The last time I had this feeling was when shorting groupon. The emperor has no clothes, I can't see how UBER ends up being materially different from a donut.
Don't be ridiculous, donuts are both tasty and worth paying for.
Uber’s IPO means higher fares for rides
71–80 of 88 posts
Re: Uber’s IPO means higher fares for rides
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why wouldn't drivers install it, when it costs them nothing? And then if they're at the end of an uber ride and a notification for the other service pops up, they can take that.
Installing an app and entering your bank details for payouts is quite a burden on the driver. Not permanent and not physically but emotionally.
I don't get it, why?
Re: Uber’s IPO means higher fares for rides
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Installing an app and entering your bank details for payouts is quite a burden on the driver. Not permanent and not physically but emotionally.
I don't get it, why?
Signing up for a service requires you hand over some personal details. That is friction.
If you want to be a driver, you also need to hand in payment details. More friction.
These things are friction because the user has to make not only an active effort to do them but also it gives them time and reason to reevaluate their decision to download the app. Especially when privacy leaks are happening left and right in SV.
This in sum comes together as a burden for people to even sin up to your service as drivers.
Re: Uber’s IPO means higher fares for rides
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Installing an app and entering your bank details for payouts is quite a burden on the driver. Not permanent and not physically but emotionally.
Not just that - you also have to tell drivers you even exist in the first place, and that level of marketing is not cheap.
It's not really that expensive, because you can expand city by city, and do local advertising only - billboards, bus ads, etc. We're talking six figures even in the most expensive areas.
Re: Uber’s IPO means higher fares for rides
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Less expensive does not mean those other competitors are making money. For example, Grab is burning through billions of investors cash, just like Uber [1]. Uber has motorbikes in other countries. It had a huge presence in Vietnam, until Grab took over their un-profitable business. It is just that it isn't popular in the US to take a ride from someone on a motorbike. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/05/grab-vision-f…
Grab is already more expensive than conventional taxis in some places I've been recently.
...or is it that taxis have lowered their pricing to compete?
Re: Uber’s IPO means higher fares for rides
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get it, why?
Signing up for a service requires you hand over some personal details. That is friction. If you want to be a driver, you also need to hand in payment details. More friction. These things are friction because the user has to make not only an active effort to do them but also it gives them time and reason to reevaluate their decision to download the app. Especially when privacy leaks are happening left and right in SV.…
I mean, sure, any new product faces some friction, but that's a slender reed to support monopoly ambitions, and it's not the same as claiming drivers won't install it if there are no riders.
The reality shows otherwise: my city already has three competitors to Uber, and all of them have enough drivers (the waiting times are similar), without any having made massive ad campaigns. And there's no reason to assume we're a special case.
Re: Uber’s IPO means higher fares for rides
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every driver drives for every service in each city. There's no cost to them doing so. The only thing actually motivating them to stick to one service or another is Uber and Lyft have quota-based payouts promotions. Make your quota, get a bonus. Once they do, though, they're back at timesharing.
There is the cost of signing up to each service and entering bank details for payout. Additionally drivers aren't rational market players with perfect information. The quota alone could be enough emotional incentive for a driver to stick to only 2-3 apps.
2-3 apps per driver is huge; that might mean 5-6 apps on the market, more than enough to provide fierce competition and keep prices low.
Re: Uber’s IPO means higher fares for rides
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only thing I can see being successful for them is JUMP. It's an awesome service, there's no better way to get around San Francisco -- and Seattle! I assume it's as effective in other cities too. On the other hand scaling and acceptance seem pretty far off.
you're kidding, right? I gave up on using jump bikes for my own travel needs long time ago, better off just walking and getting some exercise instead of hunting down some random thing in some random direction. But I try to use the bikes (the actual ride is pretty good, if you manage to get one) to show my friends around SF when they visit. In my experience, it's almost impossible to get two (or more, god forbid) bike…
Your difficulty in finding available bikes might be because they're very popular and constantly in use, no?