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

151–160 of 319 posts

Re: Lyft Files for IPO

#151

Post by marcosdumay »

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…

Why investing in any company? Because you expect them to use your money to increase its total earnings so they'll gladly pay back (on dividends or stock evaluation) more than you paid to them.

Re: Lyft Files for IPO

#152

Post by hyperbovine »

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.

Lyft used to be Zimride but Zimride was absolutely nothing like what we call rideshare today. More like a slightly more codified, less sketchy version of CL rideshare.

Fun fact, I was an early and enthusiastic user of Zimride (for making a long distance relationship work between the Bay Area and SoCal). I liked the product and once upon a time drafted an e-mail applying for a position there. I assume I would have been employee like ... 5 or something. Never sent it and it hung out in my Gmail for many years. Decisions, decisions :-)

Re: Lyft Files for IPO

#153

Post by Synthetase »

deminature wrote: post #70
Synthetase wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am private beta testing an app that does exactly what is described.

It seems like there might be a difference between an app that serves a few hundred people and an app that serves hundreds of millions of people.

The way its built requires no human operational cost.

Re: Lyft Files for IPO

#154

Post by sincerely »

Jommi wrote: post #127
lalaithion wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But drivers aren't locked in to a single service, and there's little to no cost for drivers to be on both Uber and MyStartup, so the network effect is diminshed.

You should read more into this, but even though switching seems easy in theory, the truth is different. Going through another driver application process / training takes time, and even then using two apps creates extra annoyance. You would be surprised how lazy People are even if there was a way to grow their earnings through switching.

You're right that people often make lazy decisions, but every single Uber I've taken in the last year had a Lyft sticker as well and vice versa.

Re: Lyft Files for IPO

#155

Post by bparsons »

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…

Lyft exists in the regulatory slipstream of Uber.

It can focus on profitable markets, and leave it up to Uber to fight City Hall and spend the money habituating new regions to the idea of ride sharing.

From a user point of view, the product is indistinguishable from Uber. If I had to own shares in one company, it would probably be Lyft.

Re: Lyft Files for IPO

#156

Post by nicoburns »

fjabre wrote: post #6

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

The only upside to going public if you're profitable is to get a quick injection. The IMO massive downside is that you've just lost control of your company.

Re: Lyft Files for IPO

#157

Post by toast0 »

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…

Taxis doesn't seem like a business where there are economies of scale from having a larger global footprint. Uber may have a small advantage in software costs, but labor and equipment must be the largest costs, and the labor is bringing the equipment for the most part; Uber may be able to do better on leases than Lyft, but I'm not sure how much of their earnings are coming from that.

Re: Lyft Files for IPO

#158

Post by snowwrestler »

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…

How would you suggest I invest in Uber today?

The most obvious reason to invest in the Lyft IPO instead of the Uber IPO is that there is no Uber IPO.

If you're asking whether Lyft and Uber can achieve simultaneous financial success, the answer is yes.

Re: Lyft Files for IPO

#159

Post by lhorie »

ghaff wrote: post #4

Question that's somewhere between rhetorical and semi-serious. At what point do one of these companies increase their pricing to the point where they can operate profitably and just let volumes end up wherever they end up (making whatever cost cuts they need to on the way down)? Presumably there's some point where you can make money--but maybe not if you have a basically equivalent competitor who is willing to lose m…

They don't need to increase prices in established markets because they are already profitable in those. So whenever they run out of cities deemed viable to expand into (and they will because the number of cities in the world is obviously finite), then they will no longer need to subsidize growth costs in new cities via profits from established cities.

The main difference between Uber and Lyft is that Uber is already in a lot more cities than Lyft, so if Lyft wants out of the subsidizing game, they either have to settle for being in less cities or somehow significantly outdo Uber in terms of growth cost efficiency when penetrating new cities where Uber/others already operate.

Re: Lyft Files for IPO

#160

Post by PhasmaFelis »

parthdesai wrote: post #130
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.

Tbh i preferred Uber exactly because of no option to tip, but like other people have pointed it out, you can tip in Uber.

> Tbh i preferred Uber exactly because of no option to tip

Why? If you're not concerned about the driver's pay, you shouldn't be concerned that they might feel stiffed.

Post reply on HN