23 ms·
Why I don't believe in Uber's Success
- konschubert 10y agoIf I could bet against Uber, I would do it
- intrasight 10y agoHow would one short a pre-IPO company. Betting sites?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- matthewaveryusa 10y agoThere's a startup, dotblu I believe, that allowed you to bet on anything. It was with fake blupoints, but I think their plan was to then transform the site into a general purpose betting platform where folks like you would shell out real money on a well defined bet. I think they pivoted to do esport betting.
- stevenj 10y agoAccording to Crunchbase, DotBlu has closed. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/dotblu#/entity https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/dotblu#/entity
- epistasis 10y agoThe difficulty of shorting something like Uber is getting the timing right. Not only do you have to bet that Uber is over-valued, you also have to bet about the timing of when Uber runs out of starry-eyed investors to fuel the valuations. That is dependent on when it runs out of money, how quickly Uber decides to burn, and when the financials become clear enough to enough people that the public decides that the emperor has no clothes. (If it's actually the case that the emperor has no clothes.)
- intrasight 10y agoWe did see the same doubters in the early days of Amazon. And we see how that turned out. Personally, I'm not confident of either success or failure with Uber. They (and their investors) are making a big gamble. In their favor is that it is a very capital-intensive gamble, and I don't see any other companies stepping forward to make that investment. A large car company could do so, but they've not made the transition to thinking in terms of the future "autonomous mobility services" paradigm.
- epistasis 10y agoI think the doubts about Amazon were different though. The doubt was whether they would succeed at their goal, rather than whether the goal would actually constitute financial success. Wal-mart for the digital era is clearly a successful position, and Amazon didn't subsidize their product to the degree that Uber has had to.
- intrasight 10y agoI respectfully disagree. Amazon MASSIVELY subsidized their service. It was commonly stated, and I believe true, that shareholders were paying for that critical 2-day free shipping.
- epistasis 10y agoIn, say, 2006, $884M was spent on shipping and $567M in shipping revenue[1], so there was a subsidy of $317M. This was in total revenue of $10.71B[2]. That's a 3% subsidy, and is within a profit margin. Uber is a bit harder to pin down from a quick google [3]. I'm seeing $750M loss in the recent quarter, which are "largely" attributed to driver subsidies by third parties, but Uber isn't talking. Let's say $500 as a rough estimate, which is 10% of the $5B in bookings that quarter. So I guess Uber's subsidies aren't as high as I thought, but are still significantly higher than Amazon's. They both operate in cut throat industries with slim margins. Whereas Amazon invested in warehouses and their infrastructure. Uber may have something up their sleeve, and I hope they do, but it's not clear for an outside observer how they are anywhere as likely as Amazon was to have profits to justify their valuation. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/236503/amazons-annual-shipping-revenue-and-outbound-shipping-costs/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/236503/amazons-annual-sh... [2] http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Amazon.com_(AMZN)/Data/Revenue/2006/Q1 http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Amazon.com_(AMZN)/Data/Revenu... [3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-25/uber-loses-at-least-1-2-billion-in-first-half-of-2016 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-25/uber-lose...
- conanbatt 10y agoYou can. Buy a taxi medallion. In buenos aires they are worth about 25ku$S, and uber has been made illegal but is still operational.
- vkou 10y agoIt's possible to believe that Uber's future valuation will be lower then it currently is, and also believe that the traditional taxi companies will not be the big winners. Or to believe that they will be the big winners, but not because medallions will become valuable.
- stevenj 10y agoWhat would you bet against? Its current and/or probable IPO valuation? That it'll be around in 10 years? Because I'd be willing to make a bet (say 1k) for Uber, depending on the terms. I'd also make a bet for Lyft, depending on the terms.
- ry4n413 10y agoAny word on IPO timeline?
- iaw 10y agoEvery time I've talked to their recruiters over the last couple years it was "just around the corner."
- dmitrygr 10y agoPossibility: seeing all this, Uber looks hard at what they do have and simply becomes contract cab dispatcher for all cabs everywhere, smartly choosing which cab to call to the scene of the caller using their algorithms. And lets existing can companies so the actual driving. Why? Currently some cab companies have shitty apps, others have none. Your chances of getting a cab in a suburb of an unfamiliar city is zero. Uber can fix that.
- matthewaveryusa 10y agoThe question then becomes: Is a global taxi dispatcher worth 70 billion dollars? Maybe. Probably not.
- robotjosh 10y agoInvestors might think they will branch out into deliveries and other stuff like amazon did from books.
- dajohnson89 10y agoMy hunch is yes. I decided to do some quick math. -NYC has ~13,605 licensed taxicabs. -The average annual net income for a NYC taxi (in 2015, probably a bit lower now) was $58,555. -$58,555 * 13,605 = $796,640,775 This figure is for taxis only, in one (big) city. It leads me to think that $70 billion is not an absurd number, globally. edit: sources: https://www.yellowcabnyctaxi.com/blog/new-york-city-taxi-revenue-declines-accelerate-in-last-four-months https://www.yellowcabnyctaxi.com/blog/new-york-city-taxi-rev... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City
- bsirkia 10y agoDefinitely worth reading the Naked Capitalism series he mentions in a footnote: Part 1: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/11/can-uber-ever-deliver-part-one-understanding-ubers-bleak-operating-economics.html http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/11/can-uber-ever-deliver... Part 2: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/can-uber-ever-deliver-part-two-understanding-ubers-uncompetitive-costs.html http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/can-uber-ever-deliver... Part 3: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/can-uber-ever-deliver-part-three-understanding-false-claims-about-ubers-innovation-and-competitive-advantages.html http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/can-uber-ever-deliver... Part 4: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/can-uber-ever-deliver-part-four-understanding-that-unregulated-monopoly-was-always-ubers-central-objective.html http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/can-uber-ever-deliver... Part 5: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/can-uber-ever-deliver-part-five-addressing-reader-comments-and-questions.html http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/can-uber-ever-deliver... Part 6: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/01/can-uber-ever-deliver-part-six-bleak-pl-performance-while-stephen-levitt-makes-indefensible-claims.html http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/01/can-uber-ever-deliver...
- habosa 10y agoCan't upvote this enough. It's a rigorous analysis showing that Uber is running a VC-funded ponzi-scheme in their current iteration. It is possible that some future Uber innovation will make them profitable, but their current operation is smoke and mirrors.
