3 ms·
> If it's truly bad for all parties, there'd be no Uber Eats, no one would order from Uber Eats, no restaurant would sign up, and no one would deliver. What a
by Eisenstein 3y ago
> If it's truly bad for all parties, there'd be no Uber Eats, no one would order from Uber Eats, no restaurant would sign up, and no one would deliver.
What a strange take.
If I take 3 billion dollars and setup a company that flies in people from other parts of the country at a loss to do your job for half the money you get for it, and have everyone compete for it, then when you lose your job and the business you worked for gets dependent on a business model requiring cheap disposable labor and I own the market I then I jack up prices to more than you were being paid but take the difference as profit, would you consider that a win for all parties?
- Shaanie 3y agoI don't think the moat for food delivery is big enough that capturing the market and hiking prices is a realistic option. Uber eats already has plenty of competition (at least in my country) from foodora, wolt and bolt food.
- Eisenstein 3y agoSo, with a net income of -$9 billion, what is their business plan, then? * https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/uber/company-profile?mod=mw_quote_tab https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/uber/company-pro...
- CodeSgt 3y agoAre you arguing that Uber’s business model isn’t sustainable or that it’s bad for both parties? Uber being in the red doesn’t mean it’s a net negative for everyone.
- Eisenstein 3y agoOperating at a loss drives out anyone who doesn't have the money to burn forever to compete with you, and when the market is yours you can re-align prices to allow profit. This seems clear to me and the 'net negative' is that you don't actually have a free market anymore. Inserting yourself between product and fulfillment and taking the surplus value that would have gone to either customer or producer is not a gain for anyone but the people who invested in the rent-seeker.