3 ms·

It is entirely possible for two companies to be the same but also different in how they see their market and revenues. So, without having a deeper understanding

It is entirely possible for two companies to be the same but also different in how they see their market and revenues. So, without having a deeper understanding of reading financials, comparisons drawn solely based on numbers are flawed. For example, Uber says: > We derive our revenue principally from service fees paid by our Driver and restaurant partners for the use of our platform in connection with our Ridesharing products and Uber Eats offering provided by our partners to end-users. Our sole performance obligation in the transaction is to connect partners with end-users to facilitate the completion of a successful Ridesharing trip or Uber Eats meal delivery. Because end-users access our platform for free and we have no performance obligation to end-users, end-users are not our customers. By making this distinction, Uber might be on a path of trying to maximize it's driver/restaurant unit economics and not on the per user metric. While Lyft also thinks of drivers as their end customer but doesn't clarify the position of end-users like Uber: > We provide a service to drivers to complete a successful transportation service for riders. This service includes on-demand lead generation that assists drivers to find, receive and fulfill on-demand requests from riders seeking transportation services and related collection activities using our Lyft platform. As a result, our single performance obligation in the transaction is to connect drivers with riders to facilitate the completion of a successful transportation service for riders.

username223 8y ago
> Because end-users access our platform for free and we have no performance obligation to end-users, end-users are not our customers. That's some bracing cynicism there. So their business plan is to keep paying their taxi drivers less (with VC money), or providing worse service, until they figure out self-driving cars or run out of money?
- creddit 8y ago
  It's actually the opposite. You're misunderstanding "end-users" and projecting your inherent bias against Uber. Once I explain what it _actually_ means, you'll probably project it again but here you're just doing so incorrectly :) "End-users" as defined here are actually the riders/"eaters" of Uber. Uber is saying these people are not their customers because they are just providing access to drivers/restaurants+delivery people with their platform. What Uber is saying is that driver/restaurants/devliery people are independently selling their products/services on Uber as a platform and that end-users (riders/eaters/consumers) are simply given free access.

username223 8y ago

> Because end-users access our platform for free and we have no performance obligation to end-users, end-users are not our customers. That's some bracing cynicism there. So their business plan is to keep paying their taxi drivers less (with VC money), or providing worse service, until they figure out self-driving cars or run out of money?

creddit 8y ago
It's actually the opposite. You're misunderstanding "end-users" and projecting your inherent bias against Uber. Once I explain what it _actually_ means, you'll probably project it again but here you're just doing so incorrectly :) "End-users" as defined here are actually the riders/"eaters" of Uber. Uber is saying these people are not their customers because they are just providing access to drivers/restaurants+delivery people with their platform. What Uber is saying is that driver/restaurants/devliery people are independently selling their products/services on Uber as a platform and that end-users (riders/eaters/consumers) are simply given free access.