31–40 of 516 posts
The recent realization by cities that these services are making traffic worse will induce more regulation which will make these services even less viable than they already are.
It may as well be trying to hold back the sea. They can do this in the short-term, but not forever.
Uber and lyft are both on the way down. The price at which they need to operate to be profitable is not a price that most americans are ready to pay. As simple as that. For now they delay this reality by subsidizing rides in order to generate business. In some cities like San Francisco, most incentives were removed and among my friends we all stopped using Uber (unless we really have to). It simply became way too exp…
> among my friends we all stopped using Uber (unless we really have to). It simply became way too expensive. What's been the alternative? Regular taxis? Aren't they just as expensive?
If I go somewhere where it's a pain to park occasionally I will use Uber instead.
Similarly, if I go out I could make a choice of being very conscientious about how much I drink (and thus drive) or take an uber and not worry about being too buzzed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you elaborate how much were fares before they removed subsidies and after?
I can't speak to SF, but here in Chicago, they have been gradually getting higher each year. I have consistently taken an Uber to work every morning for about 5 years now, and I used to pay $5-7 for the ride, but now it is $9-12. I will say though, the huge benefit now is their rewards have a "price protection" [1] for some tiers that allow for a cap on that ride price, so I think it can no longer go above $10.99 or…
Uber and lyft are both on the way down. The price at which they need to operate to be profitable is not a price that most americans are ready to pay. As simple as that. For now they delay this reality by subsidizing rides in order to generate business. In some cities like San Francisco, most incentives were removed and among my friends we all stopped using Uber (unless we really have to). It simply became way too exp…
> among my friends we all stopped using Uber (unless we really have to). It simply became way too expensive. What's been the alternative? Regular taxis? Aren't they just as expensive?
Biased headline, biased article. 1. 3.9 Bil was a one time cost 2. 1.3 Bil is not almost double 880 Mil. I mean that's just egregious.
Let's say you give me 20 bucks, and I drop it. But only one time. Does that mean I didn't lose your $20?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am confused at how that 3.9B could be said not to matter - I'm not familiar with what precisely "recognition of stock comp" means, but I'm going to assume it was either squaring a previously deferred liability - or directly needing to pay out some sort of stock based compensation. Assuming the compensation was for a business need (like hiring labour or purchasing something necessary) then I don't see how that shoul…
Stock based compensation doesn't affect cash flow. It's newly issued stock granted to employees. I'm not sure when the accounting laws changed to include SBC (probably post-financial crisis), but it's weird to include it in an income statement as if it was a cash expense. You can find articles from accounting experts arguing both ways if you are curious. e.g. http://aswathdamodaran.blogspot.com/2014/02/stock-based-em…
More to the OPs point, I'm guessing Uber had FB-style RSUs that don't settle until an IPO or Change of Control. I'm not sure how this all gets accounted for, but given the recent IPO, it sounds like they booked a very large SBC charge this quarter to account for the immediate hit of all the previously issued RSUs finally being settled.
Going forward, the number of RSUs that settle each quarter would therefore presumably not be nearly as large.
But I'm not an accountant so the above may be wrong.
Uber and lyft are both on the way down. The price at which they need to operate to be profitable is not a price that most americans are ready to pay. As simple as that. For now they delay this reality by subsidizing rides in order to generate business. In some cities like San Francisco, most incentives were removed and among my friends we all stopped using Uber (unless we really have to). It simply became way too exp…
Uber and lyft are both on the way down. The price at which they need to operate to be profitable is not a price that most americans are ready to pay. As simple as that. For now they delay this reality by subsidizing rides in order to generate business. In some cities like San Francisco, most incentives were removed and among my friends we all stopped using Uber (unless we really have to). It simply became way too exp…
> among my friends we all stopped using Uber (unless we really have to). It simply became way too expensive. What's been the alternative? Regular taxis? Aren't they just as expensive?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am confused at how that 3.9B could be said not to matter - I'm not familiar with what precisely "recognition of stock comp" means, but I'm going to assume it was either squaring a previously deferred liability - or directly needing to pay out some sort of stock based compensation. Assuming the compensation was for a business need (like hiring labour or purchasing something necessary) then I don't see how that shoul…
Stock based compensation doesn't affect cash flow. It's newly issued stock granted to employees. I'm not sure when the accounting laws changed to include SBC (probably post-financial crisis), but it's weird to include it in an income statement as if it was a cash expense. You can find articles from accounting experts arguing both ways if you are curious. e.g. http://aswathdamodaran.blogspot.com/2014/02/stock-based-em…
One time loss is fine to ignore, but one should still look at the remaining 1.3 billion loss including routine stock based compensation.