181–190 of 315 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just the other day I saw some very dubious people on BART with dockless bikes. I had to wonder if there's a good secondary market in bike parts that makes those things worth stealing.
Why did you think they might be stealing the bikes?
This is a puzzle to me. Uber faces some critical issues ahead. If they can solve them, the bikes will be a rounding error. If they can't, the bike business won't be enough to save them. Why add the complexity when they could buy or build something later? I especially can't figure out why the Jump CEO would do it. The odds of their work surviving to the 10 year mark seems so small. It reminds me of something like Dodg…
I think you may underestimate the impact e-bikes are going to have on major (non-car centric) cities. They'll likely reshape cities significantly as infrastructure gets improved for biking. You can get significant traffic density improvements by pushing bikes instead of cars, and e-bikes make this more accessible.
But even if you are right I don't understand why Uber is eager to buy in now. If this takes off so much that Uber is obliged to get in on the action, they can wait. It strikes me as like Apple with MP3 players or smartphones or smartwatches: it's cheaper and easier to let somebody else prove the market and then just come in and crush everybody.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of curiosity, how is this being solved in Scandinavian countries?
https://www.wired.com/2015/06/copenhagenize-worlds-most-bike...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seattle? Portland? Minneapolis/St. Paul? You might consider bicycling while you travel more. In Seattle alone, OFO, LimeBike, and Spin are all competing. American bicycle infrastructure is behind, but it exists. I don't own a car. I get around those cities on bike without issue. It's as fast or faster than a car in many cases and I'm peddling the old fashioned way (with legs).
Minneapolis? As someone who commuted via bike "before it was cool" in Minneapolis I want to ask what you're smoking :) The density simply isn't there, and the infrastructure is pretty horrible aside from some exceedingly small areas of the city proper, and of course the amazing bike paths (which typically are not useful for anything other than leisure). If that's what you consider a high bar for "bike infrastructure"…
1. https://www.outsideonline.com/1930411/10-best-bike-cities-no...
2. https://www.travelchannel.com/interests/outdoors-and-adventu...
This is a puzzle to me. Uber faces some critical issues ahead. If they can solve them, the bikes will be a rounding error. If they can't, the bike business won't be enough to save them. Why add the complexity when they could buy or build something later? I especially can't figure out why the Jump CEO would do it. The odds of their work surviving to the 10 year mark seems so small. It reminds me of something like Dodg…
The odds of their work surviving to the 10 year mark seems so small. Are you sure that the odds are worse than surviving the 10 year mark without an acquisition? Would hardly be the first time someone sold because they simply couldn't make the growth math work, and they were all out of good options for financing.
They just took $10m in January, which is a fair bit of runway for testing hypotheses. When they start to run low on that, they can go to every single VC firm for more. Inside Uber, they are going to have approximately one executive to get funding from. Currently that executive obviously likes them. But feelings change, and they're just a reorg or an executive departure away from somebody who gives zero fucks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is Jump really that expensive? Last time I used it, it cost something like $2. It's cheaper even than the Ford bike shares. Plus it can't get stolen. I guess if you use it every day it does add up to a new cheapest walmart bike every 45 rides. Hmm.
Personal e-bikes for $1000-2000 (same experience as Jump) can easily be under $.25 per ride. I have 1000+ rides and 4500 miles on my $1800 ebike in under a year and I could sell it for $1400.
I also use a Boosted Board because I break even wrt Uber every 3 months or so. But if I didn't have $1600 to spend on that purchase, then all the future savings in the world wouldn't mean shit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you may underestimate the impact e-bikes are going to have on major (non-car centric) cities. They'll likely reshape cities significantly as infrastructure gets improved for biking. You can get significant traffic density improvements by pushing bikes instead of cars, and e-bikes make this more accessible.
I've been cycling in SF for more than a decade and am a SF Bike Coalition member, so I doubt I'm underestimating it all that much. But even if you are right I don't understand why Uber is eager to buy in now . If this takes off so much that Uber is obliged to get in on the action, they can wait. It strikes me as like Apple with MP3 players or smartphones or smartwatches: it's cheaper and easier to let somebody else p…
Of course, that may not translate to every city but I think it will move across the US much faster than pure dockless schemes.
For your question on why not? I bet being able to move a significant number of trips by volume from your competitors back onto your platform is well worth the cost and mind share that you could build. (e.g. no bikes available? How about you take this uber for x% off instead!)
This is a puzzle to me. Uber faces some critical issues ahead. If they can solve them, the bikes will be a rounding error. If they can't, the bike business won't be enough to save them. Why add the complexity when they could buy or build something later? I especially can't figure out why the Jump CEO would do it. The odds of their work surviving to the 10 year mark seems so small. It reminds me of something like Dodg…
Why wouldn't he sell? He gets rich.
Note that Mark Zuckerberg could have sold Facebook early on for a variety of "he gets rich" prices: http://www.businessinsider.com/all-the-companies-that-ever-t...
And I'd add that anybody who gets into doing a startup only because they want to be rich is probably better off buying lottery tickets.
This is a puzzle to me. Uber faces some critical issues ahead. If they can solve them, the bikes will be a rounding error. If they can't, the bike business won't be enough to save them. Why add the complexity when they could buy or build something later? I especially can't figure out why the Jump CEO would do it. The odds of their work surviving to the 10 year mark seems so small. It reminds me of something like Dodg…
The extremely cynical view is that Dara is trying to curry favor with Menlo Ventures (backer of both Jump and Uber).