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

The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

danielcompton.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 542 posts

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#141

Post by TrainedMonkey »

harryh wrote: post #29

Uber passengers only pay 41% of the cost of trips, with investor capital making up the difference FWIW this assertion (which isn't really core to the central thesis of the post, but still) is wrong. That number comes from https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/12/01/2180647/the-taxi-unic... but the author of that story misread the data. Uber only counts their cut as revenue not the full cost of the ride. Despite this repet…

Personal experience, so take it with a grain of salt.

I've talked with 2-3 Uber drivers in LA area. They seem to be getting 65% to 75% of what passenger pays. I think many of the core Uber markets are fairly profitable. This would imply that majority of the burn is focused on growth in new markets.

Some potential problems with extrapolating the data:

* Small sample size.

* Uber rides cost more in California, observed 65% to 75% might not hold in other mature markets.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#142

Post by prodikl »

thrill wrote: post #83
ontoillogical wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As someone who several years ago "managed" to take over a publicly traded company ... That sounds like an interesting story! Have you told it elsewhere?

Heh - usually after a few beers, and it gets even better. The first SEC attorney involved was a real stickler, but up for retirement in the middle of the process. His replacement was a real hard charger, and worked with me to get the former CEO incarcerated ... and he then went into private practice ... and a few years later got indicted for pulling the same scheme himself working with another small cap company as th…

oh damn this looks interesting

> Heh

no longer interested

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#143

Post by cityhall »

tekklloneer wrote: post #9
empath75 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a stupid moonshot play. They should have just focused on being a really good taxi company.

I disagree. They were in a prime position to be "the" self driving car company, if anyone was. Instead, hyper aggressive business tactics (which were largely unwarranted) has backfired.

They're a decade late and have no engineering culture. All they could do was throw money at the problem. If they weren't hyper aggressive they would have looked to partner with someone more experienced or to play vendors off each other.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#144

Post by transfire »

Judgmentality wrote: post #131
hammock wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am reminded of an HN comment from 206 days ago that seemed prescient, even then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12315888 This is from the big Bloomberg article/interview that came out today: 'Kalanick began courting Levandowski this spring, broaching the possibility of an acquisition during a series of 10-mile night walks from the Soma neighborhood where Uber is also headquartered to the Golden Gate Bridge. T…

Here's another comment from an HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12558078 "Otto was designed to be sold to Uber before it was created, there's a reason it was self-funded despite having nearly 100 employees by the time it was acquired. Anthony Levandowski met Travis Kalanick years ago and had been planning something like this for a while. It's basically an open secret."

But how do we know Google wasn't the one making that plan? I find it strange that Google paid Levandowski millions in bonuses after he quit abruptly and after they already knew he was starting a company with their IP.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#145

Post by astrodust »

dookahku wrote: post #17
empath75 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a stupid moonshot play. They should have just focused on being a really good taxi company.

They're not. Every major car company plus competitors are focusing on self-driving cars. Why pay a human what a machine can do for cheaper? Uber's future depends on being first with self driving cars. Being a good taxi company in the 21st century will mean good at self-driving cars.

If self-driving cars become the norm, if you can just buy one at will, Uber's business model is junked.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#146

Post by thrill »

pthreads wrote: post #123
thrill wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh - usually after a few beers, and it gets even better. The first SEC attorney involved was a real stickler, but up for retirement in the middle of the process. His replacement was a real hard charger, and worked with me to get the former CEO incarcerated ... and he then went into private practice ... and a few years later got indicted for pulling the same scheme himself working with another small cap company as th…

I want to know the whole story so bad. You should write a book. :-)

If only I could write as well as the screenplay for Dave Barry's "Big Trouble".

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#147

Post by mahyarm »

bbatsell wrote: post #37
NathanKP wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll be really interested in seeing what happens if Uber can't recover from the burn rate and make a sustainable business without self driving. I can see in the best possible scenario we end up with more cities like Austin, Texas that have their own nonprofit ride sharing app. I actually have huge respect for what Austin did in banning Uber and Lyft and making their own app (Ride Austin) that isn't designed to make i…

Clearing up some serious misconceptions here: 1) Austin did not ban Uber or Lyft. The city council passed an ordinance that required a gradually increasing percentage of rideshare drivers pass an FBI-approved fingerprint background check. (These rules are in place in other locales in which Uber operates, such as NYC and Houston.) Uber and Lyft formed a PAC that got a proposition on the next local election ballot that…

Are you sure it was to make an example or there was something unique / different about Austin that made both companies not want to provide business there?

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#148

Post by iandanforth »

pm90 wrote: post #121
bedhead wrote: post #105

Among the circumstantial evidence, the self-funding aspect is what jumped out at me the most. This is the equivalent of a hedge fund manage buying something based on inside information, but only for his personal account. Why cut other people in on the wink-and-nod-guaranteed payday? Besides, Lewandowski couldn't realistically raise money through proper channels if his pitch amounted to, "I stole stuff from Waymo."

In hindsight, a better crook would have accepted outside funding just to cover this line of attack (Assuming the Otto Founder is guilty; of course it might be otherwise).

Due diligence during funding is designed to uncover these kinds of IP issues. That would probably have been a larger risk.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#149

Post by MaxfordAndSons »

bbatsell wrote: post #37
NathanKP wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll be really interested in seeing what happens if Uber can't recover from the burn rate and make a sustainable business without self driving. I can see in the best possible scenario we end up with more cities like Austin, Texas that have their own nonprofit ride sharing app. I actually have huge respect for what Austin did in banning Uber and Lyft and making their own app (Ride Austin) that isn't designed to make i…

Clearing up some serious misconceptions here: 1) Austin did not ban Uber or Lyft. The city council passed an ordinance that required a gradually increasing percentage of rideshare drivers pass an FBI-approved fingerprint background check. (These rules are in place in other locales in which Uber operates, such as NYC and Houston.) Uber and Lyft formed a PAC that got a proposition on the next local election ballot that…

Interesting that Uber and Lyft work together on political influence campaigns like this, given Uber's strategy of bleeding out Lyft through their VC subsidized capital advantage. I would think that just letting them both get shut out of a given city would be a win for Uber.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#150

Post by acchow »

stale2002 wrote: post #98
hangonhn wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no network effect here. Each additional driver does not increase the value of the network to the other drivers and similarly for passengers. Uber and Lyft are old-fashioned market makers. They increased the pool of suppliers and consumers and connected the groups. In cities where both Uber and Lyft exist, substituting Uber for Lyft and vice versa does not change the value the driver or passenger derives from…

Yes, that is called a two-sided market/network effect. Each driver increases value for riders, and each rider increases value for drivers. This two sides. A 1 sided network is facebook. A two sided market is like the video game industry (more video games are good for gamers and more gamers are good for video game devs) For taxi apps, imagine if there was only 1 driver in SF. That wouldn't be a good experience for con…

> A 1 sided network is facebook.

Almost every user in Facebook is both a provider and consumer of content. It's like an exponentially-sided network.

In Uber, drivers provide supply to riders. Riders provide demand for drivers.

Post reply on HN