8 ms·

The most exciting implication here is that we can finally pour over the financials of a major ride-hailing company. Whether these companies have the unit econom

The most exciting implication here is that we can finally pour over the financials of a major ride-hailing company. Whether these companies have the unit economics to succeed is, remarkably, still an open question.

dcposch 8y ago
Sorry to be a grammar right wing populist, but it's "pore over". To pore is to think deeply about to something, to dwell on it. A pour-over is a type of coffee.
- scarface74 8y ago
  I’m not a grammar nazi either, but I am glad you posted this. I didn’t know this either. This was an insightful correction. The only thing I usually correct is jibe vs jive....
- liquidise 8y ago
  I'm not sure why you are being down voted. This sounds like it is a surprising revelation for many, myself included.
  - pgrote 8y ago
    I believe it is for "right wing populist" when nazi is usually used with the grammar phrase.
- Waterluvian 8y ago
  Never knew this. Thanks for sharing.
- Daegalus 8y ago
  This makes a lot of sense. I have never seen Pore-Over written right, and pronounced, I always thought it was Pour and as an immigrant (even though i came here when I was 5 years old) it never quite made sense, but I went with it. Now that I know the word "pore" exists with this definition, it makes so much more sense.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mmmmmmmmm 8y ago
  The Nazis were left wing, but whatever. At least you can spell.
- kondro 8y ago
  Ha! I’ve always thought pour was more of an onomatopoeia of being hunched over and processing a large set of things. I’ve learned something new today. :)
  - mreid 8y ago
    Another thing to add to your learnings for the day is the difference between “metaphor” and “onomatopoeia”. The latter is only for words that are related to a particular sound they are describing, e.g., “quack”, “bang”, “sizzle”, “whoosh”. “Pour over” is the sense you describe would be a metaphor.
    - kondro 8y ago
      So it’s strange I hear it as a sound describing the action then?
      - mreid 8y ago
        I never thought of it as onomatopoeic before but, if I string the sound out – pooooooour – making the “o” noisy and its pitch rise slowly it does remind me of the sound of a cup being filled from a tap. Ok, I still think it’s an unusual example but you’ve convinced me. I retract my earlier comment and replace it with a “today I learned” for me. :)
- the_reformation 8y ago
  damn it
- lscotte 8y ago
  And just hipster drip coffee at that.
hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
> Whether these companies have the unit economics to succeed is, remarkably, still an open question. I don't think there are many people who doubt that ride hailing apps can be done profitably. I think the big question is (a) is it a commodity business (I personally believe it is) and (b) can potential profit margins support their astronomical valuations. I think the main problem (though MUCH more so for Uber than for Lyft) is that it is valued as a "network effects" business, e.g. something like a Facebook or a Google with substantial pricing power, but I think the reality is that it will turn out to be much more like the airline business - basically a commodity business where raising prices is extremely difficult.
- speby 8y ago
  > but I think the reality is that it will turn out to be much more like the airline business - basically a commodity business where raising prices is extremely difficult. I believe you are onto something there. What did people do before Lyft/Uber? They walked more. They biked. They took public transportation. Maybe they drove themselves. Maybe they drove/carpooled with a friend. Maybe they took a good old fashioned taxi. Faced with a price hike attempt, those options are again always on the table.
  - baddox 8y ago
    Sounds like you’re talking about the price elasticity of demand. You describe airline travel (at least for personal economy class flights) to be fairly inelastic, meaning that if the price rises even a little bit, a lot of people will just drive or not take the trip. That certainly rings true to me. I recently bought US domestic flights home for Christmas, and I certainly chose the absolute cheapest flight that fit the schedule and had less than 2 hours of layover. The price was already brutal, and I felt like I was very near the top of my price tolerance. But I feel like the Lyft/Uber mode of transport is generally more spontaneously and is therefore generally more elastic. Sure, there are undoubtedly some inelastic use cases, like regular commutes, but there are also some very elastic use cases, like a ride home from the bar or a rescue from the rain. I am definitely interested to see how the breakdown of these different use cases turns out to be, but for me and my friends and peers in the SF Bay Area, the latter use case definitely dominates. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand
0x8BADF00D 8y ago
Unit economics don’t really matter in this case. Lyft and Uber could be hemorrhaging money but the paradigm has fundamentally shifted. Ownership as we know it will become meaningless. Sure, you could buy a self-driving car, but do you need to? Waymo One’s launch will determine the future of ridesharing companies, not unit economics.
- nl 8y ago
  Unless the patience of investors is infinite (HT to Keynes there) unit economics would appear to matter eventually. Note for example Amazon, which didn't turn a profit for years, had extremely good unit economics and invested in growth.
- gaius 8y ago
  Ownership as we know it will become meaningless. Sure, you could buy a self-driving car, but do you need to? I wonder if people who say things like this are actually drivers, because every driver I know has a car full of random stuff that lives permanently in it incase it’s needed. No one is going to carry all that with them; if they did it wouldn’t live in the car in the first place! Ownership isn’t going anywhere, or taxis would already have killed private ownership (and hotels would have killed the housing market...)
  - sanedigital 8y ago
    But then where do people without cars keep all of these necessary items? I live in an urban area, I own a car, and I have almost nothing in it besides a car seat. Taxis have killed ownership in places where taxis are more convenient than car ownership. As ride sharing becomes more ubiquitous—especially as self driving vehicles move into the space—that's going to become a reality in more and more locations.
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      >But then where do people without cars keep all of these necessary items? They just don't carry them. If it starts raining and you didn't bring an umbrella then oh well, you get wet.

