Can Uber Ever Deliver? Even After 4Q Cost Cuts, Uber Lost $4.5B in 2017

Post by Jasper_ » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 9:14 PM UTC

moduspol wrote: post #49

Jasper_ wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it's been years now and they've got drivers, so they can't possibly be paying too far below market rate. Why do you say that? It's well-known that they've toyed in every possible way with driver rates, including showing different rates to the consumer and the driver in an attempt to hide lower-than-market-rate wages.

They still have the drivers. I'm not even endorsing it--but even at worst, that means drivers are subsidizing the ride prices, not investors. I don't think they are, though. If they were, they'd be having trouble keeping drivers working and we'd see complaints about long waits and unavailability.

Post by moduspol » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 9:20 PM UTC

Jasper_ wrote: post #89

moduspol wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if your claim were supportable, it wouldn't explain how competitors not "seeking out to just do everything as evil as possible" have competitive prices.

There can be an argument that Uber's expensive policy-mongering is enabling the competition. Lyft doesn't have to do any lobbying, it just has to lie in its wake while Uber does everything for it pretending to be the nicer company. As long as Uber is out there wreaking regulation havoc, Lyft is happy to sit back and let Uber do that. Perhaps Lyft doesn't want Uber to die, since they're basically the ones spending mon…

Post by alonmower » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 9:24 PM UTC

moduspol wrote: post #47

emodendroket wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, they're losing billions of dollars.

Yep. It does cost money to expand into new geographic areas or markets (like Uber eats). That doesn't indicate that ride prices are subsidized, though.

Post by emodendroket » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 9:33 PM UTC

mseebach wrote: post #91

emodendroket wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant to contrast "ardent free market defenders," i.e., people in the libertarian end of the spectrum, with those concerned about predatory pricing, many of whom would not consider themselves opponents of the free market. "Ardent" is not, in the first place, pejorative.

It is (mildy, granted) pejorative in the description of a participant in a debate, especially when only one party is it. Search for the truth is about collecting and reviewing evidence. Being passionate (synonym of ardent) about one side (rather than possibly the inquiry itself) is a bad quality.

Post by moduspol » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 9:55 PM UTC

emodendroket wrote: post #90

moduspol wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber's financials are irrelevant to whether or not the ride sharing business model is sustainable. The argument cannot be made without claiming the non-driving part of the business cannot be run for the 25% rake they take on every fare. Period. And I don't think anyone is willing to make that claim. That doesn't mean Uber's a good investment, or Uber is doing it right, or Uber isn't pursuing monopolistic practices, o…

Well, no, the article is about Uber, specifically. If you mean where I said that neither Uber nor Lyft is sustainable, then specifically what I'm referring to is operating with such low prices that rides are money-losers, aiming to raise prices after achieving total market dominance. I do not doubt that ride-sharing is a business model that can make money if prices are high enough to make the business self-sustaining…