- AndrewKemendo 10y agoHow do you define a successful business? Is it solely based on return to investors? How long does it need to be in business to be successful? How does Uber define success? I hear rumors that IBM is not successful anymore. Also same of GE and GM.
- aashaykumar92 10y agoDepends on how you define success. Imo, Uber will become financially successful when autonomous cars and trucks work well and are regulated.
- gaspar 10y agoThe problem is that Uber can easily be destroyed when that happens. For example, imagine that all the German automakers decide that their fleet of autonomous cars works only for an app that they developed(maximize profits). The same can happen from the Japanese automakers, etc. Another problem is that they will need A LOT of money to buy and maintain all those autonomous cars, something that they don't do now. Personally I think Uber can die under hundreds of scenarios and survive under one or two in the long run.
- cryptozeus 10y agoAmzn and tsla started reporting profits just recently. Would you call them failure?
- zitterbewegung 10y agoAmzn is profitable without burning through investment capital. Tesla is in a much better position but it also could still fail .
- sharemywin 10y agoAmzn prints money with web services. practically 0 marginal costs.
- krambs 10y agoI don't think he's saying that it will take a long time for them to turn a profit, but that they never will (or only ever will see the tiny profit margins that, say, the airline industry does).
- bryanlarsen 10y agoAs far as an investor in Uber is concerned success means valuation going up; failure means valuation going down.
- epistasis 10y agoHe addresses that notion: >In this regard Uber is pretty different from other fast growing startups. >Economies of scale won’t help, since Uber has a high fixed cost per unit associated with their service - the drivers - that won’t become significantly cheaper as the service grows. >Network effects are mostly irrelevant for Uber’s business. Yes, they need a large supply of drivers to make the service viable, but this isn’t an advantage of Uber compared to regular cabs which have sufficient availability in most cities. I also don’t see a potential network effect in Uber’s global availability. Most users take rides in their home city and they would happily switch to a local competitor with lower prices, even if that means they would need to use a different service when they are traveling. Also, Tesla will continue to generate losses until they hit full scale and stop growing, at which point they will have the economies of scale that they need to deliver profits. Amazon's "profits" or "losses" are miniscule in comparison to revenue, because they are reinvesting so much. Uber has huge losses because they are taking a loss on each ride; which would be fine if they would get something out of that growth. Amazon gets better distribution, better deals with manufacturers, and other economies of scale. What efficiency gains does Uber get as it grows? Uber pool? Is that going to be a big profit source in the future?
- sakoht 10y agoTo have a moat, they just need sufficient software/human network/infrastructure/legal infrastructure that competing requires too much investment. All of these things are a PITA, and not immediately replicable by fresh local competitors, even without the self-driving cars. The self-driving cars and consistent platform could seal the deal against the small players entering. That's not to say their valuation is correct, or anything. :)
- jaypaulynice 10y agoUber will be successful, but the problem is right now there is no barrier to entry in the market. They're pushing Lyft to spend more on marketing in order to get shares. Uber has a huge chance of taking over public transportation and making it more effective. That's what I think they're gunning for...to privatize public transportation. How else will you get around town?
- msoad 10y ago> Uber’s growth is fueled by subsidies A lot of people think if their Uber/Lyft ride is cheaper than their traditional taxi because it's subsidized. The lower fare for the most part is due to extreme efficiency difference between a taxi company and Uber/Lyft. 1. Uber/Lyft don't own the cars. They are leveraging car owners capital 2. Uber/Lyft drivers are more efficient because they don't have to roam around the city to find a passenger and they get notifications for when to work. The system scales up and down on demand. No taxi company that owns cars can do this. 3. Uber and Lyft are more convenient for the passenger and it makes people to use them more. I can definitely see myself and people around me to use Uber/Lyft way more than taxi since they came along. Uber and similar companies are purring cash into this growth because at the end of the day they can make a profit because they are more efficient. And no, it's not easy to make a clone. The network effect is huge!
- EduardoBautista 10y agoThe lower fare is because they are not even trying to make a profit.
- ahuja_s 10y agoDisagree, they are profitable in many territories already. Check your facts.
- EduardoBautista 10y agoThose "many" territories are not enough to prevent them from losing billions of dollars per year.
- ahuja_s 10y ago> 1. Uber/Lyft don't own the cars. They are leveraging car owners capital In Singapore they tried out the model to own cars because car ownership is pretty low here in general ~10%. They bought cars at a massive scale. This model seems to be working for them and they have expanded this model to other countries. Check out Lion Car Rentals. 100% Uber owned.
- alexlatchford 10y agoThe potential for autonomous point-to-point freight shipping should pay off sooner than it's consumer business, allowing it to reduce it's investment requirements. Debatable on the timelines though. You assume though that the network they've built up isn't valuable when you talk about self-driving vehicles. I agree the car tech will be commoditised and to my mind Uber owning their own fleet isn't the best option. It'd be very capital intensive and not a great use of cash. I liken the switch to self driving cars to the same market as buy-to-let home rentals. If you've got the money why not buy a one (or more) of them, send them out and rent them through Uber/Lyft etc. and keep the money rolling in around the clock. Uber takes a smaller cut but also doesn't incur anything like as much risk.
- ahuja_s 10y agoI live in Singapore and Uber is a little cheaper than the excellent cab services which operated here even before Uber. There is a big competitor to Uber here called Grab. I switched to Uber because their service is good, drivers are gracious and cars are nice and they give me good offers. Last year I took 300 Uber rides, never once taking the usual Comfort Delgro Cab because their drivers suck. If prices were the same, I would pick an Uber over the traditional cab over 90% of the time due to nicer drivers and service consistency across geographies. The rest of the 10% is when I urgently just need to hail a cab. I don't think you meant to say that Uber won't be a success. You probably meant that you feel it's over valued. Uber is a success. People love it. They pay surge prices for it. I do it all the time. It MAY be over valued but it is already a success. wake up.
- earthtolazlo 10y agoIt lost 2-3 billion dollars last year and shows no signs of improving its margins anytime soon. How is that a success?
- vadym909 10y agoSo then Amazon is not a success either?
- mcguire 10y agoCan you explain what Amazon's end game will be?
- ahuja_s 10y agoIt's customers are fucking g happy. What's the end game you're talking about? Have you invested into them? As a customer I LOVE them. As a student, I studied them in HBX.
- mcguire 10y agoIn 2015, Amazon made $596,000,000 on revenues of $107,006,000,000, or a profit margin of 0.6%. In 2012 and 2014, it lost money. How long should investors wait to see a real profit? Should they expect revenue growth to continue indefinitely?
