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

161–170 of 319 posts

Re: Lyft Files for IPO

#161

Post by seanmcdirmid »

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's international focus hasn't been entirely successful, and I guess its more of a money drain as well. Why Lyft is ready for an IPO before Uber could have to do with them focusing on making US market profitable instead. Uber has a much steeper hill to climb (even if the summit is higher).

Re: Lyft Files for IPO

#162

Post by imh »

nicoburns wrote: post #156
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.

That's not the only upside. It also provides liquidity to the employees you pay in equity, which is worth a lot.

Re: Lyft Files for IPO

#163

Post by parthdesai »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #160
parthdesai wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because the tipping culture to me doesn't make sense? Not everyone is from NA, where it is mandatory to tip. I would rather pay more to Uber upfront and have them pay more to drivers than me paying extra on top.

Also, who says Uber drivers are getting stiffed? One of my really good friend does Uber full time in Toronto right now and takes home around $4.5k/month (before tax). He drives around 6 hours a day, 5 days a week.

Re: Lyft Files for IPO

#164

Post by aeternus »

CPLX wrote: post #64
a13n wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of network effects. To start a new ridesharing company, you have to get drivers and riders. You'd have to offer them a ton of incentives to start driving/riding with your service, when the existing options are well established. For drivers, Lyft and Uber have incentives (lower fees) if you do the majority of rides with their service, which incentivizes you to only drive with one service. When's the l…

This is just not correct. To start a new ridesharing company all you have to do is attack and carve off the most profitable element of the big company's product mix. All you need is to undercut them in certain high profitability routes, like airport runs, or luxury vehicles for executives, or anything, and you have a toehold. There are some positive network effects, but there are also negative network effects. Having…

Without a large network, the time for a car to arrive is high and unpredictable.

This is bad for customers.

Re: Lyft Files for IPO

#165

Post by paulie_a »

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…

For Lyft: gps and pool directions actually work. Uber fails hard in that category. Uber drivers rarely use the built-in system.

Re: Lyft Files for IPO

#167

Post by CPLX »

aeternus wrote: post #164
CPLX wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just not correct. To start a new ridesharing company all you have to do is attack and carve off the most profitable element of the big company's product mix. All you need is to undercut them in certain high profitability routes, like airport runs, or luxury vehicles for executives, or anything, and you have a toehold. There are some positive network effects, but there are also negative network effects. Having…

Without a large network, the time for a car to arrive is high and unpredictable. This is bad for customers.

Not necessarily.

It's pretty easy to have a network that's not very big that always has someone at the airport, or always is available for trips that stay within a specific neighborhood, or can always be arranged with a little more advance notice, or whatever.

And the relevant part of pointing this out is that as long as that's true, which is forever, then these large companies will never be able to extract monopoly pricing.

As soon as they start gouging customers people will immediately flood in to siphon off the lowest hanging fruit or easiest segments of their customer base.

That dynamic will never go away, it's not at all clear what the point of all this buying of market share is, given that it will never be truly defendable.

Re: Lyft Files for IPO

#168

Post by deepakhj »

jessriedel wrote: post #150
joeblau wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think this is just a matter of semantics. Are you saying we should call a black-car hailing service "ride sharing" simply because you booked it with a smart phone app rather than calling a number? (Remember that Uber didn't even use a novel business relationship; there have long been dispatchers with a single phone number that distribute the rides to multiple independent black car agencies.) To me, the key change d…

Sidecar beat both Lyft and Uber with people using their own cars. It launched in September 2011.

Uber launched UberX in June 2012. Lyft launched in June 2012.

Give Sidecar credit where it's due.

Re: Lyft Files for IPO

#169

Post by atombender »

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 is a private company. So most people can't actually invest in Uber.

Re: Lyft Files for IPO

#170

Post by reaperducer »

hunter23 wrote: post #146
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…

I can guess few of their story points (hard to know until they release their numbers): 1) The market can support multiple players running profitable (i.e it's a 2 player or 3 player market). Think of the drugstore industry (Walgreens & CVS). 2) Lyft focuses on profitable higher income markets like the US and Canada so they can have a higher margin and not get into pricing wars with massive foreign players (Didi, Oola…

2) Lyft focuses on profitable higher income markets like the US and Canada so they can have a higher margin and not get into pricing wars

This, I think, is more important than many people realize.

When I was driving for Uber and Lyft (for about eight months, two years ago), Lyft had an entirely different clientele.

Uber was for the poors, the frat boys, and the average Joe Lunchbucket. Lyft was a decidedly better class of passenger, paid more per mile, the people tipped more and more often, and the passengers were 953% less likely to throw up in your car.

Drivers on their way to an Uber pickup would drop the fare if a Lyft opportunity came in.

Lyft doesn't capitalize on this perception that it is "better" than Uber, but my sense of the situation from talking to dozens of drivers and hundreds of passengers is that both the drivers and the passengers knew it.

Lyft could really differentiate itself in the market, if it decided to go this route (so to speak). The same way that Apple positions itself as a premium brand.

Post reply on HN