5 ms·

The prices will go up and then, at least in the bay area, some time will pass, then some other ride share company with a slightly different take on things will

by imh 10y ago

The prices will go up and then, at least in the bay area, some time will pass, then some other ride share company with a slightly different take on things will start with their own VC subsidized business model. We'll all switch to it, bemoaning how Uber/Lyft used to be so much better before they got greedy and raised the prices.

SerLava 10y ago
Reminds me of image hosting services and social sites. Oh I'm sure we can make money with all these users. I mean there are so many of them. We just have to wait until the incumbent starts collapsing, and burn money until we start collapsing, and someone else figures all those users must be worth something, so they start burning money, and...
- oblio 10y ago
  The problem with this comparison is that image hosting services have a really low social and political impact. Ride sharing on the other hand... can't really be a giant Ponzi scheme.
  - mulmen 10y ago
    I'll bite, which ride sharing program isn't running on investment capital and is actually supporting itself? They all look like Ponzi schemes at the moment.
    - SerLava 10y ago
      I think by "can't" he means "shouldn't."
      - oblio 10y ago
        Yeah, I meant "shouldn't". Sorry about that.
        mulmen 10y ago
        Ah, yeah, I see that now.
    - narrator 10y ago
      Good old traditional taxi service makes money. They even have apps now.
      - qeternity 10y ago
        Regulated taxis are ponzis alright, it's just rigged by governments and investment is forced upon citizens. Absolutely no reason why an extremely commoditized good like transportation should have fixed rates set by a central planner. Uber/Lyft et al may not be perfect, but we will get there. It's tough to deregulate industries.
        quickben 10y ago
        But, your rant does nothing to invalidate his point. Cabbies are in plus money wise. Chances are zero all taxis in the world will vanish, while Uber+lift can't subsidize forever.
        stickfigure 10y ago
        Taxis are subsidized by artificial scarcity (medallion quotas).
        sangnoir 10y ago
        Only in certain jurisdictions
        ams6110 10y ago
        Is there a major US city where taxis are not regulated and licensed (by medallion or otherwise) creating an artificial scarcity?
        sangnoir 10y ago
        I'm not familiar enough with the US taxi bylaws to answer that. Is there a particular reason you are restricting scope to only the US? Taxis and "ride sharing" organizations are an international phenomenon: I'd say the majority of jurisdictions do not have medallions. And the upstream point remains - most taxis can now be hailed via mobile apps.
rajacombinator 10y ago
But long before that these companies will be dumped into all our index funds and 401ks.
- wlievens 10y ago
  That's indeed one of the reasons I'm sceptical of broad passive investing: you include many companies that are either evil or have a bullshit business model.
  - chimeracoder 10y ago
    > That's indeed one of the reasons I'm sceptical of broad passive investing: you include many companies that are either evil or have a bullshit business model. If you don't like a company that you're invested in through an index fund, you can always offset that part of your portfolio with a call/put option or a short (depending on your horizon).
amelius 10y ago
Yes, transportation is ultimately just a commodity. It baffles me that investors don't see this. Unless they are in it for a short ride of course.
conanbatt 10y ago
Its not an eternal funding cycle, at some point the competition makes it very unappealing for investors.
midnitewarrior 10y ago
Uber is looking to transform its business to driverless, but any well-funded new entrant that starts with self-driving vehicles will outperform Uber because it won't have billions in losses on the books from its early days using humans to drive.
- biocomputation 10y ago
  Which is why people say that the pioneers end up with the arrows in their backs.
- fragmede 10y ago
  Where are well-funded new entrant going to get self-driving cars from? Uber/Google don't have to sell self-driving cars to the public, and by the time self-driving cars happen, Uber's already got an app and the infrastructure to run the app, as well as the engineering expertise in running that infrastructure. In addition, they already have the installed base of customers that default to the Uber app for their transportation needs. Self-driving cars aren't going to take over instantly, either, so there will be a slow transition period of phasing out manual-drivers. Whether Uber's billions in losses can be amortized over that time so those losses aren't on the books so they can be competitive with a new entrant solely using self-driving cars, remains to be seen.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    From all the automakers who are also developing autonomous technology? In any case, the door-to-door 100% driverless tech that Uber/Lyft/etc. require to eliminate drivers is almost certainly many decades away. It seems unlikely they can sustain massive losses for a fraction of that time even if they did have some sort of competitive advantage once that future arrives.

