4 ms·

Uber is only “better” because it is unprofitable. The minute it starts turning the screws to be profitable, the service quality will go back to what it replace

by spaceman_2020 4y ago

Uber is only “better” because it is unprofitable. The minute it starts turning the screws to be profitable, the service quality will go back to what it replaced. Here in India, its already less reliable and often more expensive than old school taxis.

Nasrudith 4y ago
If they slash their operating developers from dropping out of the self driving cars race that would make them much more profitable. Whether doing so would be a good idea is another topic.
awillen 4y ago
Not true. In SF when Uber started, it only had black cars and was meaningfully more expensive than a cab. The difference was that if you called a cab, depending on where you were in the city, there was a pretty decent chance you'd be told it'd take 15 minutes, but no one would ever show up. The Uber would be there 100% of the time. Uber held drivers accountable. The taxi lobby did the exact opposite - they brutally abused an advantage gifted to them by the government because taxis are supposed to be a valuable public service. In India it may be different, but in the US it continues to be extremely reliable.
- kelnos 4y ago
  > In India it may be different, but in the US it continues to be extremely reliable. This is a hint at the main thing we need to remember: Uber replaced a terrible taxi situation in San Francisco. Every city is not like San Francisco. Every country is not like the US. Based on various comments here from people outside the US, some places already had functioning taxi systems, with reasonable prices, clean cars, and good drivers. Why is it ok that Uber got to flaunt regulations in those places as well?
  - awillen 4y ago
    I don't think it was ok anywhere. Even in SF I think it was beneficial but not "ok" in a general sense of fairness. The ends justify the means, I suppose. I'm not saying that Uber overall is a particular ethical company - I don't think they're great on that dimension.
nyolfen 4y ago
uber is already profitable https://www.barrons.com/articles/uber-stock-first-profitable-quarter-51636059932 https://www.barrons.com/articles/uber-stock-first-profitable...
- blowski 4y ago
  Operating profit, not net.
  - nyolfen 4y ago
    - dang 4y ago
      Can you please not do this here? If someone else is wrong, please explain (respectfully) how they are wrong so the rest of us can learn. If you don't want to do that, option 2 is to chalk it up to the internet being wrong about everything and walk away. But please don't post unsubstantive/dismissive/swipey things. That just makes everything worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - lamp987 4y ago
      this isnt twitter
- spaceman_2020 4y ago
  Look closer
marcosdumay 4y ago
That's just wrong. Ok, Uber in particular may be very badly run and incapable of turning a profit. But on most places they have competitors that are profitable and usually, cheaper.

Nasrudith 4y ago

If they slash their operating developers from dropping out of the self driving cars race that would make them much more profitable. Whether doing so would be a good idea is another topic.

awillen 4y ago

Not true. In SF when Uber started, it only had black cars and was meaningfully more expensive than a cab. The difference was that if you called a cab, depending on where you were in the city, there was a pretty decent chance you'd be told it'd take 15 minutes, but no one would ever show up. The Uber would be there 100% of the time. Uber held drivers accountable. The taxi lobby did the exact opposite - they brutally abused an advantage gifted to them by the government because taxis are supposed to be a valuable public service. In India it may be different, but in the US it continues to be extremely reliable.

kelnos 4y ago
> In India it may be different, but in the US it continues to be extremely reliable. This is a hint at the main thing we need to remember: Uber replaced a terrible taxi situation in San Francisco. Every city is not like San Francisco. Every country is not like the US. Based on various comments here from people outside the US, some places already had functioning taxi systems, with reasonable prices, clean cars, and good drivers. Why is it ok that Uber got to flaunt regulations in those places as well?
- awillen 4y ago
  I don't think it was ok anywhere. Even in SF I think it was beneficial but not "ok" in a general sense of fairness. The ends justify the means, I suppose. I'm not saying that Uber overall is a particular ethical company - I don't think they're great on that dimension.

nyolfen 4y ago

uber is already profitable https://www.barrons.com/articles/uber-stock-first-profitable-quarter-51636059932 https://www.barrons.com/articles/uber-stock-first-profitable...

blowski 4y ago
Operating profit, not net.
- nyolfen 4y ago
  - dang 4y ago
    Can you please not do this here? If someone else is wrong, please explain (respectfully) how they are wrong so the rest of us can learn. If you don't want to do that, option 2 is to chalk it up to the internet being wrong about everything and walk away. But please don't post unsubstantive/dismissive/swipey things. That just makes everything worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - lamp987 4y ago
    this isnt twitter
spaceman_2020 4y ago
Look closer

marcosdumay 4y ago

That's just wrong. Ok, Uber in particular may be very badly run and incapable of turning a profit. But on most places they have competitors that are profitable and usually, cheaper.