Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber Revenue Slows as Quarterly Loss Surges to $1.1B

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 331 posts

Re: Uber Revenue Slows as Quarterly Loss Surges to $1.1B

#291

Post by wyattpeak »

manigandham wrote: post #286
wyattpeak wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you made a mistake doesn't absolve another party of all duty to act like a reasonable person. Is capital punishment for stealing a loaf of bread okay, because perhaps you should try to remember not to steal things? I also question the assertion that this process is designed to be as effective as possible for anyone, unless you mean Uber. As stated in the original post, both parties were trying to resolv…

This is what I mean by disingenuous. Nobody is getting punished. Uber is being reasonable, which is why the user got their items back, using a standardized process. Why do you keep saying they failed under some arbitrary scenario? Again, just because it could've been faster does not mean that it didn't work. That specific scenario is not the majority nor the only one that matters.

What arbitrary scenario? I'm literally discussing the scenario which kicked off this discussion.

The problem is not that it _could_ have been faster, the problem is that it _would_ have been faster if they'd done nothing at all. They injected themselves unnecessarily to slow down something which would have worked fine without interference.

If I find someone's wallet in the back of my car and I call them two years later to give it back, am I being reasonable? I mean, they got their items back. Or is it specifically a week which is acceptable? What's the maximum amount of time that it's reasonable to delay a by-default two-minute interaction?

Re: Uber Revenue Slows as Quarterly Loss Surges to $1.1B

#292

Post by awakeasleep »

HenryBemis wrote: post #150
121789 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had a slightly different experience. My Lyft drivers have definitely been happier and nicer, but most of them say that there is no real difference between the two services from a driver's point of view. I'm not sure how that could be the case.

Sexual harassment cases were on the HQ, not the drivers. Also, most drivers drive for multiple companies. All they need is 'one more app' on their phones, and they're off to go. Since Lyft/Uber/everyone is monitoring their competitors' s prices, they make sure they adapt pricing to make themselves antagonistic. Thus the drivers won't care which app is running, since they will be making (more or less) the same $$$$$.…

https://theintercept.com/2017/05/04/as-uber-probes-sexual-ha...

As Uber Probes Sexual Harassment At Its Offices, It Overlooks Hundreds Of Thousands Of Female Drivers

Re: Uber Revenue Slows as Quarterly Loss Surges to $1.1B

#293

Post by manigandham »

trustfundbaby wrote: post #285
manigandham wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paying for the drivers to return something that you forgot is fair.

Unless of course they don't want to be paid for it, and the service gets in the way of them returning it to you immediately for free just so they can charge $15 that they get a cut of ;)

If you read the posted link, you would see that the fee is entirely sent to the driver.

And if you read the other comments, you would see that direct communications can be abused so this current process is likely the best compromise to help both riders and drivers.

And as stated before, many drivers return items immediately for free while many others probably don't find items until days after the original rider reports it, so there are vastly different scenarios under which you need a process to work.

Is the tiny detail of whether the driver can set the exact fee really that important?

Re: Uber Revenue Slows as Quarterly Loss Surges to $1.1B

#294

Post by skynetv2 »

elhudy wrote: post #32
femto113 wrote: post #10

Uber's been buying revenue at the cost of margin in at least two ways by shifting rides to Pool (where they can declare the entire ride's cost as revenue, not just their cut), and ramping up Uber Eats (where they take a percentage of the total cost of the food and may actually lose money on the ride). Neither strategy can continue indefinitely.

Uber's new "cheap" pool option forces you to walk up to 5 blocks (!!) and is the same price that it used to be. Lyft's pool option doesn't make you walk and the prices have remained unchanged. Uber lost all of my (bi-daily) business when they moved to the pool express business model.

I've tried to use pool a number of times in the bay area, all it did was make me waste about 30m each time, at the end of which I used Lyft to get to where I need to get to.

Re: Uber Revenue Slows as Quarterly Loss Surges to $1.1B

#295

Post by peatmoss »

cmyr wrote: post #179
agrippanux wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have found that the drivers for Lyft are much happier than the drivers for Uber. This holds true even when a driver drives for both services. I asked several drivers why this is and the universal response was that Lyft treats them better, so they are happier to pick up Lyft customers. I switched over to only using Lyft, but like the OP states, if Waymo came out tomorrow I'd probably switch to that.

