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

461–470 of 559 posts

Re: Uber S-1

#461

Post by lsc »

rorykoehler wrote: post #451
bo1024 wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

50% of the worlds population live in cities. Car ownership is more expensive and has less utility in cities too. I'm also certain that we will start retrofitting AV enabling tech into our city streets soon to speed up the process. AV's will be "good enough" for many use cases very soon.

mm. so I don't think driving in cities is easier - I mean, it's certainly harder for a human to drive in a city; I don't see any reason why it would be easier for a machine to drive in a city than in the country.

Re: Uber S-1

#462

Post by spaceman_2020 »

cavisne wrote: post #444
sfifs wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

They did not get "out competed" in china, a country where competition has nothing to do with success. Likewise in Russia. Grab is the only company to out compete Uber so far.

Ola vs Uber in India is so similar in terms of experience that I literally open the first app that's on my screen.

There is no way to differentiate in this market. The only thing that would make me switch is a guarantee of a good driver, but that would just raise the costs absurdly.

Re: Uber S-1

#463

Post by rorykoehler »

lsc wrote: post #461
rorykoehler wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

50% of the worlds population live in cities. Car ownership is more expensive and has less utility in cities too. I'm also certain that we will start retrofitting AV enabling tech into our city streets soon to speed up the process. AV's will be "good enough" for many use cases very soon.

mm. so I don't think driving in cities is easier - I mean, it's certainly harder for a human to drive in a city; I don't see any reason why it would be easier for a machine to drive in a city than in the country.

Controlled environment with good lane marking etc. Obviously some cities are easier than others.

Re: Uber S-1

#464

Post by SOLAR_FIELDS »

bunderbunder wrote: post #411
SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> 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. TBH, I think that the autonomous vehicles is just a further illustration of the extent to which it's a commodity. To an approximation, the product is that you got from point A to point B for $dollars in #time. If you c…

You speak truth, but the weird reality that we live in seems to dictate that the first mover advantage in autonomous vehicle world suggests that the people who are able to bring this reality forward will own the space for at least a year or two. It’s an exciting time to be alive and witness this at least.

Re: Uber S-1

#465

Post by mcbits »

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…

Uber drivers are also recording everything I say and do (not think, but that was hyperbole), so the question is whether I want to ride in such a machine with or without some human trying to interact with me. It depends on whether the human is cool or not. In general, no.

Re: Uber S-1

#466

Post by lsc »

djakjxnanjak wrote: post #460
lsc wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so, as long as investors have appetite to lose money to buy market share? you are, of course, right. But the business cycle goes up, and the business cycle goes down. (I mean, the general trend is upwards, but if you don't think there will be big downturns inbetween, well...) The problem is that yes, uber and lyft have dominance for as long as they are willing to run the business for less money than anyone else; This…

I’m skeptical about a non-profit service competing with Uber and Lyft. It would take a lot of money-losing ride subsidies to get the substantial market share required to get the necessary network effects.

I'm... not sure you'd need a lot of network effects? I mean, you need a critical mass of drivers and riders, but they can be all in a small area and you can still provide a service. I mean, for the occasional user, sure, brand recognition matters; If I'm going from a strange airport to a hotel, I'm probably going to use the brand i know.

But usually? I switch from uber to lyft on my daily commute based on saving a few bucks almost every day. (right now, Lyft has some scheme where you can buy a 30-pack of $15 off coupons for $300. But they're used every time you ride lyft, so if you want to go somewhere for less than $15, you use Uber)

I mean, 90+% of my rides are areas I ride in a lot, where it would be worth my time to put a fair bit of effort into discovery.

I think that on the driver side, there's a lot of drivers with very strong locational preferences, too; If you are in SF and try to get a ride to San Jose, my experience is that 3 out of 4 uber drivers will kick you out of the car when they find out, so I think you might be able to recruit drivers that way, too.

Re: Uber S-1

#467

Post by SOLAR_FIELDS »

rezbull wrote: post #435
SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thought about your ticker comment - I actually prefer it when the ticker is NOT exact same as the company like UBER or LYFT. This is because I know when I google AMZN, AAPL, TSLA etc. the search engine knows I want the stock price and am specifically asking about stock. For UBER and LYFT I have to type something like ‘LYFT stock’ if I want the price, trends and news around that.

Try adding a $ in front of the ticker and Google will take care of it for you.

Hmm I just tried on an iPhone 8+ googling $lyft on safari and nothing I got back in the top results are stock related. Then I tried on my home desktop with DDG with FireFox and had similar results. Perhaps the behavior is tied to the “google bubble”?

Re: Uber S-1

#468

Post by Ayesh »

SRTP wrote: post #455
sfifs wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Go-Jek is not challenging Grab. They have a deeply inferior product, fail to catch up to Grab's breakneck innovation pace. Also, being an Indonesian company, Go-Jek has a disorganized company culture that is not conducive to competing with a lean, well-oiled machine run by Singaporeans like Grab.

I have traveled extensively in Indonesia, and have always preferred Go-Jek over Grab, and I have a feeling I share the same with the number of drivers and riders, at least in Medan, Jakarta, Bandung, Yogyakarta, and most of Java.

I also don't think being an Indonesian company has challenged Go-Jek in any way. Traveloka, Tiket.com, and Go-Jek are one of the most prominent businesses in Indonesia, and they all look like well-oiled machines.

Re: Uber S-1

#469

Post by ManishR »

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…

>>When reasoning doesn't line up with facts, there are usually flaws in the logic.

I don't think there's an opposition of facts and logic here. Grab was founded in 2012 (https://www.grab.com/sg/about/), Ola in 2011 (https://www.olacabs.com/about.html), and GoJek in 2010 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go-Jek). All of these were entrenched players in their respective markets when Uber decided to put up a fight. Uber gave the Grab and Ola's VCs no option but to double down, if they were to save their existing investments. In this race to bottom, it was Uber who blinked first. Losing SE Asia was not an existential threat to Uber, but definitely for Grab. Media likes to talk winners and losers, but Uber did end up taking 27.5% stake in Grab just to leave the market (https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/24/grab-uber-deal-southeast-a...). However, their fight in India with Ola continues. But to my initial argument - back in 2010-2012, we thought that the network effect of social networks (like Facebook) extended to ride-sharing services too creating high barriers to entry. We know now that isn't the case. Imagine how a VC would react today to a startup founder pitching a ride-sharing idea in a market where Uber/Lyft are already entrenched, given what we have learned from Lyft IPO and Uber's SEC filing. My argument may seem counterintuitive here, but I believe that the Uber/Lyft's revealed financials is what may ultimately save them. They have successfully managed to make the ride-sharing market unattractive (at least for 10x return seeking VCs).

Re: Uber S-1

#470

Post by lsc »

rorykoehler wrote: post #463
lsc wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

mm. so I don't think driving in cities is easier - I mean, it's certainly harder for a human to drive in a city; I don't see any reason why it would be easier for a machine to drive in a city than in the country.

Controlled environment with good lane marking etc. Obviously some cities are easier than others.

Controlled environment? well-maintained roads? this doesn't sound like any city I've spent much time in.

I'm thinking like 101 seems reasonably straightforward, modulo the occasional construction, but once you get into san Francisco, there's a lot of dodging pedestrians, cyclists, skateboarders, shopping carts, stopped delivery vehicles, etc... It doesn't look nearly as controlled, to my eyes, as 101 does further out.

Post reply on HN