3 ms·

The problem is they need a story like self-driving cars to maintain the (inflated) valuation long enough for existing investors to get out. Taxi rides alone are

Fricken 8y ago
I think autonomy is existential for Uber, but I also think they have a decade or so before it will start having a deleterious impact on their bottom line. My thesis is that they shouldn't shudder ATG entirely, but should scale it back to a core group, and then consider dropping the dead weight and scaling it back up again slowly as certain performance milestones are met, meanwhile keeping a patient eye out for promising startups worthy of mid-stage investments sizeable enough to grant them an significant ownership stake.
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  *shutter
aphextron 8y ago
>The problem is they need a story like self-driving cars to maintain the (inflated) valuation long enough for existing investors to get out. Taxi rides alone are not nearly enough. This is pretty much it. Making an Uber clone is absolutely trivial, and they are being outcompeted in every single international market which has one. They also have zero customer loyalty, people will happily switch to another app the moment there is competition.
- paulcole 8y ago
  > Making an Uber clone is absolutely trivial Maybe so but cloning Uber is absolutely not trivial.
- paulie_a 8y ago
  It seems like it would be difficult to clone their terrible GPS usage and mapping. Most drivers use Google maps in my experience. And now with Uber express pool it is pretty much guaranteed it will tell you the wrong location. If it says northeast corner, just go to the south west corner.
Animats 8y ago
The problem is they need a story like self-driving cars to maintain the (inflated) valuation long enough for existing investors to get out. Taxi rides alone are not nearly enough. Exactly. Uber still loses money on every ride.[1] They can't fix the losses without raising prices, which would lose their competitive edge. They've squeezed the drivers as hard as they can, and the drivers are pushing back successfully at last.[2] So Uber needs something they can hype. They already tried "China", and failed. "Self-driving" was next. That's not working out. Uber is getting into bike/scooter rental and food delivery, which are already crowded, low-margin industries. Self-driving didn't need to work, it just had to be hyped for investors. [1] http://fortune.com/2018/08/15/travis-kalanick-uber-still-posts-massive-losses-sees-revenue-growth-slow/ http://fortune.com/2018/08/15/travis-kalanick-uber-still-pos... [2] http://fortune.com/2018/08/08/new-york-freeze-ride-sharing-vehicles-minimum-wage-lyft-uber/ http://fortune.com/2018/08/08/new-york-freeze-ride-sharing-v...
- SilasX 8y ago
  >Exactly. Uber still loses money on every ride. Please stop repeating this, or at least find a source that supports it. There's a big difference between "losing money in the aggregate" and losing money on each ride; the latter is only true if the marginal costs of providing each ride are greater than the revenues from it, and the source in [1] only reports the former kind of loss. It's very unlikely that each ride is actually costing them the ~$4 they take from it; that would be some pretty inefficient IT.
  - Animats 8y ago
    find a source that supports it. [1] https://news.crunchbase.com/news/understanding-uber-loses-money/ https://news.crunchbase.com/news/understanding-uber-loses-mo... [2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uber-valued-at-62-billion-still-loses-money-on-its-rides/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uber-valued-at-62-billion-still...
    - SilasX 8y ago
      Those just repeat the original source, which (uncontroversially) says they lose money in the aggregate. Total operating costs minus total revenues is positive. None of them claim, as you did, and as I asked for, that each ride loses them money. The closest they Come is saying that some rides can lose money because of the formula. Do you understand the difference between “lose money on each ride” and “lose money overall”? All of your links only speak to the latter, not the former, and the former is what I was objecting to.

Fricken 8y ago

I think autonomy is existential for Uber, but I also think they have a decade or so before it will start having a deleterious impact on their bottom line. My thesis is that they shouldn't shudder ATG entirely, but should scale it back to a core group, and then consider dropping the dead weight and scaling it back up again slowly as certain performance milestones are met, meanwhile keeping a patient eye out for promising startups worthy of mid-stage investments sizeable enough to grant them an significant ownership stake.

ryanwaggoner 8y ago
*shutter

aphextron 8y ago

>The problem is they need a story like self-driving cars to maintain the (inflated) valuation long enough for existing investors to get out. Taxi rides alone are not nearly enough. This is pretty much it. Making an Uber clone is absolutely trivial, and they are being outcompeted in every single international market which has one. They also have zero customer loyalty, people will happily switch to another app the moment there is competition.

paulcole 8y ago
> Making an Uber clone is absolutely trivial Maybe so but cloning Uber is absolutely not trivial.
paulie_a 8y ago
It seems like it would be difficult to clone their terrible GPS usage and mapping. Most drivers use Google maps in my experience. And now with Uber express pool it is pretty much guaranteed it will tell you the wrong location. If it says northeast corner, just go to the south west corner.

Animats 8y ago

The problem is they need a story like self-driving cars to maintain the (inflated) valuation long enough for existing investors to get out. Taxi rides alone are not nearly enough. Exactly. Uber still loses money on every ride.[1] They can't fix the losses without raising prices, which would lose their competitive edge. They've squeezed the drivers as hard as they can, and the drivers are pushing back successfully at last.[2] So Uber needs something they can hype. They already tried "China", and failed. "Self-driving" was next. That's not working out. Uber is getting into bike/scooter rental and food delivery, which are already crowded, low-margin industries. Self-driving didn't need to work, it just had to be hyped for investors. [1] http://fortune.com/2018/08/15/travis-kalanick-uber-still-posts-massive-losses-sees-revenue-growth-slow/ http://fortune.com/2018/08/15/travis-kalanick-uber-still-pos... [2] http://fortune.com/2018/08/08/new-york-freeze-ride-sharing-vehicles-minimum-wage-lyft-uber/ http://fortune.com/2018/08/08/new-york-freeze-ride-sharing-v...

SilasX 8y ago
>Exactly. Uber still loses money on every ride. Please stop repeating this, or at least find a source that supports it. There's a big difference between "losing money in the aggregate" and losing money on each ride; the latter is only true if the marginal costs of providing each ride are greater than the revenues from it, and the source in [1] only reports the former kind of loss. It's very unlikely that each ride is actually costing them the ~$4 they take from it; that would be some pretty inefficient IT.
- Animats 8y ago
  find a source that supports it. [1] https://news.crunchbase.com/news/understanding-uber-loses-money/ https://news.crunchbase.com/news/understanding-uber-loses-mo... [2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uber-valued-at-62-billion-still-loses-money-on-its-rides/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uber-valued-at-62-billion-still...
  - SilasX 8y ago
    Those just repeat the original source, which (uncontroversially) says they lose money in the aggregate. Total operating costs minus total revenues is positive. None of them claim, as you did, and as I asked for, that each ride loses them money. The closest they Come is saying that some rides can lose money because of the formula. Do you understand the difference between “lose money on each ride” and “lose money overall”? All of your links only speak to the latter, not the former, and the former is what I was objecting to.