131–140 of 347 posts
60 billion as compared to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, AT&T, Google. I mean basically we're talking about a high end phone app and supporting company infrastructure around that. 60 Billion for Uber. I'm just not seeing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe that your assumption of insane driver subsidies is indeed the reason they are sucking down so much money. That is a problem, because the moment that people have to pay the actual costs of an Uber ride, they may go back to taxis or driving their own cars. The only strategy I can see with the absurd amounts they are raising is that they are trying to get enough money to sustain the subsidies until they kill a…
But Standard Oil literally bought the refineries, railroad, long term contracts on crude. That would be like Uber buying every road and every manufacturer. I also don't think Uber's biggest competition is cars or taxis, I imagine it is public transport. The markets with the best scale (esp outside of US) have good public transit. People aren't going to go from paying a £10 uber to a £30 black taxi in London, they'll…
Sincere question, can someone explain to me a plausible scenario at this point by which early investors actually receive a payout even slightly commensurate with their supposedly incredible investment? For example, how can someone in the seed round genuinely be able to cash out given the unbelievable amount of dilution that has taken place. What are the plausible scenarios where this occurs? EDIT: Specifically asking…
Plenty of people can envision a $100B to $1T valuation at some point. I don't understand your point about seed round investors since they are sitting on some of the biggest returns ever in the history of investing.
$100B sure. $1T ... maybe if you wait a while to let inflation catch up.
according e.g. to the stories linked below and many previous reports, Uber actively aims to reduce the number of cars on the road, and its efforts, especially Uber Pool will reduce the oil consumption and, as a result, oil prices... And now they get the largest investment yet from a party that is NOT interested in falling oil prices... What am I missing here? https://newsroom.uber.com/us-new-york/taking-1-million-car…
Their impact on oil prices today, and in the foreseeable future, is inconsequential.
And sure Uber says it 'actively aims to reduce the number of cars on the road' but that's just lofty marketing speak. They just want to sell you a taxi service. But Silicon Valley startups can't just sell you useful services and products, they need to change the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Get off your moral high-ground. We (USofA) still continue to execute people as well.
I originally was going to make the distinction between executions for murder versus executions for acts of political dissidence. Then I remembered a high-profile UAV strike of a pro-terrorism speaker and recruiter. [1] Anwar al-Awlaki was a conspirator for a deadly terrorist attack, so that would ordinarily meet the requirement for guilt of murder. The UAV strike was actually an act of war against an Al-Qaeda officer…
So what if they execute people for what they think are crimes? Who are you to judge what people should or should not do? What you label as evil someone will label as good. There is no absolute evil/good, as you're trying to portray it. It only your opinion vs. their opinion.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11818239 and marked it off-topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of the things you mentioned are relative to a culture. Since you were born in the West, you think of all these things as bad. The indoctrination is so strong that you feel that your opinion is an objective fact. But, the same seriousness and objectivity you attach to your opinions they attach to their. Morality is kinda religion - everyone thinks their God or prophet is the TRUE one, when in fact they've been ind…
Unless you're about to say you don't have a culture, maybe you should accept that people will argue according the culture they have and leave it at that. It's like I said "I like pepperoni pizza," and you're trying to say "no one kind of pizza is objectively better than the rest, so you have no right to choose pepperoni pizza over any other pizza." But in fact I do have this right, being that I'm the one choosing whi…
It's like I said "I like pepperoni pizza," and you're trying to say "no one kind of pizza is objectively better than the rest, so you have no right to choose pepperoni pizza over any other pizza
People here are saying something more like "People who eat other types of pizza are idiots. Pepperoni pizza is the the most delicious pizza. period.". Then you could ask: "Who are you to say that and call people idiots? You might like it, but it doesn't mean others do and that pepperoni pizza is in fact the most delicious pizza.". That would be a reasonable reply to an arrogant person.
But in fact I do have this right, being that I'm the one choosing which pizza to eat.
BTW, rights (to express yourself or write on this forum freely) are also related to morality. You are stating "I do have this right..." as if you saying something that's objectively true. Like "I have arms or legs". The same way you think you have rights is how most people think about morality - it's something objective and is not a matter of what anyone else thinks. Concept of natural rights confirms this (inalienable rights that can't be given or taken away by anyone and you have them, not because you think you do, but because you objectively do).
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11818411Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's revise "solid business model" to "solid ability to sell the company's value". A solid business model doesn't require this sort of continuous cash infusion.
> A solid business model doesn't require this sort of continuous cash infusion. Where is this assumption that this cash is required coming from? A very common use for investment is to accelerate plans which would otherwise unfold over long/impractical timelines. Another common use is to get ahead of competitors. I know much of HN is very eager to see all billion dollar valuations deflate so as to prove that extremely…
Maybe not troubling, but interesting. There's definitely something interesting there. For one thing, nobody wants a representative of the Saudi government to sit on their board and yet they took their money. Clearly they didn't have a lot of suitors willing to dump money on them and clearly they had some (major?) need of capital.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only thing that can ''take out'' Uber is widespread adoption of autonomous vehicles, whereupon ride sharing becomes a physical-capital intensive business (cars) rather than the current human-capital intensive business (drivers/their driver network). Autonomous vehicles (and the infrastructure to support them) significantly reduce the amazing network efforts that Uber has enjoyed to date. An investment into Uber a…
>The only thing that can ''take out'' Uber is widespread adoption of autonomous vehicles Or their customers losing interest as driver/fare subsidies are slowly dialed back. I've already begun planning on Uber with hesitation as I have now twice been left "stranded" for ~30 minutes without an active driver available in my city. I'm fine with the surge pricing which comes along with that but Uber is becoming increasing…
And that's precisely why I will boycott it and switch to Lyft! Edit: It looks like there's Saudi money in Lyft as well. :(
All the reprehensible stuff uber has done in the past, has made Lyft my goto app. Talking to Lyft drivers recently I've seen fewer and fewer that are driving for both because of negative experiences with uber. If Lyft can keep it up they might actually end up being on top Edit: Why the downvotes?
I think it's your first sentence. You can't just throw that out there as if everybody knows what you're referring to. I certainly don't. I don't follow the company religiously, but I have no recollection of anything majorly evil done by Uber.