate driving. I'm now happy to pay someone to reduce the time that I have to spend behind the wheel.

freyir 10y ago
I know that Instacart/Postmates/etc. exist, are convenient, and are used by some people. I'm just skeptical that this is Uber's plan for "superior returns." I'm skeptical that driving bouquets and salads and clothes around town will be significantly more profitable than driving passengers.
forgetsusername 10y ago
>I pay extra to get my groceries delivered because it saves me time. That vast majority of Americans do everything they can to save a few bucks, even when it's an inefficient use of resources (time and money). I'm not sure "nickel and diming" a few wealthy people for home delivery is a $60BB business. There's not a huge barrier to entry and margins are low. But what do I know.
- adventured 10y ago
  > I'm not sure "nickel and diming" a few wealthy people for home delivery is a $60BB business A few? With between 11 and 13 million millionaires in the US, it's a $60 billion business. And that's ignoring the vast number of people in the US earning $150,000+ in a household while not being millionaires; people that can easily afford such services. And then there's this: "The Richest Generation in U.S. History Just Keeps Getting Richer" http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-12/the-richest-generation-in-u-s-history-just-keeps-getting-richer http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-12/the-riches... The boomers are getting older and richer, and will benefit massively from courier services.
  - forgetsusername 10y ago
    >With between 11 and 13 million millionaires in the US, it's a $60 billion business. What are you basing that on, without knowing any financial information? If the mere existence of millionaires makes a massive company viable, then what company isn't? Do you believe that the very wealthy, today, are doing these things themselves, and that an Uber courier is solving a huge problem for them? Paying people to deliver stuff isn't new. Neither is driving people around. What Uber has done is made in convenient and, thus far, inexpensive. Do you think Uber will reap massive margins here? The barrier to entry is very low.
  - freyir 10y ago
    By this logic, you can say "We'll do X for rich people. Since there are so many millionaires, it's a $60B business" for just about any hare-brained scheme. If Lyft is burning $50M/month driving me across town for $15, or me and two strangers for $5 each, how does substituting a person for a dress or a shaving kit or a bag of groceries suddenly make it hugely profitable? And if this is the case, why isn't Postmates / Instacart/ etc. getting billions in VC money to expand and corner this underserved market? Why did all the courier startups immediately go belly up in the dot-com bubble last time around?
sfifs 10y ago
In most economies, it's only the top 5-10% that really can afford to value time over cash. The rest are happy to trade off their time and effort to conserve cash. That's a market for sure - but really not such a big market.
- jamesroseman 10y ago
  I think you might be underestimating the size of the "on-demand industry"[1]. I'm hardly in the top 5-10% and I tried out Drizly in place of my beer run on Friday night and paid a $5 premium for my 6 pack to be delivered. I valued my time in the moment more than $5 and told myself it was a once in a while thing. I'm sure on-demand groceries, dry cleaning, etc all just hope for that market of people who tell themselves they don't use these services too frequently. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/the-on-demand-economy-2014-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/the-on-demand-economy-2014-7
  - salemh 10y ago
    That entire article only speaks to investment of the on-demand industry, and its "potential". Citing "uberfication" of services and a "rise of 1099 contractors" means nothing for who will actually pay for the services.