6 ms·

I feel this is additional evidence for my theory that Uber is in big trouble and is trying to spin a bunch of pixie dust into some kind of dumb money exit for i

I feel this is additional evidence for my theory that Uber is in big trouble and is trying to spin a bunch of pixie dust into some kind of dumb money exit for its increasingly angry investors.

_red 10y ago
The "self driving car" meme is petering out, so they are attempting to create some hype in order to keep the Ponzi investment flows churning.
- EthanHeilman 10y ago
  By which you mean, coming to fruition? I'm not the biggest fan of Uber on a number of issues but I think the biggest problem they have is that their investors were planning on having a monopoly on livery. That is clearly not going to happen. Flying cars and self driving cars are actually significantly more sound than their business model and are much more likely to provide a decent ROI. If and when Uber runs out of steam and its assets are liquidated the most valuable part will be research. Lets check back on this in 10 years.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    Which could be true if Uber's self driving car project lasted longer than a week. Other companies have already logged tens of thousands of road hours into their self-driving car research. At this point, it seems more like these announcements into researching more solid business models are a red herring, like the previous commenter said. You don't need to see the end product to know if progress is being made.
    - EthanHeilman 10y ago
      They did hire some of the top self-driving car (can we call them autocars?) researchers. >"these announcements into researching more solid business models are a red herring" My view is that they are attempting to develop a more solid business model. Why wouldn't they try? Even if they fail to turn it into business it creates value that can sell to the companies that do succeed. Besides if they need a shiney for their investors, faking it seems to be just as much work as actually doing it.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - slededit 10y ago
    Self driving cars will be a commodity business, there are just too many people working on it with sufficient backing (including pretty much all the car companies at this point). In the end its going to be the brand name that ensures margin. Predictions of privately owned self driving fleets are interesting, but it would be ludicrous to assume anyone would be a monopoly supplier of those vehicles.
- Pigo 10y ago
  I still don't think I understand why self-driving cars is nothing more than a publicity stunt for them. I've heard people say it's not working, and the cars they have on the road are for show. But why can it not ever be a functioning part of their business when there are cars that can do this?
  - Retric 10y ago
    Uber expanded in large part because they did not need to buy cars or taxi medallions to compete. So, they could use subsides to attract new customers. If they now need to buy or even lease a few million cars they simply can't afford to do that globally. So, it's likely going to be the next round of well funded startup that wins.
  - prostoalex 10y ago
    Primarily because "be a functioning part of their business" applies to so many other companies. Manufacturers like Tesla or Audi? Sure. Car rental and fleet management companies like Avis or Enterprise? Certainly could be a part of their business. Local couple who owns a car wash and can afford to buy 2-3 self-driving vehicles and keep them clean? Why not, I'd give someone local a try. What's unique about Uber's know-how to ensure their domination (or in absence of domination, reasonable margins) in the segment?
- usrusr 10y ago
  Or a less evil version of the same: dazzle the investors they already have lest they decide to cut losses before all that tasty runway is burnt to completion. With all the investment Uber already has (maybe more than their complete target market could ever be worth?) I suspect that they don't really hope for more. Some of their predatory pricing schemes might actually be a panic reaction to not having stopped raising earlier.
iaw 10y ago
I share your theory. I think Uber was dominant and in a great position financially until it tried to aggressively continue it's expansion into immature markets using subsidies. Their fixed costs have exploded while revenue hasn't grown as quickly. There's no reason this technology can't/wont work from a science perspective. From an engineering, consumer, political standpoint this concept is such a non-starter. The more money Uber spends on this the quicker they'll bleed-out.
- bogomipz 10y ago
  What do you define to be an "immature market" in this context?
  - iaw 10y ago
    China specifically and any other area where the fixed costs of operation for Uber outpace any marginal cost they can get off the region due to exchange rate inequalities.
stephengillie 10y ago
It's an old salesman's technique, to distract the client from current problems with the product, by selling shiny new features. It's similar to distracting a baby from the problems of life, with your shiny keys, in lieu of more appropriate toys.
fullshark 10y ago
Or they think burning money on this guy is worth it to get engineers to join the company because it's "cool."
bogomipz 10y ago
Can you elaborate on how think this development helps to achieve an exit? Also what do you mean by "dumb money"? I ask because I am sincerely interested in hearing your theory.
geodel 10y ago
So Uber is basically giving a flying fuck to investors by calling it a Flying car.
castratikron 10y ago
Their business model has no barrier to entry. Uber fares are subsidized by something like more than half, and as soon as Uber runs out of investor money, there's going to be nothing stopping someone like Lyft from doing exactly what they do now. They need some kind of capital, be it self-driving cars or whatever, to maintain their current dominant position.
- petra 10y ago
  Their problem is execution - they don't seem to sucseed in true ride sharing(few people share the same car), which is a protectable business, once won. On the other hand, some of their competitors, like via seem to manage to do that quite well(altough currently supported by VC money). So i wonder, what's the secret that Uber can't seem to copy ?
- edblarney 10y ago
  "Their business model has no barrier to entry." Critical mass of drivers, particularly within a specific market area - and brand - are definitely barriers to entry. There are network externalities for sure. If you go to city ABC and 'everyone is on Uber' - as a consumer, you'll probably just use Uber. Drivers? Well, they'll just sign up for Uber if there's little else. A 'new market entrant' will have a 'chicken and egg' problem in terms of signing up drivers and riders. A true 'lower barrier to entry' business would be like a hot-dog stand - no cost, you set up beside the other guy, you can take just as much business. Your benefit scales roughly linearly with the number of stands you have, and because you have more, does not really give customers incentive to buy from you etc.. So there are 'competitors' but there are also at least some barriers, on a locale by locale basis. There are other barriers - such as the ability to fund/lobby (and bribe) all of the various political entities that could oppose you - Uber has been pretty aggressive at winning these things and that costs $$$.
  - castratikron 10y ago
    I've got both Uber and Lyft on my phone, which I guess could be analogous to having two hot dog stands on the same block. Drivers can switch between the two just as easily. You're right though, they do have a well-established brand, and they have spent a lot of effort in getting around all sorts of legal problems. I wonder, though, if the legal things that Uber has paved the way on would ever make it easier for some other Uber clone to take up the same business without all of the legal hurdles, since they've already established some sort of precedent.