- Keyframe 10y agoI don't understand his point. Maybe I'm dense (today, ha). If Uber has a (simplified) split cost per drive consisting of vehicle (+maintenance) and/or fuel & driver. If subsidised part is generally covering the driver part. When you replace driver with autonomous vehicle and you remove subsidies, you're left with a sustainable (presumably) model on a certain margin that is already rolling. Rolling in a sense that it is already an established business - people know it and use it. You've used subsidies (well, investors cash) to build a business. Of course, this relies on a presumption they will build a sustainable model on replacing drivers with autonomous vehicles. It also presumes they will not venture into other, (potentially) more profitable business like logistics. One thing is certain. They are positioning themselves for a great catch which relies on few key components working in the (near) future. I think real hazard for Uber is regulation (autonomous vehicles for example) and market regulations (see taxi debates in Europe).
- ithinkinstereo 10y agoThe author's not making the point that there is no margin, but rather that with self-driving cars it'll be a quick race to the bottom against competitors, thus eroding whatever margins Uber is left with after replacing human drivers.
- Keyframe 10y agoQuestion is, who are competitors with same scope as them? I don't know any. They are already in position to just switch over. Others would have to build their network first. It's a running start that depends on them playing their cards right.
- ithinkinstereo 10y ago> Question is, who are competitors with same scope as them? I don't know any. Presumably traditional car manufacturers (GM, Ford, Toyota, BMW, etc.), upstart car manufacturers (Tesla), and even other large tech conglomerates (Google, Baidu, etc.). > They are already in position to just switch over. Others would have to build their network first. It's a running start that depends on them playing their cards right. Uber won't have a monopoly in self-driving tech. Their running start will get eroded (some would argue quickly) by new challengers (probably regional upstarts rather than a global competitor) that have easy access to self-driving tech (think car manufacturers). Also, Uber's network is mostly on the software and human (drivers) side of things. If self-driving tech becomes a reality, they'll have to quickly pivot to purchasing and maintaining a large fleet of cars. That's not an easy task at scale and not something that Uber necessarily has an advantage over others.
- falloutx 10y agoIn my opinion, giving large scale subsidies to customers seems like a business anti-pattern, and is surely gonna kill a lot of startups in near future. I have been sold to the Idea that Investors are killing any Internet "Business" by advising Founders against simple & straight-forward business plans. They constantly ask founders not to monetize earlier and wait until founders have no choice but to trash out the company/app to advertisers. The End Result is that founders get more and more scared of asking their customers for money. If It was upto me, I would take 1000 paying customers over 100k free customers any day. Also this would mean free customers(subsidized customers in Uber's case) not hogging company's valueable resources and company could better serve lower number of paying customers. Edit: I don't really know how to spell "customer".
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- edem 10y agoAt least he is consistent.
- djyaz1200 10y agoAmen! VC's favor this approach because this is the only strategy that requires their scale of money. If you just go out and make a useful product and sell it to people you may do very well... but there isn't room for the kind of huge returns VC's need. Through massive subsidies the VC's are trying to buy monopolies in entire markets... and it may be that transportation is such a large market that no amount of private capital can deter competition indefinitely.
- kuschku 10y ago> Through massive subsidies the VC's are trying to buy monopolies in entire markets... And there you have it, the core of the Silicon Valley concept, the ideal startup, the business model of VCs. 1. Create a new product. 2a. Create a new market; have first mover advantage or 2b. Use Predatory Pricing or Anticompetitive actions to gain advantage 3. Establish monopoly 4. Cash out big. 5. Use money to fund new business ventures, see 1.
- maverick_iceman 10y agoPeople said similar things about Facebook/Instagram. Or even the internet as a whole (Paul Krugman).
- pweissbrod 10y agoIt's an interesting topic but the financials are too black-box for us outsiders to form a strong opinion. Yes the drivers are subsidized but the prices fluctuate based on supply throughout the day. On friday night in the city you can find uber prices surpass taxi drivers. The future of Uber has too many variables to have a strong stance on it's "success".
- dchuk 10y agoUber's current problem is they have run out of things to innovate on. They've pretty much nailed the UX in their app, and all they're left with is cars taking people from Point A to Point B. What is left to improve on there? So now, their only way to grow is to race to the bottom on price and undercut their competitors. And the only way to do that is to light billions of VC dollars on fire in the form of subsidized trips. That money isn't being invested in R&D or any form of innovation, just bridging the price gap between what the ride should cost (because of driver + vehicle costs) and what they are charging (which is a stupid low price most of the time). The longshot they're taking on innovating by transitioning to self driving cars is downright reckless considering nearly all experts agree we're at a MINIMUM 5 years off from anything feasible in the real world, more likely 10+ years. So they're going to have to raise their prices, or continue raising funds at an absurd rate (mind you, they've already raised $13,000,000,000 damn dollars). And they'll have to continue to light that VC money on fire in subsidized rides, rather than innovating on their product, because there's not really any other way to innovate on these rides. As for the subsidies, I can't even understand why they are lowering their prices so aggressively anymore. It feels like each time I get into an Uber it's slightly cheaper. I was happy paying $25 for an uber to the airport rather than $30 for a cab, but now it's something like $14, which is great for my wallet, but I really don't even need it that cheap. It's bizarre.
- falloutx 10y ago> I was happy paying $25 for an uber to the airport rather than $30 for a cab, but now it's something like $14 You were happy paying $25, but they wanted more costumers, even the ones who just want to pay 15.
- alikoneko 10y ago> They've pretty much nailed the UX in their app ... Ehhhh....I disagree because I have a less than stellar UX every time I use it. However, my situation is more or less an edge case. I rely on Uber to take me from the train station to work every morning. The train station is right by FLL. It's even called the Fort Lauderdale AIRPORT Station at Dania Beach. I have to call the drivers and tell them I'm at the train station and not the airport every time, and sometimes, they'll cancel or just go to the airport anyway. The GPS will place me at the airport sometimes too for extra fun. I've reported this several times to Uber, and it's still not fixed. It's also important to note a self driving car would make my situation worse (no one to contact when/if the app gets it wrong). I would switch to Lyft, but after having a driver flat out refuse a fare, and leave me stranded in Miami, I'm not so keen on that idea.
