Uber Revenue Slows as Quarterly Loss Surges to $1.1B • Hacker News Board

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

#301

Post by hcknwscommenter » Thu, Nov 15, 2018, 6:24 AM UTC

garysahota93 wrote: post #204

Androider wrote: post #30

Uber doesn't have much of a moat or lock-in effect. I just switched one day from being a frequent Uber rider to 100% using Lyft, simply because I don't like Uber's behavior as a company. The prices are so close it doesn't make any practical difference to me. Anecdotally, among my friends I also see Lyft becoming the default, and sometimes price-checking with Uber. If Waymo or whoever came out tomorrow with a cheaper/…

With their new loyalty program and Uber Visa card, I definitely think they are trying hard to build that lock-in effect. Once that happens, I do think they'll reap the rewards of their platform. It's just hard at first. I hope they can pull it off tho. But then again, I do know a lot of Uber drivers who only use Lyft personally for rides.

> I hope they can pull it off tho.

Why? I mean, most taxi cab companies have rideshare apps. They were a first mover and showed us the way, but they burned a ton of cash and did some really shitty things. Heck, they've killed more than a few people.

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

#302

Post by manigandham » Thu, Nov 15, 2018, 6:34 AM UTC

wyattpeak wrote: post #291

manigandham wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lat…

I don't understand your comment but I'll try one last time:

The problem is helping riders get back lost items. The solution, taking into account potential abuse with open communication and all other scenarios in millions of rides, is to have a "report" button that then notifies the driver to find and return the items on their own, and get rewarded with a standard fee.

In any arbitrary scenario (meaning not representative of all of them), this process may not be the fastest or most effective, but it does solve the problem.

Sometimes a 2 minute situation might be stretched out, and sometimes it might mean things are lost forever, but vast majority of the time it works fine, and that's the trade-off. You are focusing on 0.1% scenario while ignoring everything else.

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

#303

Post by hcknwscommenter » Thu, Nov 15, 2018, 6:36 AM UTC

toasterlovin wrote: post #274

bad_good_guy wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 always seemed insane to me. The potential moat I saw was in controlling a two sided market (like eBay for collectibles). Drivers drive for you because you control the riders. Riders ride with you because you have all the drivers. This would be a competitive advantage because you’re getting your drivers to deploy capital (cars) for you. But driverless cars change that dynamic. Now you need to own a fleet. Well, g…

It changed way before driverless cars. It changed the day lyft came out. Heck, it changed the day flywheel came out.

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

#304

Post by wyattpeak » Thu, Nov 15, 2018, 6:42 AM UTC

wyattpeak wrote: post #291

manigandham wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lat…

Look, you haven't addressed my response, you've just reiterated your point, which I already understood.

We're obviously not going to come to agreement on this, so let's leave it be.

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

#305

Post by SomewhatLikely » Thu, Nov 15, 2018, 7:30 AM UTC

babesh wrote: post #224

Androider wrote: post #30

Uber doesn't have much of a moat or lock-in effect. I just switched one day from being a frequent Uber rider to 100% using Lyft, simply because I don't like Uber's behavior as a company. The prices are so close it doesn't make any practical difference to me. Anecdotally, among my friends I also see Lyft becoming the default, and sometimes price-checking with Uber. If Waymo or whoever came out tomorrow with a cheaper/…

It doesn't matter if the end result is a duopoly. The two need only stop competing and raise prices. It will be hard for a third entrant to come in because of the large cost to enter markets. The only viable entrant is, as mentioned Waymo, because driverless cars alters the economics and because they have the tech.

I thought this for a while but I'm pretty sure I was wrong. When thinking about all these services that exist I didn't understand how divers would stay busy: Uber, Lyft, Uber eats, Amazon restaurants, doordash, GrubHub, etc. Then I realized they actually reinforce each other because all divers can work for all the services. So they don't have to wait around for an Amazon restaurants order to come in, they'll just do Ubers until then, or whatever else comes in first. This actually makes it easier for new entrants the more services are already out there demanding divers and maintaining a large pool of contract drivers.

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

#306

Post by realdlee » Thu, Nov 15, 2018, 7:41 AM UTC

outside1234 wrote: post #159

Androider wrote: post #30

Uber doesn't have much of a moat or lock-in effect. I just switched one day from being a frequent Uber rider to 100% using Lyft, simply because I don't like Uber's behavior as a company. The prices are so close it doesn't make any practical difference to me. Anecdotally, among my friends I also see Lyft becoming the default, and sometimes price-checking with Uber. If Waymo or whoever came out tomorrow with a cheaper/…

And, somehow, after all that investment, the Lyft app is miles better than the Uber one too.

care to elaborate?

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

#307

Post by isostatic » Thu, Nov 15, 2018, 10:49 AM UTC

Ftuuky wrote: post #105

isostatic wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure you're not thinking of legacy minicabs? Uber shows you where you're going, shows you where you are. Your journey is tracked, as is the address you entered.

I left his car, checked the app (my address was correctly entered). Then I hailed a regular taxi and when I got home I filed a complaintto Uber and got refunded.

Doesn't sound like a get rich scam.

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

#308

Post by dzhiurgis » Thu, Nov 15, 2018, 11:07 AM UTC

dzhiurgis wrote: post #214

Androider wrote: post #30

Uber doesn't have much of a moat or lock-in effect. I just switched one day from being a frequent Uber rider to 100% using Lyft, simply because I don't like Uber's behavior as a company. The prices are so close it doesn't make any practical difference to me. Anecdotally, among my friends I also see Lyft becoming the default, and sometimes price-checking with Uber. If Waymo or whoever came out tomorrow with a cheaper/…

Except Lyft has probably 1% of coverage that Uber has.

(Outside of US)

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

#309

Post by rorykoehler » Thu, Nov 15, 2018, 11:57 AM UTC

rvn1045 wrote: post #223

Androider wrote: post #30

Uber doesn't have much of a moat or lock-in effect. I just switched one day from being a frequent Uber rider to 100% using Lyft, simply because I don't like Uber's behavior as a company. The prices are so close it doesn't make any practical difference to me. Anecdotally, among my friends I also see Lyft becoming the default, and sometimes price-checking with Uber. If Waymo or whoever came out tomorrow with a cheaper/…

while it is true that you can easily switch from uber to Lyft or vice versa, there are only two of them. so they do have moats. its not easy for a new competitor to emerge unless they are doing something different like perhaps driverless cars.

In Singapore Uber did an equity swap with Grab (they both own parts of each other and are invested in by Softbank too) to cease business. Now I just use a normal taxi booking again (as well as Grab when it's cheaper).

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

#310

Post by rorykoehler » Thu, Nov 15, 2018, 11:59 AM UTC

shubhamjain wrote: post #212

ChuckMcM wrote: post #58

That is not a happy balance sheet. They have raised over $24B, then they shifted around the cap table when Soft Bank came in[1] where they valued the company at $48B. I have never played poker where the lowest valued chips were a million dollars but it has to feel like that to senior management at the company right? And their investors, they have serious money in the pot too. It feels like they have managed to create…

At this point, I would have zero doubts about betting against Uber. The fact that company with ginormous loss continues to pursue loss-making ventures is beyond me. Food delivery was already an established market in India, and UberEats had no competitive value compared market leaders when it came--except, of course, zero delivery fees. The market itself is extremely challenging and not even the biggest companies have…

Capture market share and introduce autonomous services. This is the game plan and it's only a matter of timing. Uber might have been slightly too early. Only time will tell.