Live data from Hacker News

Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

wsj.com

71–80 of 239 posts

Re: Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

#71

Could we stop posting links to paywalled content, for crying out loud? Or at least require that it be marked? Most news is available somewhere without a subscription.

1. Click "web" link below story here on HN 2. Click first result on Google

WSJ doesn't paywall if the referrer is Google.

Re: Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

#72
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> prices have to rise 6% (assuming no efficiency improvements via pool etc, which is frankly ridiculous) If Uber raises 6%, the revenue Uber will decrease. If you raise the price, simply there will be less rides because people will find alternatives such as Lyft, taxi, or even public transportations.

I'm so grateful that Uber exists, precisely for those places where those alternatives don't really exist, and so the choices are trying to bum a ride, or god forbid, driving drunk.

You could just not get drunk...

Re: Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An irrelevant percent of people will choose to take the bus because their $10 ride is now $10.50. I agree that they are competing against Lyft on price, but they will both sooner or later have to reach break-even; neither will run at a loss forever. Rides will shift between them, but the rideshare market as a whole will shrink trivially when it does.

>An irrelevant percent of people will choose to take the bus because their $10 ride is now $10.50. That's not how the market works at scale.

And not all markets behave the same.

So pretending to know what Uber customers will do is asinine.

Re: Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

#74
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And what most people miss, is that the 3.4 billion is the 30% cut Uber takes from a ride. Prices don't have to rise 20% to break even, prices have to rise 6% No, they have to rise by more than that. Your math is technically correct (a 6% rise gives you an extra $700 million), but you are assuming that the price increase goes entirely to Uber. There is no way Uber can increase prices by 6% and give none of that upsi…

You haven't been paying attention to what Uber's been doing. They started by charging flat fares on Pool, now they're charging flat fares for all rides. They're decoupling the price that the rider pays from what the driver gets. Pool makes this obfuscation easier, since the calculation is much more complex for rides that are partially shared. They do seem to be raising prices on riders without passing it on to driver…

That's certainly true - things like Pool make it easier to obfuscate the cut Uber takes. But still, price rises don't just have a potential to alienate passengers, but drivers as well. If anything, drivers may well be more fickle than passengers, since someone who takes Uber once or twice a week has less to lose than someone driving for them 8 hours a day.

Re: Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

#75
post #39

$708 million loss, narrowed from $991 million last quarter 18% growth from last quarter (note: that's not Y/Y. this is ridiculously fast, given the huge base.) 708mm loss / 3.4 billion in revenue is only about 20% under even. And what most people miss, is that the 3.4 billion is the 30% cut Uber takes from a ride. Prices don't have to rise 20% to break even, prices have to rise 6% (assuming no efficiency improvements…

> And what most people miss, is that the 3.4 billion is the 30% cut Uber takes from a ride. Prices don't have to rise 20% to break even, prices have to rise 6% No, they have to rise by more than that. Your math is technically correct (a 6% rise gives you an extra $700 million), but you are assuming that the price increase goes entirely to Uber. There is no way Uber can increase prices by 6% and give none of that upsi…

You're absolutely right.

Re: Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

#76
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Uber is doing fine. Yes and no, they are in a space which is extremely price competitive. I literally am watching Uber take a dramatic hit in my area right now. Lyft came to town and probably 80% of the drivers solely use them now, driving up the Uber prices. Now, I only use Lyft - as do most of the people. Plus, most of the Uber drivers are shady here and the people think Ubers a snaky company. I realize this is a…

Uber has a solid worldwide presence. Lyft does not. You can go into nearly any state and most countries (I think all of the first world countries and a bunch of second world ones too) and book an Uber. As long as that stays true and Uber continues to grow outside of the US, Lyft doesn't stand a chance. If Lyft could light up worldwide scale right now, they absolutely would have. Something is holding them back. It's l…

> As long as that stays true and Uber continues to grow outside of the US, Lyft doesn't stand a chance.

Well, except they do because the local market is simply huge. There is room for multiple competitors.

Just like we have ATT, Verizon, Etc.

Re: Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

#77
post #71

Could we stop posting links to paywalled content, for crying out loud? Or at least require that it be marked? Most news is available somewhere without a subscription.

1. Click "web" link below story here on HN 2. Click first result on Google WSJ doesn't paywall if the referrer is Google.

FWIW, I still hit the paywall after clicking on the Google search result.

Re: Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

#78
post #72
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm so grateful that Uber exists, precisely for those places where those alternatives don't really exist, and so the choices are trying to bum a ride, or god forbid, driving drunk.

You could just not get drunk...

Haha, that is always an option... but I'd rather the drunks be able to use an app to get home, than fight the larger, and largely self-defeating battle of trying to convince or cajole people into not getting out of their heads.

Re: Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

#79
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And what most people miss, is that the 3.4 billion is the 30% cut Uber takes from a ride. Prices don't have to rise 20% to break even, prices have to rise 6% No, they have to rise by more than that. Your math is technically correct (a 6% rise gives you an extra $700 million), but you are assuming that the price increase goes entirely to Uber. There is no way Uber can increase prices by 6% and give none of that upsi…

Lyft just isn't a real competitor outside of major American cities right now. Go to a city without an international airport and see how many lyft drivers there are.

Oh, for sure. But being spread thinly over dozens of small markets isn't necessarily a better idea than concentrating on a few large ones.

Re: Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

#80
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven't been paying attention to what Uber's been doing. They started by charging flat fares on Pool, now they're charging flat fares for all rides. They're decoupling the price that the rider pays from what the driver gets. Pool makes this obfuscation easier, since the calculation is much more complex for rides that are partially shared. They do seem to be raising prices on riders without passing it on to driver…

That's certainly true - things like Pool make it easier to obfuscate the cut Uber takes. But still, price rises don't just have a potential to alienate passengers, but drivers as well. If anything, drivers may well be more fickle than passengers, since someone who takes Uber once or twice a week has less to lose than someone driving for them 8 hours a day.

True but a 6% increase overboard is practically invisible.

Will you notice if you pay $7.51 one day, and 7.96 the next day? What with all the surge pricing, route changes, time of day pricing, and other schemes Uber throws at you, you're lucky to get the same price day to day.

Post reply on HN