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

231–240 of 559 posts

Re: Uber S-1

#231

Post by devit »

yashap wrote: post #216
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 -…

Let’s say Waymo get to legit, truly market ready SDC taxi tech 3 years before Uber, and they start expanding into Uber’s markets at lower prices. This is bad for Uber, but hardly the end of their business. People won’t immediately trust SDCs, so Uber will lose market share only gradually even if their prices are higher. Plus Waymo have to scale up massively to significantly compete with Uber - that’ll take time. If W…

But given that Uber is not profitable now competing with Lyft both with human drivers, why would it be profitable tomorrow competing with Waymo both with SDCs?

Even if the profit is no longer negative, it should be near zero since there is not much moat, and it's not even clear whether Uber would be able to compete at all against Waymo (better tech) or even carmakers who own the cars.

The only thing Uber has is brand recognition, but Google Maps actually has even more brand recognition and that's where Waymo is going to be unless antitrust prevents it somehow.

Re: Uber S-1

#232

Post by alaties »

raphaelj wrote: post #212
dougmwne wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't both Uber and Lift simultaneously raise their prices by a few percent? Once they're both public and the VC cash injections dry up they'll both need to raise prices if they don't want to be out of business. Coke and Pepsi don't sell at a loss to try to steal each other's market share. What would cause these two public companies to run themselves into the ground if the market could absorb a 7% price increa…

Because that's market collusion, and that is illegal.

Collusion is when the parties coordinate on the price increases. If they both increase prices independently to achieve profitability, then I don't believe that to be illegal.

Re: Uber S-1

#233

Post by sytelus »

As an IPO n00b, I have basic question: Let's say I'm a startup founder with revenues in $10M and want to raise money. Can't I just go straight to IPO instead of making VC rounds? It seems you don't need to be profitable or even have to have great outlook. Meanwhile majority of IPOs are getting magically funded anyway no matter what. On the top of it you get to even keep most of the voting shares. So what are the minimum requirements to do IPO?

Re: Uber S-1

#235

Post by p1esk »

lapinot wrote: post #199
gonehome wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take Taxis from airports and from hotels for that reason (often faster than waiting for the uber to get through traffic). The exception is SFO where Taxis cost 2x what an UberX costs. The Taxi experience is still bad though - just yesterday in DC I had to listen to my driver 'joke' about why the Taliban should be able to fight for their country while also repeatedly pointing out and talking about women on the stree…

So you prefer being serviced by a machine that records everything you say, do, think, than bearing an interaction with a living human being which may or may not be quite different and interest, question, amuse or revolt you? I must say i don't agree with that, anytime i would prefer a place where people authentically and actually speak their mind and act spontaneously (not considering whether or not i actually think…

So you prefer being serviced by a machine

Yes

Re: Uber S-1

#236

Post by jfim »

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…

Uber actually has one moat: their international presence. Other networks don't have it.

If you're a business traveler, you can Uber out of most airports without having to install the local application, and business customers are less price sensitive than local customers in general.

Definitely agree with your point about nobody having an allegiance for local rides, and it's not clear if Uber can defend against hyper local upstarts at scale.

Re: Uber S-1

#237

Post by karmelapple »

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…

Quick note that Facebook, unfortunately, has no real competitor for the sheer number of things it does. As soon as one comes out built for non-technical users the way Facebook is - and hopefully is a nonprofit - I’ll go running to it and encourage my friends, too.

Re: Uber S-1

#238

Post by xkcd-sucks »

panarky wrote: post #35
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 -…

> can't imagine how Uber is worth anything If the operation doesn't make an economic profit, and if there isn't sufficient moat to defend the operation until it can become profitable, then I agree with you it's not worth anything. But in fact, Uber does have a massive moat -- its network of drivers and riders in thousands of cities around the world. No competitor is even close. It takes tremendous capital expenditure…

The cost of driving multiple platforms is pretty low. If the maps in my city are accurate, literally the same drivers are active on both platforms at once...

If there is significant regulation, like airport partnerships, that could be a good moat. Just like the taxis had

Re: Uber S-1

#239

Post by SimonPStevens »

tinus_hn wrote: post #220
SimonPStevens wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber is a non-profit version of Uber. They made a 10% loss last year. So a non-profit (assuming they intend to at least break even) would actually need to pay the drivers less.

That’s an amusing proposition but a true non-profit could have more advantages like tax breaks and volunteer staff.

I think the intent of the parent's question was to say why can't a group of drivers get together and create a ride sharing app that is jointly shared by all the drivers and just gives all the money to the drivers, hence taking no profit (rather than the more formal term 'non-profit' which has the tax implications like you say.)

Besides, companies only pay taxes on profits, so loss making companies don't pay any tax either. (And usually have some kind of ability to carry forward losses to reduce future tax bills)

Why would anyone work voluntarily for what would essentially just be a company that gave all it's profits to the drivers but expected them to work for free. Volunteers tend to work for causes they believe in for some ethical or moral reason, and while I sympathize with the drivers like I'm sure many do I doubt many would work for free so someone else can earn more.

Re: Uber S-1

#240

Post by gonehome »

jboy55 wrote: post #230
gonehome wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take Taxis from airports and from hotels for that reason (often faster than waiting for the uber to get through traffic). The exception is SFO where Taxis cost 2x what an UberX costs. The Taxi experience is still bad though - just yesterday in DC I had to listen to my driver 'joke' about why the Taliban should be able to fight for their country while also repeatedly pointing out and talking about women on the stree…

I've had plenty of poor but not shocking Uber/Lyft rides. Its nice you can rate them and get them out of the ecosystem. However, as time goes on, the bar on Uber/Lyft's drivers will lower, the cars will get dirtier and less maintained and the costs will get higher. The stabilization point is probably close to taxi service. I think that Uber/Lyft really solve for SF's taxi problem mostly.

I think the rating system is key and means the lower bound on drivers will be higher than taxis.
Post reply on HN