4 ms·

Companies that are not profitable and have existed largely on hype/VC hype will continue to get crushed by their previous-years' bloat. Companies that depend o

Companies that are not profitable and have existed largely on hype/VC hype will continue to get crushed by their previous-years' bloat. Companies that depend on people being out and about will get crushed by the coronavirus. Uber is both.

dehrmann 6y ago
I think Uber had a pretty clear path to profitability prior to this. The only open question was could they raise prices enough to not drive customers away and not be undercut by Lyft. Lyft is in the same boat, so it would probably be like when airlines started charging for checked bags--once one does it, they all do. As for the demand curve? I think they could make it work. Like Wework, what Uber does is a real business. It just got over-hyped.
- def8cefe 6y ago
  Lyft isn't their only competition. If they (Uber or Lyft) raise prices they will lose out on a lot of their appeal over traditional taxis. Cost relative to taxis is the main reason Uber and Lyft were successful in the first place. Many taxi dispatches have already adapted to app based ordering, tracking and payments as well.
  - alexbanks 6y ago
    Yeah, both companies existed to "disrupt" the traditional taxi industry and I think they succeeded. Traditional cabs have changed a lot (while continuing to charge what rides actually cost).
    - def8cefe 6y ago
      Well, they exist(ed?) to make money. They did so by innovating in the taxi industry. One of them did this by breaking the law in every jurisdiction they operated in then lobbying to make their conduct legal after the fact. But yes, they did disrupt the industry and there are now COTS solutions for taxi brokerages to accept rides in similar ways such as iCabbi.
      - alexbanks 6y ago
        That seems like a waste to point out. All companies exist to make money. That's kind of inherent in being a company. You wouldn't write "To make money" as your mission statement when opening a business.
        def8cefe 6y ago
        >You wouldn't write "To make money" as your mission statement when opening a business. I've made a huge mistake...

dehrmann 6y ago

I think Uber had a pretty clear path to profitability prior to this. The only open question was could they raise prices enough to not drive customers away and not be undercut by Lyft. Lyft is in the same boat, so it would probably be like when airlines started charging for checked bags--once one does it, they all do. As for the demand curve? I think they could make it work. Like Wework, what Uber does is a real business. It just got over-hyped.

def8cefe 6y ago
Lyft isn't their only competition. If they (Uber or Lyft) raise prices they will lose out on a lot of their appeal over traditional taxis. Cost relative to taxis is the main reason Uber and Lyft were successful in the first place. Many taxi dispatches have already adapted to app based ordering, tracking and payments as well.
- alexbanks 6y ago
  Yeah, both companies existed to "disrupt" the traditional taxi industry and I think they succeeded. Traditional cabs have changed a lot (while continuing to charge what rides actually cost).
  - def8cefe 6y ago
    Well, they exist(ed?) to make money. They did so by innovating in the taxi industry. One of them did this by breaking the law in every jurisdiction they operated in then lobbying to make their conduct legal after the fact. But yes, they did disrupt the industry and there are now COTS solutions for taxi brokerages to accept rides in similar ways such as iCabbi.
    - alexbanks 6y ago
      That seems like a waste to point out. All companies exist to make money. That's kind of inherent in being a company. You wouldn't write "To make money" as your mission statement when opening a business.
      - def8cefe 6y ago
        >You wouldn't write "To make money" as your mission statement when opening a business. I've made a huge mistake...