- zby 10y agoWhy everyone assumes that Uber could be allowed to become a monopoly? There are anti-monopoly laws. I understand that so far Uber was allowed to break lots of laws - but this cannot go on indefinitely.
- A_Crazy_Idea 10y agoBecause the whole point of Uber is to destroy private transportation, not to make a profit. That means ignoring monopoly laws like we do for other centralized intelligence services.
- CoffeeDregs 10y agoThe commercial airline industry has lost money over the whole of its existence. If I'm flying from NYC to DAL, I'm flying the cheapest carrier (with a slight nod to Frequent Flyer programs). I'm not sure how Uber, Lyft, etc are any different than Southwest, American, etc. Cab companies (which I hate) and airlines saw this years ago and promoted regulations to protect their fees (and, thereby, wages). Airlines lost those regulations under Reagan. To wit, I had dinner with a few friends in SF and it was raining when we left: "I'll call an Uber and we can share. ewww... 250% surge pricing or $90. Lemme check Lyft. Sweet, Lyft is about $50. Our Lyft will be here in 3 minutes." There was zero friction switching from Uber to Lyft. Winning in this market seems to require a Level 4+ autonomous car [1] monopoly. Level 4+ autonomous cars are not going to be here anytime soon and Uber's not going to have a monopoly. So it's going to continue to be a gnarly pricewar, made worse by Level 3 (in which the "driver"/pilot is a student doing his homework for $5/hour, taking over driving once or twice per hour). Not sure I agree so much with the body of TFA but I certainly agree with its conclusion. [1] http://www.techrepublic.com/article/autonomous-driving-levels-0-to-5-understanding-the-differences/ http://www.techrepublic.com/article/autonomous-driving-level...
- acchow 10y ago> 250% surge pricing or $90. Lemme check Lyft. Sweet, Lyft is about $50. Our Lyft will be here in 3 minutes." There was zero friction switching from Uber to Lyft. That's not zero friction. Zero friction would be if you routed the directions under "Public Transit" in Google Maps and scrolled to the bottom where you can see both Lyft and Uber pricing (and clickable links) next to each other.
- Animats 10y agoHere's a table of Uber's funding rounds.[1] What's keeping Uber going is Saudi Arabia's sovereign-wealth fund, which put in $3.5 billion last summer. They also took on $1.15 billion in debt last year. That's real debt at 5% interest, not some convertible deal. Bloomberg says Uber is losing $800 million per quarter.[2] Unless they can find a bigger sucker than the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, they run out of money in 2018. [1] https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/uber/funding-rounds https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/uber/funding-rounds [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-20/uber-s-loss-exceeds-800-million-in-third-quarter-on-1-7-billion-in-net-revenue https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-20/uber-s-lo...
- hmate9 10y ago$800 million / quarter = $103 / second. Wow.
- username223 10y agoWow, indeed. They're lighting 445 kg of $20 bills on fire per day. That's probably enough to stay warm at the South Pole.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- cryptozeus 10y agoBigger sucker would be ipo
- mcguire 10y agoTl;dr: Uber is using rule 1 of Monopoly 101: Subsidize your customers until you drive your competitors out of business. However, it does not appear they have a competitive advantage to prevent new competitors. Edit: damn you, android keyboard!
- jc_811 10y agoI agree with this, however I don't agree with the author's take on the self driving car part. He says: > Let’s assume that we will see fully autonomous vehicles that can navigate city traffic in the near future [...] If this technology becomes available, I doubt that Uber will have a monopoly on self-driving car technology.[...]I think it’s safe to say that many companies will have access to self-driving car technology.[...]In this scenario I don’t see how Uber can generate reasonable profits In the ideal 'future' society, everyone will have a self-driving car they can order to pick them up wherever they are. This would drive Uber out of business. However there will be a whole taxi industry for performing this service when someone is outside of their own city. I believe the taxis of the future will be there to assist someone in one of two scenarios: 1.) Someone in their own city who doesn't own a self driving car 2.) Someone who is in a city different than their own I still think there will be plenty of business in the above scenarios - and Uber is positioning itself to be the industry leader/titan. It's definitely a huge gamble since predicting the future is impossible at worst, and extremely hard at best; but we'll see if Uber can stay afloat long enough to reach it.
- iaw 10y agoFinally someone is saying it loudly. I've tried to make this point in the past to no avail. If Lyft can hold out they may survive over the long-term, but the strategies that allow Uber to be dominant will also prevent it from being profitable while maintaining market share.
- cody3222 10y agoThe network effects are pretty obvious actually: as the number of people on the platform increases, the amount of time a driver has to drive to pick you up becomes increasingly shorter, thus enabling the drivers to spend more of their time with a passenger in their car (which is when they are earning money). If drivers are making more money, Uber can pay them less (reduce the subsidy). Old taxi cab companies can't compete because they have to drive much farther on average for each pickup
- erispoe 10y agoYes but how much are you ready to pay to divide your waiting time from 3min to 1min?
- Balgair 10y agoYet there is a minimum viable issue to contend with. The average car will have an average value of dollars to go a unit distance and it cannot go lower than that very simply. The US Highway Safety board has computed this number for decades. Today it stands at ~$0.52/mile driven. This takes into account many many factors like gas prices, car maintenance, driving style, etc. Uber must pay drivers, on average, something more than 52 cents per mile. Yes, they may pay much less than that, but then you have to monkey about with driver mentality, average automobile efficiencies, road conditions, etc. Those are very difficult problems to tackle and are mostly outside of the 'wheelhouse' of Uber as a software company.
- matthewowen 10y agoBut if Uber is banking on autonomous vehicles none of this matters, because once there are autonomous vehicles providing sufficiently supply is purely a capital problem, and capital problems are relatively easy to solve if there are sufficient profits to be made. And if there aren't sufficient profits to be made, then Uber isn't a very attractive business.
- arbuge 10y agoUber built its network city by city and a competitor could do likewise. As others have pointed out, most rides are local - if you live in Dallas, TX, you probably require rides mostly in Dallas, TX. If a hypothetically better (in some way) competitor came along that only served Dallas, you might be interested in trying it out. So a competitor could just focus on Dallas to start out, raising enough capital to hire enough initial drivers for acceptable wait times in Dallas only. Once Dallas was successful, they could then go on to other cities. This is unlike a website such as Ebay, which truly becomes stronger and stronger due to national and international network effects, not just local ones. If a user selling the beanie babies you want is in Atlanta, having them shipped to Dallas is hardly more difficult than having them shipped within Dallas itself. So that Atlanta user has increased the utility of Ebay to you.
