11–20 of 105 posts
The most worrisome aspect of this essay is that it questions whether Uber has a viable business model. The OP argues that Uber will never be able to charge prices in excess of the level required by a traditional taxi/limo operator to be profitable for long enough to recoup the billions of dollars the company has burned by subsidizing the price of rides. Put another way, even if Uber drives every competing taxi/limo o…
If this is true if uber, that it has no path to profitability, isn't it also true of ubers competitors? Their price points are fairly similar and they all, at some point, offer incentives to ensure you keep using their service.
I think there are lots of companies that can capture the market better and for less money. Just look at mytaxi in Europe for a smaller scale conpany that is expanding rapidly.
Is it just me or is this author overlaying a very strong political bias over the story of Uber?
If this is true if uber, that it has no path to profitability, isn't it also true of ubers competitors? Their price points are fairly similar and they all, at some point, offer incentives to ensure you keep using their service.
If this is true if uber, that it has no path to profitability, isn't it also true of ubers competitors? Their price points are fairly similar and they all, at some point, offer incentives to ensure you keep using their service.
A lot of Uber's costs to date have been proving that ride-sharing is a thing that consumers want to do (market education) and that governments don't want to stop (lobbying). Their competition get the benefit of that Uber's investment in those things for free, so it might be the case that Uber will fail and their competition won't.
That's by no means saying it's definitely the case, but being the first mover has downsides as well as advantages.
That's really the only way their financial model can make sense.
They should really be seeing this as essential to their survival, like nuclear bombs in WWII.
Nazi Germany had maybe 1000 people working on their version. USA had 180,000(!).
I suspect in this analogy, uber is not USA. Someone else will get this rolled out first. But I'm not 100% sure.
It's a question if uber can race to self driving cars fast enough. That's really the only way their financial model can make sense. They should really be seeing this as essential to their survival, like nuclear bombs in WWII. Nazi Germany had maybe 1000 people working on their version. USA had 180,000(!). I suspect in this analogy, uber is not USA. Someone else will get this rolled out first. But I'm not 100% sure.
It's a question if uber can race to self driving cars fast enough. That's really the only way their financial model can make sense. They should really be seeing this as essential to their survival, like nuclear bombs in WWII. Nazi Germany had maybe 1000 people working on their version. USA had 180,000(!). I suspect in this analogy, uber is not USA. Someone else will get this rolled out first. But I'm not 100% sure.
Is it just me or is this author overlaying a very strong political bias over the story of Uber?
It's a question if uber can race to self driving cars fast enough. That's really the only way their financial model can make sense. They should really be seeing this as essential to their survival, like nuclear bombs in WWII. Nazi Germany had maybe 1000 people working on their version. USA had 180,000(!). I suspect in this analogy, uber is not USA. Someone else will get this rolled out first. But I'm not 100% sure.
I'm not sure that's true though; I don't get the oft-repeated logic that self-driving cars will save Uber. OK, they save on labor costs, but right one now of Uber's (slimy, IMO, but significant nonetheless) major savings is pushing vehicle maintenance and deprecation costs onto their drivers. They won't be able to do that with self-driving cars: they'll have to pay operate a fleet, in direct competition with automakers.