5 ms·

Uber doesn't form monopolies as far as I can see, everywhere there seems to be a competitor or two, so that pricing pressure will keep Uber in check. I'm not su

by jamez1 10y ago

Uber doesn't form monopolies as far as I can see, everywhere there seems to be a competitor or two, so that pricing pressure will keep Uber in check. I'm not sure why you think Uber has the power.. they have a lot of cash and first mover advantage which might obscure the true nature of what they can do. As for the taxi plates.. they're going to be worth 10% of what they are now, it doesn't matter if you make less income with Uber if you have to wear such a huge capital loss. (in the order of 100k+)

stuaxo 10y ago
Many small taxi firms have gone out of business. When I came back to the part of London I used to live in, my local small business taxi firm where I knew the guys had disappeared. Small Taxi offices used to be a common sight, there are way less of them now.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  Uber have replaced a consumer-hostile oligopoly with a worker-hostile future monopoly. This isn't bad for consumers now, but the future will be less appealing. Undercutting the competition on price is classic monopolist behaviour. I suppose VCs tolerate it because when the competitors are down and out, the rewards will be huge. Unfortunately for Uber I think their technology will become less and less of a differentiator because it will become easier and easier - and cheaper - for a small and scrappy competitor to copy it. If the competitors add extra services - e.e. B2B courier/logistics, or B2C pick-up/delivery - Uber probably won't have the clean run it expects.
  - ensiferum 10y ago
    What the market is really waiting for (and the VCs) are the self driving cars. Uber has to tolerate the human drivers for now (for the next 5-10 years) and just make it work. Once the machinery and the laws are in place they can't wait to cut that human labor out of the equation at which point they'll turn into a massive robot fleets of self driving cars. It'd be ideal to have large customer base at that point and preferably as few competitors as possible. This is where the $60+b market valuation comes from.
  - rubber_duck 10y ago
    >I suppose VCs tolerate it because when the competitors are down and out, the rewards will be huge. That's only remotely possible if the barrier to entry is high. It's not, if Uber hikes prices to the point where they are pulling insane profits over drivers competition will enter easily. The only way burning cash makes sense for Uber is eventually going to self driving car fleets - this is much harder to compete on and you can have efficiency based monopoly trough tech.
  - joking 10y ago
    I see nothing more consumer-hostile than the surge pricing algorithm uber uses.
    - jpatokal 10y ago
      Which would you prefer if you really need to get somewhere fast: an expensive ride, or no ride? Because without surge pricing, all you get is no ride.
      - pessimizer 10y ago
        That is a rationalized calculus for wealthy people. The actual question is whether you would prefer to have the same small chance as everyone else to get a ride, or a guaranteed ride because you have more money than other people can pay. Your question supposes that congestion is caused by something other than more people than usual successfully getting a ride.
        Dylan16807 10y ago
        High surge prices should pay an oversized amount of wages and profits, in theory leading to lower prices at non-surge times, right? That's a benefit that I will happily give up a chance of a ride for. A 50% chance of a ride is worth much less than half as much as a guaranteed ride.

by jamez1 10y ago

stuaxo 10y ago

Many small taxi firms have gone out of business. When I came back to the part of London I used to live in, my local small business taxi firm where I knew the guys had disappeared. Small Taxi offices used to be a common sight, there are way less of them now.

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
Uber have replaced a consumer-hostile oligopoly with a worker-hostile future monopoly. This isn't bad for consumers now, but the future will be less appealing. Undercutting the competition on price is classic monopolist behaviour. I suppose VCs tolerate it because when the competitors are down and out, the rewards will be huge. Unfortunately for Uber I think their technology will become less and less of a differentiator because it will become easier and easier - and cheaper - for a small and scrappy competitor to copy it. If the competitors add extra services - e.e. B2B courier/logistics, or B2C pick-up/delivery - Uber probably won't have the clean run it expects.
- ensiferum 10y ago
  What the market is really waiting for (and the VCs) are the self driving cars. Uber has to tolerate the human drivers for now (for the next 5-10 years) and just make it work. Once the machinery and the laws are in place they can't wait to cut that human labor out of the equation at which point they'll turn into a massive robot fleets of self driving cars. It'd be ideal to have large customer base at that point and preferably as few competitors as possible. This is where the $60+b market valuation comes from.
- rubber_duck 10y ago
  >I suppose VCs tolerate it because when the competitors are down and out, the rewards will be huge. That's only remotely possible if the barrier to entry is high. It's not, if Uber hikes prices to the point where they are pulling insane profits over drivers competition will enter easily. The only way burning cash makes sense for Uber is eventually going to self driving car fleets - this is much harder to compete on and you can have efficiency based monopoly trough tech.
- joking 10y ago
  I see nothing more consumer-hostile than the surge pricing algorithm uber uses.
  - jpatokal 10y ago
    Which would you prefer if you really need to get somewhere fast: an expensive ride, or no ride? Because without surge pricing, all you get is no ride.
    - pessimizer 10y ago
      That is a rationalized calculus for wealthy people. The actual question is whether you would prefer to have the same small chance as everyone else to get a ride, or a guaranteed ride because you have more money than other people can pay. Your question supposes that congestion is caused by something other than more people than usual successfully getting a ride.
      - Dylan16807 10y ago
        High surge prices should pay an oversized amount of wages and profits, in theory leading to lower prices at non-surge times, right? That's a benefit that I will happily give up a chance of a ride for. A 50% chance of a ride is worth much less than half as much as a guaranteed ride.