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

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

#321

Post by blablablame » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 2:23 PM UTC

tracker1 wrote: post #221

Spooky23 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Über has enchanted the tech people. It's this golden goose that every conversation turns to. Listen to the Ben Thompson podcast -- if he was reacting to an article about ham sandwiches, he would tie it to Uber. There's no reality here. No magic self driving electric taxis, no robot delivering your takeout. 18-24 months this thing will be like Groupon (remember they were magically saving writers by hiring thousands of…

For those curious... 100k / 20 / 365 = $13/day, at $3/gallon (est) = 4.56 gallons * 20mpg (low gas milage) = 91 miles/day, or closer to 30mpg would be around 135miles/day, which I guess is possible. I was just thinking it seemed like a lot. Now, a fair amount of that is varying levels of taxes... but it's still significant amount. I'm currently doing about 40 miles/day commute for work, and know people who are drivin…

Or have 2 cars (or god forbid, more if your kids drive) and include a few thousand mile trips here and there and it isn't very hard to get there.

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

#322

Post by nilkn » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 2:45 PM UTC

Myrmornis wrote: post #276

nilkn wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For getting to/from the airport in my own city, I still use the old limo driver that I was using before Uber took off. Literally the same guy, not just the same service/company. When friends or family members fly down to visit I sometimes book him for them as well. It's about the same price as Uber (I voluntarily pay more because I tip him generously), but it's a 100% guaranteed fantastic experience. With Uber, you n…

No normal ( :) ) person cares about getting a fantastic experience when taking a taxi. They just want to get from A to B reliably and safely and without messing about with tipping.

Geez, yes, they absolutely do care. That's the entire reason why Uber took off to begin with. Taxis suck and entirely normal people hated them because of that.

"Normal" people are going to get upset when they need to be at the airport and their taxi that they called 30 minutes ago is still not there, so they call again and are informed that there are no taxis available in the area, then call again and suddenly one is right around the corner, but the driver's in a bad mood, demands a big tip, and berates you if you don't want to use cash. That was my typical experience with taxis before Uber, and that's why almost everyone I knew avoided them at all costs. It's also why I started taking a towncar to the airport instead -- because they were actually capable of being on-time and were only barely more expensive.

Now almost everyone I know uses Uber at least occasionally and many use it quite a lot.

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

#323

Post by nilkn » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 2:58 PM UTC

dgacmu wrote: post #250

morgante wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you view of the world is rather skewed if you think "normal" people take a town car to the airport. Even as a well-paid software engineer, I never use UberBlack—only UberX.

It's very location-dependent. In Pittsburgh, a taxi to the airport can be $55, and a towncar service $75. More importantly, you can make a reservation for the towncar in advance, and know that they'll be there, instead of playing 6am taxi roulette, which often does not work well. A lot of the faculty at CMU use towncar services for that reason. Pittsburgh's monopoly taxi service from yellow cab is remarkably terrible…

It's the same deal for me. I stopped using taxis for getting to the airport years ago when they simply failed to show up even remotely on time (either not at all or 30+ minutes late).

UberX is showing that it would cost about $60 to get to the airport with no surge pricing. With even 1.5x, though, that'd balloon to $90, and I've seen it as high as 2x during some times when I've needed to get to the airport after work.

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

#324

Post by filoeleven » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 3:24 PM UTC

paloaltokid wrote: post #62

breitling wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get off your moral high-ground. We (USofA) still continue to execute people as well.

No, in the USA our executions are cruelty-free.

This is not true. States have been unable to get the drugs they are supposed to use for lethal injection, so they've been substituting others, with horrible consequences. The linked article[0] is one example; there are plenty of others. There's also the fact that the second drug in the cocktail has always been a paralytic:

"But the paralytic also meant that, for years, witnesses could not necessarily tell if something was going wrong with an execution. Prisoners would be frozen, even while suffering immensely. Sometimes, the evidence would only be revealed in an autopsy."

[0]https://theintercept.com/2015/04/30/lockettoneyearlater/

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

#325

Post by haney » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 3:42 PM UTC

codecamper wrote: post #309

chillydawg wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do if you don't mind waiting 30 years, but the Valley wants billions tomorrow.

