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

Uber S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 559 posts

Re: Uber S-1

#181

Post by largehotcoffee »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #157
tom-_- wrote: post #142

The cost of entry into this space is much greater than I think most people realize. It's not "building an app". It's building a balanced, efficient marketplace. This means complex matching, pricing and routing algorithms that have been developed for almost a decade. It's also about working with regulations at the city level and building a reliable labor force of contractors to supply the marketplace in every new city…

I disagree. http://www.rideaustin.com/ was launched in Austin a couple years ago when Uber and Lyft were temporarily kicked out of the city. The app had some growing pains but now I use them whenever I can in preference to Uber and Lyft because they pay their drivers more. If Uber and Lyft suddenly went away Ride could easily pop up all over. Of course, Uber and Lyft right now ARE so big because of all the advantages…

A service that exists in one city, (and can't even keep their appstore rating above 4 stars in that city) is not a good comparison.

Re: Uber S-1

#182

Post by coryfklein »

gonehome wrote: post #102
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It takes tremendous capital expenditure to build that network, and it will take tremendous capital expenditure to neutralize it. Does it, though? Every driver I've talked to basically drives for "all of them". Several told me they try to find whatever apps are local for driving and they setup those alone with Uber and Lyft and simply take whatever pays the most / is more frequent. Uber's software and network are so…

Agreed - Facebook has a network effect/moat because a new service that's better in every way is useless if your friends aren't on it. Getting the network to migrate is hard and when this does happen FB is quick to buy the threat (Instagram, WhatsApp) or compete and kill them (Snap). Nobody holds an allegiance to Lyft or Uber - they pick whichever is currently a better deal for both driving and riding. Uber's recent l…

FWIW, I have a loyalty to Lyft and will use its service even if Uber is a bit cheaper, but that's because I'm a techie that is aware of all the shady shit Uber has done.

Re: Uber S-1

#183

Post by Falcorian »

ahakki wrote: post #147
dman wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about morale at Lyft. You have employees locked in who cant sell for first couple of months. They are seeing their networth plummet everyday.

Should've bought options to hedge.

They are almost certainly not allowed by their employment contract.

Re: Uber S-1

#184

Post by gmueckl »

gamblor956 wrote: post #124
partingshots wrote: post #18

So... Let me see if I have this straight: 1. Uber is unprofitable and the only way it can become profitable is to get SDC's 2. Uber is significantly (years) behind Waymo in the SDC space. 3. Waymo will launch SDC taxi services first meaning: - When it puts in an order for SDC components no one else is going to be buying in bulk and thus it can have effectively 100% of capacity of these specialized equipment makers -…

It is going to be competing with other taxi/ride share services with all the cost advantages of SDC vehicles while its competitors are paying human drivers (and have basically no fat to cut from their current pricing) It's going to be a very long time before self-driving cars are cheaper than cheap cars with human drivers. It's very possible that Uber might reach an acceptable level of self-driving capabilities befor…

Huh? How much does a full time driver earn? Let's say $30000 for the sake of argument. A car that is run as a taxi or rideshare service full time will last maybe three years. So that eould mean $90000 for the driver plus around $40000 for a decent car. A mass produced self driving taxi car that costs more than $130000 seems very unlikely.

Re: Uber S-1

#185

Post by Marazan »

treis wrote: post #144
Marazan wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When your business is selling $10 for $5 then no, I cannot see a way to turn cash flow positive.

They're not doing that. They got $11.27 in revenue for a cost of $9.65. The loss stems from spending an additional $4.67 on advertising and R&D.

1.5 billion on R&D, 3 billion on marketing.

Uber don't get the income from the rides without the marketing so I don't get why you get to ignore that when working out if they are profitable or not.

Re: Uber S-1

#186

Post by magicalhippo »

partingshots wrote: post #18

So... Let me see if I have this straight: 1. Uber is unprofitable and the only way it can become profitable is to get SDC's 2. Uber is significantly (years) behind Waymo in the SDC space. 3. Waymo will launch SDC taxi services first meaning: - When it puts in an order for SDC components no one else is going to be buying in bulk and thus it can have effectively 100% of capacity of these specialized equipment makers -…

> 1. Uber is unprofitable and the only way it can become profitable is to get SDC's

So I'm not following this closely, but why is Uber unprofitable? I mean the app worked last time I was in the US and surely can't be that expensive to develop and maintain.

Re: Uber S-1

#187

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

leoromanovsky wrote: post #174
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on the voting structure of shares, many funds will pass over a company. SNAP, for example, is only in 20-some ETFs: https://www.etfchannel.com/finder/?a=etfsholding&symbol=SNAP Most people investing in Mutual Funds and ETFs aren't getting exposure to SNAP. That may be the case with LYFT and Uber as well.

It's the case of SNAP and LYFT because they have ownership structures which don't allow mutual funds to invest in them. Uber has a normal structure; any fund that mirrors the market will purchase the stock. https://www.recode.net/2019/4/11/18302102/ipo-voting-multi-d...

> Back in 2017, the private ride-hailing company got rid of its dual-class voting structure that had enabled its previous CEO, Travis Kalanick, to make a lot of bad decisions.

What an interesting takeaway. Certainly bodes well for the average Uber investor, but really it only happened because of Travis.

Re: Uber S-1

#188

Post by naveen99 »

kapurs151 wrote: post #43

While I admit that the losses are staggering, the growth rates are also astounding: Revenue 2016: $3.8bn 2017: $7.9bn 2018: $11.27bn Trips 2016: 1.8bn 2017: 3.7bn 2018: 5.2bn The internet is such a game-changer.

and only 2% of the population is using it monthly right now. I hope they gradually decrease the minimum age for riders. Children can finally regain some of the mobility they have lost in the modern world. Just reducing the age from 18 to 16, would probably double their monthly active users. They should atleast allow <18 year olds with drivers licenses to be riders...

Re: Uber S-1

#189

Post by TheTrotters »

gamblor956 wrote: post #124
partingshots wrote: post #18

So... Let me see if I have this straight: 1. Uber is unprofitable and the only way it can become profitable is to get SDC's 2. Uber is significantly (years) behind Waymo in the SDC space. 3. Waymo will launch SDC taxi services first meaning: - When it puts in an order for SDC components no one else is going to be buying in bulk and thus it can have effectively 100% of capacity of these specialized equipment makers -…

It is going to be competing with other taxi/ride share services with all the cost advantages of SDC vehicles while its competitors are paying human drivers (and have basically no fat to cut from their current pricing) It's going to be a very long time before self-driving cars are cheaper than cheap cars with human drivers. It's very possible that Uber might reach an acceptable level of self-driving capabilities befor…

At the margin they’ll be cheaper on day one.

Re: Uber S-1

#190

Post by inverse_pi »

saberience wrote: post #177
inverse_pi wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and early engineers paper millionaires actual millionaires not paper millionaires :). > but will hopefully blow up why do you wish others to fail so bad?

No, paper millionaires. You're only an actual millionaire once you sell your stock. You become a paper millionaire when the IPO happens and you gain liquidity and price increases.

Touche :)
Post reply on HN