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

381–390 of 559 posts

Re: Uber S-1

#381

Post by lobotryas »

yalogin wrote: post #103

Feels more like Uber and Lyft reached a point where they cannot raise private capital anymore and so jumped onto the public markets to fool random investors. If they cannot be profitable now, what makes them think they will be profitable with SDCs? I challenge the fundamental premise that SDCs will make them profitable. There is no stickiness to their business model. Moving on to another ride sharing service is frict…

Are you kidding? True AVs will make Uber/Luft even MORE profitable because they won’t have to pay out or worry about human drivers. AVs are the end game for these companies.

Re: Uber S-1

#382

Post by yomly »

CydeWeys wrote: post #51
cududa wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ive heard from reliable sources 10% of Uber Eats revenue goes to McDonald’s (not promotionally, in revenue)

Wow, that many people are ordering delivery McDonald's? Maybe McDonald's should start delivery services in some markets itself then?

They have 247 delivery in a lot of Asian markets - and I know first hand for at least more than 10 years in China so it's not like McD HQ don't have the business experience of launching the product...

Re: Uber S-1

#383

Post by bunderbunder »

mckenna wrote: post #309
kornish wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We have incurred significant losses since inception and may never achieve profitability" is pretty standard in S-1s. Nothing particularly interesting in these sentences.

Really? Silicon Valley is churning out trashy IPOs of late, and so it becomes the standard?

It was the same thing 20 years ago, so why not now, too?

Re: Uber S-1

#384

Post by yomly »

buryat wrote: post #70
CydeWeys wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, that many people are ordering delivery McDonald's? Maybe McDonald's should start delivery services in some markets itself then?

the problem is that you have to have constant stream of orders to justify having people who deliver on payroll. Uber basically has people who deliver and then rent them to restaurants so they never have a problem of constant load.

+1 We recently ordered food from a Chinese restaurant that insisted on their own in house app and went as far as pulling themselves off Uber eats.

We gave them the benefit of the doubt and tried the in house delivery service - food took ~2 hours to arrive, presumably because their throughput to fulfil orders was capped by the number of drivers they could afford to hire full time - it was like going back to the days of every place having delivery men.

UberEats usually takes ~35 minutes for reference.

Re: Uber S-1

#385

Post by tyingq »

empath75 wrote: post #373
ManishR wrote: post #355

People here seem to think that Uber/Lyft do not have any competitive moat. I disagree. What we seem to forget is that just because a VC can burn boatloads of money to capture ridesharing market from Uber/Lyft doesn't mean that they would. From a game theoretic POV, Uber and Lyft have signaled that they're ready to fight for survival in markets they are established in. Unless as a startup founder you can demonstrate t…

Why would anyone want to challenge them to take over a market they’re losing billions of dollars in?

That was my reaction. I can build a moat by selling anything below cost. But it doesn't really say much about the business viability, and what happens when you raise prices. Does demand shrink, or does another competitor with money to burn undercut you until they are out of money? Or, maybe...things work out.

It just doesn't seem to prove much beyond "subsidized pricing is popular".

Re: Uber S-1

#386

Post by SOLAR_FIELDS »

janfoeh wrote: post #211
largehotcoffee wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, they are. I don't care whether a ride service is available in one, a dozen or three hundred locations. I care about the best option in my city, and I would bet dollars to donuts that this aligns with the market majority. A thousand local or regional competitors are just as much an existential threat to Uber as one or two big ones.

Agree, it’s definitely possible (and rather easy) for regional competitors to enter the market. I also live in Austin and when Uber and Lyft left I switched to Fasten and Ride Austin with absolutely no difference to the end user experience. If someone else came along at a significant discount to Uber and Lyft I would switch in a heartbeat. I often converse with drivers about it and they have the exact same approach. Whoever pays the most for them gets their business, whoever charges the least gets the rider business. Ride sharing is basically a commodity right now and anyone who thinks otherwise and invests accordingly is going to get burned. The only thing that is going to change that IMO is autonomous vehicles.

Re: Uber S-1

#387

Post by yomly »

gmueckl wrote: post #205
kgwgk wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would McDonald's want to do the delivery if Uber volunteers to do it losing money?

Exploiting a business partner that is operating at a loss is a bad move when said partner is providing a significant part of your revenue. You are placing that revenue in jeopardy without good reason. But in the McDonalds/Uber case I don't think that Uner is imortant enough to McDonalds.

How does the product/revenue work when McDonald's are all franchises - does McD corporate have a first-order incentive to worry about delivery revenue?

Re: Uber S-1

#388

Post by acq_question »

parthdesai wrote: post #167
moflome wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We have incurred significant losses since inception, including in the United States and other major markets. We expect our operating expenses to increase significantly in the foreseeable future, and we may not achieve profitability." We have incurred significant losses since inception. We incurred operating losses of $4.0 billion and $3.0 billion in the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2018, and as of December 31,…

I think it's the investment round in which SoftBank invested around $3.5 billion.

Dont mix up cash flow from financing activities with profit from sale of operational piece of the business ;). One is just a cash flow/balance sheet piece the other gets reflected in income ;)

Re: Uber S-1

#389

Post by SilasX »

tyrust wrote: post #268
dockd wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't most index funds, almost by definition, required to buy their shares? If Vanguard owns a piece of every listed company, they're going to buy Uber at pretty much any price, right?

>Vanguard owns a piece of every listed company I doubt this is true, at least not across their primary stock market index funds. For example, VTSAX only holds about 3500 stocks [0]. I don't know how the fund usually treats new, large IPOs, but I highly doubt that they would just blindly buy it at "any price" EDIT: I just checked the holdings of VTSAX [1] and VGT [2], neither holds Lyft. [0] - https://investor.vanguar…

The link for VTSAX says the portfolio data is current as of 02/28/2019, which was before Lyft's IPO (3/29/19).

Re: Uber S-1

#390

Post by killyp »

tyingq wrote: post #385
empath75 wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anyone want to challenge them to take over a market they’re losing billions of dollars in?

That was my reaction. I can build a moat by selling anything below cost. But it doesn't really say much about the business viability, and what happens when you raise prices. Does demand shrink, or does another competitor with money to burn undercut you until they are out of money? Or, maybe...things work out. It just doesn't seem to prove much beyond "subsidized pricing is popular" .

ie MoviePass. As soon as a unprofitable company loses its investor backing it doesn't matter if they control the majority of the market, they are still doomed.
Post reply on HN