dcposch 8y ago

Sorry to be a grammar right wing populist, but it's "pore over". To pore is to think deeply about to something, to dwell on it. A pour-over is a type of coffee.

scarface74 8y ago
I’m not a grammar nazi either, but I am glad you posted this. I didn’t know this either. This was an insightful correction. The only thing I usually correct is jibe vs jive....
liquidise 8y ago
I'm not sure why you are being down voted. This sounds like it is a surprising revelation for many, myself included.
- pgrote 8y ago
  I believe it is for "right wing populist" when nazi is usually used with the grammar phrase.
Waterluvian 8y ago
Never knew this. Thanks for sharing.
Daegalus 8y ago
This makes a lot of sense. I have never seen Pore-Over written right, and pronounced, I always thought it was Pour and as an immigrant (even though i came here when I was 5 years old) it never quite made sense, but I went with it. Now that I know the word "pore" exists with this definition, it makes so much more sense.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mmmmmmmmm 8y ago
The Nazis were left wing, but whatever. At least you can spell.
kondro 8y ago
Ha! I’ve always thought pour was more of an onomatopoeia of being hunched over and processing a large set of things. I’ve learned something new today. :)
- mreid 8y ago
  Another thing to add to your learnings for the day is the difference between “metaphor” and “onomatopoeia”. The latter is only for words that are related to a particular sound they are describing, e.g., “quack”, “bang”, “sizzle”, “whoosh”. “Pour over” is the sense you describe would be a metaphor.
  - kondro 8y ago
    So it’s strange I hear it as a sound describing the action then?
    - mreid 8y ago
      I never thought of it as onomatopoeic before but, if I string the sound out – pooooooour – making the “o” noisy and its pitch rise slowly it does remind me of the sound of a cup being filled from a tap. Ok, I still think it’s an unusual example but you’ve convinced me. I retract my earlier comment and replace it with a “today I learned” for me. :)
the_reformation 8y ago
damn it
lscotte 8y ago
And just hipster drip coffee at that.

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago

> Whether these companies have the unit economics to succeed is, remarkably, still an open question. I don't think there are many people who doubt that ride hailing apps can be done profitably. I think the big question is (a) is it a commodity business (I personally believe it is) and (b) can potential profit margins support their astronomical valuations. I think the main problem (though MUCH more so for Uber than for Lyft) is that it is valued as a "network effects" business, e.g. something like a Facebook or a Google with substantial pricing power, but I think the reality is that it will turn out to be much more like the airline business - basically a commodity business where raising prices is extremely difficult.

speby 8y ago
> but I think the reality is that it will turn out to be much more like the airline business - basically a commodity business where raising prices is extremely difficult. I believe you are onto something there. What did people do before Lyft/Uber? They walked more. They biked. They took public transportation. Maybe they drove themselves. Maybe they drove/carpooled with a friend. Maybe they took a good old fashioned taxi. Faced with a price hike attempt, those options are again always on the table.
- baddox 8y ago
  Sounds like you’re talking about the price elasticity of demand. You describe airline travel (at least for personal economy class flights) to be fairly inelastic, meaning that if the price rises even a little bit, a lot of people will just drive or not take the trip. That certainly rings true to me. I recently bought US domestic flights home for Christmas, and I certainly chose the absolute cheapest flight that fit the schedule and had less than 2 hours of layover. The price was already brutal, and I felt like I was very near the top of my price tolerance. But I feel like the Lyft/Uber mode of transport is generally more spontaneously and is therefore generally more elastic. Sure, there are undoubtedly some inelastic use cases, like regular commutes, but there are also some very elastic use cases, like a ride home from the bar or a rescue from the rain. I am definitely interested to see how the breakdown of these different use cases turns out to be, but for me and my friends and peers in the SF Bay Area, the latter use case definitely dominates. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand

0x8BADF00D 8y ago

Unit economics don’t really matter in this case. Lyft and Uber could be hemorrhaging money but the paradigm has fundamentally shifted. Ownership as we know it will become meaningless. Sure, you could buy a self-driving car, but do you need to? Waymo One’s launch will determine the future of ridesharing companies, not unit economics.

nl 8y ago
Unless the patience of investors is infinite (HT to Keynes there) unit economics would appear to matter eventually. Note for example Amazon, which didn't turn a profit for years, had extremely good unit economics and invested in growth.
gaius 8y ago
Ownership as we know it will become meaningless. Sure, you could buy a self-driving car, but do you need to? I wonder if people who say things like this are actually drivers, because every driver I know has a car full of random stuff that lives permanently in it incase it’s needed. No one is going to carry all that with them; if they did it wouldn’t live in the car in the first place! Ownership isn’t going anywhere, or taxis would already have killed private ownership (and hotels would have killed the housing market...)
- sanedigital 8y ago
  But then where do people without cars keep all of these necessary items? I live in an urban area, I own a car, and I have almost nothing in it besides a car seat. Taxis have killed ownership in places where taxis are more convenient than car ownership. As ride sharing becomes more ubiquitous—especially as self driving vehicles move into the space—that's going to become a reality in more and more locations.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >But then where do people without cars keep all of these necessary items? They just don't carry them. If it starts raining and you didn't bring an umbrella then oh well, you get wet.