- shawndrost 10y agoWhy theorize about "economies of scale won't help"? We know the answer is "yes they will" -- Uber's US operations were profitable in 1Q16[1] and that included many non-scaled markets. Like I said 8 years ago[2]: "Facebook made ~$200mm in 2008. It's pretty clear they could profit on those revenues, and instead are choosing to invest in further growth (with outside capital)." [1] https://skift.com/2016/12/21/uber-isnt-profitable-in-the-u-s-and-is-on-track-to-lose-3-billion-in-2016/ https://skift.com/2016/12/21/uber-isnt-profitable-in-the-u-s... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=427212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=427212
- zevyoura 10y agoFrom your first link: > After turning a slight profit in the in the first quarter of this year, Uber lost $100 million in the U.S. in the second quarter. The loss increased in the third quarter, the person said. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of their U.S. business.
- kin 10y agoInvestors are giving Uber a near infinite bankroll so it's hard to say that they'll be allowed to fail. I was in Southeast Asia recently and it's insane how cheap Uber is. It almost doesn't make sense to take any other form of transportation. I imagine once the competition dies, they'll have complete control over the market.
- jdpedrie 10y agoThe problem is that the moment Uber is in a position to exploit its newfound monopoly, new competition springs up. Without regulatory constraints, transportation on public infrastructure just isn't a natural monopoly business.
- exelius 10y agoI think Uber's business model relies on self-driving cars. They're paying subsidies now to build a brand -- the name "Uber" has become synonymous with "pull out your cell phone and call for a ride" -- that will be very valuable once self-driving taxis become a commodity (which will happen shortly after their introduction). Uber is not a bet on who can build the most profitable taxi company now -- it's a bet on a brand in an industry that will rapidly commoditize. Given that literally everything else Uber does has been replicated by at least one team at every hackathon I've been to in the last decade, there is very little sustained advantage from technology. The auto industry is at a crossroads: you have new upstarts like Tesla that are very obviously planning to convert to a transit-as-a-service model. The "old" auto industry (basically everyone that makes cars and is not Tesla) is still struggling to adapt to a more "continuous development" model like Tesla. Tesla's engineering process is far simpler -- an electric car replaces the complex internal combustion drivetrain (an engine block that requires separate air, water, oil and gasoline systems, plus the transmission) with a far simpler electric engine. The electric system in a Tesla is actually far simpler than your average car: the sensor package in a modern internal combustion engine is an incredibly complex piece of engineering. This gives them a huge cost advantage over existing automakers -- if Tesla is providing transit as a service directly to customers AND making/maintaining the vehicles themselves, that displaces a lot of revenue (auto sales/maintenance to companies like Uber). I think Uber will eventually merge with an auto manufacturer (and likely keep the Uber branding since it's likely to be the most valuable part of the company). They already have realized that Tesla is their biggest competition; and I think that the autonomous driving deal with Ford is simply testing the waters for a future acquisition. 15 years from now, most people will likely have 3 or 4 choices of how to get somewhere by car: Uber, Tesla, Lyft and likely a mix of local / regional companies. Brand value is powerful; and I guarantee you that at the end of this, the Uber brand will be worth more than what they've put into it.
- komali2 10y agoAgreed, and the author even sets us up for this - again and again he mentions how the largest sink is the drivers, the largest cost is the drivers, the biggest blocker is the drivers. Remove the drivers from the equation and things suddenly become a lot simpler. Imagine if instead of becoming an uber driver, you retrofit your car with an Uber Automated Car Taxi Converter(c), "guaranteed to put your car to work for you!"
- iamcasen 10y agoWhat OP, and everyone in this thread don't seem to understand is that Uber has waaaay more up it's sleeve than a mere taxi app. Uber has more data about traffic patterns in every major city they operate in, than any other entity, including the cities themselves. Uber can use that data as leverage in so many ways. They have an API, they are a logistics platform in a sense. Uber's endgame will be allowing people to plug into that platform for a price. If they can manage to become the defacto cab platform for all major US cities alone, they are close to being worth their current valuation as is. Expand this all over the globe. Do not forget they have a 20% stake in Didi as well now, which will more than make up for their 2 billion loss while trying to capture the chinese market.
- gph 10y agoGood point, but to play devil's advocate the same general things were said about Twitter and other tech startups. Their main product doesn't have long term profitability, but just think of all that data they have! Surely they must be able to get tons of value out of that right? Easier said than done.
- jerf 10y ago"Uber has more data about traffic patterns in every major city they operate in, than any other entity, including the cities themselves." I imagine Google has approximately two to three orders of magnitude more data from cellphones and maps usage. Pull open your Uber app, zoom out until you see, say, 20 Uber drivers. They make a point here, a point there. The Android phones in cars would just make lines on your display. So does Apple, probably, or whoever gets the Apple Maps data. I think Google won't be all that interested in packing that up and making it available... but then again, if Uber's worth 68 billion on the back of that data they may well change their mind.
- LordHumungous 10y agoI'm pretty sure uber uses google maps in fact.
- 10y ago
- leecarraher 10y agouber offers a better product than taxi services do. So if uber raised their rates to be comparable to a taxi services, i would still use uber because its a better experience. And because i learned that because they incentive it with overall lower rates.
- ghaff 10y ago>uber offers a better product than taxi services do. Sometimes. I like not handling credit cards and cash. They're faster and more available in areas where taxi services are not great. On the other hand, I had an Uber-X driver just today drive right past a clearly marked airport terminal entrance because his GPS didn't direct him there and "he hadn't been out to the airport in a while." It's unlikely that would happen with a cab.
- ctpide 10y agoYes, but it's also not uncommon that cab drivers use their knowledge of the local streets in their advantage, which is a lot less likely when your average Uber driver relies on GPS navigation. I particularly remember taking a cab in Las Vegas many years ago trying to get from one end of the strip to the other. I was an obvious tourist - so he took the "faster router" around the city - just to "realise" that the exit he was going to take was blocked due to construction work and he now had to do a huge detour.
- ghaff 10y agoThat's fair. The GPS nav does tend to eliminate obviously scammy behavior which historically has been a significant issue with cabs. (Never personally had an issue in Vegas but have elsewhere.) But it also eliminates local knowledge optimization as well.
