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

271–280 of 424 posts

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

#271

Post by sparky_z »

Bombthecat wrote: post #264
jeffdavis wrote: post #253

Sincere question: what protects Uber from competition enough to imply huge profits in the future? Network effects don't seem that strong. People will download an app to save money, and drivers will download an app to make money. It doesn't cause any major inconvenience. In fact, it seems like a market that may approach perfect competition in a matter of years. There are only two companies now because there are only t…

You could say the same about chat app. One person downloads the app to chat. The other downloads to reply. And here we are. Still using WhatsApp:)

It's not the same. If you only ever needed to chat with one person at a time, and it didn't matter who that person was, and there was nothing stopping you from downloading multiple apps just to see who's out there to chat with and picking the person who charges the least... well then WhatApp would be pretty easy to switch away from.

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

#272

Post by grogenaut »

intrasight wrote: post #212
colechristensen wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reckless and non-viable in much of the world. Nobody is going to get an autonomous car working in a winter climate for a long time. Lines on the road can't be seen, there are potholes, driving through deep piles of snow are common, communicating with other drivers and accomidating and anticipating their actions in snow narrowed streets is necessary.... There are plenty of times of year where I'd be wary trusting a hu…

Uber autonomous doesn't have to be better than the best human drivers in all conditions. They only have to be much better than the average human driver in all conditions. This isn't a very high threshold to meet.

I would point out that as much as people complain about how well cabbies drive, they have way more hours behind the wheel than most people.

Quick calculation: Lets think about people who drive their whole lives, not city folks. Lets think about work hours driving as it's likely to be the most by quantity, and vacation or pleasure driving should be roughly equivalent.

30 minutes each average way 5 days a week starting at 16, so by 40 they've driven 5/7365 = 260hrs / year. 260 24 years = 6240 hours.

8 Hours a day, 5 days a week, with salaried level vacations is 2000 hours a year. Many drivers are likely to work way more than that. Anyway, 6240 / 2000 = 3.12 years. That means that if you started driving at 18, you'd have the same hours driving as a 40 year old.

This also means that by the gladwell definition of 10,000 hours, you don't become an expert driver till 54.5 years.

However a pro driver becomes and expert after 5 YEARS of driving.

This also means that only 22% (those over 55) of america is likely to be an expert driver. http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/data/demographic.html

If HN population is the same as americans (it's likely skewed older), then 78% of hacker news isn't a gladwellian "Expert".

So self driving cars don't need to be better than most people they need to be better than a group of people who are very likely to be experts.

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

#274

Post by quickben »

jimmywanger wrote: post #254
quickben wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but slightly can be high. They had a bit of anti advertising here after 8.9x surge: http://globalnews.ca/news/2430713/alberta-man-furious-over-1... Ended up all over the news. Not sure if Uber caps surge in Canada now.

> Yeah, but slightly can be high. You misunderstand me. That's the verbiage they display now. "fares are slightly higher due to increased demand", rather than the actual surge multiplier. If the surge multiplier is higher than that, it'll say something to the effect "fares are a lot higher due to high demand". It doesn't tell you the exact multiplier anymore, which makes me at least a bit more price insensitive.

Ah I see. Well, that's better I guess for Uber. People are more incentivized to use the service.

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

#275

Post by czep »

letterthief wrote: post #268
animex wrote: post #167

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…

> The Uber model has no barrier to entry If uber has no barrier to entry, neither does facebook.

I think that says more about Facebook than it does about Uber. Not to derail the conversation but it's entirely possible that FB will be gone in ten years. They already have a demographic problem: far lower penetration among younger cohorts than in years past. And engagement metrics among new younger users show that they are using FB differently than older cohorts.

Thus, I think one could easily argue that FB could be supplanted very quickly by a new service that offers many of its features but is more attuned to the use cases of the younger generation. In Uber's case, the situation is much different because their only appeal (low fares) is unsustainable.

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

#276

Post by automatwon »

letterthief wrote: post #268
animex wrote: post #167

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…

> The Uber model has no barrier to entry If uber has no barrier to entry, neither does facebook.

Facebook has network effects. I use it because my friends use it.

I don't care if my friends use Uber, if a different Taxi company offers me the same service for cheaper.

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

#277

Post by automatwon »

chrischen wrote: post #180
orthoganol wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think almost certainly their profitability is dependent on a future of driverless cars, and I'm sure that's what they are pitching investors. Fearfully, since their survival means going driverless and they are now losing $800 million a quarter, they will race to get driverless cars on the road, it will be rushed, and it could be reckless. I'm thinking the two driverless cars filmed blowing red lights in SF recently…

If taxis could survive there's no reason uber couldn't.

Uber can survive, but will it survive as a global monopoly? Taxi companies survived as local monopolies.

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

#278

Post by MarkMc »

jeffdavis wrote: post #253

Sincere question: what protects Uber from competition enough to imply huge profits in the future? Network effects don't seem that strong. People will download an app to save money, and drivers will download an app to make money. It doesn't cause any major inconvenience. In fact, it seems like a market that may approach perfect competition in a matter of years. There are only two companies now because there are only t…

There is most certainly a network effect. It's similar to eBay: Buyers and sellers can switch to another eBay clone, but they don't because there are no buyers or sellers on the clone.

Similarly, nobody will download another app if it doesn't have any drivers, and drivers will not install another app if there are no riders.

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

#279

Post by letterthief »

automatwon wrote: post #276
letterthief wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Uber model has no barrier to entry If uber has no barrier to entry, neither does facebook.

Facebook has network effects. I use it because my friends use it. I don't care if my friends use Uber, if a different Taxi company offers me the same service for cheaper.

So you start a competitor to uber, where are all of your drivers?

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

#280

Post by cylinder »

morgante wrote: post #246
cylinder wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would just take Juno. The drivers here in NYC are only doing Uber to get enough ratings to qualify for Juno. Uber went way too far squeezing drivers, it's a mess. I've seen their Uber pool earnings ... It should be illegal.

Juno is totally non-viable. Being "better for drivers" is not a competitive differentiator. 99% (including me) don't choose services based on which is "better for drivers."

Why not? The drivers are more pleasant and of much higher quality so I'm getting better service.
Post reply on HN