3 ms·
They do have revenue, but not profit, lost $3B last year despite seeing growth in revenue . The business goal (the product itself) is 10000x times better than G
by yeukhon 10y ago
They do have revenue, but not profit, lost $3B last year despite seeing growth in revenue . The business goal (the product itself) is 10000x times better than Groupon. Car service is more direct. Groupon isn't a bad idea either, but the experience isn't as direct and as Uber. You see, emailing me / texting me offers is great, but I don't have time to scroll down and read the same kind of email everyday. If instead at checkout coupon/promote code is added that would have been great. I have Target, Walgreen apps on my phone. When I visit the store, I clip the coupon onto my account and then checkout. This still requires me to search on the app, but at least it's at my fingertip. It would be better off if I get the promotion regardless. The use of Uber is also in the user's hand, but spontaneous.
Anyway, I think Uber will stay, but I suspect Uber may have to scale back its global expansion. Perhaps I am short-sighted. It would be interesting to see the revenue and spending geographically.
- kartan 10y ago> The business goal (the product itself) is 10000x times better than Groupon. To illegally set up a non-compliant taxi service that doesn't pay taxes, that doesn't pay minimum wage to its employees, that has been banned already in several countries, that ignores human safety introducing illegally self-driving cars, it is not a very good business model.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- yeukhon 10y agoWell I am not saying it is ethical or not, but I clearly said it's "business goal", not "business model".
- fujiters 10y agoIf only legal taxi services weren't so uniformly terrible. I don't like Uber's culture, but I still use it whenever Lyft isn't available and the only other option is a taxi whose credit card reader is "broken".
- Applejinx 10y agoOh yes it is… to the extent that you get away with it, without consequences (in that light, getting banned is bad IF you can't also break that law and get away with it). It's much like arbitrage, making money or gaining control of a market by exploiting weakness on the grandest scale possible. IF there are consequences for the behavior, then you've just illustrated one way to fail, perhaps on the same grand scale (see: Enron). If there are no consequences you're just doing another type of arbitrage and rather than being a poor business model you're an unmatchably superior business model that others must emulate or die. Jury's out on whether Uber is the former or the latter. Until that's clear, the CEO will not resign or back off in the slightest, because they can't: it's a strategy of never backing down or admitting weakness in any sense, with the tone set from the top. If they can get powerful enough friends and never face consequences, they win. If they're more powerful than the law, they are the law. We do see a tendency in modern trade agreements to hold entire countries responsible for injuring the profitability of large companies. In that light, Uber bans could be made illegal, under certain conditions, much like banning tobacco advertising can be made illegal.
- ajdlinux 10y agoIt's worth noting that at least where I am (Australia), taxi owners/operators don't pay minimum wages to their independent contractor drivers. The business model of the incumbent taxi services is fundamentally not really different from Uber's.
- danderino 10y ago- Not illegal obviously since they been able to stay around for a long time. - Their revenue comes from driver fare, and its actually in their best interest to increase rates. - Have the self driving cars been rolled out? And if they have, how have they been done illegally?