Uber's Loss Exceeds $800M in Q3 on $1.7B in Net Revenue • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by trevyn » Tue, Dec 20, 2016, 2:36 AM UTC

aetherson wrote: post #10

realstuff wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, why do you prefer Lyft?

I am not the person you're replying to, but I used to switch back and forth between Lyft and Uber and use whichever was cheaper at the moment. But Uber kept sending me drivers who were like 0.5 miles away or more, in SOMA at rush hour, and after the second time I waited ten minutes and then the driver canceled, I decided I was willing to pay a small surcharge to get a drive in less than 5 minutes and for it to, you k…

When you suspect there's going to be an issue with timeliness, just call both an Uber and a Lyft, and whichever one gets there first wins. ;)

The cancellation fee only kicks in after 5 minutes.

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

#162

Post by Frondo » Tue, Dec 20, 2016, 2:36 AM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #129

jplasmeier wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somewhere in between "Since when do hackers bleat about obeying laws and regulations?" and "I want a nanny state to protect me 24/7" exists a middle ground where people realize that government regulation exists for a reason. You can't just throw away the law for the sake of your definition of progress...

You can't just throw away the law for the sake of your definition of progress... Sure you can. Laws aren't magical and there's nothing about the State that gives it any actual innate authority.

No, you're right, there's no "law" molecule in nature.

What gives the state its authority is that me and three hundred million other people continue to give the state its authority. Break a severe enough law and we'll take away your freedom of movement for a while.

Behold, society!

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

#163

Post by vertex-four » Tue, Dec 20, 2016, 2:36 AM UTC

lacampbell wrote: post #55

mindcrime wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evade local regulations that everyone else follows in the name of 'innovation' even though the reality is they are just taking a free pass on conducting background checks, and skipping safety guidelines. When they replace all taxis, do they really think they can just permanently ignore all driving laws? Since when do hackers bleat about obeying laws and regulations? What happened to having a "we can do better" mindse…

Since when do hackers bleat about obeying laws and regulations? What happened to having a "we can do better" mindset? Has everybody wigged out and flipped their "I want a nanny state to protect me 24/7" bit? Hacker News is fairly progressive/authoritarian. The kind of attitude you describe can still be found on slashdot.

And as a leftist, Hacker News is very, very libertarian-leaning most of the time by nature of its general support for startup companies no matter what laws they break and its general dislike of laws and systems designed to protect people from the sociopathic entities we call companies. There's some dissent, but it's certainly not a progressive haven.

This is one of those places where people will happily sit around and argue that breaking laws is moral and necessary, no matter what the law.

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

#164

Post by jasone » Tue, Dec 20, 2016, 2:37 AM UTC

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 just bit the bullet and installed Lyft on my phone. Then I tried to complete the account creation flow, and the app insisted my (Republic Wireless) phone number is invalid. I lose, Lyft loses... While this is admittedly anecdotal, it does not bode well for Lyft's expansion.

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

#165

Post by cowsandmilk » Tue, Dec 20, 2016, 2:37 AM UTC

chipperyman573 wrote: post #123

NegativeLatency wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I've never experienced that

Not all places do it. It's mostly common in lower income areas

I've found it more common at interstate gas stations than at local gas stations. E.g. the one that always does it for me is Hooksett, NH; with a Tesla Supercharger, it is more a place that serves everyone and their mother than a lower income area.

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

#166

Post by alistproducer2 » Tue, Dec 20, 2016, 2:37 AM UTC

Here's what I'm not understanding about Uber. There' nothing they provide that couldn't be cloned. It's clear there's no way to grow into profitability so once the VC subsidies go away Uber will have to significantly raise prices to survive, putting them in the same price range as traditional car services. At that point, what's to stop Yellow Cab from creating their own Uber clone and eating Uber's lunch?

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

#167

Post by animex » Tue, Dec 20, 2016, 2:37 AM UTC

Uber will be a dead Unicorn in the medium future. They've got too many legal pressures, competitors with native advantages (i.e. the automakers), and their expansion plans have them overextended. Here in Edmonton, AB, Canada, regulatory changes have pushed the Uber prices to almost 2x during non-surge times over regular taxis. Taxi's have stepped up. Local competitors have sprouted. Carshares are abounding. It's all too much for them to compete effectively and the drivers are realizing they are making nothing. The driver pool has significantly dwindled here. The Uber model has no barrier to entry and they've lost their first-to-market advantage. Doesn't paint a pretty picture.

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

#168

Post by randyrand » Tue, Dec 20, 2016, 2:39 AM UTC

moxious wrote: post #99

taxicabjesus wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I didn't see any comment about Uber's main advantage tho, which is a shame...

1. being able to scale supply to meet demand.

In the traditional taxi model, the number of taxis and drivers are mostly fixed. during times of low demand more fixed costs brings more waste (cars driving around not making money) and in times of high demand represent lost profit (cars not capturing market potential).

taxi company's can try and scale 'fixed costs' better, but then they basically just become uber. Having drivers use their daily driving cars as taxi cars allows scaling of supply much much easier than having to use purpose built taxi cars.

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

#169

Post by eridius » Tue, Dec 20, 2016, 2:39 AM UTC

Cyph0n wrote: post #144

eridius wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen a $25 authorization hold before. Usually Lyft does something like $5. In any case, once the charge is captured, the rest of the authorization should go away (and the charge is captured as soon as you rate/tip the driver, or after 24 hours, whichever comes first).

That makes sense. It would be really helpful if the user is notified if an authorization hold is required for the next ride, though.

An authorization hold should happen for all rides, but it's normally not very large. The whole point of it is so you can't get a ride and then have their charge fail because you don't actually have any money. Any company that provides a service before payment can be expected to do the same thing (e.g. basically any company that's part of the gig economy). The perfect authorization hold is one that's for the exact amount you'll be paying later, but in most cases that amount can't be predicted, so companies try to slightly overshoot (because they can always charge less than the hold, but if they try and charge more it will fail if you don't have any more money).

If you got a $25 authorization hold from Lyft there's a couple possibilities that come to mind. The first is that Lyft thought your ride would in fact come somewhere close to $25 (after tip). The second is that if you're a new customer, they likely consider you a much higher risk of fraud, and therefore want to err generously on the side of overshooting the estimate, instead of trying to place a lower hold and risk not being able to capture the real cost of the ride. Also, if you hailed your ride without providing a destination, they wouldn't have been able to produce a usable estimate.

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

#170

Post by pizza » Tue, Dec 20, 2016, 2:39 AM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #133

pizza wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there something akin to a city's uber manager that all drivers have to report to for the sake of noticing if someone should _not_ be driving for uber?

Are you asking if there's someone who looks over the driver pool and decides who looks like they should not be driving for Uber?

I was thinking more along the lines of someone that notices something like "alcohol on breath", a person that acts as a customer's ally/mediator for corporate in cases of transgressions, an accountability person with little purpose than for corroborating corporate's opinions on "bad apples" (whether rightly or wrongfully) etc.