OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia • Hacker News Board

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#41

Post by jsemrau » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 12:10 PM UTC

angerman wrote: post #6

llampx wrote: post #3

As someone who is not familiar with oBike or the situation, could someone clue me in as to what happened? My guess is that the company signed up a bunch of people, took a sizeable deposit from all of them, and then cut and run? Where does the ICO (or ICOs) come into the picture?

Bike sharing company in Singapore. Initially collected a S$49 to use its service. With the deposit paid you were entitled to rent their bikes at S$0.5/15min. Bike were almost everywhere. Initially they had lots of free ride promotions. A few days ago, they claimed that they ceased operations due to newly imposed government restrictions. (To prevent bikes from lying/standing around just about everywhere and have them…

One of the problem was that they automatically and without customer consent converted the deposits to VIP subscriptions.

[Edit] Also this whole concept of dockless bikes is very unsightly. Singapore has changed the law to have the companies pay for the bike removal.

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#42

Post by kondro » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 12:12 PM UTC

robbiep wrote: post #26

stirlo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a screenshot showing bikes selling for $199 RMB ($30USD) in China. With a $49SGD ($36USD) deposit they could afford to buy one for every user and still have cash left over.

I’m aware that they’re low cost, they’re everywhere in sydney. I guess I just am trying to look at the unit economics and reverse engineer the business fundamentals. The bikes came before the users, and i guess even with a couple thousand (probably high end numbers now I think about it) bikes in sydney, Melbourne and then 10s is thousands (if that) in Singapore they could do it with a small capital base, especially w…

I can't find it now, but I remember reading that oBike dumped 6,000 bikes in Sydney.

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#43

Post by marcv81 » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 12:17 PM UTC

robbiet480 wrote: post #2

It appears [0] that the deposit is "up to" $49 Singaporean Dollars or about $35 US Dollars [0]: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/obike-working...

It was SGD19 for students or SGD49 for anyone else.

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#44

Post by guidedlight » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 12:34 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #40

guidedlight wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Melbourne has the world's largest tram network. It has a massive train 869km train network too, plus current construction of a new $10 billion tunnel in the city center. Cars are allowed in the city center, but they are mostly commercial vehicles (taxis, delivery drivers, construction, etc). Most people use public transport to commute to and from work. Many bike share schemes have been tried, but are not popular in M…

...bicycles require helmets by law. So much for taking livability seriously.

Helmets are $5 in Melbourne, people still won’t wear them.

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#45

Post by MichaelApproved » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 12:34 PM UTC

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #14

chrisper wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oBike was also troublesome here in Switzerland. People just left them left and right wherever they pleased.

That's kind of the idea I guess, find a bike and you can ride it. But that's too socialist, no money to be made in that, and a lot of trashed bikes everywhere.

Socialism is defined as "a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production as well as the political theories and movements associated with them."

What does "ownership and democratic control of the means of production" have to do with littering bikes on the sidewalk?

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#46

Post by csomar » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 12:36 PM UTC

In kuala lumpur I was able to ride one of these. The experience to open one of them was easy. No card required. The bike app still showed 0min after 2 hours of biking. No deposit required.

The problem come when I wanted to lock the bike and finish the trip. It wouldn’t allow me to lock the bike. The app didn’t recognize the parking location and alerted to bring the bike to a one.

I ended up putting it somewhere on the streets unlocked. Anyone could have made use of it.

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#47

Post by the_mitsuhiko » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 12:37 PM UTC

tuukkah wrote: post #30

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #5

I’m pretty sure it’s not legal to shut down one subsidary and not return the deposits if the rest of the company continues operating.

In general, aren't the stock owners (the parent companies) non-liable for the operations of the limited-liability corporation (the subsidiary)?

Most countries have a form of "Piercing the corporate veil" so that companies cannot just make subsidaries default nilly willy without any repercussions. And that even assumes that obike Singapore declared bankruptcy. In central Europe for sure you cannot even use deposits to satisfy creditors unless the deposit was made after the moment of insolvency.

I have never heard deposits not being paid back if a company ceases operation by leaving a market.

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#48

Post by jazoom » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 12:38 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #40

guidedlight wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Melbourne has the world's largest tram network. It has a massive train 869km train network too, plus current construction of a new $10 billion tunnel in the city center. Cars are allowed in the city center, but they are mostly commercial vehicles (taxis, delivery drivers, construction, etc). Most people use public transport to commute to and from work. Many bike share schemes have been tried, but are not popular in M…

...bicycles require helmets by law. So much for taking livability seriously.

As far as I know that's an Australia-wide thing. It's certainly the same in Queensland.

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#49

Post by jessaustin » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 12:41 PM UTC

guidedlight wrote: post #44

jessaustin wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...bicycles require helmets by law. So much for taking livability seriously.

Helmets are $5 in Melbourne, people still won’t wear them.

Cyclists won't wear helmets because cycling doesn't require helmets. Imposing helmets by law is a way to reduce cycling, and those who write those regulations know it.

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#50

Post by dalbasal » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 12:43 PM UTC

I think it's becoming clear that (a) bike sharing is good to have in a city. People want it. (b) neither an all public or an all private system can work as well as we'd like it to.

The "all public" system means a municipality contracts a single vendor (or owns it) to build all the stations and manage everything. This is what we have where I live, dublin. It's a stagnant system. They don't add stations. Problems with stations being full/empty at certain times of the day persist indefinitely. Basically, you can feel the lack of competition.

The all private system (like they have in China) is more innovative. They use technology better. You can feel the existence of competition. It's more scalable with bikes, rides and users increasing all the time.

But... It makes a mess. Bikes everywhere. Companies can go bust, can chase market cap & investment. Mostly, bikes end up abandoned all over the place.

This is fixable, for a local municipality that's willing to get clever and design a market. Create infrastructure, mostly it's the stations or the ability to rent space for them. Make rules, but not too many. Let competition happen within parameters.