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

Lyft Files for IPO

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 319 posts

Re: Lyft Files for IPO

#131

Post by matchagaucho »

docker_up wrote: post #63

From a purely investment point of view, why would anyone invest in Lyft over Uber? Lyft has a smaller footprint and only operates in the US (except Toronto). They are more susceptible to economic conditions in a single country, the US, and every point of marketshare they get is a zero-sum game against Uber and presumably expensive because Uber won't give it up for free. Uber has a global operations, is in multiple st…

Retail Investors want to participate in the "transportation logistics market". Lyft is the first of many.

It's not zero-sum, given every car on the road can potentially be replaced by freelance drivers moving people and goods.

Re: Lyft Files for IPO

#132

Post by matchagaucho »

benj111 wrote: post #87
docker_up wrote: post #63

From a purely investment point of view, why would anyone invest in Lyft over Uber? Lyft has a smaller footprint and only operates in the US (except Toronto). They are more susceptible to economic conditions in a single country, the US, and every point of marketshare they get is a zero-sum game against Uber and presumably expensive because Uber won't give it up for free. Uber has a global operations, is in multiple st…

Uber takes the flack, gets the law changed, creates the market. Lyft sails in and gets most of the benefits, without those costs. Uber doesn't have a massive moat. Drivers can have both apps, users can have both apps. You attract drivers by paying them more, you attract riders by charging them less. Uber for now can afford to beat everyone on both those fronts, but eventually they will have to start making a profit.…

Uber is losing billions subsidizing the market.

Lyft has an actual balance sheet Investors can understand.

Re: Lyft Files for IPO

#133

Post by ghaff »

chrisseaton wrote: post #122
mhneu wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Uber and Lyft prices go up 1.5x to 2x, that suddenly means that in cities, taxis undercut them. I'll let someone chime in who understands the taxi business financials better. But in my observations, Uber and Lyft are only slightly cheaper than taxis. If prices go up, taxi companies will cut into their profits. I'll also say we (as a society) are very lucky that Lyft emerged as a real competitor to Uber. If one of…

> If Uber and Lyft prices go up 1.5x to 2x, that suddenly means that in cities, taxis undercut them. Taxis can't undercut them. Even if Uber were 2x as expensive, that would be ok because Taxis are 4x worse.

> Taxis are 4x worse

It really depends. One city I travel to fairly regularly, I tend to take Lyft because it's cheaper but I'm really indifferent to taking a cab vs. taking a Lyft for any other reason. In fact, I sometimes take a cab from the airport if there's no line and cabs just sitting there because it saves a few minutes.

Yes, taxis are generally bad in quite a few cities but it's not universal.

Re: Lyft Files for IPO

#134

Post by chrstphrhrt »

paxys wrote: post #125
chrstphrhrt wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a customer experience I prefer Lyft because they let me give tips. I doin't think Uber drivers make a living wage, so I like trying to figure out what can be added to offset the low base/fees so the drivers can do okay.

Uber has supported tipping for a while now.

Awesome! Sorry out of the loop since only use them when visiting the states.

Vancouver is so backwards :(

Re: Lyft Files for IPO

#135

Post by gnopgnip »

davio wrote: post #16
_hardwaregeek wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, what's Uber/Lyft's long term goal? If I had to guess, destroy all local taxi services, then fix prices with their competitors and worry about anti-competitive lawsuits later. Waiting for self driving cars feels like a fool's errand.

Taxis are really a short term play. Long term is really transport as a service - who owns the market when people no longer own cars.

Even if the US changes substantially and most people no longer own a car, there is little reason to believe that Lyft or Uber would come out on top, and not Enterprise, or Ford, or another new company that does not exist today

Re: Lyft Files for IPO

#137

Post by joeblau »

stingrae wrote: post #96
benj111 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber takes the flack, gets the law changed, creates the market. Lyft sails in and gets most of the benefits, without those costs. Uber doesn't have a massive moat. Drivers can have both apps, users can have both apps. You attract drivers by paying them more, you attract riders by charging them less. Uber for now can afford to beat everyone on both those fronts, but eventually they will have to start making a profit.…

As a counter point, Lyft was first to create ride sharing. Internationally, Uber has driven the changes.

Uber (Founded March 2009[1]) created ride sharing in SF before Lyft (Founded: June 2012[2]). Uber just started with commercially licensed Black Car drivers and Lyft started with anyone with a car and a drivers license. Then Uber moved down market with UberX and Lyft moved up market with Lux.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uber

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyft

Re: Lyft Files for IPO

#138

Post by matchagaucho »

lbacaj wrote: post #48

I see a lot of comments on here about the efficiency of Lyft/Uber's and lots of comments about their overspending. The new book by Reid Hoffman, Blitzscaling, was an eye-opener for me as to how these companies operate and what seems as incredibly inefficient now will all be but forgotten tomorrow when they have complete monopolies over all transportation... The nature of technology makes it winner take all almost alw…

The switching costs for ride-share are far lower than Reid's examples.

AirBnB can make recommendations based on past experience. Uber/Lyft are one-time transactional commodities. There's no loyalty incentive.

Re: Lyft Files for IPO

#139

Post by thisisit »

fjabre wrote: post #6

Is there any upside to staying private if you're profitable?

It depends on the situation.

Being private means the company doesn't have to follow compliance rules strictly. A good example of that is accounting rules.

There are tons of companies out there which show non-GAAP profitability. But non-GAAP actually means companies can ignore stuff like ESOPs etc to create their balance sheets.

When it comes to creating GAAP reports these same companies tend to be unprofitable by a large margin.

Then there is the flip side too. Even if the company is profitable but not profitable enough. Let's say a hypothetical $1 in profit. And then company needs more than $1 to keep it afloat but no investor is interested. Then they have two options - raise debt or go public and raise money. Out of the two going public is slightly better.

Re: Lyft Files for IPO

#140

Post by deepakhj »

benj111 wrote: post #87
docker_up wrote: post #63

From a purely investment point of view, why would anyone invest in Lyft over Uber? Lyft has a smaller footprint and only operates in the US (except Toronto). They are more susceptible to economic conditions in a single country, the US, and every point of marketshare they get is a zero-sum game against Uber and presumably expensive because Uber won't give it up for free. Uber has a global operations, is in multiple st…

Uber takes the flack, gets the law changed, creates the market. Lyft sails in and gets most of the benefits, without those costs. Uber doesn't have a massive moat. Drivers can have both apps, users can have both apps. You attract drivers by paying them more, you attract riders by charging them less. Uber for now can afford to beat everyone on both those fronts, but eventually they will have to start making a profit.…

Lyft’s founder created zimride which was the first ride share site. Sidecar invented the drive your own car model first.
Post reply on HN