6 ms·

Something about this headline interests me, along with the title that appears here on HN: Article: "Gett in advanced talks to buy Juno for $250M as Uber rivals

Something about this headline interests me, along with the title that appears here on HN: Article: "Gett in advanced talks to buy Juno for $250M as Uber rivals consolidate" HN: "Ubser rivals consolidating: Gett to buy Juno for $250M" I wonder if the HN headline is as-submitted or mod-ified. The latter title leans much more on the Uber link, while TC's headline puts it at the end. If we didn't have all of Uber scandal stuff going on, I wonder which title would've been submitted to HN: "Uber rivals scrambling as Gett buys Juno for $250M", maybe? Here's a fun query to run: Pull HN submissions and go back to the linked articles. Pull those headlines, and then remove ones too long for HN's length limit. Of the remaining headlines, normalize and see how many HN posts modified the title in some way.

chronic940 10y ago
Very few people on HN actually care about the Uber scandals. Almost no one has changed their daily behavior. They all still use Uber. It's exactly how Trump won the US election. A small group of people spread the idea Uber is doing poorly when in reality they're not.
- sdflkd 10y ago
  HN is full of the relatively privileged/wealthy. They don't need to care in their eyes.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- tyingq 10y ago
  I'm skeptical about the business model in general, not related to any recent scandal. The leaked financials[1] seem to indicate it's a losing proposition until self driving cars are relatively ubiquitous. So whenever it does become financially viable, there's a pretty long payback cycle. And no obvious iron clad moat that keeps competitors at bay...ones that aren't under pressure to pay back investors for years of subsidized prices. Of course, the leaked data is incomplete, and using unusual accounting, so perhaps I'm wrong. [1] http://gawker.com/here-are-the-internal-documents-that-prove-uber-is-a-mo-1704234157 http://gawker.com/here-are-the-internal-documents-that-prove... and 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...
  - user5994461 10y ago
    Sounds good. Revenues growing exponentially from 2012-2015. The revenues in 2015 were even higher than the predictions done 2 years earlier (that were actually planning for a steep exponential). At this rate of growth. They should be making 1-2 billion in revenues per quarter now. Wish we had a recent leaked document. That's a solid multi billion dollars business. Worse case scenario if they run out of subsidies: Stop distributing tons of incentive in unprofitable markets + fire half the staff (they have too many anyway) = back to positive.
    - tyingq 10y ago
      Easily back to a profitable business that is already in a hole how big? Anyone can drive big revenue by taking huge piles of investor cash and selling things below margin. That isn't magic. If that buys market share with a moat, it may make sense. If not, it's unwise.
      - user5994461 10y ago
        The size of the hole is irrelevant. What matters it the size of the shovel they are using (their expenses and subsidies) and the force of the wind that's refilling the hole with nearby dust (the customer revenues). They can reduce their shovel without impacting the wind too much.
        tyingq 10y ago
        Amazon was fine throwing money into making a moat, and they have a tangible one. I don't see what Uber's moat is once self driving cars are common. It seems they will be fighting off competition (car companies, Waymo, etc) that didn't have to spend money on lobbying, lawsuits, subsidies, and so forth.
        user5994461 10y ago
        That's your problem there! :D Self driving cars are just hype that won't be any significant for another decade. You should forget about self driving cars. What Uber has right now is real, a massive customer base and network of taxi, that is bringing billions of dollars. They could totally focus on that and have a strong and sustainable business.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
sctb 10y ago
We just reverted the submitted headline from “Uber rivals consolidating: Gett in talks to buy Juno for $250M” to that of the article.

chronic940 10y ago

Very few people on HN actually care about the Uber scandals. Almost no one has changed their daily behavior. They all still use Uber. It's exactly how Trump won the US election. A small group of people spread the idea Uber is doing poorly when in reality they're not.

sdflkd 10y ago
HN is full of the relatively privileged/wealthy. They don't need to care in their eyes.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
tyingq 10y ago
I'm skeptical about the business model in general, not related to any recent scandal. The leaked financials[1] seem to indicate it's a losing proposition until self driving cars are relatively ubiquitous. So whenever it does become financially viable, there's a pretty long payback cycle. And no obvious iron clad moat that keeps competitors at bay...ones that aren't under pressure to pay back investors for years of subsidized prices. Of course, the leaked data is incomplete, and using unusual accounting, so perhaps I'm wrong. [1] http://gawker.com/here-are-the-internal-documents-that-prove-uber-is-a-mo-1704234157 http://gawker.com/here-are-the-internal-documents-that-prove... and 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...
- user5994461 10y ago
  Sounds good. Revenues growing exponentially from 2012-2015. The revenues in 2015 were even higher than the predictions done 2 years earlier (that were actually planning for a steep exponential). At this rate of growth. They should be making 1-2 billion in revenues per quarter now. Wish we had a recent leaked document. That's a solid multi billion dollars business. Worse case scenario if they run out of subsidies: Stop distributing tons of incentive in unprofitable markets + fire half the staff (they have too many anyway) = back to positive.
  - tyingq 10y ago
    Easily back to a profitable business that is already in a hole how big? Anyone can drive big revenue by taking huge piles of investor cash and selling things below margin. That isn't magic. If that buys market share with a moat, it may make sense. If not, it's unwise.
    - user5994461 10y ago
      The size of the hole is irrelevant. What matters it the size of the shovel they are using (their expenses and subsidies) and the force of the wind that's refilling the hole with nearby dust (the customer revenues). They can reduce their shovel without impacting the wind too much.
      - tyingq 10y ago
        Amazon was fine throwing money into making a moat, and they have a tangible one. I don't see what Uber's moat is once self driving cars are common. It seems they will be fighting off competition (car companies, Waymo, etc) that didn't have to spend money on lobbying, lawsuits, subsidies, and so forth.
        user5994461 10y ago
        That's your problem there! :D Self driving cars are just hype that won't be any significant for another decade. You should forget about self driving cars. What Uber has right now is real, a massive customer base and network of taxi, that is bringing billions of dollars. They could totally focus on that and have a strong and sustainable business.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

sctb 10y ago

We just reverted the submitted headline from “Uber rivals consolidating: Gett in talks to buy Juno for $250M” to that of the article.