43 ms·

1) Profit != cash flow. Amazon was cash flow positive significantly before they became profitable. They made a conscious choice to not be profitable (the cynic

1) Profit != cash flow. Amazon was cash flow positive significantly before they became profitable. They made a conscious choice to not be profitable (the cynic’s take on this is that they didn’t want to pay taxes). 2) Lyft has made market share gains in the US. Other companies have made market share gains in other countries, to the point that Uber has had to withdraw from several countries. 3) A larger market does not necessarily provide economies of scale for the individual driver. The larger market does not help an individual driver reduce their costs. A larger market adds some value to the drivers, but the actual fact is that the value added so far has been consistently outweighed by the downsides. This is clearly evident in the significantly less money they are making. 4) Your argument that Uber is worth a lot is exactly what is being contested. You can’t use that assertion (whether right or wrong) to prove the assertion. And Iber is hardly a monopoly anywhere. Yellow cab services still exist. Left and other competitors still exist and are growing. 5) Has Uber presented a case showing how they will be profitable? How is it cynical to point out this obvious fact? Also, with the IPO market they don’t need to sell to someone stupider. They just need to sell to an entity whose decision makers’ interests are not aligned with the owners of the funds they are investing. In other words, pension funds, mutual funds, investment banks, etc. But yeah, there are enough stupider people as well who could lose money on this.

bko 8y ago
1. Uber could be profitable by not expanding. They stated that there are a number of markets in which they're profitable. It seems to be a decision as well to aggressively expand. These arguments seem to be backing into an argument why Uber is not like other things. 2. I'm commenting on what the article wrote. Of course there are competitors. I was pointing out the logical fallacy in the article. Easy to copy but no one successfully copied it. 3. So the market doesn't benefit drivers but the market is growing in drivers? Apparently the downsides of joining the market is less than the upsides evidenced by the fact that it's growing 4. The article claims there are little or no benefits to markets in Cabs. The fact that Uber has grown to this size questions that assertion. And your statement that there are other competitors also questions the articles assertion. So we're in agreement here 5. No idea but I assume the skin in the game that has invested billions has reason to believe so. Or maybe everyone else is stupid.

bko 8y ago

1. Uber could be profitable by not expanding. They stated that there are a number of markets in which they're profitable. It seems to be a decision as well to aggressively expand. These arguments seem to be backing into an argument why Uber is not like other things. 2. I'm commenting on what the article wrote. Of course there are competitors. I was pointing out the logical fallacy in the article. Easy to copy but no one successfully copied it. 3. So the market doesn't benefit drivers but the market is growing in drivers? Apparently the downsides of joining the market is less than the upsides evidenced by the fact that it's growing 4. The article claims there are little or no benefits to markets in Cabs. The fact that Uber has grown to this size questions that assertion. And your statement that there are other competitors also questions the articles assertion. So we're in agreement here 5. No idea but I assume the skin in the game that has invested billions has reason to believe so. Or maybe everyone else is stupid.