I feel this is additional evidence for my theory that Uber is in big trouble and is trying to spin a bunch of pixie dust into some kind of dumb money exit for its increasingly angry investors.

_red 10y ago

The "self driving car" meme is petering out, so they are attempting to create some hype in order to keep the Ponzi investment flows churning.

EthanHeilman 10y ago
By which you mean, coming to fruition? I'm not the biggest fan of Uber on a number of issues but I think the biggest problem they have is that their investors were planning on having a monopoly on livery. That is clearly not going to happen. Flying cars and self driving cars are actually significantly more sound than their business model and are much more likely to provide a decent ROI. If and when Uber runs out of steam and its assets are liquidated the most valuable part will be research. Lets check back on this in 10 years.
- bduerst 10y ago
  Which could be true if Uber's self driving car project lasted longer than a week. Other companies have already logged tens of thousands of road hours into their self-driving car research. At this point, it seems more like these announcements into researching more solid business models are a red herring, like the previous commenter said. You don't need to see the end product to know if progress is being made.
  - EthanHeilman 10y ago
    They did hire some of the top self-driving car (can we call them autocars?) researchers. >"these announcements into researching more solid business models are a red herring" My view is that they are attempting to develop a more solid business model. Why wouldn't they try? Even if they fail to turn it into business it creates value that can sell to the companies that do succeed. Besides if they need a shiney for their investors, faking it seems to be just as much work as actually doing it.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- slededit 10y ago
  Self driving cars will be a commodity business, there are just too many people working on it with sufficient backing (including pretty much all the car companies at this point). In the end its going to be the brand name that ensures margin. Predictions of privately owned self driving fleets are interesting, but it would be ludicrous to assume anyone would be a monopoly supplier of those vehicles.
Pigo 10y ago
I still don't think I understand why self-driving cars is nothing more than a publicity stunt for them. I've heard people say it's not working, and the cars they have on the road are for show. But why can it not ever be a functioning part of their business when there are cars that can do this?
- Retric 10y ago
  Uber expanded in large part because they did not need to buy cars or taxi medallions to compete. So, they could use subsides to attract new customers. If they now need to buy or even lease a few million cars they simply can't afford to do that globally. So, it's likely going to be the next round of well funded startup that wins.
- prostoalex 10y ago
  Primarily because "be a functioning part of their business" applies to so many other companies. Manufacturers like Tesla or Audi? Sure. Car rental and fleet management companies like Avis or Enterprise? Certainly could be a part of their business. Local couple who owns a car wash and can afford to buy 2-3 self-driving vehicles and keep them clean? Why not, I'd give someone local a try. What's unique about Uber's know-how to ensure their domination (or in absence of domination, reasonable margins) in the segment?
usrusr 10y ago
Or a less evil version of the same: dazzle the investors they already have lest they decide to cut losses before all that tasty runway is burnt to completion. With all the investment Uber already has (maybe more than their complete target market could ever be worth?) I suspect that they don't really hope for more. Some of their predatory pricing schemes might actually be a panic reaction to not having stopped raising earlier.