by imh 10y ago

SerLava 10y ago

Reminds me of image hosting services and social sites. Oh I'm sure we can make money with all these users. I mean there are so many of them. We just have to wait until the incumbent starts collapsing, and burn money until we start collapsing, and someone else figures all those users must be worth something, so they start burning money, and...

oblio 10y ago
The problem with this comparison is that image hosting services have a really low social and political impact. Ride sharing on the other hand... can't really be a giant Ponzi scheme.
- mulmen 10y ago
  I'll bite, which ride sharing program isn't running on investment capital and is actually supporting itself? They all look like Ponzi schemes at the moment.
  - SerLava 10y ago
    I think by "can't" he means "shouldn't."
    - oblio 10y ago
      Yeah, I meant "shouldn't". Sorry about that.
      - mulmen 10y ago
        Ah, yeah, I see that now.
  - narrator 10y ago
    Good old traditional taxi service makes money. They even have apps now.
    - qeternity 10y ago
      Regulated taxis are ponzis alright, it's just rigged by governments and investment is forced upon citizens. Absolutely no reason why an extremely commoditized good like transportation should have fixed rates set by a central planner. Uber/Lyft et al may not be perfect, but we will get there. It's tough to deregulate industries.
      - quickben 10y ago
        But, your rant does nothing to invalidate his point. Cabbies are in plus money wise. Chances are zero all taxis in the world will vanish, while Uber+lift can't subsidize forever.
        stickfigure 10y ago
        Taxis are subsidized by artificial scarcity (medallion quotas).
        sangnoir 10y ago
        Only in certain jurisdictions
        ams6110 10y ago
        Is there a major US city where taxis are not regulated and licensed (by medallion or otherwise) creating an artificial scarcity?
        sangnoir 10y ago
        I'm not familiar enough with the US taxi bylaws to answer that. Is there a particular reason you are restricting scope to only the US? Taxis and "ride sharing" organizations are an international phenomenon: I'd say the majority of jurisdictions do not have medallions. And the upstream point remains - most taxis can now be hailed via mobile apps.

rajacombinator 10y ago

But long before that these companies will be dumped into all our index funds and 401ks.

wlievens 10y ago
That's indeed one of the reasons I'm sceptical of broad passive investing: you include many companies that are either evil or have a bullshit business model.
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  > That's indeed one of the reasons I'm sceptical of broad passive investing: you include many companies that are either evil or have a bullshit business model. If you don't like a company that you're invested in through an index fund, you can always offset that part of your portfolio with a call/put option or a short (depending on your horizon).

amelius 10y ago

Yes, transportation is ultimately just a commodity. It baffles me that investors don't see this. Unless they are in it for a short ride of course.

conanbatt 10y ago

Its not an eternal funding cycle, at some point the competition makes it very unappealing for investors.

midnitewarrior 10y ago

Uber is looking to transform its business to driverless, but any well-funded new entrant that starts with self-driving vehicles will outperform Uber because it won't have billions in losses on the books from its early days using humans to drive.

biocomputation 10y ago
Which is why people say that the pioneers end up with the arrows in their backs.
fragmede 10y ago
Where are well-funded new entrant going to get self-driving cars from? Uber/Google don't have to sell self-driving cars to the public, and by the time self-driving cars happen, Uber's already got an app and the infrastructure to run the app, as well as the engineering expertise in running that infrastructure. In addition, they already have the installed base of customers that default to the Uber app for their transportation needs. Self-driving cars aren't going to take over instantly, either, so there will be a slow transition period of phasing out manual-drivers. Whether Uber's billions in losses can be amortized over that time so those losses aren't on the books so they can be competitive with a new entrant solely using self-driving cars, remains to be seen.
- ghaff 10y ago
  From all the automakers who are also developing autonomous technology? In any case, the door-to-door 100% driverless tech that Uber/Lyft/etc. require to eliminate drivers is almost certainly many decades away. It seems unlikely they can sustain massive losses for a fraction of that time even if they did have some sort of competitive advantage once that future arrives.