Uber Posts $5.2B Loss and Slowest Ever Growth Rate • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber Posts $5.2B Loss and Slowest Ever Growth Rate

#161

Post by lamp_book » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 9:11 PM UTC

i_cant_speel wrote: post #92

toasterlovin wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I don’t think self driving cars would have made them a good business. Once you no longer need drivers, all you’re doing is deploying a fleet of automobiles. We already have companies that do this: taxi services and auto rental companies. They’re shitty, low margin businesses with tons of competition. The promise of Uber was being a monopoly because they were first mover on a market with network effects. Much li…

You aren't going to rent a car to take a fifteen minute trip across town, so that isn't really comparable. And yes, they would be a taxi service. But they would be a taxi service with lower costs since they don't need pay for a driver.

Until the other taxi services have an autonomous fleet. Uber never had a unique position here. Not too mention these cars are not just around the corner.

Re: Uber Posts $5.2B Loss and Slowest Ever Growth Rate

#162

Post by xyzzyz » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 9:12 PM UTC

ensmartha wrote: post #146

coldtea wrote: post #95

Glad they're down, and hope the whole "gig economy" burns down too. Where gig economy = padding the loss of decent jobs by replacing the bottom end with desperate deals where "non employed" employees, without regular salary, benefits, company provided work tools, etc., make a pittance, while the organizing company gets a cut from millions of transactions. In some cases, no jobs is better than subsistence/dead-end/exp…

Not all gig companies are the same. Uber is not a real business. Nothing about hiring a driver or maintaining or running a car is cheaper now than before Uber. Uber will never be profitable unless people are willing to pay the same amount as for regular taxis or for a private driver (i.e. expensive). Airbnb on the other hand is a real and vastly profitable business. Yes there need to be tighter regulations because we…

> Nothing about hiring a driver or maintaining or running a car is cheaper now than before Uber.

Uber can use better scheduling algorithms to ensure higher utilization factor of their fleet. If a taxi driver is driving 50% of the time and waiting for a fare other 50%, while Uber driver is driving 90% of the time and waiting 10%, the price for Uber ride could be lower while ensuring the same income level for the driver.

Re: Uber Posts $5.2B Loss and Slowest Ever Growth Rate

#163

Post by dbuxton » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 9:12 PM UTC

jngreenlee wrote: post #127

coldtea wrote: post #95

Glad they're down, and hope the whole "gig economy" burns down too. Where gig economy = padding the loss of decent jobs by replacing the bottom end with desperate deals where "non employed" employees, without regular salary, benefits, company provided work tools, etc., make a pittance, while the organizing company gets a cut from millions of transactions. In some cases, no jobs is better than subsistence/dead-end/exp…

"In some cases, no jobs is better than subsistence/dead-end/exploitative jobs" Sure, but neither you or I get to decide that qualification. Only the person doing the job does. We don't really know what fits their lives or what options they have. I don't like gig stuff/sharing economy (or the big 'unicorns' associated with it) either...but it is "another option" for many people that wouldn't have one, esp. lower skill…

OP doesn’t mean

“For some people it’s better to have no job than a bad job”

(Maybe that’s true but as you say it’s their choice to make)

He is saying:

“For society, it’s actually harmful that we paper over the cracks of giving people on the margins of society confidence in how they can economically contribute and get meaning with unsustainable “jobs” rather than society actually being forced to confront this problem”.

Re: Uber Posts $5.2B Loss and Slowest Ever Growth Rate

#164

Post by alkonaut » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 9:13 PM UTC

ikeyany wrote: post #51

dman wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate how much were fares before they removed subsidies and after?

When they first started out in my city they offered a ride pass that put a hard limit on rides less than 20 miles at $4. Yes, $4 for anywhere within 20 miles. Then it was changed to $5. Then it was changed to $6, or instead you could UberPool for $2. Then they added a 2 minute waiting period for an UberPool. They then also changed the flat fare altogether and instead your ride pass came with something like 50% off al…

Wow I had no idea it was that low. No wonder people wants that product. Here a uber ride is the same price as taxi (because it is taxi) so 15 minutes is easily $50.

Re: Uber Posts $5.2B Loss and Slowest Ever Growth Rate

#165

Post by mpweiher » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 9:13 PM UTC

lacker wrote: post #132

munk-a wrote: post #75

Uber emerged into the market as a disruptor in the absolute worst sense of the world - it was challenging an entrenched industry with low efficiency (cab companies make ungodly amounts of money in some markets) but it did so by playing by a different set of rules - skirting both the disingenuous regulations put in to protect cab companies' profit and those in place for the safety of the general public. Even disregard…

You are missing the part where Uber let you get a cab through an app rather than hoping a taxi was driving by and waving your hands at them. It really is a far, far better product when you can get a cab wherever you want, instead of just in a few areas.

