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

Uber's Loss Exceeds $800M in Q3 on $1.7B in Net Revenue

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 424 posts

Re: Uber's Loss Exceeds $800M in Q3 on $1.7B in Net Revenue

#91

Post by antiviral »

joatmon-snoo wrote: post #80
6t6t6t6 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK, this is called "Dumping the market". And it should not be legal...

Took me 30 seconds on the FTC website to find it: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... Can prices ever be "too low?" The short answer is yes, but not very often. Generally, low prices benefit consumers. Consumers are harmed only if below-cost pricing allows a dominant competitor to knock its rivals out of the market and then raise prices to above-market levels for a substantial time. A firm…

From the same FTC page:

Pricing below your own costs is also not a violation of the law unless it is part of a strategy to eliminate competitors, and when that strategy has a dangerous probability of creating a monopoly for the discounting firm so that it can raise prices far into the future and recoup its losses. In markets with a large number of sellers, such as gasoline retailing, it is unlikely that one company could price below cost long enough to drive out a significant number of rivals and attain a dominant position

Re: Uber's Loss Exceeds $800M in Q3 on $1.7B in Net Revenue

#92

Post by chrisper »

Cyph0n wrote: post #7
nharada wrote: post #4

Presumably this is intentional -- Uber could raise prices and make more money, but right now they're choosing to keep prices very low in order to undercut Lyft and the cab companies with the assumption that having a monopoly will return more profits in the future. At least anecdotally, here in SF Lyft is almost always more expensive than Uber.

I tried Lyft the other day, but after they charged me $25 as an "authorization hold" without notification, I cancelled my ride and decided to stick with Uber. Note that Uber's auth charge is usually around $1. $25 may not be a significant amount for some, but it's non-trivial for a college student like myself. I would have been happy had they just notified me first instead of my bank. Terrible UX to be frank. I actua…

Oh wow. I wonder how upset you would be when you realize that some gas stations put a $100 hold on your credit card. Btw. a hold is not a charge. A charge is only when it shows up on your credit card bill as a charge and not as a hold.

I do not see what the issue is with having a $25 hold? It's not a charge.

Re: Uber's Loss Exceeds $800M in Q3 on $1.7B in Net Revenue

#93

Post by tomc1985 »

jamez1 wrote: post #15
Cyph0n wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried Lyft the other day, but after they charged me $25 as an "authorization hold" without notification, I cancelled my ride and decided to stick with Uber. Note that Uber's auth charge is usually around $1. $25 may not be a significant amount for some, but it's non-trivial for a college student like myself. I would have been happy had they just notified me first instead of my bank. Terrible UX to be frank. I actua…

A $25 hold for a fare that might be $15 doesn't sound unreasonable? Is ride-sharing that big of a cost for your day to day?

Proof that HN is out-of-touch...

Re: Uber's Loss Exceeds $800M in Q3 on $1.7B in Net Revenue

#94

Post by peller »

6t6t6t6 wrote: post #11
antiviral wrote: post #6

Uber is making the rest of us in SV look terrible. 1. Collect a huge pile of money at sky-high valuations from those who really should know better. 2. Ignore any sensible unit economics and undercut local taxi/transport services until those small businesses go bankrupt since they don't have Uber's money pile. 3. Evade local regulations that everyone else follows in the name of 'innovation' even though the reality is…

AFAIK, this is called "Dumping the market". And it should not be legal...

(IANAL) I don't think it's legal, but "it can be difficult to prove that prices dropped because of deliberate predatory pricing rather than legitimate price competition. In any case, competitors may be driven out of the market before the case is ever heard."[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing

Re: Uber's Loss Exceeds $800M in Q3 on $1.7B in Net Revenue

#95

Post by beedogs »

rubicon33 wrote: post #33
antiviral wrote: post #6

Uber is making the rest of us in SV look terrible. 1. Collect a huge pile of money at sky-high valuations from those who really should know better. 2. Ignore any sensible unit economics and undercut local taxi/transport services until those small businesses go bankrupt since they don't have Uber's money pile. 3. Evade local regulations that everyone else follows in the name of 'innovation' even though the reality is…

Huh? What's the end game? The end game is a company with self driving cars, having SIGNIFICANTLY less overhead than they currently do with human drivers. And, probably a ton of technology patents to boot? Yea, they're definitely a brazen company, but do you really expect anything less from a unicorn company? Very few make it this big without cutting some corners, having some connection, etc.

> The end game is a company with self driving cars, having SIGNIFICANTLY less overhead than they currently do with human drivers. And, probably a ton of technology patents to boot?

