4 ms·

Lyft has to be in business till then. Local taxi companies are more expensive than Uber and inconvenient. Public transport is barely used. Uber is providing a s

Lyft has to be in business till then. Local taxi companies are more expensive than Uber and inconvenient. Public transport is barely used. Uber is providing a subsidized public service while employing a lot of people. The moat is there but the question is one of diversification and sustenance as a public company. In the coming days, there'll be a massive internal push to reduce costs, diversify and become profitable. If the foundation of the company is strong, they'll be able to get through this period. Instead, if most of the early employees jump ship (which I strongly suspect is likely to happen), it's going to meander. For Uber's own sake, having a mature and repentant Travis back might not be a bad thing. They'll need a second wind at some point.

rtempaccount1 7y ago
Local taxis are perhaps only more expensive due to Uber burning VC cash to compete? Public transport is barely used in the USA perhaps but that's not the only market Uber needs to compete in to succeed. And this isn't taking into account Uber's many run-ins with local authorities, which are dragging on , costing money and have the possibility to shut them out of some markets. From what I understand Uber's main answer to this is "autonomous taxis" but to me that's a long way from being a viable business model.
matthewaveryusa 7y ago
Oh lyft will be in business until then. How do you think Google is planning on selling their Waymo rides?
greenyoda 7y ago
> Public transport is barely used. In one of Uber's largest markets, NYC, public transport is extensively used, and I assume that many price-sensitive Uber users will go back to taking the subway or bus if Uber raises its fares too much.
- jacques_chester 7y ago
  Andy Byford is one of the most dangerous people in Uber's world. Luckily for them: Cuomo and De Blasio have a running bet going to see who can bugger it up more completely.
aseipp 7y ago
> Local taxi companies are more expensive than Uber and inconvenient Uber essentially sets money on fire in order to make the rides cheaper than alternatives, but that will eventually end. I've got some bad news for you about what happens to prices when that occurs. Of course that is the ultimate goal of Uber, and all ride sharing systems: to destroy any and all local public transit and competitors, no matter the cost, by setting obscene amounts of money on fire and then, when it's all said and done, they get to be the only name in town and price however high they want. (Side note, but it's going to be legitimately hilarious when Uber re-introduces the concept of "buses" and tech nerds here drop their jaws in disbelief at how amazing it is.) > Public transport is barely used. I've got some bad news about places outside of the US (and even many places inside the US). > Uber is providing a subsidized public service while employing a lot of people. No they don't; they actually do not do either of those things. Uber isn't a "public service", by definition, that is, unless words simply don't mean anything anymore. It's a business designed to make money; the fact that you confuse these two proves Uber's marketing is working on you, not that it's actually true in any meaningful way. They also don't actually "employ" any of their drivers, the largest part of their "work force", and they have argued that position in court as well in order to avoid paying benefits, etc for their drivers. And of course, their inevitable goal is to just move to autonomous cars as far as possible, meaning those "employees" (who aren't actually legally defined as such) will eventually get kicked out of the whole system, if they can get there. Of course, once that happens, the tune will go from "uber employs a lot of people, and therefore they're good" to "why did you ever expect uber would keep employing you? just get another job" over night, without a hint of self-reflection at all.
- hawaiianbrah 7y ago
  > (Side note, but it's going to be legitimately hilarious when Uber re-introduces the concept of "buses" and tech nerds here drop their jaws in disbelief at how amazing it is.) Lyft already did: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/06/lyft-reinvents-the-bus.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/06/lyft-reinvents-the-bu...
- sokoloff 7y ago
  > Uber isn't a "public service", by definition, that is, unless words simply don't mean anything anymore. It's a business designed to make money; the fact that you confuse these two proves Uber's marketing is working on you, not that it's actually true in any meaningful way. Is Delta Airlines "public transportation"?
rswail 7y ago
Here in Melbourne Australia, Uber has caused the government to deregulate the car hire/taxi business. So the cost of entry for car hire is identical for an Uber driver or other limo/car hire services. It's the cost of the car, the cost of the driver, and the cost of access to bookings. For street hail, the cost is higher because the government sets regulation about the equipment (eg compulsory CCTV, meters etc). The net result is that the cost of an Uber ride is almost identical to a street hire, identical to using one of the other apps that are around (13 cabs, Ola etc). Uber has a name/brand advantage, but it has lost the cost advantage over the old taxi model and it has lost the app advantage as the app is easily replaceable. Many drivers operate on more than one app and street hail cabs (the "original" taxis) operate on both. Uber's business model for their core business is unsustainable, the margins and operating costs are identical to other operators, there is no advantage of scale.

