Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber revolution will not last

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 123 posts

Re: Uber revolution will not last

#51

Post by brandelune »

jimminy wrote: post #24
nawtacawp wrote: post #2

GM invested $500 million in Lyft earlier this year. I guess, they have a different view on where the market is headed. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-lyft-investment-idUSKBN...

The valuations and conditions between Lyft and Uber are drastically different. Lyft with the funding from GM has only raised $2B over it's lifespan which is comparable to that of Uber. Uber has raised nearly $13B and blown through most of it. At their last round, Lyft is valued at about $6B and Uber is valued at $68B. One of these is reasonable based on the taxi market size (domestic $20B), the other is about 2x over…

The problem with Uber is not the business model, it's the hype that leads to overvaluation as you properly show. Too bad the article does not make that crystal clear.

Re: Uber revolution will not last

#52

Post by manyxcxi »

dismantlethesun wrote: post #42
mc32 wrote: post #18

This is gold... "So, yeah, it’s great: you hit the app, and the car shows up now in 10 minutes instead of a 35-minute wait. But now the traffic congestion is so bad that you’re sitting in that car for 20 minutes longer to get anywhere... cities now are starting to discuss and deal with: traffic congestion. The traffic congestion is so much worse. Now, is it all because of Uber? Not it’s not...you suddenly have a new…

Medallions (whether or not they were a good solution), were intended to restrict the number of cars on the road during peak hours, and enforce some uniform regulations on all taxis (pick up people of all races, etc.) Uber's' innovation leads to a fleet that's easier to regulate due to constant monitoring, and pre-booking data. However, when it comes to traffic congestion, their solution is pure demand-side economics:…

Those cars are registered and taxed to the state, county, and city where the driver lives. These aren't scofflaws driving in from out of town- the municipalities are getting at least their fare share from the drivers to maintain the roads.

Re: Uber revolution will not last

#53

Post by dismantlethesun »

xorgar831 wrote: post #48
dismantlethesun wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Medallions (whether or not they were a good solution), were intended to restrict the number of cars on the road during peak hours, and enforce some uniform regulations on all taxis (pick up people of all races, etc.) Uber's' innovation leads to a fleet that's easier to regulate due to constant monitoring, and pre-booking data. However, when it comes to traffic congestion, their solution is pure demand-side economics:…

That's not exactly true, cities can and do still have limits on the number of cars, case in point Seattle: h http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2014/03/seattle-city-cou...

That's true, and is what I meant by my worry that cities will crack down to maintain the status quo.

Doing so is easily done as a consequence of Uber being centrally controlled, with full tracking on all its cars. A city can trivially know exactly to the minute how many cars are in operation via Uber at one time.

However, regulation of that sort isn't what Uber wants, they want a situation where supply is unbounded and people only compete/control demand.

Re: Uber revolution will not last

#54

Post by norikki »

mweibel wrote: post #33
prostoalex wrote: post #4

The "labor-exploiting" argument seems a bit disingenious to me. It's not like someone sees an ad for Uber and tells their boss to shove it, as they're quitting their full-time job, forfeiting all the benefits and 401(k) matching to start a brand new career as an Uber driver. The alternative for many drivers is simply unemployment. While there's zero possibility of labor exploitation, it reminds me of Flight of the Co…

Of course having a job is better than no job. That doesn't excuse Uber from having good working conditions, though.

You understand that the people at WaPo who you got that argument from are just using it as an excuse to take back control of the industry with political maneuvering. The solution to not enough high paying jobs is to raise demand for workers, and lower supply. Not pass a law requiring all workers to get lots of benefits they may not want coming out of their paychecks.

