Uber Turns to Saudi Arabia for $3.5B Cash Infusion • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber Turns to Saudi Arabia for $3.5B Cash Infusion

#181

Post by coliveira » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 1:42 AM UTC

baddox wrote: post #152

downandout wrote: post #98

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…

> 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. It depends what you mean by "actual costs," but I would suspect that Uber's will still be lower than cabs' under any reasonable definition.

What you forget is that cabs also have incentives not available to Uber, such as lower fleet costs and tax advantages in certain cities. If you compare transportation costs without Uber subsidies, cabs are very competitive in some markets.

Re: Uber Turns to Saudi Arabia for $3.5B Cash Infusion

#182

Post by linkregister » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 1:45 AM UTC

selimthegrim wrote: post #135

linkregister wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 in the eighties, would we (the US FBI) have been cool with MI6 assassinating all those people in Southie funding NORAID?

I would hope that the US would enforce rule of law within its own borders. Using terrorism funding criminal statutes, the extradition process, or enemy-prisoner-of-war exchange (that would be bizarre, but not unprecedented) to mollify the UK government would have been better solutions.

That's another example of a really murky conflict without one side having a moral upper hand.

Re: Uber Turns to Saudi Arabia for $3.5B Cash Infusion

#183

Post by alttab » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 1:47 AM UTC

morgante wrote: post #173

downandout wrote: post #98

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…

> 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. There doesn't seem to be evidence of that. Uber is apparently profitable in its mature markets (mainly the US).[0] The money is mostly used to prop up new markets, where you have to give lots of incentives to get both sides of the market in place fast (keeping supply a…

I got some blood testing machines I'd love to sell you.

Re: Uber Turns to Saudi Arabia for $3.5B Cash Infusion

#184

Post by bryanlarsen » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 1:48 AM UTC

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #89

maxerickson wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to speculate that they will charge for access, but Googling to get the Supercharger name right lead here: http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/06/no-free-superchargers-fo... Announced today, they will charge for access.

Wow, based on the access fee for the early lowest power Model S, along the lines of $2500, if not more? That's what, more than two years of fuel for an economic petrol car?

I certainly hope they don't charge a flat fee, that'll just make the problem worse, not better. Once you pay the fee you'll be inclined to use it as much as you can, "just to get your money's worth". Sort of like how most people overeat at all-you-can-eat restaurants.

They need to make sure they charge more than the retail rate for electricity. Make sure it's cheaper to charge at home. It'll still be almost an order of magnitude cheaper than gas.

Re: Uber Turns to Saudi Arabia for $3.5B Cash Infusion

#185

Post by linkregister » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 1:48 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #141

martinald wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think buying up the whole value chain is an effect of monopolies, not the cause. DeBeers, for example, got their start in diamond mining. I suppose they could have stopped there, but when you're the only supplier, it becomes very easy to buy up those of your customers that are making money so you can capture more of the total cash. So I don't think Uber needs to buy roads. All they need to do is have a broad enough…

I think it's unrealistic to think that Lyft will be a sickly competitor. It has less cash to push toward subsidizing rides but I could foresee it sticking around, especially since many drivers use both ride share apps.

Re: Uber Turns to Saudi Arabia for $3.5B Cash Infusion

#186

Post by iaw » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 1:53 AM UTC

morgante wrote: post #173

downandout wrote: post #98

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…

> 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. There doesn't seem to be evidence of that. Uber is apparently profitable in its mature markets (mainly the US).[0] The money is mostly used to prop up new markets, where you have to give lots of incentives to get both sides of the market in place fast (keeping supply a…

"Profitable" under non-GAAP measures maybe. Their efforts to hit actual profitability in US markets has led to a lot of driver backlash.

I wouldn't trust a thing that company says about their cashflows until they are in SEC filings.

Re: Uber Turns to Saudi Arabia for $3.5B Cash Infusion

#187

Post by alttab » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 1:53 AM UTC

assface wrote: post #180

intrasight wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They hired away almost half of CMUs robotics department. That's gotta be expensive. They are building (in the city no less) an autonomous driving test track/facility. That's also gotta be expensive. Human drivers are just a brief stepping-stone.

I can't go into details, but it wasn't that much. The public number for "buying" CMU's NREC is $5.5 million. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/magazine/uber-would-like-t...

As least we know there was an assface on the inside.

Edit: username?

Re: Uber Turns to Saudi Arabia for $3.5B Cash Infusion

#188

Post by vonklaus » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 1:53 AM UTC

methehack wrote: post #82

I've always been a little confused about uber's capital needs. When I first heard about uber, the part I thought was super-clever was that you wouldn't _need_ lots of capital because all the drivers would have their own cars. Leveraging the latent capital of one side of the two-sided market was the genius of it. (Airbnb too) Same for the staffing -- hook up both sides of the market. No need to pay anyone out of your…

my thought for the last couple years has been they are an information arbitrage/market maker probably similar to AMZN. I also have to imagine they are working on a self driving car.

On top of engineering spend they are basically at war with every single place they move into and refuse to go public. They can't continue to be just ride sharing when self-driving cars come out, so they need to capture that market (or some market) another way

Re: Uber Turns to Saudi Arabia for $3.5B Cash Infusion

#189

Post by jayjay71 » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 1:55 AM UTC

assface wrote: post #180

intrasight wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They hired away almost half of CMUs robotics department. That's gotta be expensive. They are building (in the city no less) an autonomous driving test track/facility. That's also gotta be expensive. Human drivers are just a brief stepping-stone.

I can't go into details, but it wasn't that much. The public number for "buying" CMU's NREC is $5.5 million. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/magazine/uber-would-like-t...

That $5.5 million was a gift to Carnegie Mellon, I believe mostly for public relations. It does not include salaries, bonuses, or operating costs for Uber's Advanced Technology Center. The real cost was/is much higher than that.

Re: Uber Turns to Saudi Arabia for $3.5B Cash Infusion

#190

Post by Mendenhall » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 2:00 AM UTC

morgante wrote: post #178

Mendenhall wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your statement completely. The thing I notice is he works for the government and I would think he would never be able to say that openly. A competitor could instantly draw that into question and make them defend the point and use it as a propaganda tool. If he says women should be able to drive he goes against the kingdoms laws and those constituents, if he says they shouldnt or stays mute the propaganda…

I think you're overthinking the likelihood of that becoming a controversy. Sovereign wealth funds routinely invest in companies which run contrary to government official policies. Their foremost duty is as investment managers, not politicians.

I dont think it will turn into a controversy at all, but a smart competitor versed in propaganda could easily hit that attack vector. "Ride with Uber and help raise money to suppress women!" "How do you feel as a Uber driver knowing board members dont think women should be able to drive and your actions help support that?"