5 ms·

If this is true if uber, that it has no path to profitability, isn't it also true of ubers competitors? Their price points are fairly similar and they all, at s

by dr_ 9y ago

If this is true if uber, that it has no path to profitability, isn't it also true of ubers competitors? Their price points are fairly similar and they all, at some point, offer incentives to ensure you keep using their service.

lmm 9y ago
Yes. The argument is that there simply isn't $80 billion to be made in the taxi industry; it's inherently a comodity business where boring companies should be able to make a steady 2% return rather than the kind of industry where a company that manages to sieze the market can make it back in monopoly rents.
- samstave 9y ago
  What would be interesting would be to see how far all the ridesharing revenues would have gone in actually really good public and municipal transportation and many other lifestyle changes (i.e. what if every company reduced to a 4-day work week, or at least a mandatory 1-day work from home in applicable industries.) it would be interesting to see where ridesharing investment money and the revenues the companies made could have ad a differing/better/other impact, just as a matter of looking at all possible outcomes as opposed to simply taken the state of things as a given.
the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
I think there are lots of companies that can capture the market better and for less money. Just look at mytaxi in Europe for a smaller scale conpany that is expanding rapidly.
- Finnucane 9y ago
  It's expanding rapidly because it can reach into Daimler-Benz's pockets.
  - the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
    Sure. And the service is inferior. But it's still sigificantly cheaper to operate.
bryanlarsen 9y ago
There are lots of companies out there that would be happy making tens of millions. Uber needs to make tens of billions.
onion2k 9y ago
If this is true if uber, that it has no path to profitability, isn't it also true of ubers competitors? A lot of Uber's costs to date have been proving that ride-sharing is a thing that consumers want to do (market education) and that governments don't want to stop (lobbying). Their competition get the benefit of that Uber's investment in those things for free, so it might be the case that Uber will fail and their competition won't. That's by no means saying it's definitely the case, but being the first mover has downsides as well as advantages.
- gaius 9y ago
  Forgive me if I am being slow but what is the actual difference between "ride sharing" and "unlicensed minicab"? I mean that seems to be the crux of all Uber's regulatory woes - that they are either unwilling or unable to articulate it.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    The difference is ride sharing is when the driver was going to do the ride anyway, and the passengers are just sharing the ride, hence the name. It's historically been mildly popular, for instance, on weekends and other breaks with trips originating at and returning to college campuses. Of course, none of the big “ride sharing companies” have anything to do with actual ride sharing.
  - onion2k 9y ago
    On the face of it there is no difference. Uber's reasoning seems to be that even if the driver is the same as a minicab that's nothing to do with Uber. All they claim to do is connect drivers with passengers in a convenient app. They say they're no more liable for the legality of the ride as the phone company is if you call a cab company that isn't compliant with the law. Many people disagree.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    Their lobbying has actually been pretty successful; a lot of states have enshrined this stuff into law. Consider the linked (in the link) article: https://hbr.org/2017/06/uber-cant-be-fixed-its-time-for-regulators-to-shut-it-down https://hbr.org/2017/06/uber-cant-be-fixed-its-time-for-regu...

by dr_ 9y ago

lmm 9y ago

Yes. The argument is that there simply isn't $80 billion to be made in the taxi industry; it's inherently a comodity business where boring companies should be able to make a steady 2% return rather than the kind of industry where a company that manages to sieze the market can make it back in monopoly rents.

samstave 9y ago
What would be interesting would be to see how far all the ridesharing revenues would have gone in actually really good public and municipal transportation and many other lifestyle changes (i.e. what if every company reduced to a 4-day work week, or at least a mandatory 1-day work from home in applicable industries.) it would be interesting to see where ridesharing investment money and the revenues the companies made could have ad a differing/better/other impact, just as a matter of looking at all possible outcomes as opposed to simply taken the state of things as a given.

the_mitsuhiko 9y ago

I think there are lots of companies that can capture the market better and for less money. Just look at mytaxi in Europe for a smaller scale conpany that is expanding rapidly.

Finnucane 9y ago
It's expanding rapidly because it can reach into Daimler-Benz's pockets.
- the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
  Sure. And the service is inferior. But it's still sigificantly cheaper to operate.

bryanlarsen 9y ago

There are lots of companies out there that would be happy making tens of millions. Uber needs to make tens of billions.

onion2k 9y ago

If this is true if uber, that it has no path to profitability, isn't it also true of ubers competitors? A lot of Uber's costs to date have been proving that ride-sharing is a thing that consumers want to do (market education) and that governments don't want to stop (lobbying). Their competition get the benefit of that Uber's investment in those things for free, so it might be the case that Uber will fail and their competition won't. That's by no means saying it's definitely the case, but being the first mover has downsides as well as advantages.

gaius 9y ago
Forgive me if I am being slow but what is the actual difference between "ride sharing" and "unlicensed minicab"? I mean that seems to be the crux of all Uber's regulatory woes - that they are either unwilling or unable to articulate it.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  The difference is ride sharing is when the driver was going to do the ride anyway, and the passengers are just sharing the ride, hence the name. It's historically been mildly popular, for instance, on weekends and other breaks with trips originating at and returning to college campuses. Of course, none of the big “ride sharing companies” have anything to do with actual ride sharing.
- onion2k 9y ago
  On the face of it there is no difference. Uber's reasoning seems to be that even if the driver is the same as a minicab that's nothing to do with Uber. All they claim to do is connect drivers with passengers in a convenient app. They say they're no more liable for the legality of the ride as the phone company is if you call a cab company that isn't compliant with the law. Many people disagree.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Their lobbying has actually been pretty successful; a lot of states have enshrined this stuff into law. Consider the linked (in the link) article: https://hbr.org/2017/06/uber-cant-be-fixed-its-time-for-regulators-to-shut-it-down https://hbr.org/2017/06/uber-cant-be-fixed-its-time-for-regu...