Live data from Hacker News

Why I don't believe in Uber's Success

blog.benjamin-encz.de

101–110 of 413 posts

Re: Why I don't believe in Uber's Success

#101
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good point, but it doesn't change the prognosis. Uber will run out of runway long before that vision can be realized. And even if by some miracle it doesn't, it will find itself in a low-margin commodity business. Unless it can muscle its way into a monopoly, it can't win. Which explains the company's aggressiveness and anti-competitive nature.

Amazon is in a low margin commodity business with massive amounts of competition, but they're still massive and becoming even bigger because they do what everyone else can do just that little bit better that there's no real reason to switch away.

Also a good point. Low margin doesn't have to mean unsuccessful. But it's taken 20 years for Amazon to get where it is. Uber's valuation seems pretty premature. Amazon lost money for years because it was building infrastructure. Uber is losing money because it is subsidizing its sales. Amazon may have been low margin, but I don't know that they ever took investor money and gave it directly to customers in the form of price subsidies.

Re: Why I don't believe in Uber's Success

#102
The network effects are pretty obvious actually: as the number of people on the platform increases, the amount of time a driver has to drive to pick you up becomes increasingly shorter, thus enabling the drivers to spend more of their time with a passenger in their car (which is when they are earning money). If drivers are making more money, Uber can pay them less (reduce the subsidy).

Old taxi cab companies can't compete because they have to drive much farther on average for each pickup

Re: Why I don't believe in Uber's Success

#103
Why theorize about "economies of scale won't help"? We know the answer is "yes they will" -- Uber's US operations were profitable in 1Q16[1] and that included many non-scaled markets.

Like I said 8 years ago[2]: "Facebook made ~$200mm in 2008. It's pretty clear they could profit on those revenues, and instead are choosing to invest in further growth (with outside capital)."

[1] https://skift.com/2016/12/21/uber-isnt-profitable-in-the-u-s... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=427212

Re: Why I don't believe in Uber's Success

#104
Investors are giving Uber a near infinite bankroll so it's hard to say that they'll be allowed to fail.

I was in Southeast Asia recently and it's insane how cheap Uber is. It almost doesn't make sense to take any other form of transportation. I imagine once the competition dies, they'll have complete control over the market.

Re: Why I don't believe in Uber's Success

#105
post #75
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 250% surge pricing or $90. Lemme check Lyft. Sweet, Lyft is about $50. Our Lyft will be here in 3 minutes." There was zero friction switching from Uber to Lyft. That's not zero friction. Zero friction would be if you routed the directions under "Public Transit" in Google Maps and scrolled to the bottom where you can see both Lyft and Uber pricing (and clickable links) next to each other.

Technically you are correct, but you are just nitpicking. We understood exactly what he meant.

My point was the meta-search engine will eliminate the friction and eat the whole pie.

Re: Why I don't believe in Uber's Success

#106
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFA and a lot of commenters here don't seem to understand that Uber doesn't want to compete with taxi services, which are a niche business to be disrupted en route to the real prize. It wants to compete with your car - imagine 12 lanes of L.A. traffic composed mostly of Ubers. That's their dream. They even admit this in public. [0] The day they can get cost per mile one penny below what you'd spend owning a Toyota Ca…

This is a good point, but it doesn't change the prognosis. Uber will run out of runway long before that vision can be realized. And even if by some miracle it doesn't, it will find itself in a low-margin commodity business. Unless it can muscle its way into a monopoly, it can't win. Which explains the company's aggressiveness and anti-competitive nature.

It's a business with natural network effects. The service that has the most cars on the road has the most liquidity to clear the market, and will have the shortest wait times. People pay for rides in both time and money, and you can be "cheaper" by getting a car to show up faster.

Re: Why I don't believe in Uber's Success

#107
post #57
post #18

> Uber’s growth is fueled by subsidies A lot of people think if their Uber/Lyft ride is cheaper than their traditional taxi because it's subsidized. The lower fare for the most part is due to extreme efficiency difference between a taxi company and Uber/Lyft. 1. Uber/Lyft don't own the cars. They are leveraging car owners capital 2. Uber/Lyft drivers are more efficient because they don't have to roam around the city…

"Subsidies for Uber's drivers are responsible for the majority of the company's losses globally, [head of finance] Gupta told investors" https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-25/uber-lose...

Uber only uses subsidies when trying to break into new markets to expand. If they stopped expanding, they would become profitable rather quickly.

Many of their losses were due to the turf war in china, which is now over. They have a 20% stake in Didi now, which will almost certainly recover their losses.

Re: Why I don't believe in Uber's Success

#108
post #91

The potential for autonomous point-to-point freight shipping should pay off sooner than it's consumer business, allowing it to reduce it's investment requirements. Debatable on the timelines though. You assume though that the network they've built up isn't valuable when you talk about self-driving vehicles. I agree the car tech will be commoditised and to my mind Uber owning their own fleet isn't the best option. It'…

What prevents other logistics providers from driving the price down to commodity levels?

Normal logistics providers have their own fleets and have to deal with the depreciation and maintenance costs. Uber shifts all those costs onto their drivers.

Re: Why I don't believe in Uber's Success

#109
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good point, but it doesn't change the prognosis. Uber will run out of runway long before that vision can be realized. And even if by some miracle it doesn't, it will find itself in a low-margin commodity business. Unless it can muscle its way into a monopoly, it can't win. Which explains the company's aggressiveness and anti-competitive nature.

Amazon is in a low margin commodity business with massive amounts of competition, but they're still massive and becoming even bigger because they do what everyone else can do just that little bit better that there's no real reason to switch away.

Amazon also has crazy AWS profits to subsidize major investments. Uber lacks such a super profitable but tangential revenue stream.

Re: Why I don't believe in Uber's Success

#110
I think Uber's business model relies on self-driving cars. They're paying subsidies now to build a brand -- the name "Uber" has become synonymous with "pull out your cell phone and call for a ride" -- that will be very valuable once self-driving taxis become a commodity (which will happen shortly after their introduction).

Uber is not a bet on who can build the most profitable taxi company now -- it's a bet on a brand in an industry that will rapidly commoditize. Given that literally everything else Uber does has been replicated by at least one team at every hackathon I've been to in the last decade, there is very little sustained advantage from technology.

The auto industry is at a crossroads: you have new upstarts like Tesla that are very obviously planning to convert to a transit-as-a-service model. The "old" auto industry (basically everyone that makes cars and is not Tesla) is still struggling to adapt to a more "continuous development" model like Tesla. Tesla's engineering process is far simpler -- an electric car replaces the complex internal combustion drivetrain (an engine block that requires separate air, water, oil and gasoline systems, plus the transmission) with a far simpler electric engine.

The electric system in a Tesla is actually far simpler than your average car: the sensor package in a modern internal combustion engine is an incredibly complex piece of engineering. This gives them a huge cost advantage over existing automakers -- if Tesla is providing transit as a service directly to customers AND making/maintaining the vehicles themselves, that displaces a lot of revenue (auto sales/maintenance to companies like Uber).

I think Uber will eventually merge with an auto manufacturer (and likely keep the Uber branding since it's likely to be the most valuable part of the company). They already have realized that Tesla is their biggest competition; and I think that the autonomous driving deal with Ford is simply testing the waters for a future acquisition.

15 years from now, most people will likely have 3 or 4 choices of how to get somewhere by car: Uber, Tesla, Lyft and likely a mix of local / regional companies. Brand value is powerful; and I guarantee you that at the end of this, the Uber brand will be worth more than what they've put into it.

Post reply on HN