5 ms·

But this was always the plan, wasn't it? Uber has been losing money since it started, subsiding our travel with VC money, I thought clearly always with the pla

But this was always the plan, wasn't it? Uber has been losing money since it started, subsiding our travel with VC money, I thought clearly always with the plan of "once we get market dominance we can jack up the prices and make all that money back". I don't think they were ever shy about this plan. So now we're at that point. Either we put up with the new prices, or move on to another app, or find another transport solution. I don't think whining at Uber about how expensive they are now is a workable response.

SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
ZIRP man… I’m looking forward to more articles like this about companies with models that just might not make sense.
sheepscreek 3y ago
That part is understandable. What doesn’t make sense is the ratio. Driver pays for the car, gas and their time. And Uber pockets 50% of the fare? I’ve heard this from at least a few vocal drivers. Apple App Store’s 30% cut as a software service provider seems like a bargain.
- marcus_holmes 3y ago
  Uber has never considered its drivers to be employees. I think it sees itself as a marketplace - selling driver time to riders. So it makes sense that the plan was always to take more of the pie for itself once it got enough power to do that. Like Amazon with Audible - if you're the only game in town then you can charge whatever you like, so they do.
  - Ajedi32 3y ago
    > if you're the only game in town then you can charge whatever you like Did I miss Lyft going out of business or something? Or is this more of a duopoly type situation?
    - marcus_holmes 3y ago
      Android is around too (with the Apple app store example). So, yeah, I guess?
- twelve40 3y ago
  but what are they supposed to do? there is no more evil tech-bro to blame even, they are now under public pressure to make money and if the current CEO fails to maximize the profits, he will get booted and replaced by the one who will.
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    Society doesn’t need to accept their profit motive
    - wordpad25 3y ago
      Then Uber wouldn't exist. It was an exorbitantly expensive and risky plan to disrupt an entrenched taxi industry all funded by investors.
      - wahnfrieden 3y ago
        You lack imagination if the only way people can achieve something is through the one specific economic system
- arcticbull 3y ago
  > Driver pays for the car, gas and their time. And Uber pockets 50% of the fare? I’ve heard this from at least a few vocal drivers. It is in Uber's interest to keep exactly as much of the fare as they can to the extent they still have riders and drivers. This was always the endgame.
rabuse 3y ago
They were betting on self-driving cars originally, but it became too long of a waiting game for that.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  Nah, they weren't. Their own leaked study (many years ago, I'll try and dig up a link) I recall showed at most a 5% improvement in their margins over time. This makes sense, as soon as one company has self-driving so will others. Any period where they are the exclusive self-driving ride hailing is fleeting at best. In time, it reverts to exactly the same as it's always been.

SV_BubbleTime 3y ago

ZIRP man… I’m looking forward to more articles like this about companies with models that just might not make sense.

sheepscreek 3y ago

That part is understandable. What doesn’t make sense is the ratio. Driver pays for the car, gas and their time. And Uber pockets 50% of the fare? I’ve heard this from at least a few vocal drivers. Apple App Store’s 30% cut as a software service provider seems like a bargain.

marcus_holmes 3y ago
Uber has never considered its drivers to be employees. I think it sees itself as a marketplace - selling driver time to riders. So it makes sense that the plan was always to take more of the pie for itself once it got enough power to do that. Like Amazon with Audible - if you're the only game in town then you can charge whatever you like, so they do.
- Ajedi32 3y ago
  > if you're the only game in town then you can charge whatever you like Did I miss Lyft going out of business or something? Or is this more of a duopoly type situation?
  - marcus_holmes 3y ago
    Android is around too (with the Apple app store example). So, yeah, I guess?
twelve40 3y ago
but what are they supposed to do? there is no more evil tech-bro to blame even, they are now under public pressure to make money and if the current CEO fails to maximize the profits, he will get booted and replaced by the one who will.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  Society doesn’t need to accept their profit motive
  - wordpad25 3y ago
    Then Uber wouldn't exist. It was an exorbitantly expensive and risky plan to disrupt an entrenched taxi industry all funded by investors.
    - wahnfrieden 3y ago
      You lack imagination if the only way people can achieve something is through the one specific economic system
arcticbull 3y ago
> Driver pays for the car, gas and their time. And Uber pockets 50% of the fare? I’ve heard this from at least a few vocal drivers. It is in Uber's interest to keep exactly as much of the fare as they can to the extent they still have riders and drivers. This was always the endgame.

rabuse 3y ago

They were betting on self-driving cars originally, but it became too long of a waiting game for that.

arcticbull 3y ago
Nah, they weren't. Their own leaked study (many years ago, I'll try and dig up a link) I recall showed at most a 5% improvement in their margins over time. This makes sense, as soon as one company has self-driving so will others. Any period where they are the exclusive self-driving ride hailing is fleeting at best. In time, it reverts to exactly the same as it's always been.