- ctpide 10y agoI would say the "better experience" argument is mostly true when you look at how payments are handled, but a taxi will pick you up and drop you off very much the same way as Uber does. A lot of cab companies have now implemented their own apps - so you can get a similar request-on-demand situation, only that you'll not be charged extra when demand goes up... In the last city I lived pretty much all cab drivers were also Uber (black) drivers (or maybe it was the other way around). Regardless, pricing was very similar and often cheaper going with the regulated taxi rate.
- abalone 10y agotl;dr He thinks UberPool is a viable business with network effects, but Uber's valuation is too high. He didn't really support that well though. If everybody uses UberPool because the economy of scale tied to the network size is unbeatable, that's a lot of riders. It doesn't seem impossible on its face that owning the future replacement for public transport for like half the world wouldn't justify a high valuation.
- petra 10y agoThis dismisal of UberPool is something we from many people who discuss Uber's business. I wonder why.
- ghaff 10y agoBecause people taking taxis/Ubers don't generally like to share rides. See also car pools. Now there is an argument that, given sufficient scale and intelligent routing, some sort of jitney bus system could work in a space between private taxis, driving yourself, and scheduled buses. Though that person would then need to explain why we don't really see this business model at any real scale today (in wealthier countries).
- mayerzahid 10y agoA large assumption I keep on seeing is because Uber will lead with self driving cars people will just stop purchasing cars and use just self driving ride sharing. I think that a portion of people will but many will still buy their own self driving cars for multiple reasons. Time saved, comfort and control of passenger experiences, and cash generating vehicle that can be plugged into self driving network while it is not being used.
- midnitewarrior 10y agoThe author forgot another significant problem Uber faces. When self driving fleets can be deployed for ride sharing, a new startup, one without the hundred of millions / billions in losses that Uber will have accumulated, will come on the scene. How can Uber, a company with massive losses to recover from, compete with a new, nimble and well-funded startup that doesn't have those legacy losses weighing down their ability to raise capital and pay back investors?
- ams6110 10y agoBankruptcy/Reorganization.
- jupp0r 10y agoThe author makes good points, but his understanding of Ubers vision is very limited. It's not about drivers or passengers, it's an API to get stuff from A to B, be it people or goods. Also, describing self driving cars in city traffic as "unlikely" really misses the point that self driving cars are driving in city traffic right now and have been doing that for years. They are too expensive to be commercially viable, but that's definitely going to change in the near future.
- spanktheuser 10y agoTwo possible ways Uber may expand the market, based on what I've seen in Chicago: * Uber seems to do a much better job of serving non-wealthy & minority neighborhoods. I can't find an online source, but distinctly remember a local NPR report that claimed over 2MM Uber rides originated or concluded in an underserved neighborhood, vs. about 200,000 taxi rides. * Anecdotally, Uber's superior experience is changing behavior. Despite having a thriving taxi industry, hailing a taxi is very unpredictable. If it's cold, raining, a busy night, too early, too late, or rush hour, you may be waiting a long time even in a well-served neighborhood. Uber practically guarantees a ride, meaning that I and my friends are far more likely to venture out. Overall demand for transport seems to have increased. * Similarly, the reliability of ride sharing services permits many people to avoid car ownership all together. Zip + Uber/Lyft is a very compelling and affordable alternative to car payments, fuel, rented parking and insurance.
- DrScump 10y agoUber seems to do a much better job of serving non-wealthy & minority neighborhoods When was the last time you took an Uber from O'Hare to the most dangerous areas of the South Side after dark? Cab drivers are obligated by the terms of their licensing to take you, once you've hailed them. An Uber driver can just ignore you.
- mmagin 10y agoAs far as I can tell from how frequently Uber and Lyft give me discounts whenever I don't use them for a few days, they're burning crazy amounts of VC money just to grow. If investment dries up before they get profitable, I think they're screwed.
- return0 10y agoFor some reason Uber reminds me of the rental car business. Yeah it appears to be hard to build a monopoly there.
- sytelus 10y agoThis is zero information article. In fact, zero insight article. Getting in to app-based cab business is hard because you need users so drivers come in and you need drivers so users come in. Its chicken and egg problem. The only known ways to break this is put up a huge hussle. Uber is just doing that and if its successful at it then it can virtually monopolize this segment and rip benefits years later like Amazon. Every one can make cab app, but not every one can get millions of users for their cab app.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- nstj 10y agoWarren Buffett summed up businesses like this quite well[0]: > The worst sort of business is one that grows rapidly, requires significant capital to engender the growth, and then earns little or no money. Think airlines. Here a durable competitive advantage has proven elusive ever since the days of the Wright Brothers. Indeed, if a farsighted capitalist had been present at Kitty Hawk, he would have done his successors a huge favor by shooting Orville down. [0]: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2007ltr.pdf http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2007ltr.pdf
- habosa 10y agoThe arguments against Uber here are well-stated and have been posted elsewhere (see Naked Capitalism's excellent 6-part series) In these comments (and other HN threads) I see the same pro-Uber arguments again and again so I will try my best to address them as I think they are misguided. > Uber is doing all this in anticipation of self-driving cars, which will change the economics of the whole operation. The first and most obvious issue here is runway. True self-driving cars that won't need a human in the driver's seat are probably 5 years away. Can Uber lose 1-2B a year until then? The second problem is that Uber won't have a monopoly on self driving car tech. Google and others will get there around the same time. How will this be a competitive advantage to Uber and not to Lyft or some yet-to-come competitor? > Uber is building network effects that will protect it from competitors. Uber's network effect, if it has one, is at odds with the self-driving car strategy. Right now Uber has the shortest ride waits because it has the most drivers. If a driver is a robot, a well-capitalized competitor can just buy a huge fleet and take over any local market. So you can't have both the network effect and the self-driving fleet. And without both, Uber is likely not worth anywhere near 70B. > Taxis are just step 1. Uber is building a platform to bring anything or anyone from A to B. A software platform for logistics would never be worth 70B. Period. In Uber's meager attempts to generalize their own platform, such as Uber Eats, they have not done very well. If total knowledge about driving patterns and navigation is the real money-maker, Google will have a big advantage with Maps/Waze data. In fact, most Uber drivers are using Maps or Waze to drive anyway. > Uber's customer experience is so good I stopped using Taxis. Uber's current dominance can be explained by one thing: price. Analysis has shown that every Uber ride is subsidized by about 50%, even in mature markets. If Uber suddenly doubled all prices they'd lose customers in droves. As for driver quality, any long-time Uber user can tell you this has gone down to be about the same as a cab (slightly better, but not reliably better). The average uber driver is just some guy doing whatever the GPS tells him to do. It's low-wage work and Uber is pushing the wages down all the time, there's no way you're going to keep high driver quality indefinitely.