Is that really the case in the US?

At least in Germany, my standard way of getting a cab (wherever I want) was calling one of the dispatch centres.

Taxi-hailing apps made this slightly more convenient, and displaying the cab's route to you removed some stress, but it didn't fundamentally alter the service.

And Uber really doesn't add any value except for undercutting prices by subsidising the rides via investors and shovelling risk etc. onto the drivers.

Re: Uber Posts $5.2B Loss and Slowest Ever Growth Rate

#166

Post by kickopotomus » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 9:13 PM UTC

toasterlovin wrote: post #86

_bxg1 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They already have an app for hailing cars, viewing their status on a map, etc. which tons of people already have on their phones, as well as an extremely recognizable brand and lots of data-center investment to back it all. Competitors would pop up, but don't underestimate the value of those things.

FWIW, they don’t control the default map apps for the two major phone platforms. Competitors will be desperate to fork over money to Apple or Google to get placement when people are planning routes. And Apple and Google may also be in the ride sharing game at that point, since they’re both currently working on self driving cars.

I'm pretty positive that is Google's end goal. They even had (have?) and integration with Lyft/Uber at one point so that you could hail a ride from within the Google Maps app. My bet is that it was meant to be a proof-of-concept to see how hard it would be just to replace them with their own service.

Re: Uber Posts $5.2B Loss and Slowest Ever Growth Rate

#167

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 9:13 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #94

beeneuf wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After my experiences having grown up with cabs, I am honestly willing to pay a significant premium to use Uber and Lyft. It is not an understatement to say that I hate traditional taxis. I hate the terrible service. I hate having them refuse fares based on where I'm going. I hate calling to schedule a pickup in advance and the driver just not bothering to show up. I hate being pressured to pay in cash instead of cred…

With all due respect (I can appreciate paying more for quality, I do so myself!), there are not enough of you to justify rideshare valuations (which are based on taking over the world, not being a boutique transportation network for the discerning mobility user).

[deleted]

Re: Uber Posts $5.2B Loss and Slowest Ever Growth Rate

#168

Post by eanzenberg » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 9:13 PM UTC

rjkennedy98 wrote: post #149

jngreenlee wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In some cases, no jobs is better than subsistence/dead-end/exploitative jobs" Sure, but neither you or I get to decide that qualification. Only the person doing the job does. We don't really know what fits their lives or what options they have. I don't like gig stuff/sharing economy (or the big 'unicorns' associated with it) either...but it is "another option" for many people that wouldn't have one, esp. lower skill…

I feel like this misses something crucial to how most of these arrangements work: the worker is unable to put value on the gig. That is the real asymmetry. The gig worker's car wears down, requires gas, oil changes, and gets beat up by the road, but from his perspective he sees $25. Do you think Uber would even try to estimate that number?! (which they almost certainly could). Its essentially capitalization on a huge…

What happened to personal responsibility? Is that out the window as well? Or do we need intervention, similar to how parents point their kids in the proper direction to go?

Re: Uber Posts $5.2B Loss and Slowest Ever Growth Rate

#169

Post by kgwgk » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 9:13 PM UTC

paxys wrote: post #148

jonknee wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But in this case they clearly don't: Operations and support ($864m), Sales and marketing ($1.2b), General and administrative ($1.6b). They have bloated costs all over. Easy to do when you're the hottest VC backed company around, but the clock is ticking and they'll probably trim a lot of fat.

Yeah my point was people shouldn't look at it and think "self driving car research". Every engineer at Uber is paid out of that budget.

That’s why I said it included useful R&D.

Re: Uber Posts $5.2B Loss and Slowest Ever Growth Rate

#170

Post by ghaff » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 9:13 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #75

Uber emerged into the market as a disruptor in the absolute worst sense of the world - it was challenging an entrenched industry with low efficiency (cab companies make ungodly amounts of money in some markets) but it did so by playing by a different set of rules - skirting both the disingenuous regulations put in to protect cab companies' profit and those in place for the safety of the general public. Even disregard…

>I like to compare them to the car sharing companies (like zipcar/car2go etc...) which managed to de-throne the entrenched rental agencies without going out of their way to break laws.

Except for the fact that Avis bought Zipcar. So not sure about the dethroning part.

I know some folks who really depend on short-term rentals to support being carless but it's a relatively niche service--especially with current Uber/Lyft pricing.