rtempaccount1 7y ago

Local taxis are perhaps only more expensive due to Uber burning VC cash to compete? Public transport is barely used in the USA perhaps but that's not the only market Uber needs to compete in to succeed. And this isn't taking into account Uber's many run-ins with local authorities, which are dragging on , costing money and have the possibility to shut them out of some markets. From what I understand Uber's main answer to this is "autonomous taxis" but to me that's a long way from being a viable business model.

matthewaveryusa 7y ago

Oh lyft will be in business until then. How do you think Google is planning on selling their Waymo rides?

greenyoda 7y ago

> Public transport is barely used. In one of Uber's largest markets, NYC, public transport is extensively used, and I assume that many price-sensitive Uber users will go back to taking the subway or bus if Uber raises its fares too much.

jacques_chester 7y ago
Andy Byford is one of the most dangerous people in Uber's world. Luckily for them: Cuomo and De Blasio have a running bet going to see who can bugger it up more completely.

aseipp 7y ago

> Local taxi companies are more expensive than Uber and inconvenient Uber essentially sets money on fire in order to make the rides cheaper than alternatives, but that will eventually end. I've got some bad news for you about what happens to prices when that occurs. Of course that is the ultimate goal of Uber, and all ride sharing systems: to destroy any and all local public transit and competitors, no matter the cost, by setting obscene amounts of money on fire and then, when it's all said and done, they get to be the only name in town and price however high they want. (Side note, but it's going to be legitimately hilarious when Uber re-introduces the concept of "buses" and tech nerds here drop their jaws in disbelief at how amazing it is.) > Public transport is barely used. I've got some bad news about places outside of the US (and even many places inside the US). > Uber is providing a subsidized public service while employing a lot of people. No they don't; they actually do not do either of those things. Uber isn't a "public service", by definition, that is, unless words simply don't mean anything anymore. It's a business designed to make money; the fact that you confuse these two proves Uber's marketing is working on you, not that it's actually true in any meaningful way. They also don't actually "employ" any of their drivers, the largest part of their "work force", and they have argued that position in court as well in order to avoid paying benefits, etc for their drivers. And of course, their inevitable goal is to just move to autonomous cars as far as possible, meaning those "employees" (who aren't actually legally defined as such) will eventually get kicked out of the whole system, if they can get there. Of course, once that happens, the tune will go from "uber employs a lot of people, and therefore they're good" to "why did you ever expect uber would keep employing you? just get another job" over night, without a hint of self-reflection at all.

hawaiianbrah 7y ago
> (Side note, but it's going to be legitimately hilarious when Uber re-introduces the concept of "buses" and tech nerds here drop their jaws in disbelief at how amazing it is.) Lyft already did: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/06/lyft-reinvents-the-bus.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/06/lyft-reinvents-the-bu...
sokoloff 7y ago
> Uber isn't a "public service", by definition, that is, unless words simply don't mean anything anymore. It's a business designed to make money; the fact that you confuse these two proves Uber's marketing is working on you, not that it's actually true in any meaningful way. Is Delta Airlines "public transportation"?

rswail 7y ago

Here in Melbourne Australia, Uber has caused the government to deregulate the car hire/taxi business. So the cost of entry for car hire is identical for an Uber driver or other limo/car hire services. It's the cost of the car, the cost of the driver, and the cost of access to bookings. For street hail, the cost is higher because the government sets regulation about the equipment (eg compulsory CCTV, meters etc). The net result is that the cost of an Uber ride is almost identical to a street hire, identical to using one of the other apps that are around (13 cabs, Ola etc). Uber has a name/brand advantage, but it has lost the cost advantage over the old taxi model and it has lost the app advantage as the app is easily replaceable. Many drivers operate on more than one app and street hail cabs (the "original" taxis) operate on both. Uber's business model for their core business is unsustainable, the margins and operating costs are identical to other operators, there is no advantage of scale.