This is never going to happen. This is a pipe dream. Self-driving cars are so far away from being a reality that you might as well assume you'll never live to see them, and Uber will certainly expire long before they arrive on the scene.

Re: Uber's Loss Exceeds $800M in Q3 on $1.7B in Net Revenue

#96

Post by tomc1985 »

jlarocco wrote: post #29
nharada wrote: post #4

Presumably this is intentional -- Uber could raise prices and make more money, but right now they're choosing to keep prices very low in order to undercut Lyft and the cab companies with the assumption that having a monopoly will return more profits in the future. At least anecdotally, here in SF Lyft is almost always more expensive than Uber.

That's such a terrible strategy I can't believe that's really what they're doing. The short term problem is that they can't burn through money long enough for it to work. The barrier to entry to create an Uber or Lyft competitor is very low - anybody with a car and a laptop can create a viable Uber competitor. Nobody's doing it because Uber, Lyft, and taxis are everywhere, but when there's only Uber, and they're sudd…

  > anybody with a car and a laptop can create a viable Uber competitor
It's a bit more complicated than that...

Re: Uber's Loss Exceeds $800M in Q3 on $1.7B in Net Revenue

#97

Post by astrodust »

Eridrus wrote: post #39
antiviral wrote: post #6

Uber is making the rest of us in SV look terrible. 1. Collect a huge pile of money at sky-high valuations from those who really should know better. 2. Ignore any sensible unit economics and undercut local taxi/transport services until those small businesses go bankrupt since they don't have Uber's money pile. 3. Evade local regulations that everyone else follows in the name of 'innovation' even though the reality is…

For all the shitiness that Uber has engaged in, at least they've shown that you can get around the antiquated Medalion system.

Where I live they were already working to phase out the medallion system by introducing new permits for cabs that don't require medallions. They're cabs just the same, with the same requirements for insurance and such, but were a way of expanding the number of cabs without expanding the medallion pool.

This softens the depreciation in the medallion market. The cab drivers who paid a lot of money for their medallions would be furious if they're worthless overnight. This way it takes 10-15 years for them to fully depreciate.

Then Uber showed up and decided they didn't need a proper license or anything and shit got crazy.

Re: Uber's Loss Exceeds $800M in Q3 on $1.7B in Net Revenue

#98

Post by tomc1985 »

antiviral wrote: post #6

Uber is making the rest of us in SV look terrible. 1. Collect a huge pile of money at sky-high valuations from those who really should know better. 2. Ignore any sensible unit economics and undercut local taxi/transport services until those small businesses go bankrupt since they don't have Uber's money pile. 3. Evade local regulations that everyone else follows in the name of 'innovation' even though the reality is…

Oh, you forgot:

  4. Dump all your drivers once your self-piloting cars come fully online
Drivers are just the stepping stone...

Re: Uber's Loss Exceeds $800M in Q3 on $1.7B in Net Revenue

#99

Post by moxious »

taxicabjesus wrote: post #14
LeoPanthera wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lyft may be more expensive on paper but I always use it instead of Uber where it is available and they send me so many discounts and coupons that I almost never pay the full price.

> I almost never pay the full price. In the world of venture-capital subsidized transportation, no one ever pays full price [1]. [1] Can Uber Ever Deliver? Part Two: Understanding Uber’s Uncompetitive Costs - http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/can-uber-ever-deliver... Also see Part 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13079023 / http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/11/can-uber-ever-deliver...

Wow, those are some great articles with interesting points. That paints a very grim and brutal picture for Uber.

Re: Uber's Loss Exceeds $800M in Q3 on $1.7B in Net Revenue

#100

Post by rubicon33 »

stuckagain wrote: post #82
rubicon33 wrote: post #3

Also on track to have the first self driving car AND a ride hailing application to boot. That can't be cheap.

I don't know how people get this impression, unless it is by only reading the comments on this site and never reading any primary sources. Uber's "self-driving" tech is currently unable to do things that other companies were doing years ago. Google's car took a blind man to Taco Bell in 2012. Uber's car has two engineers in the front seat and still blows stop lights and can't make a right turn.

Yea, Google drove a blind man to Taco Bell in 2012 and still hasn't released a self driving car 4 years later.

Meanwhile, Uber's been in the self driving car business half that time? They already looks more likely to actually have these things on the road, and, they have the incentive, and cash pool to do it.

Another reason people "get this impression" is that Google has a history of interesting projects that never made it to market. Waymo gives me more confidence, but I'm still skeptical.

Post reply on HN