3 ms·

Sounds like a terrible idea given that this would just open the door for another company to do the same to them. They don't produce anything novel which can't e

Sounds like a terrible idea given that this would just open the door for another company to do the same to them. They don't produce anything novel which can't easily be replicated.

emodendroket 9y ago
I didn't say it was a good plan.
- EpicEng 9y ago
  Sure, I get that it's not _your_ idea
adventured 9y ago
Once they acquire a dominant position, the cost to assail it will be astronomical. It already is in fact, which is why Lyft is burning so much cash just in the US market alone ($3 to $4 billion in red ink just in the US). You're going to have to convince venture capitalists to put in $10 or $15 billion and be willing to watch it all burn, on the nearly impossible task of unseating the market winner. That will never happen. That is not how VCs operate. Which is why Google search has gone almost entirely unchallenged by VC over the last decade, despite being an extraordinary cash cow. The reason there isn't another Uber competitor getting $7 billion in VC across multiple rounds in the US right now, is the same exact reason there won't be another Uber after the dust settles.
- ashelmire 9y ago
  You are making the incorrect assumption that a company has to try to compete with Uber everywhere all at once. They don't. Once Uber raises prices to the point where they make a profit, cabs will just come back and undercut them - because they will have less expenses (they don't have to support a massive organization and shareholders). This will happen independently in every city.
- EpicEng 9y ago
  I don't have to compete with them globally from the start. I compete in one market, then two, then... There's no lock-in here. "Oh, some other service cropped up in my area and the rides are 50% that of Uber's? Ok, I'll download a new app" I don't think any of this nonsense is sustainable.
amerkhalid 9y ago
Except there is a network effect. You will have to lower the cost for both; passengers and drivers for them to switch. Most of passengers I know, use one app, either Uber or Lyft. I don't know which one is cheaper but no one seems to compare prices even if they had both apps on their phone. The way I see is that once Uber is a monopoly, it will start using advertisement model to subsidize rides. Should be easy enough, after requesting a ride at full cost, you can watch 5 minutes of videos until your ride gets there to get 10% discount. Or they can ask drivers to put tablets playing ads in their cars. They have history of places you visit, they can probably show highly targeted ads. "Going to a bar in downtown, checkout this other bar on the same street."

Sounds like a terrible idea given that this would just open the door for another company to do the same to them. They don't produce anything novel which can't easily be replicated.

emodendroket 9y ago

I didn't say it was a good plan.

EpicEng 9y ago
Sure, I get that it's not _your_ idea

adventured 9y ago

Once they acquire a dominant position, the cost to assail it will be astronomical. It already is in fact, which is why Lyft is burning so much cash just in the US market alone ($3 to $4 billion in red ink just in the US). You're going to have to convince venture capitalists to put in $10 or $15 billion and be willing to watch it all burn, on the nearly impossible task of unseating the market winner. That will never happen. That is not how VCs operate. Which is why Google search has gone almost entirely unchallenged by VC over the last decade, despite being an extraordinary cash cow. The reason there isn't another Uber competitor getting $7 billion in VC across multiple rounds in the US right now, is the same exact reason there won't be another Uber after the dust settles.

ashelmire 9y ago
You are making the incorrect assumption that a company has to try to compete with Uber everywhere all at once. They don't. Once Uber raises prices to the point where they make a profit, cabs will just come back and undercut them - because they will have less expenses (they don't have to support a massive organization and shareholders). This will happen independently in every city.
EpicEng 9y ago
I don't have to compete with them globally from the start. I compete in one market, then two, then... There's no lock-in here. "Oh, some other service cropped up in my area and the rides are 50% that of Uber's? Ok, I'll download a new app" I don't think any of this nonsense is sustainable.

amerkhalid 9y ago

Except there is a network effect. You will have to lower the cost for both; passengers and drivers for them to switch. Most of passengers I know, use one app, either Uber or Lyft. I don't know which one is cheaper but no one seems to compare prices even if they had both apps on their phone. The way I see is that once Uber is a monopoly, it will start using advertisement model to subsidize rides. Should be easy enough, after requesting a ride at full cost, you can watch 5 minutes of videos until your ride gets there to get 10% discount. Or they can ask drivers to put tablets playing ads in their cars. They have history of places you visit, they can probably show highly targeted ads. "Going to a bar in downtown, checkout this other bar on the same street."