6 ms·

>a moat-like advantage, if Uber was to disappear tomorrow, there are competitors who will quickly takeover & grow, this happened when Uber left Austin. What co

by Grue3 9y ago

>a moat-like advantage, if Uber was to disappear tomorrow, there are competitors who will quickly takeover & grow, this happened when Uber left Austin. What company, were it to disappear tomorrow wouldn't have competitors to take over its place? And how, from a Bayesian point of view, does P(competitors take over | company is dead) affect the chances of survival of a company?

tapoxi 9y ago
I think the argument is that Uber has almost zero switching cost. If I wanted to replace Facebook with Google+ or switch from Xbox to PlayStation I'd have to convince my friends to do so. To switch to Lyft I just had to install the app. Most of the drivers are the same since they just keep both apps running.
- adventured 9y ago
  That's in a fantasy premise that will never actually exist. Back in reality, here's the switching cost: the start-up trying to take Uber's market share, has dramatically inferior data on ride timing/volume; said company has dramatically inferior ride availability in a given city (and at a national, city to city consistency level it's a joke comparison). Further down the line, the upstart is going to lag even further behind due to Uber's data wall, as we shift into autonomous. Fantasy: it's friction free, anyone can start an Uber clone, there's no switching cost Reality: it's extraordinarily difficult to compete with Uber, which is why so few have or can. There's a huge switching cost: Uber has all sorts of advantages over a start-up, that help Uber provide a superior service - locally, nationally, globally - over what a new company can manage. Oh yeah, and the biggest one: it's very hard to build what Uber built, it's ten times harder to do it while there's already an Uber, because you have to fight with them and their hyper scale while you're doing it (Uber didn't have to kill an Uber, now you do, good luck). Wait there's more: and that's before we get to the fact that people are huge creatures of habit. Duck Duck Go produces excellent results, it'll never dent Google's search monopoly in a meaningful way; people do not want to switch unless they either have to, or the context goes beyond an extreme inconvenience. Both drivers and customers will tolerate a lot to not have to go through the immense (to them) hassle of switching. People grow to like their routines a lot, the things they use day to day, week to week; in fact, it's far beyond that, people are hyper resistant to change once they become settled in.
  - linkregister 9y ago
    So few have or can? Lyft, which is still experiencing 100% growth year-over-year? Didi, which dominates the Chinese market? Ola, which matches Uber in India? Grab, which dominates in Malaysia and is experiencing large growth in Southeast Asia? Didi, Lyft, and Uber are all nearing the point where they can't dump subsidies on the market; they have to raise rates or they won't raise more money. They have to become profitable soon. When they become public companies, they won't be able to lower rates at the expense of profits without raising the ire of shareholders. By the way, the entire European market is open to the ride sharing company who can be palatable to EU governments. Uber is failing at this; the opportunity is very much there.
    - adventured 9y ago
      Lyft is going bankrupt in my opinion. They'll be acquired by one of the far larger companies interested in the space. They have a maximum of 12 to 18 months before an acquisition is forced upon them, as it nearly was a year ago, when they failed to find a buyer at the valuation they were seeking. There's no scenario where Lyft remains a viable stand-alone competitor; they're already not a viable competitor, their last funding merely bought them one more year of flailing about, burning vast red ink, looking for a buyer. It's obviously a different context globally, due to regulations, nationalism, et al. Didi for example will never own the US market, they're likely to end up like other Chinese tech giants, struggling to dominate internationally as they do domestically. Ola is the next Flipkart.
      - eberkund 9y ago
        But how is that any different than Uber? IMO people are going to be in for a real wake-up call when these companies finally kill traditional taxi company and there is a massive rate hike. Right now everyone loves Uber because they are cheaper than the equivalent Taxi ride but that is only because they are operating a massive loss and do some shady things with the way they hire and pay drivers.
        9y ago
JBReefer 9y ago
Google's research arms (in terms of actually shipping), the oil supermajors (scale is the only thing that matters, and that takes time), and probably IBM (because they don't seem to actually do anything)
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  Intel? Obviously excluding a neat, staff-and-fabs sale, I would expect their collapse to drop a lot of chip lines back a year or two.
  - linkregister 9y ago
    Wouldn't AMD and the collection of ARM fabricators take Intel's place?

