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

Lyft Files S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 405 posts

Re: Lyft Files S-1

#281

Post by spookthesunset »

djsumdog wrote: post #146
carlisle_ wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber hosts its own infrastructure, so does Google, so does Facebook. All three of those companies have no problems remaining focused on their business models without turning into a "datacenter company." I strongly dislike the notion that on-prem hosting is somehow a bad thing, or too cumbersome, or otherwise totally solved by cloud providers. AWS specifically is hugely convenient in a number of ways, but it doesn't c…

The trouble is when people build around Amazon, they get locked into a lot of those services. Sure you can run your own DBs instead of using RDS, but what if you start using their proprietary rubbish, like Knesis or DynamoDB? You have to rewrite application to use something else that's open source and self-hostable. For new startups, I honestly recommend using DigitalOcean or Vultur. You don't get all the AWS compone…

> The trouble is when people build around Amazon, they get locked into a lot of those services.

The trouble when people build things that have nothing to do with their core value propositions, they get locked into those services too. It is very easy for companies to get locked into their own homebrew garbage frameworks, clustering solutions, reporting & data analysis apps, or whatever else people hacked up because "omg vendor lockin!!".

Re: Lyft Files S-1

#282

Post by jypepin »

smallgovt wrote: post #88

For those who can't wait to short Lyft/Uber, on average, it takes 10-12 weeks to hit the markets after the initial S-1.

its 10-12 weeks from confidential filing. We can expect the next 2 weeks to be quiet for preparing the roadshow, then 2 weeks on the road then IPO.

Re: Lyft Files S-1

#283

Post by Schweigi »

meowface wrote: post #261
mech4bg wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had one of the VC investors in Lyft pick me up for a ride a few years ago in Menlo Park. Had a super interesting conversation - I was impressed they were scoping out their investment directly. I wasn't sure what the protocol for tipping as at the end, hah.

That's really cool. How did you know they were an investor? Did they introduce themselves, or did you recognize them? I imagine when investors or execs give rides, they probably don't generally reveal their affiliation, since that may skew the experience and the feedback. Though on the other hand, I suppose it could be helpful to say "I work at/with Lyft, how do you like the app?"

The same happened to me when I took an Uber. The driver disclosed it immediately that he is an investor after we started driving. I think it makes sense because it allowed him to ask very specific questions without it being awkward.

Re: Lyft Files S-1

#284

Post by panarky »

cm2012 wrote: post #6

Some notes: - They claim their US ride sharing marketshare is 39% - that seems high to me. - $800 mil in marketing spend in 2018 from $500 mil in 2017 - they say this increase was largely driven by cost of acquiring new drivers. I honestly thought this would be higher as a % of revenue - this topline number also includes spend on promotions/discounts for passengers.

> that seems high to me

What data do you have that indicates their market share is overstated?

Re: Lyft Files S-1

#285

Post by whymauri »

azylman wrote: post #269
meowface wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quick Google search says it's $2000/year. Don't know if that's accurate.

I have some friends at AirBnB and I've heard it's much more modest, like $300/yr or something. My experience with these type of "dogfooding" credits is that companies are much more generous when they're smaller, so it could be that older employees get more than newer employees.

I think it's a 500$ coupon at the beginning of every quarter.

Re: Lyft Files S-1

#286

Post by ukoki »

us0r wrote: post #12

>In January 2019, we entered into an addendum to our commercial agreement with AWS, pursuant to which we committed to spend an aggregate of at least $300 million between January 2019 and December 2021 on AWS services. If we fail to meet the minimum purchase commitment during any year, we may be required to pay the difference, which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. Not as bad a…

> Not as bad as snap but what could they possibly be spending $100 million a year on?

They are working on self-driving cars — which likely comes with massive storage requirements for recorded sensor data, and the compute to crunch it.

Re: Lyft Files S-1

#287

Post by docker_up »

darkwizard42 wrote: post #253
docker_up wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying "The cancer ravaging your body is down from 62% to 58%" It's a positive trajectory but don't confuse trajectory with absolute value.

Thats how companies work though... no one expects Lyft to be immediately profitable. The company will be rewarded by public markets if its able to keep up that trajectory

No, most companies do not work this way. Most companies that lose this staggering amount of money go out of business quickly.

We are living in a time of "eventual profitability" where some companies have immense privilege to lose an immense amount of money, are encouraged to lose it to build a large company in hopes of creating a sustainable model.

Right now there's not even profitability on the horizon. Losses increase with more revenues which is horrible. All we saw was a negative 2nd derivative of cash loss but there's no telling whether the delta will be fast enough to produce an actually profitable company.

Re: Lyft Files S-1

#288

Post by halbritt »

BenMorganIO wrote: post #280
munchbunny wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, it's an overused term, but the ask is pretty clear. "I'm doing something and it looks like you've done it before, can I get advice?"

Agreed. I think it's healthy to ask these things and I believe it leads to a positive and supportive community.

Agreed.

Though the question I received was somewhat nonsensical, which was to be expected.

Re: Lyft Files S-1

#289

Post by 0xffff2 »

cronix wrote: post #205
0xffff2 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who's "we" and why would they worry? I'm struggling to think of a side-effect of AWS going down that would worry me more than being unable to get a Lyft (which itself doesn't worry me very much).

Maybe a few here would cause some concern. Also note that not all companies/governments using AWS just let everybody know that they are, so they aren't listed and you can only know when the service goes offline. > Adobe, Airbnb, Alcatel-Lucent, AOL, Acquia, AdRoll, AEG, Alert Logic, Autodesk, Bitdefender, BMW, British Gas, Canon, Capital One, Channel 4, Chef, Citrix, Coinbase, Comcast, Coursera, Docker, Dow Jones, Eu…

That's a useless list. To take the one example I happen to work for, yes NASA uses AWS, but not for anything terribly important. Without any evidence that one of the handful of groups on that list that have safety-critical infrastructure are running that infrastructure solely on AWS, I maintain my position that Lyft going offline would be a greater inconvenience to me.

Re: Lyft Files S-1

#290

Post by whymauri »

panarky wrote: post #284
cm2012 wrote: post #6

Some notes: - They claim their US ride sharing marketshare is 39% - that seems high to me. - $800 mil in marketing spend in 2018 from $500 mil in 2017 - they say this increase was largely driven by cost of acquiring new drivers. I honestly thought this would be higher as a % of revenue - this topline number also includes spend on promotions/discounts for passengers.

> that seems high to me What data do you have that indicates their market share is overstated?

Obviously they have no data, it's a hunch they have. This should be clear from how it's stated.
Post reply on HN