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

Uber Posts $708M Loss as Finance Head Leaves

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 239 posts

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

#141

Post by freyr »

BurningFrog wrote: post #70
bo1024 wrote: post #22

If I understood the Reuters article correctly, Uber made $3.4 billion and therefore lost $4.1 billion in the first quarter of 2017. Can someone help me understand what Uber spends $4.1 billion dollars on in 3 months? Is it because they're subsidizing rides by that much on average? (i.e. paying drivers more than riders pay)

They're paying drivers 70% of the fare, so no. It's a very good question. They must burn a lot of money on developing self driving cars and other research. But can it really be this much?

Acquisitions? Lobbying?

An acquaintance started a mapping company, and Uber snatched it up almost overnight. Although I expect a lot was paid in stock, which isn't included in these losses.

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

#142

Post by inopinatus »

jpatokal wrote: post #132
inopinatus wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incorrect. We have had private hire vehicles in Australia for years. Many of them are now also taking rides via Uber, but I've had black sedans to/from the airport for as long as I can remember. The only things Uber add to the service mix is an app and a bad attitude, neither of which create any value for me.

Private hire cars are not a realistic alternative to Uber or taxis in most cases, since they generally have to be booked well in advance. In Australia, they're also significantly more expensive than taxis.

Wrong and wrong. I took one to the airport today, I called thirty minutes ahead, and it cost less than a metered fare.

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

#144

Post by threeseed »

inopinatus wrote: post #102
threeseed wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Australia we only have Uber and taxis. Nobody is switching to taxis because of a 10% price increase. Because most people are using Uber for the fact that they will always come, always pick you up and always drop you off at the right spot. So it's fantastic that Lyft is doing okay in the US. But Uber is playing a whole different game.

This is incorrect. We have had private hire vehicles in Australia for years. Many of them are now also taking rides via Uber, but I've had black sedans to/from the airport for as long as I can remember. The only things Uber add to the service mix is an app and a bad attitude, neither of which create any value for me.

I've never heard of private hire cars being used by consumers and ordinary people sure as hell aren't using them to goto the pub or shopping centre and back.

What Uber brings to the table isn't high end hire cars but rather UberX which is a game changer for price and quality. Finally taxis can't refuse to take you somewhere or not use the GPS. And not sure how you had a "bad attitude" experience given how seriously drivers take their ratings.

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

#145

Post by kbart »

dingo_bat wrote: post #86

I know most people hate on uber, but it has impacted my life a lot. I think the model they've demonstrated is a legit model, and the ruthlessness with which they pursue it should not take anything away from the company's value. In fact, it should add. I want companies to show a giant middle finger to monopolistic city laws that harm citizens.

Not sure what "evil" laws you are talking about, but car safety, maintenance, insurance, fare counter requirements, mandatory drivers background check etc. are all beneficial to the user in my book.

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

#146

Post by Bakary »

jpatokal wrote: post #130
beager wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that Lyft doesn't have to compete globally with Uber to be a successful business in its own right. I also believe that Uber isn't immune from being crippled by competitors that operate in a very small but key subset of Uber's markets. There is very little network effect with Uber. Sure, you can hop off a plane anywhere in the world and open Uber to get a car, but that is a very small number of people overal…

You're ignoring that businessmen who travel all the time are very heavy users of Uber and similar services. I'm not even a frequent flyer, but I'd estimate that a good 80-90% of my Uber usage is travel-related. At home, I have tons of other options to get around, but on a tight schedule in an unfamiliar city, I basically default to Uber all the time, because I rarely have the time or risk tolerance explore alternativ…

I think their point was that well-off people who travel all the time are still a tiny portion of the population.

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

#147

Post by inopinatus »

threeseed wrote: post #144
inopinatus wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incorrect. We have had private hire vehicles in Australia for years. Many of them are now also taking rides via Uber, but I've had black sedans to/from the airport for as long as I can remember. The only things Uber add to the service mix is an app and a bad attitude, neither of which create any value for me.

I've never heard of private hire cars being used by consumers and ordinary people sure as hell aren't using them to goto the pub or shopping centre and back. What Uber brings to the table isn't high end hire cars but rather UberX which is a game changer for price and quality. Finally taxis can't refuse to take you somewhere or not use the GPS. And not sure how you had a "bad attitude" experience given how seriously d…

Let me correct you. I am a consumer and I use private hire cars, because I value their professionalism, cleanliness and punctuality which comes for a very modest premium.

This often surprises Australians, so if you are one of them you're not alone. In my view Australia has a culturally ingrained reverse snobbery, which leads to false judgements about value and utility.

The "bad attitude" I believe is clearly attributed to Uber, not their independent not-employees-at-all contractors, whose exploitation, low income, and zero benefits I have some limited sympathy for.

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

#148

Post by the_duke »

douche wrote: post #78
Arizhel wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have heard of this crazy thing. You call a number, and a car will magically appear and take you home.

I think they call it Taxi service, or something.

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

#149

Post by Bakary »

lelandbatey wrote: post #62
skinnymuch wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not buying that most people use Lyft in your area - passengers or drivers. I believe you think that and your circle of people may also be doing the same, but beyond that, I'm guessing there's a lot of bias. Especially if you're saying everywhere you go Lyft seems to be more popular among riders. It's just not true at all. For my own anecdote, I'd bet 75% of my FB friends with smartphones within my age range, 21-4…

As long as we're sharing anecdotes, most of the people I know, parents and young kids included, have made the switch to Lyft starting about 8 months ago. They seem to be the less evil company, so people enjoy working for and using them.

Come to think of it, the question of "evil" seems almost irrelevant in the big picture. Even if say Lyft is marginally more ethical than Uber, the end long-term result will still be a fleet of drivers competing against each other in Taylorism mode to be paid a pittance, only to be eventually replaced by automated vehicles.

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

#150

Post by ubernostrum »

threeseed wrote: post #50
lettergram wrote: post #16

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…

> Lyft came to town and probably 80% of the drivers solely use them now, driving up the Uber prices. Where is this and what facts is this number based on ? In Australia for example Lyft is simply non existent. And sure it's a smaller market but it demonstrates that Uber's aggressive international expansion strategy is the right one. > Plus, most of the Uber drivers are shady Pretty libellous, ridiculous and unfair th…

it demonstrates that Uber's aggressive international expansion strategy is the right one.

Does it?

"We lose money on every customer, but we'll make it up in volume" is one of the classic ways to run a business into bankruptcy. Sometimes, taking one's time is the far sounder strategy, even if a hyper-growth competitor is "everywhere" and "dominating" in the eyes of the uninformed public.

Post reply on HN