771–780 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The previous market making mechanism for this industry was for a buyer to stand on a street corner, hold their hand up, and hope that a vendor who sold that service drove by. That's insane.
Do taxi companies in the US really not have apps or, you know, phones?
Much of the resistance to Uber (such as laws that were broken, protests) were from entrenched interests. At least where I live in NYC, Uber was dramatically improving customer value while providing innovations that reduced greenhouse gas. It provided completion for the entrenched Yellow Cab monopoly with its very high rates. Sometimes Uber would have higher rates but then you could take a Yellow Cab instead. The Yell…
> When Uber and Lyft came, the rates were lower, one could use Uber Pool to have even lower rates > not forcing drivers to pay excessing leasing fees for vehicles. Err, the cheaper rates were due to uber subsidising rides with VC money, which was unsustainable. Uber also did start a leasing program for drivers.
I feel like a decade from now people are going to still be repeating this same old line.
It also seems awesome. Why wouldn't I want VCs to give away a bunch of money to its customers?
No, it is not going to run taxis permanently out of business. All you need is a car to do that. If this is really true, as soon as prices rise, another taxi company can start back up again and take market share.
Much of the resistance to Uber (such as laws that were broken, protests) were from entrenched interests. At least where I live in NYC, Uber was dramatically improving customer value while providing innovations that reduced greenhouse gas. It provided completion for the entrenched Yellow Cab monopoly with its very high rates. Sometimes Uber would have higher rates but then you could take a Yellow Cab instead. The Yell…
So why Lyft get none of the protests? I think you are mixing unrelated subjects. Uber final product is good for society. And other companies can provide the same product (in my city, São Paulo, there are other 3 good companies in the same space). Uber practices as a company are toxic for its employees and some of the toxicity leak to society. If such calculation was possible, I believe it would show a net positive im…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So why Lyft get none of the protests? I think you are mixing unrelated subjects. Uber final product is good for society. And other companies can provide the same product (in my city, São Paulo, there are other 3 good companies in the same space). Uber practices as a company are toxic for its employees and some of the toxicity leak to society. If such calculation was possible, I believe it would show a net positive im…
Uber is the largest player by far, so they are an easy target for frustrations and for incumbents. "Uber" is almost a generic term for a iPhone hailable vehicle. Generally, there is market competition for drivers. For example, Lyft for those drivers who are unhappy with Uber. You have stated that in your city, São Paulo, there are 3 good companies. If one company mistreats drivers, they would go to a competing firm a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Men hold the vast majority of power in our society. No cards are stacked against them. If you "believe women who report sexual harassment", and more specifically, if you believe women who report sexual harassment in "less clear cut" scenarios than Susan Fowlers, then you are deliberately stacking the deck against the specific men who are accused of sexual harassment, some of whom will invariably be innocent. How mu…
> then you are deliberately stacking the deck against the specific men who are accused of sexual harassment, some of whom will invariably be innocent. This is really a stretch in logic, and the oxymoronic "some of whom will invariably be innocent" gives away your motives on this topic. Parent comment was saying we should give a little more credibility to reports that women make about sexual harassment in the workplac…
It's not even a tiny weeny little stretch of logic. It is self-evident to anybody who is thinking clearly about the matter.
> Parent comment was saying we should give a little more credibility to reports that women make about sexual harassment in the workplace.
No. Wrong. Parent comment said "believe women who...", not "give a little more credibility to reports that women make about sexual harassment". Do you understand how those two statements are different? Your one doesn't even make sense. Crediblity is "the quality of being believable or worthy of trust". Credence is probably the word you were thinking of. I don't think I'm smarter than you, but these sorts of mistakes do go to show that you are not thinking clearly.
> It's a pretty good idea that would make everyone's lives better
Not the falsely accused. They are men too, right?
> But if your reaction to that mild suggestion is hostility and misleading arguments, you're contributing to the problem and encouraging more "manly" behavior that necessitates women's blog posts and company culture course-correction.
The suggestion is not mild. My reaction was not hostile. My arguments were not misleading. I'm not contributing to the problem of some men being sexual harassers, except perhaps at some absurdly theoretically removed degree, which would leave me damned for pretty much any I comment I could make. I'm not encouraging manly, or even "manly" behaviour. My comments don't necessitate women's blog posts, if by that you are referring to Fowlers call-out. The latter is in fact an absurd charge against me on a personal level, as I'm sure you would recognize after mature reflection. That I necessitate company culture course-correction is likewise absurd, though flattering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When Uber and Lyft came, the rates were lower, one could use Uber Pool to have even lower rates > not forcing drivers to pay excessing leasing fees for vehicles. Err, the cheaper rates were due to uber subsidising rides with VC money, which was unsustainable. Uber also did start a leasing program for drivers.
> Err, the cheaper rates were due to uber subsidising rides with VC money, which was unsustainable. Uber also did start a leasing program for drivers. The cheaper rates in NYC which are extremely high compared with the rest of the USA were because there was no $125 / 12 hour lease fee because there were no medallions. Medallion owners would get mortgages (like houses) for the $1.2 million medallions and the high leas…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The previous market making mechanism for this industry was for a buyer to stand on a street corner, hold their hand up, and hope that a vendor who sold that service drove by. That's insane.
Do taxi companies in the US really not have apps or, you know, phones?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right, but I think that's exactly how/why Uber's investors were able to convince Kalanick to step down. Uber may or may not take over the world at some point, but Uber needs another round of investment in the next 18 months just to survive. If the existing investors refused to play ball, they could kill the next round, which really would kill Uber. And here's another important moral of this story for founders:…
Can you explain how these large companies operate, explained like I'm a golden retriever? How does a company so big not make a profit/could possibly go bankrupt? My current understanding is companies either focus on growth (at a loss) or choose to focus on profit (with the risk of competition overtaking them or decay over time). But lets say they go bankrupt in 1 year, couldn't they just switch to "profit mode"? If t…
Consider Facebook and Google. Together they're worth over a trillion dollars. Now ask yourself: what's the combined net worth of the second-biggest search engine and the second-biggest social network? Nothing close.
In a business where being second or third place is pretty good, you can switch to profit mode as you please. But Uber's valuation only makes sense to me if it lets them dominate a market like Google or Facebook does, setting prices and terms for the industry. I think that if they switch to profit mode, people will start to value them like a normal business, which would mean a giant drop in valuation.
I presume that's why board members supported an aggressive jerk for so long: Kalanick has been undeniably good at seizing territory, and if one sets aside little things like morals and externalities and long-term consequences, one could argue that aggressive jerkiness is exactly what Uber has needed.
Honestly, this market never struck me as one where dominance was even possible, so the investors' theories never made sense to me. But that's my best guess as to why they've been allowed to keep burning money like this.