- tommynicholas 10y ago"Network effects are mostly irrelevant for Uber’s business. Yes, they need a large supply of drivers to make the service viable, but this isn’t an advantage of Uber compared to regular cabs which have sufficient availability in most cities." I've never been to a city where there were a sufficient number of cabs except for Manhattan specifically in NYC and London. Every other US city, the taxi situation is bleak to unusable.
- Fricken 10y agoMany tales have been woven about Uber's imminent demise based on these vague financials that come from a single unverified anonymous source.
- Wissmania 10y agoJust as a response to the first section, you can't say that Uber is subsidizing both customers and drivers like they are separate costs. There is some margin, which is the difference between what the customer pays and what the driver gets paid. Currently this margin is negative, which means that Uber is "subsidizing" the transaction by paying the difference themselves. For any given ride the customer subsidy and the driver subsidy are same thing, Uber doesn't pay twice.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- cdrake 10y agoUber isn't an on demand ride service. They're a logistics company. Also uber isn't waiting for autonomous vehicles to come along and save them, they're one of the industry leaders in developing autonomous systems, investing/acquiring autonomous systems, and collect more driver/vehicle data than any other company in the world. It's not just civilian transportation either. They've already launched an autonomous commercial shipping service. If there is an item, person, or service that could potentially need to be transported from point A to B, it's a safe to assume that Uber has already started collecting logistics data on it and will(or already has) raise funds to begin implementing a network to service said logistical situation. This all may sound a bit extreme at first glance, but look at amazon. Amazon isn't a revolutionary e-commerce market place, they're a revolutionary logistics company. It's the same story as uber just in a different phase. Years of massive losses and outside funding. Both companies fully understand the value/defensibility of heavily investing in operational logistics at massive scale.
- catcow 10y agoI've been an Uber driver for 2-years in a metro-area of about 1-million people. The first year was rough, as Uber aggressively lowered rates and royally screwed me over income-wise. But now, I'm making more than ever thanks to the service scaling. The author of this blog post admits that he hasn't run any numbers, and his conclusions make that obvious. I've run the numbers, and I make part of my living as an Uber driver (it's not busy enough in my city to do this full-time). Uber doesn't worry about my expenses because it's not their job to worry about my expenses. Their job is to run their servers and make an app that customers want to use, and they've been doing a great job at that IMO. My job is to worry about my expenses, and yes, I've accounted for fuel, maintenance, and depreciation of my vehicle, and I am making enough profit to make it worth doing. As for self-driving cars, Travis has publicly stated that Uber does not intend to own and maintain them, they are going to look to their former drivers to do that. I doubt Uber is planning on having a monopoly for self-driving cars, they just want to be in on a part of the action, but their main focus will probably always be the software of their core app. Uber has created more jobs faster than any company in history, and this is something our economy sorely needs. They literally let everyone who passes a background check on their platform. That means no discrimination can even take place at the company level, which I think is something very very cool, especially since I have a serious health condition that has riddled my resume with holes. (Discrimination can still take place from riders however, as the ratings are what determine whether a driver stays as a driver or not.) Also, since I am my own boss, I can rest when I need to, which is essential for coping with my condition.
- boto3 10y ago"Uber has created more jobs faster than any company in history"? Walmart currently employs more than 1M people right now, in the US.
- Mikho 10y agoUber does not create jobs. Drivers are freelancers and not employees. It's not job with all covered insurance, benefits, days out etc. Uber is exactly like Upwork for freelance programmers and designers.
- twitchard 10y agoI've said it before and I'll say it again -- Uber needs to release a tier where you can hire a backhoe or other construction vehicle and arrive at your destination in style.
- trimal 10y agoAs you suggested, eventually Uber will have to make profit but also keep profit margin very thin not to loose customer. Their only hope could be in future most people in cities would not have their own car and rely completely on ride sharing. This massive increase in ridership should help them to make money.
- readhn4fun 10y agoI live near large city. I can't afford to live IN the city ( because paying 3000$ rent is stupid ). Now I have to commute. I have to Have a car because other options waste too much time. I got a 16 year old reliable toyota that I paid 3k for years ago. I don't see Uber doing anything financially positive for me anytime soon.
- deavmi 10y agoUber is dank and lekker.
- marcamillion 10y agoI think one of the biggest points being missed here is that Uber may very well be an iceberg. Meaning moving people is literally just the tip, but to get to the rest you have to subsidize the hell out of moving people. The fundamental problem with what Benjamin pointed out with the lack of benefits with network effects, only applies when you are thinking about moving people and only thinking about 1 singular network. Sure, you and I may only want to go from point A to B within my city. I think the real value for Uber is when they have this huge network of constant activity between most points within any city/country, the value proposition to carry cargo goes through the roof. Imagine being able to send a document (or a package) anywhere else within the city in 20 minutes. Amazon is experimenting with Drones for quick delivery, but just imagine being able to purchase something on Amazon, Walmart, Target, and get it within 30 minutes from an Uber driver. Their network effect looks different than most others, say Facebook, because the real value is a network effect of networks. i.e. they have highly concentrated networks within cities, and they have a high concentration of city-networks within states, and outward. The clear value proposition there is one can easily move a package from your house through your network within your city, to another network in an adjacent city, and on and on to say the next state. Right now, sure you can ship something 'overnight' via FedEx relatively long distances within the US but technically it's not REALLY overnight. Technically, you have to reach the FedEx store before some cut off time (say 12 noon), so that package can then be taken to their sorting facility and make it out on the flight that night. Imagine if there is the a real-time network where at any moment any package can be placed on the network and be on the most efficient route to the destination immediately. That's obviously the holy grail, but no longer do you have packages sitting in sorting facilities and waiting on bulky planes to take off. They may not have these plans, but I have no inside knowledge and that's one clear advantage I can see of having a network where something is always being delivered between almost any 2 points within the network. I assume that all of these investors are not dumb and neither is Kalanick and his team, so I suspect there is a much larger logistics play than we can imagine. Just like Tesla isn't just a car company, but is also both a commercial power (Southern California Edison) & oil company (Exxon) plus maybe an autonomous delivery fleet all in one, I assume Uber is something similar we just can't see it yet.
