221–230 of 319 posts
The most exciting implication here is that we can finally pour over the financials of a major ride-hailing company. Whether these companies have the unit economics to succeed is, remarkably, still an open question.
Sorry to be a grammar right wing populist, but it's "pore over". To pore is to think deeply about to something, to dwell on it. A pour-over is a type of coffee.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At this point Uber and Lyft are really just taxi companies with nice apps. Add the driver reviews, GPS locations, and requesting a ride via an app to a traditional taxi system and it's the same. The only major advantage they have right now is that Uber/Lyft are standardized throughout cities and suburbs, whereas taxi companies are mostly local to one city.
The other significant advantage is that they're cheaper. Either because they're actually cheaper (e.g. in London, black cab drivers have to train to know every street by heart, whereas Uber drivers can just rely on technology (Google Maps)), or because Uber subsidizes the passengers, but regardless, they're significantly cheaper (speaking for London).
The most exciting implication here is that we can finally pour over the financials of a major ride-hailing company. Whether these companies have the unit economics to succeed is, remarkably, still an open question.
Sorry to be a grammar right wing populist, but it's "pore over". To pore is to think deeply about to something, to dwell on it. A pour-over is a type of coffee.
The most exciting implication here is that we can finally pour over the financials of a major ride-hailing company. Whether these companies have the unit economics to succeed is, remarkably, still an open question.
Sorry to be a grammar right wing populist, but it's "pore over". To pore is to think deeply about to something, to dwell on it. A pour-over is a type of coffee.
I’ve learned something new today. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The other significant advantage is that they're cheaper. Either because they're actually cheaper (e.g. in London, black cab drivers have to train to know every street by heart, whereas Uber drivers can just rely on technology (Google Maps)), or because Uber subsidizes the passengers, but regardless, they're significantly cheaper (speaking for London).
What is limiting a black cab driver from using Google Maps or Apple Maps or whatever?
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/t-magazine/london-taxi-te...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a great example! I'm realizing that perhaps the "second mover advantage" may be more pronounced in markets with low switching costs. Flyers can easily compare airline prices against one another, and drivers are incentivized to boot up 2nd, 3rd and 4th driving apps. Low-margin businesses can't afford to spend as much on R&D, make mistakes, etc. They have to win with small executional advantages.
IIRC, Lyft was the first mover, Uber shamelessly ripped off Lyft's model that anyone can be a driver and come out with Uber X. So, imo Lyft was the first mover, but was smart to let Uber face all the heat sacrificing short term growth for long term success. Uber has been in too many things for me to believe that they can sustain the business (I may be wrong)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Ride sharing" is not an accurate representation of these companies anymore. Uber and Lyft are trying to become major mobility and transportation platforms. The core of their business right now relies on ride-sharing, but if they want to become sustainable long-term companies they need to evolve their business. Sadly, drivers are just an input to generate cash flow. They're definitely not indispensable, especially wi…
At this point Uber and Lyft are really just taxi companies with nice apps. Add the driver reviews, GPS locations, and requesting a ride via an app to a traditional taxi system and it's the same. The only major advantage they have right now is that Uber/Lyft are standardized throughout cities and suburbs, whereas taxi companies are mostly local to one city.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a great example! I'm realizing that perhaps the "second mover advantage" may be more pronounced in markets with low switching costs. Flyers can easily compare airline prices against one another, and drivers are incentivized to boot up 2nd, 3rd and 4th driving apps. Low-margin businesses can't afford to spend as much on R&D, make mistakes, etc. They have to win with small executional advantages.
IIRC, Lyft was the first mover, Uber shamelessly ripped off Lyft's model that anyone can be a driver and come out with Uber X. So, imo Lyft was the first mover, but was smart to let Uber face all the heat sacrificing short term growth for long term success. Uber has been in too many things for me to believe that they can sustain the business (I may be wrong)
Except Uber still works.. fastest tap to ride time I’ve seen across all the apps.
I've never heard that phrase and I like it. I'm sure we'll start to see it more.
Then, who has the best self driving route/priority for the fastest tap to destination time :-)
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…
Basically if you believe that ride hailing apps will succeed as a sector and that there is room for two companies in the long-term, then Lyft gives you a much better "value" investment in terms of the ratio of the company's valuation to the number of customers or dollars of revenue.