I doubt it would take 30 years. More like 3-5. But when your competitor has the cash infusion, you better have it too.

In addition to this you have the problem of dissatisfied customers using the app for the first time and then never coming back.

They have to ensure supply while they bring on new customers (has associated acquisition cost) if they acquire a customer and that customer isn't able to purchase anything from them due to lack of supply (or in the case of uber the price is too high because of surge kicking in) then that customer will churn forever, and potentially share their negative experience with their friends.

So basically, nail supply, grow customers, don't run out of cash before the whole thing is working.

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

#326

Post by scarmig » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 3:47 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #317

driverdan wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in the US. Taxi companies in US cities are terrible.

A great marketing win for Uber here. It became known worldwide as an "innovative technology company" even though outside US, it's only innovation is funneling SV money to lawyers so that they can maintain their illegal business practices while they conquer the local markets. E.g. in Europe we've already had all the other "innovative" stuff. But people don't notice it, instead naively buying the "Uber = innovation" ma…

The funny thing here is that a couple cab companies have done seemingly irreparable damage to the worldwide taxi industry, merely by virtue of being based in San Francisco and allowing drivers to regularly flake or refuse service to slightly less profitable areas.

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

#327

Post by estefan » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 3:57 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #265

loeg wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, like a taxi. The primary benefits Uber has over traditional Taxis are 1. price; 2. they have an app, and it works well; 3. drivers arrive in vaguely predictable times that are less than 45 minutes; and 4. it doesn't discriminate as badly as cabbies. > Uber will never come close to moving the sheer numbers that public transit does. You can't do it, not enough road to fit all those cars. Especially in downtown cor…

2-4 apply to every taxi firm these days too

I wasn't sure if it was just me, but in that case what makes Uber so valuable? Are they banking on putting all the taxi companies out of business and then monopolising the market?

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

#328

Post by estefan » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 4:14 PM UTC

cylinder wrote: post #88

SilasX wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't worked out the specific numbers, but $60 billion is reasonable if you expect Uber to become a global near-monopoly on hired ride services and related logistical services they're branching out into. Whether that scenario is reasonable, is itself an open question, of course.

There are no monopolies in this business. In NYC, Juno already has lots of drivers aboard. All the drivers here just keep all the apps open.

That's what an Uber driver told me the other day. He also works for a local taxi firm and uses Uber when there's little business from his firm.

I guess they're trying to put local firms out of business by subsidising fairs.

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

#329

Post by fiatmoney » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 4:39 PM UTC

khc wrote: post #230

fiatmoney wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is typically not legal to pay out (via dividends or share buybacks) to different investors of the same class in differing amounts. I'm not enough of a tax lawyer to say if you can do a miniature version of that by buying back stock of a US company listed on foreign exchanges without repatriating capital, but after arbitrage you would expect the effect to ripple back to the US-listed share price by the same amount.

This isn't about saving money per share, but using overseas money that many companies now avoid repatriating.

Right, but you can't pay out specifically to overseas investors.

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

#330

Post by toomuchtodo » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 5:04 PM UTC

cft wrote: post #240

toomuchtodo wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While driving home this evening listening to NPR's Marketplace, Kai Ryssdal specifically mentioned that Forbes removed Elizabeth Holems from their list of richest self-made women. Her stake in Theranos is now valued at $0 [1]. Capitalism giveth, and capitalism taketh away. [1] https://news.fastcompany.com/elizabeth-holmess-net-worth-is-...

According to this article her net worth is $400m. That's still a lot of money.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/01/technology/elizabeth-holmes-...

> Forbes said it has reexamined and revised Theranos' $9 billion valuation in light of recent investigations and allegations against the company.

> Citing conversations with venture capitalists and analysts, Forbes estimates that the company is actually worth a great deal less: $800 million. That takes into account its intellectual property and financing, according to Forbes' Matthew Herper.

> Holmes' 50% stake in the company would effectively be worth nothing at that valuation, Forbes concludes, because her investors would be paid back first (they hold preferred stock, not common stock like Holmes).