by Grue3 9y ago

tapoxi 9y ago

I think the argument is that Uber has almost zero switching cost. If I wanted to replace Facebook with Google+ or switch from Xbox to PlayStation I'd have to convince my friends to do so. To switch to Lyft I just had to install the app. Most of the drivers are the same since they just keep both apps running.

adventured 9y ago
That's in a fantasy premise that will never actually exist. Back in reality, here's the switching cost: the start-up trying to take Uber's market share, has dramatically inferior data on ride timing/volume; said company has dramatically inferior ride availability in a given city (and at a national, city to city consistency level it's a joke comparison). Further down the line, the upstart is going to lag even further behind due to Uber's data wall, as we shift into autonomous. Fantasy: it's friction free, anyone can start an Uber clone, there's no switching cost Reality: it's extraordinarily difficult to compete with Uber, which is why so few have or can. There's a huge switching cost: Uber has all sorts of advantages over a start-up, that help Uber provide a superior service - locally, nationally, globally - over what a new company can manage. Oh yeah, and the biggest one: it's very hard to build what Uber built, it's ten times harder to do it while there's already an Uber, because you have to fight with them and their hyper scale while you're doing it (Uber didn't have to kill an Uber, now you do, good luck). Wait there's more: and that's before we get to the fact that people are huge creatures of habit. Duck Duck Go produces excellent results, it'll never dent Google's search monopoly in a meaningful way; people do not want to switch unless they either have to, or the context goes beyond an extreme inconvenience. Both drivers and customers will tolerate a lot to not have to go through the immense (to them) hassle of switching. People grow to like their routines a lot, the things they use day to day, week to week; in fact, it's far beyond that, people are hyper resistant to change once they become settled in.
- linkregister 9y ago
  So few have or can? Lyft, which is still experiencing 100% growth year-over-year? Didi, which dominates the Chinese market? Ola, which matches Uber in India? Grab, which dominates in Malaysia and is experiencing large growth in Southeast Asia? Didi, Lyft, and Uber are all nearing the point where they can't dump subsidies on the market; they have to raise rates or they won't raise more money. They have to become profitable soon. When they become public companies, they won't be able to lower rates at the expense of profits without raising the ire of shareholders. By the way, the entire European market is open to the ride sharing company who can be palatable to EU governments. Uber is failing at this; the opportunity is very much there.
  - adventured 9y ago
    Lyft is going bankrupt in my opinion. They'll be acquired by one of the far larger companies interested in the space. They have a maximum of 12 to 18 months before an acquisition is forced upon them, as it nearly was a year ago, when they failed to find a buyer at the valuation they were seeking. There's no scenario where Lyft remains a viable stand-alone competitor; they're already not a viable competitor, their last funding merely bought them one more year of flailing about, burning vast red ink, looking for a buyer. It's obviously a different context globally, due to regulations, nationalism, et al. Didi for example will never own the US market, they're likely to end up like other Chinese tech giants, struggling to dominate internationally as they do domestically. Ola is the next Flipkart.
    - eberkund 9y ago
      But how is that any different than Uber? IMO people are going to be in for a real wake-up call when these companies finally kill traditional taxi company and there is a massive rate hike. Right now everyone loves Uber because they are cheaper than the equivalent Taxi ride but that is only because they are operating a massive loss and do some shady things with the way they hire and pay drivers.
      - 9y ago

JBReefer 9y ago

Google's research arms (in terms of actually shipping), the oil supermajors (scale is the only thing that matters, and that takes time), and probably IBM (because they don't seem to actually do anything)

Bartweiss 9y ago
Intel? Obviously excluding a neat, staff-and-fabs sale, I would expect their collapse to drop a lot of chip lines back a year or two.
- linkregister 9y ago
  Wouldn't AMD and the collection of ARM fabricators take Intel's place?