iaw 10y ago

I share your theory. I think Uber was dominant and in a great position financially until it tried to aggressively continue it's expansion into immature markets using subsidies. Their fixed costs have exploded while revenue hasn't grown as quickly. There's no reason this technology can't/wont work from a science perspective. From an engineering, consumer, political standpoint this concept is such a non-starter. The more money Uber spends on this the quicker they'll bleed-out.

bogomipz 10y ago
What do you define to be an "immature market" in this context?
- iaw 10y ago
  China specifically and any other area where the fixed costs of operation for Uber outpace any marginal cost they can get off the region due to exchange rate inequalities.

stephengillie 10y ago

It's an old salesman's technique, to distract the client from current problems with the product, by selling shiny new features. It's similar to distracting a baby from the problems of life, with your shiny keys, in lieu of more appropriate toys.

fullshark 10y ago

Or they think burning money on this guy is worth it to get engineers to join the company because it's "cool."

bogomipz 10y ago

Can you elaborate on how think this development helps to achieve an exit? Also what do you mean by "dumb money"? I ask because I am sincerely interested in hearing your theory.

geodel 10y ago

So Uber is basically giving a flying fuck to investors by calling it a Flying car.

castratikron 10y ago

Their business model has no barrier to entry. Uber fares are subsidized by something like more than half, and as soon as Uber runs out of investor money, there's going to be nothing stopping someone like Lyft from doing exactly what they do now. They need some kind of capital, be it self-driving cars or whatever, to maintain their current dominant position.

petra 10y ago
Their problem is execution - they don't seem to sucseed in true ride sharing(few people share the same car), which is a protectable business, once won. On the other hand, some of their competitors, like via seem to manage to do that quite well(altough currently supported by VC money). So i wonder, what's the secret that Uber can't seem to copy ?
edblarney 10y ago
"Their business model has no barrier to entry." Critical mass of drivers, particularly within a specific market area - and brand - are definitely barriers to entry. There are network externalities for sure. If you go to city ABC and 'everyone is on Uber' - as a consumer, you'll probably just use Uber. Drivers? Well, they'll just sign up for Uber if there's little else. A 'new market entrant' will have a 'chicken and egg' problem in terms of signing up drivers and riders. A true 'lower barrier to entry' business would be like a hot-dog stand - no cost, you set up beside the other guy, you can take just as much business. Your benefit scales roughly linearly with the number of stands you have, and because you have more, does not really give customers incentive to buy from you etc.. So there are 'competitors' but there are also at least some barriers, on a locale by locale basis. There are other barriers - such as the ability to fund/lobby (and bribe) all of the various political entities that could oppose you - Uber has been pretty aggressive at winning these things and that costs $$$.
- castratikron 10y ago
  I've got both Uber and Lyft on my phone, which I guess could be analogous to having two hot dog stands on the same block. Drivers can switch between the two just as easily. You're right though, they do have a well-established brand, and they have spent a lot of effort in getting around all sorts of legal problems. I wonder, though, if the legal things that Uber has paved the way on would ever make it easier for some other Uber clone to take up the same business without all of the legal hurdles, since they've already established some sort of precedent.