My experience as well; started asking drivers which they preferred, and they all said Lyft. That alone is a good reason to switch. I'd happily pay a 10-20% premium if I can feel confident that it's encouraging better working conditions. This goes for other markets as well, it's just generally hard to get good information.

Ditto, except I’ve mostly stopped using Lyft in favor of ReachNow Ride which is driven by employees (i.e. not contractors) who show up in a BMW and generally drive like their income is decoupled from working long hours and the need to turn over lots of rides.

If you’re in a market where they operate, I can heartily recommend it.

Re: Uber Revenue Slows as Quarterly Loss Surges to $1.1B

#296

Post by toomuchtodo »

tompetry wrote: post #249

There is always an "Uber is dead" sentiment floating around when losses come out, but I don't buy it. The long term on-demand transportation opportunity is absolutely massive. Uber has tried to win the land grab and "outlast" everybody with obviously unsustainable subsidies, and maybe that didn't exactly work out. But if the economics don't work for Uber, they won't work for anybody else at scale either. Consumers ar…

> But if the economics don't work for Uber, they won't work for anybody else at scale either.

Uber has no other profit center to prop it up. Everyone else has profitable businesses to lean on (Tesla, Waymo) or corporate backing (Lyft through GM) until they get to the finish line.

If you bet on Uber as an investment, you bet on the wrong horse.

Re: Uber Revenue Slows as Quarterly Loss Surges to $1.1B

#298

Post by nickpsecurity »

ams6110 wrote: post #167
alaskamiller wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of those no-shit responses, parroted over and over again. At the end of the day, Pepsi and Coca-Cola sells you sugar water. McDonald's and Burger King get the same meat form the same vendor trucks. You charge a credit card whether Visa or MasterCard. The point isn't who brings you the convenience, it's that you have convenience at all. Uber/Lyft has commoditized driving to a product sold at ~$2/mile. That…

> McDonald's and Burger King get the same meat form the same vendor trucks No, they don't. They have their own suppliers and logistics for all their raw ingredients and supplies.

I think that commenter meant Beef Products Inc that treated its beef with ammonia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beef_Products

"BPI was a major supplier to McDonald's and Burger King, as well as restaurants and grocery stores, and its products were reportedly used in 75% of the United States' hamburger patties in 2008. The School Lunch Program, another large buyer of Beef Product's goods, used about 5.5 million pounds in 2009."

Re: Uber Revenue Slows as Quarterly Loss Surges to $1.1B

#299

Post by kayoone »

bad_good_guy wrote: post #193
Barrin92 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To this day I don't even really understand the value that Uber et al are supposedly adding that justifies the size and evaluation of their companies. At the end of the day they're a layer on top of a taxi business. Sure this is useful in some way but like Airbnb or weworks or all these other companies that just throw one layer of service over the actual business I don't understand why they are treated like high tech…

I believe it was originally a big bet on the eventual profit margins from having the market share when deploying driverless cars instead of human drivers

That is the story they spin since their growth exploded and they realised that they will never be profitable with the original model. That future is so far away though.

Re: Uber Revenue Slows as Quarterly Loss Surges to $1.1B

#300

Post by et-al »

blawson wrote: post #157
elhudy wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber's new "cheap" pool option forces you to walk up to 5 blocks (!!) and is the same price that it used to be. Lyft's pool option doesn't make you walk and the prices have remained unchanged. Uber lost all of my (bi-daily) business when they moved to the pool express business model.

Interesting! That’s new to me, and honestly a benefit in places like SF, where dropping someone off or picking someone up at a specific address might involve numerous annoying loops / turns around one way streets, where the passenger could just make everyone else’s life easier and walk a block or two. This feels like a positive change as long as weather isn’t a huge concern.

Lyft offered this back in 2015 and called it "HotSpots". I thought it was great for the same reasons, but unfortunately they discontinued it after one summer.

https://www.recode.net/2015/8/25/11618002/lyft-kills-off-hot...

Post reply on HN