6 ms·

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 wo

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 9y ago
HN is full of the relatively privileged/wealthy. They don't need to care in their eyes.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
tyingq 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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.
        tyingq 9y ago
        Sans self driving cars, Uber loses cash. You seem to think shedding employees is enough to fix that. Closing a $2 to $3bn/yr loss with just layoffs seems hard. Eliminating subsidies puts competitors on a level playing field. I can sell dollar bills for 90 cents and be incredibly popular too. I just don't have the panache to sell that plan to Saudis.
- monkmartinez 9y ago
  If you don't think self-driving vehicles face an enormous uphill regulation battle, you are sorely, sorely mistaken! Politics haven't even entered the self-driving game yet. They will and every union associated with driving is going to freak the fuck out. It will be a bloody political mess.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    I think you may be misreading me. I'm not saying they are imminent. I am saying Uber's business model sucks without the lower costs they deliver. Anything that delays them means Uber burns more cash subsidizing cheap prices to hold back competition. And once they do arrive, competitors can enter the market with lower costs. Or, maybe Uber isn't losing as much as it seems? (Estimates are $2+bn/yr) Or there is some moat that protects them? I just don't get it.
    - monkmartinez 9y ago
      If they need self-driving cars to be profitable, they might as well hang it up, seriously its not happening for a long while. I don't think that is the case, however.
    - yawaworht12 9y ago
      Everyone is blinded by the large number like $3 billion. That's not the number that matterS. All the companies in this market are subsidizing rides (except maybe the traditional taxis). What matters is how much each ride is being subsidized. A while back another user did this math using leaked financials from Uber and Lyft and Lyft deserves more criticism for subsidizing rides than Uber: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13772168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13772168
      - tyingq 9y ago
        Sure. But noting that the same model isn't working for anyone doesn't change anything I said.
- yawaworht12 9y ago
  Given Lyft's leaked financials versus Uber's leaked financial, it looks like Lyft (and others) are going to be the ones trying to pay back investors for years: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13772168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13772168 I don't understand how so many people on HN falsely believe that Uber is the only one subsidizing rides. My only explanations are ignorance and astroturfing.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    That might make sense here if I'd thrown a rant about how Lyft was going to eat their lunch. But I didn't. I said, roughly, that the current model is unsustainable and loses money. If Uber is losing $2-3bn/year, and Lyft is losing $600/mn, that doesn't contradict that. People talk about Uber because they are the market leader, and because their hubris and antics add additional risk to the already shaky model (like the Waymo suit).
    - yawaworht12 9y ago
      Define hubris and provide evidence of it. That seems like an odd accusation to levy if someone is trying to be dispassionate and objective in their argument against a business model instead of a particular company.
      - tyingq 9y ago
        Er, okay. You don't objectively think the Waymo lawsuit is a concern?
        yawaworht12 9y ago
        I think its a concern, but how is it hubris on Uber's part? It's an allegation not a proven fact based on weak circumstantial evidence. In America you can sue anyone for anything. The fact that they knew about these downloaded files since well before he left Google but only did something now when Uber has a negative PR firestorm makes me very skeptical about Google's motives. If you know an employee download files, you deal with the situation immediately and make sure your IP is returned. If you're being ethical, you don't wait almost 1-2 years until a convenient time to use that incident to attack a competitor that out-executed you fair and square.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

sdflkd 9y ago

HN is full of the relatively privileged/wealthy. They don't need to care in their eyes.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

tyingq 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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.
        tyingq 9y ago
        Sans self driving cars, Uber loses cash. You seem to think shedding employees is enough to fix that. Closing a $2 to $3bn/yr loss with just layoffs seems hard. Eliminating subsidies puts competitors on a level playing field. I can sell dollar bills for 90 cents and be incredibly popular too. I just don't have the panache to sell that plan to Saudis.
monkmartinez 9y ago
If you don't think self-driving vehicles face an enormous uphill regulation battle, you are sorely, sorely mistaken! Politics haven't even entered the self-driving game yet. They will and every union associated with driving is going to freak the fuck out. It will be a bloody political mess.
- tyingq 9y ago
  I think you may be misreading me. I'm not saying they are imminent. I am saying Uber's business model sucks without the lower costs they deliver. Anything that delays them means Uber burns more cash subsidizing cheap prices to hold back competition. And once they do arrive, competitors can enter the market with lower costs. Or, maybe Uber isn't losing as much as it seems? (Estimates are $2+bn/yr) Or there is some moat that protects them? I just don't get it.
  - monkmartinez 9y ago
    If they need self-driving cars to be profitable, they might as well hang it up, seriously its not happening for a long while. I don't think that is the case, however.
  - yawaworht12 9y ago
    Everyone is blinded by the large number like $3 billion. That's not the number that matterS. All the companies in this market are subsidizing rides (except maybe the traditional taxis). What matters is how much each ride is being subsidized. A while back another user did this math using leaked financials from Uber and Lyft and Lyft deserves more criticism for subsidizing rides than Uber: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13772168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13772168
    - tyingq 9y ago
      Sure. But noting that the same model isn't working for anyone doesn't change anything I said.
yawaworht12 9y ago
Given Lyft's leaked financials versus Uber's leaked financial, it looks like Lyft (and others) are going to be the ones trying to pay back investors for years: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13772168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13772168 I don't understand how so many people on HN falsely believe that Uber is the only one subsidizing rides. My only explanations are ignorance and astroturfing.
- tyingq 9y ago
  That might make sense here if I'd thrown a rant about how Lyft was going to eat their lunch. But I didn't. I said, roughly, that the current model is unsustainable and loses money. If Uber is losing $2-3bn/year, and Lyft is losing $600/mn, that doesn't contradict that. People talk about Uber because they are the market leader, and because their hubris and antics add additional risk to the already shaky model (like the Waymo suit).
  - yawaworht12 9y ago
    Define hubris and provide evidence of it. That seems like an odd accusation to levy if someone is trying to be dispassionate and objective in their argument against a business model instead of a particular company.
    - tyingq 9y ago
      Er, okay. You don't objectively think the Waymo lawsuit is a concern?
      - yawaworht12 9y ago
        I think its a concern, but how is it hubris on Uber's part? It's an allegation not a proven fact based on weak circumstantial evidence. In America you can sue anyone for anything. The fact that they knew about these downloaded files since well before he left Google but only did something now when Uber has a negative PR firestorm makes me very skeptical about Google's motives. If you know an employee download files, you deal with the situation immediately and make sure your IP is returned. If you're being ethical, you don't wait almost 1-2 years until a convenient time to use that incident to attack a competitor that out-executed you fair and square.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]