3 ms·

Well same for Uber and we all knew that. It's just the business model (for now). So, in a world where we are all used to Uber/Lyft and there's no turning back

Well same for Uber and we all knew that. It's just the business model (for now). So, in a world where we are all used to Uber/Lyft and there's no turning back, the only way forward is for fares to go up, close to - if not the same - to conventional cab fares. Which will decrease usage, which will decrease the size of Uber/Lyft and therefore their market cap. Sounds like 1999

ghaff 8y ago
I honestly, albeit naively, expected that when Uber put in a new CEO, they’d take that opportunity to raise prices to break even levels which presumably end up around where taxis are. Take the volume hit; customers who are only interested in VC-subsided rides aren’t customers you want. But I guess everyone decided to continue to pretend that the current business is sustainable.
- djsumdog 8y ago
  They're probably still holding on to the dream of the self driving vehicle ... which is practically at least 15 years out at this point .. probably more like 20~25.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    Note that holding onto a dream and making public statements to sucker investors are not necessarily the same thing. I agree with your basic point, especially in the areas dense enough to make taxi-like services work well.
- willart4food 8y ago
  It's an interesting "Game Theory" type game. The VCs keep finding Uber/Lyft because... they have a lot invested already, and the paper valuation is high; but each round is higher and higher stakes. Once these unicorns IPO's, after the lock-up period the VCs are somewhat free to exit (be careful about dumping). Once IPO'd and the VCs are out, who cares if they crash and burn! But on the consumer side, we're used and hooked to the Uber/Lyft experience and prices. The experience can be duplicated with tech, the prices... not so much. Here's an interesting blowback twist: let's say that on unrelated news TSLA crashes (I am a TSLA investor, so.. not wishing it), it would have ripple effect on the entire tech segment, closing the IPO window for a while. So, then what for Uber/Lyft? We live in interesting times!
JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
It's almost like cabs were already charging as low as the business model would allow...

ghaff 8y ago

I honestly, albeit naively, expected that when Uber put in a new CEO, they’d take that opportunity to raise prices to break even levels which presumably end up around where taxis are. Take the volume hit; customers who are only interested in VC-subsided rides aren’t customers you want. But I guess everyone decided to continue to pretend that the current business is sustainable.

djsumdog 8y ago
They're probably still holding on to the dream of the self driving vehicle ... which is practically at least 15 years out at this point .. probably more like 20~25.
- ghaff 8y ago
  Note that holding onto a dream and making public statements to sucker investors are not necessarily the same thing. I agree with your basic point, especially in the areas dense enough to make taxi-like services work well.
willart4food 8y ago
It's an interesting "Game Theory" type game. The VCs keep finding Uber/Lyft because... they have a lot invested already, and the paper valuation is high; but each round is higher and higher stakes. Once these unicorns IPO's, after the lock-up period the VCs are somewhat free to exit (be careful about dumping). Once IPO'd and the VCs are out, who cares if they crash and burn! But on the consumer side, we're used and hooked to the Uber/Lyft experience and prices. The experience can be duplicated with tech, the prices... not so much. Here's an interesting blowback twist: let's say that on unrelated news TSLA crashes (I am a TSLA investor, so.. not wishing it), it would have ripple effect on the entire tech segment, closing the IPO window for a while. So, then what for Uber/Lyft? We live in interesting times!

JohnJamesRambo 8y ago

It's almost like cabs were already charging as low as the business model would allow...