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

311–320 of 559 posts

Re: Uber S-1

#311

Post by ajayjain »

acchow wrote: post #279
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.

Employees saw their share price go from $44 in June (private markets) to a range of $62-68 during the road show last month to an IPO at $72, to close today at $61. Again, in less than a year, rose from $44 to $61 with a brief uptick to $72 in the middle. How is that plummeting?

Loss aversion tells us that gains and losses have different emotional impact. In particular, perceived losses supposedly have a strong negative impact on people. [1] If Lyft employees value their shares at the IPO price, they might be feeling a loss all the way from 72 to 61.

[1] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137544254_13

Re: Uber S-1

#312

Post by kickopotomus »

zepearl wrote: post #253
jboy55 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always felt SDC is the death of Uber. If you had 5 billion to invest in SDCs for a taxi service, why would you become a small investor in Uber, when you could probably build the app for $10 million and just roll your own? Also uber could become profitable if they charged more. I've actually started taking taxi's again, since they are marginally more expensive than Ubers/Lyfts. However, if you pick them up from an a…

> I always felt SDC is the death of Uber. But aren't SDCs currently something veeery remote (e.g. even Tesla cannot currently drive autonomously even on technically "simple streets" like highways) and especially only as long as no active offensive social behaviours start to emerge (e.g. gang menbers standing in the middle of the street to stop a SDC to rob/kidnap the occupant and/or destroy the car etc...)?

Tesla is years behind Waymo. The predominant issue facing SDCs currently is inclement weather. Lidar (which Tesla does not use) and cameras have a hard time with heavy rain and snow.

Re: Uber S-1

#313

Post by echelon »

freewilly1040 wrote: post #245
will_brown wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It takes tremendous capital expenditure to build that network What I don’t understand with the gig economy is why the gig workers organize and cut out the platforms. Do the drivers need uber/Lyft? Do renters need Airbnb? Let these companies take on VC build the tech platform, launch, verify the market...then fuck them, leave them holding their own bag while the workers ride off in the sunset. Besides the Founders an…

People vastly underestimate the work it takes to build Lyft/Uber because it's simple to use. They would need someone to do all the legal/compliance work, validate drivers, handle marketing, handle payments, detect and combat fraud, resolve disputes, and the million other things you don't think about when you use the service.

It would be incredibly cool if each of these pieces could be subscribed to as a service. Especially if there was a way to expose your business surface area, domain knowledge, etc. in a way that it could "seamlessly" plug in.

Re: Uber S-1

#314

Post by treis »

LordHumungous wrote: post #281
treis wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not true, read the S1. They lose money on every ride due to driver incentives.

Can you be more specific than a 280 page document?

Re: Uber S-1

#315

Post by thatoneuser »

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…

It's a big cost if you and I want to get in on it but probably not that great for a tech giant to invest a couple billion and skip the pre sdc years.

Re: Uber S-1

#316

Post by dingdongding »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #81
panarky wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

At least on Android, for ~75% of mobile users globally, Google Maps is more important than Uber for getting from place to place. Every Android user has Google Maps. Virtually every Android user uses Google Maps. The same is not true for Uber. Uber has a shallow moat around an ugly castle.

I have a strong feeling that Uber will be launching their standalone mapping service soon

Re: Uber S-1

#317

Post by ulfw »

panarky wrote: post #286
ulfw wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is so not true. There is no 'moat' whatsoever. No Uber drivers are exclusive. In the US I see tons of cars with Uber AND Lyft stickers on. In SEA it was extremely common the same drivers had the Uber AND Grab app installed (before Uber gave up).

> No Uber drivers are exclusive Bing is just a click away from Google. Hulu is just a click away from Netflix. My local grocery store is just one block away from a different grocery store. Exclusivity isn't required to defend a large network. People are creatures of habit, and it would take a big innovation in the service or massive subsidies to dismantle that network.

None of those describe a moat. Google is better than Bing. Hulu has a different offering from Netflix (and a lot of people use both). No idea what different distances of grocery stores have to do with anything.

None of those describe a 'moat'. Something like Facebook is a moat. Instagram. A messaging app. Anything where your participation increases the value of the whole offering and hence you'll be locked in, else you lose a lot of value (e.g. from all the contacts you made in the aforementioned networks)

Re: Uber S-1

#318

Post by jmccaf »

graaben wrote: post #265

"We generated 15% of our Ridesharing Gross Bookings from trips that either started or were completed at an airport" This just highlights the need for better public transportation from cities to their airports.

Especially arriving, and also departing, I think Uber with "door-to-door" service may be a better answer. Luggage above carry-on would be hard to take on multiple-stop public transportation with a walk, and especially arriving in evening after a tiring travel, I often want to get directly to my lodging and freshen up.

Re: Uber S-1

#319

Post by munk-a »

jfim wrote: post #236
gonehome wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

Except it isn't everywhere, so their moat isn't complete and is eroded by the fact that you need to rely on local transport options in a lot of areas - I don't think this really counts much as a strength of theirs, and I think their current attempts to operate in so many markets and their reliance on a lack of enforcement/laws that can change may make this more of a liability for the company.

Re: Uber S-1

#320

Post by return0 »

carb wrote: post #275
return0 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

similar apps have popped up in many places where uber is not allowed or limited. it doesn't look that hard.

> "where uber is not allowed or limited" Doesn't that strengthen the argument for the network effect? The only places there have been successful 3rd party launches are in markets without Uber or Lyft, where there is no network effect to compete against.

Those markets are also lacking tons of cash to literally buy the market. And those competitors easily develop their own network effects. It doesnt look like there is huge lock in here, of the scale of e.g. facebook. There is a case to be made that uber is replaceable.
Post reply on HN