Uber S-1 • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber S-1

#421

Post by huac » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 3:06 AM UTC

throwaway5752 wrote: post #24

whoisjuan wrote: post #17

Just a brief scan and it looks much healthier and diversified than Lyft. Of course far from a perfect business or anything. Their revenue is 5X Lyft's revenue. Doesn't look good for Lyft's stock to be honest. I wouldn't be surprised if after their first earnings release, Lyft stock goes below 40 USD.

They did really well with the CEO they recruited. From the outside, it seemed like he did a really exceptional job profitably growing Expedia.

but did he grow Expedia's marketshare relative to its competitors?

Re: Uber S-1

#422

Post by vadym909 » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 3:07 AM UTC

killyp wrote: post #390

tyingq wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No different than airlines. You are only as profitable as your dumbest competitor- someone wise once said

Re: Uber S-1

#423

Post by yellow_postit » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 3:09 AM UTC

wskinner wrote: post #408

rorykoehler wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Startups won't win this. Manufacturers will. They have brand, cars, and soon can license the self driving tech. How hard is it for a billion dollar company to roll out a ride hailing app? Think about where that leaves Uber. They have to buy the cars from said manufacturers. This already gives them a significantly larger cost base and let's face it, while they also have a brand it is no more powerful a draw than Merce…

Here's a thought experiment: how hard is it for a billion dollar company to roll out a simple crud app? Easy, right? Now name a single major bank with an app that is better than "barely usable". Which is easier? A crud app or a ride hailing app?

Which national US bank or investment company has an app you find “barely usable”? The only one that comes to mind is Vanguard and that fits my mental model they’ve cultivated of keeping costs low on extraneous things so in a perverse way is a positive.

Re: Uber S-1

#424

Post by yellow_postit » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 3:10 AM UTC

benburleson wrote: post #398

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…

They can't just raise prices willy-nilly; taxis still exist.

Taxis have a damaged brand and no clear way to repair it at scale.

Re: Uber S-1

#425

Post by thisisit » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 3:11 AM UTC

rory096 wrote: post #29

chollida1 wrote: post #10

Note: - Expected to be teh largest IPO this year in the US. - 10th largest all time - trying to raise around $10B - 2018 Year Ended Revenue $11.27 billion - 2018 Year Ended Net Income $997 million - 2017 Year End lost $4.03 billion. - 10 billion trips in September 2018, up from 5 billion in September 2017 - Gross Bookings From Ridesharing $41.5 billion in 2018 - Revenue From Ridesharing Products $9.2 Billion in 2018…

> Lyft now at $61/share, ouch, there just is no other way to put it. THey pulled a lot of financial engineering tricks to boost their IPO price and well the results speak for themselves:( I don't understand why this is seen as a negative. An IPO is a share issuance — the higher the price per share, the more money they receive in exchange for the same percentage of the company. Post-IPO "pops" represent money left on…

Because this is a public market? One of things you expect companies to do, ethically speaking, is to provide honest information wherever possible. If Lyft used financial engineering to boost their IPO price, while they get money in loads while the average Joe loses.

Re: Uber S-1

#426

Post by koolba » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 3:11 AM UTC

sfifs wrote: post #400

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…

> no VC will fund their rapid growth (small offerings will still find a niche, assuming they don't get gobbled up And yet Grab and Didi drove Uber out of South East Asia and China, Ola is giving Uber a run for its money in India and now GoJek in turn is challenging Grab. In my recent trip to Tokyo we were mostly advised to take regular cabs Vs Uber in contrast to a year ago. That's literally half the world where they…

Also nothing stops a “low tech” competitor from skimming local price information from a larger rival and automating their matching. The pricing has to be publicized or else how else would the drivers know?

Re: Uber S-1

#427

Post by bo1024 » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 3:16 AM UTC

rorykoehler wrote: post #401

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…

Startups won't win this. Manufacturers will. They have brand, cars, and soon can license the self driving tech. How hard is it for a billion dollar company to roll out a ride hailing app? Think about where that leaves Uber. They have to buy the cars from said manufacturers. This already gives them a significantly larger cost base and let's face it, while they also have a brand it is no more powerful a draw than Merce…

> soon can license the self driving tech

My personal guess is that "soon" for fully autonomous cars is not any reasonable definition of soon. Even if you accept the tech is close to okay in Arizona (I wouldn't), think about the weather and driving conditions in most of the worlds' markets for these global companies.

Re: Uber S-1

#428

Post by thisisit » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 3:18 AM UTC

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…

You don't need people to make that point, Uber agrees to it too:

The personal mobility, meal delivery, and logistics industries are highly competitive, with well-established and low-cost alternatives that have been available for decades, low barriers to entry, low switching costs, and well-capitalized competitors in nearly every major geographic region. If we are unable to compete effectively in these industries, our business and financial prospects would be adversely impacted.

Re: Uber S-1

#429

Post by thisisit » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 3:20 AM UTC

One of the most interesting things I see about Uber/Lyft's IPO has been their risk factors which says:

Our business would be adversely affected if Drivers were classified as employees instead of independent contractors.

Re: Uber S-1

#430

Post by pbreit » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 3:25 AM UTC

rorykoehler wrote: post #401

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…

Startups won't win this. Manufacturers will. They have brand, cars, and soon can license the self driving tech. How hard is it for a billion dollar company to roll out a ride hailing app? Think about where that leaves Uber. They have to buy the cars from said manufacturers. This already gives them a significantly larger cost base and let's face it, while they also have a brand it is no more powerful a draw than Merce…

This is one of the more ill-informed tweets. How hard is it to roll out a ride hailing up? Borderline impossible. Especially for companies that have zero competency in service, software and marketplaces.