3 ms·

The professor's analysis was so obviously bad that it's very surprising it made it into FiveThirtyEight. I have dozens of friends who used to take a taxi trip o

by pbreit 12y ago

The professor's analysis was so obviously bad that it's very surprising it made it into FiveThirtyEight. I have dozens of friends who used to take a taxi trip or 2 a week who now take a dozen or more Ubers in the same time. It's patently obvious that the Uber market opportunity is much larger than the current taxi/towncar industry. And Uber works even better in the suburbs than in cities. Edit: I commented before reading the whole article which totally nails it. Uber might be the first to $1 trillion in revenue.

golergka 12y ago
I have the exactly same experience with russian Yandex.Taxi service. Just because of the service quality, reliability and price I started catching cabs about 2-3 times more often then before; and after they lowered their prices a few months ago (minimum trip of $7 for 10 minute trip), drivers weren't happy at first, but then I heard from them that the amount of orders increased drastically.
xorcist 12y ago
Your analysis is obviously wrong. All MY friends don't use Uber and never will. Therefore their market opportunity is miniscule. That should count as absolute proof.
- Mikeb85 12y ago
  This is funny, but I'll throw in my anecdotal evidence also. Never used Uber, none of my friends/family have, never met anyone who has claimed to use it.
  - pbreit 12y ago
    Both of these comments convince me even more about how big the Uber opportunity is. You do realize that many/most people that actually have used Uber describe the experience as nearly magical. So I have little doubt that you and your types will eventually come to a similar conclusion.
    - xorcist 12y ago
      Ok. I give up. Creepy astroturfing or brilliant parody?
rayiner 12y ago
I see you're in San Francisco. May I suggest that living in a city that has a unique combination of density and awful transit options probably colors your views. Of my friends who live in the suburbs or sprawly cities like Atlanta, none take Uber. Why would they? They have a car, commute 10+ miles ($14 just in mileage charges on UberX!), and on weekends their travel generally involves multiple hops in various areas (drive to the Target, then the Costco, etc). Also 10+ miles added together. And my friends in NYC or Chicago don't use Uber because they can just hail a cab. Five minutes is "high liquidity?" If it takes me five minutes to hail a cab here in downtown Philly, I'm having a bad day!
- pbreit 12y ago
  Did you catch my sentence where I suggested that Uber is even better in the suburbs where taxi service is even worse? Did you read the post's suggestions that Uber (and ZipCar, RelayRides, etc) enable getting rid of secondary or even primary cars (in fact, it's already happening)?
  - rayiner 12y ago
    Yes, I read them and they are ridiculous. In the suburbs where my parents live, its a 10 mile round trip to go to the drug store. Over $20 on Uber X in DC. The only reason anybody uses cabs in the suburbs is to go to the airport. I can imagine Uber taking over that market, but its not going to grow it and take market share away from personal autos. Again, your post is highly myopic to the unusual situation of San Francisco. Its a place that's dense enough for people to mostly forgo cars but without sufficiently good transit to allow them to forgo a car entirely. In the vast majority of the country, you'd have to reduce Uber's costs by an order of magnitude to compete with personal autos. And you're not doing that without self-driving cars. You could get there with self-driving cars, but I don't see Uber uniquely positioned to capture that market. The companies developing the technology, like Google, will make all the money in that space.
    - pbreit 12y ago
      Wow, you're still missing the point. Uber is already working fantastically in hundreds of markets, including many considered suburbs. The author gives perfect examples of where Uber is already a great choice in the suburbs: evenings out, kids, elders, etc. I've experienced this myself in the suburbs where Uber works even better than in cities. With $6000 per year average cost of auto, a $20 average fare already covers 300 trips. Easily enough to forego a second car. And you don't have to engage in the biggest time-waster of all time: driving.

by pbreit 12y ago

golergka 12y ago

I have the exactly same experience with russian Yandex.Taxi service. Just because of the service quality, reliability and price I started catching cabs about 2-3 times more often then before; and after they lowered their prices a few months ago (minimum trip of $7 for 10 minute trip), drivers weren't happy at first, but then I heard from them that the amount of orders increased drastically.

xorcist 12y ago

Your analysis is obviously wrong. All MY friends don't use Uber and never will. Therefore their market opportunity is miniscule. That should count as absolute proof.

Mikeb85 12y ago
This is funny, but I'll throw in my anecdotal evidence also. Never used Uber, none of my friends/family have, never met anyone who has claimed to use it.
- pbreit 12y ago
  Both of these comments convince me even more about how big the Uber opportunity is. You do realize that many/most people that actually have used Uber describe the experience as nearly magical. So I have little doubt that you and your types will eventually come to a similar conclusion.
  - xorcist 12y ago
    Ok. I give up. Creepy astroturfing or brilliant parody?

rayiner 12y ago

I see you're in San Francisco. May I suggest that living in a city that has a unique combination of density and awful transit options probably colors your views. Of my friends who live in the suburbs or sprawly cities like Atlanta, none take Uber. Why would they? They have a car, commute 10+ miles ($14 just in mileage charges on UberX!), and on weekends their travel generally involves multiple hops in various areas (drive to the Target, then the Costco, etc). Also 10+ miles added together. And my friends in NYC or Chicago don't use Uber because they can just hail a cab. Five minutes is "high liquidity?" If it takes me five minutes to hail a cab here in downtown Philly, I'm having a bad day!

pbreit 12y ago
Did you catch my sentence where I suggested that Uber is even better in the suburbs where taxi service is even worse? Did you read the post's suggestions that Uber (and ZipCar, RelayRides, etc) enable getting rid of secondary or even primary cars (in fact, it's already happening)?
- rayiner 12y ago
  Yes, I read them and they are ridiculous. In the suburbs where my parents live, its a 10 mile round trip to go to the drug store. Over $20 on Uber X in DC. The only reason anybody uses cabs in the suburbs is to go to the airport. I can imagine Uber taking over that market, but its not going to grow it and take market share away from personal autos. Again, your post is highly myopic to the unusual situation of San Francisco. Its a place that's dense enough for people to mostly forgo cars but without sufficiently good transit to allow them to forgo a car entirely. In the vast majority of the country, you'd have to reduce Uber's costs by an order of magnitude to compete with personal autos. And you're not doing that without self-driving cars. You could get there with self-driving cars, but I don't see Uber uniquely positioned to capture that market. The companies developing the technology, like Google, will make all the money in that space.
  - pbreit 12y ago
    Wow, you're still missing the point. Uber is already working fantastically in hundreds of markets, including many considered suburbs. The author gives perfect examples of where Uber is already a great choice in the suburbs: evenings out, kids, elders, etc. I've experienced this myself in the suburbs where Uber works even better than in cities. With $6000 per year average cost of auto, a $20 average fare already covers 300 trips. Easily enough to forego a second car. And you don't have to engage in the biggest time-waster of all time: driving.