Re: Uber revolution will not last

#55

Post by WillPostForFood »

dismantlethesun wrote: post #42
mc32 wrote: post #18

This is gold... "So, yeah, it’s great: you hit the app, and the car shows up now in 10 minutes instead of a 35-minute wait. But now the traffic congestion is so bad that you’re sitting in that car for 20 minutes longer to get anywhere... cities now are starting to discuss and deal with: traffic congestion. The traffic congestion is so much worse. Now, is it all because of Uber? Not it’s not...you suddenly have a new…

Medallions (whether or not they were a good solution), were intended to restrict the number of cars on the road during peak hours, and enforce some uniform regulations on all taxis (pick up people of all races, etc.) Uber's' innovation leads to a fleet that's easier to regulate due to constant monitoring, and pre-booking data. However, when it comes to traffic congestion, their solution is pure demand-side economics:…

The creation of medallions had nothing to do with the number of cars on the road at peak hours, or regulations about race. They were created during the depression in NYC to protect jobs for taxi drivers.

Re: Uber revolution will not last

#56

Post by jimminy »

prostoalex wrote: post #43
jimminy wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I explained above, but Uber is way over-valued to the point that they cannot have a reasonable IPO and acquisitions are off the table to all but a few companies that don't need that business and can acquire a direct competitor at a more reasonable expense.

Box and Facebook both had IPOs that priced them below the last private round, and yet are limping along. Seems like positive cashflow is the key.

For Facebook, that is absolutely false. Their last known valuation prior to IPO based on a raise was $65B (March 2011), they IPO'd at $104B.

And Box had a small downward valuation shift (-36%, -$0.9B), between last raised valuation and IPO.

Uber's numbers even giving them liberal growth potential of 500% places them at around $33.75B (-50% current value, -$34B).

Re: Uber revolution will not last

#57

Post by Animats »

As criticism of Uber goes, this is kind of weak.

Uber's big problem is simply that they lose money. They still have to use investor capital to buy market share. That shouldn't be necessary at their present size.

Also, Uber has run out of investor financing and is now using leveraged loans.[1] Those have to be paid back. Their 2015 financing was a six year convertible bond. The bondholders get the right to participate in any future IPO at 20%-30% below the IPO price. Their 2016 financing is similar.

Uber may be Webvan 2.0. Anyone remember when Webvan had their little trucks running around everywhere in major cities?

[1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-raises-1-15-billion-from-fi...

Re: Uber revolution will not last

#58

Post by kayoone »

quanticle wrote: post #15

I don't understand the point he's making about traffic congestion. He's claiming that "Uber is putting more cars on the street". More compared to what? Compared to everyone driving themselves? If Uber wasn't around, the alternative would not be people taking public transport. The alternative wouldn't be people waiting 35 minutes for taxis. The alternative would be people driving in themselves, causing greater congest…

Uber is not available in Germany but when i can't get a cab i will usually resort to public transport because i mostly use a cab when i am not allowed to drive anymore or parking in that area is impossible. Also a 20 minute Taxi ride alone can easily be 15-17EUR in Berlin, so it's kind of a pricy alternative when public transport would be 2,70 EUR for the same distance.

Re: Uber revolution will not last

#59

Post by jpkeisala »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #31
hkmurakami wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be afraid of a bad review if I told a passenger I'm not happy driving for Uber. What do I have to gain from sharing this info? At best I'm where I was before and at worst maybe an Uber employee is testing me for fidelity and I could be punished. The truth is somewhere in between, and a non zero number of passengers would rate me a non-5 star if I complained about my condition. So take the info with a grain of sal…

I don't mind a driver mentioning they're not happy driving for Uber and Lyft, or that the rates have gone down in the area, or that they've had a lot of short trips today. That alone wouldn't cause me to rate a driver poorly, though I can imagine that it might for some people. I do mind when I get a 20-minute rant for the duration of the trip, though. I've had that happen once or twice, once accompanied with a less t…

Usually I would not mind but then again if I am tired or busy which I usually am when commuting. I don't feel like listening other people problems.

Re: Uber revolution will not last

#60

Post by norikki »

rajeck wrote: post #11

Bizarre answer to this question. How is he shorting Uber? In his own mind? Q: Do you really think Uber is going to collapse or be bought up by another company? A: Look , I don’t have the internal numbers to – I’m not like . . . the hedge fund guy, Jim Chanos, who shorted Enron. He had lots of research and researched this stuff. . . . Let’s put it this way: I’m shorting Uber.

yea this globalist hack is saying that uber is doomed because they will get laws passed to put them out of business. It has nothing to do with research or investing
Post reply on HN