- intrasight 10y agoSure there are lots of losing scenarios. But there are a couple of winning scenarios too, and one - becoming a natural monopoly in mobility services - is a very big win indeed. I assume that the high valuation partially reflects that very small but non-zero probability of success. Sure, the US government doesn't like monopolies, but shutting one down involves proving that consumers are being harmed. Let's play out the monopoly scenario. Let's also assume that non-autonomous vehicles are banned. I can't imagine any future scenario where that's not true. So we have roads full of Uber vehicles and no other vehicles. The government will choose to get out of the road building and maintenance business. Uber will gladly step in and take on a 100 year lease on the entire road infrastructure. They'll build their own autonomous recharging stations. They'll build the robots that maintain the roads. They'll build the robots that build the robots. Now Uber has really lived up to its name. So contemplate what an autonomous mobility monopoly would do for Uber's valuation.
- bangda 10y agoSometimes due to heavy rains or unfavourable weather , getting a uber or even a normal cab becomes really difficult. I am from India ( so it happens here) . Facing that kind of situation may deter from people giving up owning a car.
- anabis 10y agoWhether Uber achieves redemption and become a highly profitable monopoly, or other players make it a low-margin red ocean, transportation seems to be set to be dominated by few players compared to today's diffuse private ownership. I wonder how road building and maintenance will change? Will the decision to build or scrap a road be decided by a negotiation between the dominant stakeholders, instead of public procurement?
- mirekrusin 10y agoThe only thing they need to do, from investor perspective, is to slide on profit/loss margin line while eating market in big chunks - until human drivers can be phased out.
- MarkMc 10y agoHere is an additional risk for Uber: What if Tesla or Google or some other company bring self-driving technology to market a year before Uber? For those 12 months Uber will be the guy with a knife in a gunfight.
- Mikho 10y agoUber is basically a walking dead company. At least with this business model it just can not justify the valuation. Hence, it just can not go public and needs to continue raising more money to keep its market share. Unit economics doesn't work—this is Uber's broken moat. In the cities where it works, there are cheaper competitors and Uber struggle to become a significant player. In my city (Kyiv, Ukraine) Uber was introduced a year ago. I used it only while it offered promotional price. Now every other local ride service is cheaper than Uber and has mobile app—sometimes even better than Uber's. Yes, Uber made these services to improve, but now they are all better that Uber in terms of prices of rides, especially in surge periods. Uber with this model could survive only with: 1/ Autonomous cars to cut costs on drivers and 2/ Controlling the whole driverless platform in every city. And this is not happening since to control significant portion of driverless cars one need to control the whole driverless tech stack. It will be pretty hard to aggregate in one service different co's driverless tech with different specifics. That's what Tesla does. I guess later when driverless will become growing en mass, Tesla will start own ride service, and letting own car for the a ride service will be opportunity to reimburse car purchase. It is then that Tesla will start licensing driverless tech to other manufacturers, including sensors configuration and centralised trained AI cloud with driving skills on different roads, and give opportunity to join Tesla's own ride on demand network. It will be a car selling point: "buy a car with Tesla driverless tech and let it for rides via Tesla's network to cover payments for your car". So, it's rather hard for Uber to use advantages of driverless unless Uber builds own full stack and is the first on the roads with it + starts licensing it to car manufacturers for their cars to join Uber network.
- Tloewald 10y agoThe claim that taxi supply is sufficient in most cities to compete with Uber aside from on price is clearly not based on much experience with taxis in the US. I grew up in Australia where every city is served by a small number of taxi companies and central dispatch works great. In every US city I've lived or visited (except NYC) the fragmentation of taxi companies and driver behavior -- most DC cab drivers would refuse to accept credit cards even after it became illegal not to ("my machine she is broken") -- makes taxis worse in every dimension than Uber, and frequently too unreliable to use for things like trips to airports. (In Sydney, I would take a taxi to the airport, in any US city you'd book a van.) It's not just price -- fragmentation makes dispatch hopeless because the individual companies have too few taxis in their pool and don't hand off bookings to each other efficiently, and local regulations are a nightmare, e.g. in the Washington DC metro area it's painful to get taxis from Arlington (VA) to downtown (DC) and vice versa (Arlington is literally only not downtown DC because Virginia asked for its corner of DC back, we're talking 2 mile rides), and you need to guess which taxi company to use because dispatch is also fragmented and broken. When Uber and Lyft appeared we simply stopped using taxis cold. (Our favorite DC Uber driver was a limo driver who simply used Uber to make money in down-time, and he was clearly not confused about tax and costs.) I think the idea that privately owned self-driving cars will compete with Uber is wrongheaded but doesn't damage the argument. Any dispatch service that achieves critical mass -- public or private -- can leverage self-driving cars to compete with Uber. I think self-driving cars will vastly reduce car ownership, and pools of automatic taxis will replace them, reduce congestion, and allow lots of car-dedicated space in cities to be reclaimed. I'd argue this threatens Uber's ride-sharing business as much as anything else. I agree that Uber is almost a victim of its valuation -- it could be incredibly valuable as a virtual integrated vehicle dispatch -- tracking driver and customer quality, vehicle location and capability, and matching vehicles to needs and collecting fares, but by trying to own everything and be valued accordingly it may risk implosion when it fails to deliver.
- cja 10y agoTheir algorithms increase the usage of each car, reducing the cost per passenger mile. So Uber can cheaper than normal taxis. My own self driving car is unlikely to be cheaper to buy than my manually driven car. But the self driving Uber will be significantly cheaper to run than one with a driver. I can't wait til I no longer need my own car. Uber, and competitors, are the future.
- acedinlowball 10y agoWhy do terrible opinion pieces like this get upvotes on HN? The author clearly has no idea what he is talking about.
- pwellens 10y agoInteresting thoughts. I wrote along this line about UberEats and what is wrong with their current model. They believe they can win the battle thanks to subsidized unit economics. However this is simply not sustainable. The same conclusion is valid for all on-demand delivery startups. Instead they should leverage their existing community, i.e. users being located next to each other. Similarly to UberPool where ride-sharing is the only way for Uber/Lyft/etc to work, grouping users for food delivery with variable rewards based on location (i.e. discounts) is the way to go. More here: https://medium.com/@pwellens/how-a-single-feature-could-finally-hook-you-on-ubereats-and-postmates-d31244e0073e#.p8j11qmgo https://medium.com/@pwellens/how-a-single-feature-could-fina...