Live data from Hacker News

Neither, and New: Lessons from Uber and Vision Fund

stratechery.com

21–30 of 64 posts

Re: Neither, and New: Lessons from Uber and Vision Fund

#21
post #11

He’s forgetting that Uber’s goal is to be a driverless platform in which case they’d capture significant portions of the drivers margin. Now a software company. On Vision Fund, he seems to think that there is only one viable VC model. I happen to disagree. Warren Buffet made a lot of money investing in boring companies, and now technology is spilling into ancient markets to transform them. Seems like those companies…

> Uber’s goal is to be a driverless platform Everyone keeps using this argument but I don't buy it. Uber itself hasn't once stated that this is their goal, not even to shareholders. When the company was founded in 2008 self driving cars weren't on anyone's radar. And it ignores the fact that if/when self driving cars become viable the entire "ridesharing" landscape will be instantly changed, and Uber will not have an…

I think that argument was dropped, even by Uber, after the fatality.

One of the reasons I’m sceptical about Uber is the rotating mission plan.

Re: Neither, and New: Lessons from Uber and Vision Fund

#22
post #14

What happens if people start ordering taxis from within Google Maps? And what if Google Maps adds more taxi services? What if Android starts integrating the function of ordering taxis that way? What would happen to Uber's value then? You can't "own" a market unless you also entirely own the way people access that market.

Have to transition taxis from meter to set-pricing first. The uncertainty of getting into a cab and agreeing to pay an unknown price is a big part of why I avoid them.

I’ve been hit with a ridiculous price at the end of a ride enough to distrust the whole concept of giving them a blank check.

Re: Neither, and New: Lessons from Uber and Vision Fund

#24

The whole beginning of the article is based on the assumption that Uber's story is played out. I don't think we can call that one yet, IMHO the market hasn't discovered what is Uber WORTH just yet.

Looking at just ride sharing is too narrow. Some companies are already talking about ”mobility as a service”.

I need to get from A to B. The best way can be a combination of transport methods. Like sometimes it would make more sense to start with electric scooter, then jump to Uber. Or maybe take Uber, then train and Uber again. Or train one way, car share vehicle back.

I assume in future I will have an app that handles all this, without me making the separate bookings or checking time tables.

I’d likely pay extra for the convenience of doing everything through one company. Or maybe their monthly subscription plan is just too attractive.

Re: Neither, and New: Lessons from Uber and Vision Fund

#26

Another great post. Does anyone know what software this blog is published with that creates the hypertext bubble where the content can be extended in a little pop up?

I wondered as well, since I've seen it on Instapaper and marco.org, and always wanted something similar! If you inspect the element, you'll see some classnames that give it away: http://www.bigfootjs.com

Re: Neither, and New: Lessons from Uber and Vision Fund

#27
post #9

He’s forgetting that Uber’s goal is to be a driverless platform in which case they’d capture significant portions of the drivers margin. Now a software company. On Vision Fund, he seems to think that there is only one viable VC model. I happen to disagree. Warren Buffet made a lot of money investing in boring companies, and now technology is spilling into ancient markets to transform them. Seems like those companies…

there's no particular reason to believe why Uber should 1. survive the years (more likely decades) until autonomous driving is actually ready and more importantly, why Uber would be in a great position to capitalise on this, given that they don't actually own any cars. Any large car manufacturer would be perfectly well positioned to partner up with an app startup to deliver autonomous sharing services themselves, giv…

I think the value of a brand is under-estimated by HN in general. Brands make people do irrational things and brands do form moats. So while the hardware might be owned by someone else, is it hard to imagine that Uber might be the first association that 1bn people make with "needing a ride"? My answer is no, it's not hard to get there given what I know.

No doubt that car manufacturers will partner with a non-Uber software company. And Uber will partner with someone for hardware. I feel like we could look at how industries consolidate and have an educated guess about how it will play out: some car manufacturers combine to gain more leverage, some create their own proprietary software, some try opening up their cars to multiple software options, one manufacturer exclusively partners with Uber, etc. Phones and computers come to mind as probably sharing _some_ parallels.

So I think the question in our simple discussion is whether the value of the brand and internal knowledge of the software side (data, et al) outweighs the value of having the hardware figured out. And maybe given that this is complicated, it's less about who is in a stronger position and more about who executes better while pursuing that strategy.

Re: Neither, and New: Lessons from Uber and Vision Fund

#28
post #11

He’s forgetting that Uber’s goal is to be a driverless platform in which case they’d capture significant portions of the drivers margin. Now a software company. On Vision Fund, he seems to think that there is only one viable VC model. I happen to disagree. Warren Buffet made a lot of money investing in boring companies, and now technology is spilling into ancient markets to transform them. Seems like those companies…

> Uber’s goal is to be a driverless platform Everyone keeps using this argument but I don't buy it. Uber itself hasn't once stated that this is their goal, not even to shareholders. When the company was founded in 2008 self driving cars weren't on anyone's radar. And it ignores the fact that if/when self driving cars become viable the entire "ridesharing" landscape will be instantly changed, and Uber will not have an…

> Uber itself hasn't once stated that this is their goal, not even to shareholders.

Uhhh what? This is patently false. So, like maybe, people think that this is Uber's strategy, because they literally dictated it was part of their strategy.

Autonomous vehicle is mentioned 103 times in their S-1. [0]

We also hope to add autonomous vehicles, delivery drones, and vertical takeoff and landing vehicles to our network, along with other future innovations.

Our Autonomous Driving Strategy

We are investing in technology to power the next generation of transportation. Our Advanced Technologies Group (“ATG”) focuses on developing autonomous vehicle technologies, which we believe have the long-term potential to provide safer and more efficient rides and deliveries to consumers, as well as lower prices. ATG was established in 2015 in Pittsburgh with 40 researchers from Carnegie Robotics and Carnegie Mellon University. ATG has primary engineering offices in Pittsburgh, San Francisco, and Toronto with over 1,000 employees. ATG has built over 250 self-driving vehicles, collected data from millions of autonomous vehicle testing miles, and completed tens of thousands of passenger trips. Along the way to a potential future autonomous vehicle world, we believe that there will be a long period of hybrid autonomy, in which autonomous vehicles will be deployed gradually against specific use cases while Drivers continue to serve most consumer demand. As we solve specific autonomous use cases, we will deploy autonomous vehicles against them. Such situations may include trips along a standard, well-mapped route in a predictable environment in good weather. In other situations, such as those that involve substantial traffic, complex routes, or unusual weather conditions, we will continue to rely on Drivers. Moreover, high-demand events, such as concerts or sporting events, will likely exceed the capacity of a highly utilized, fully autonomous vehicle fleet and require the dynamic addition of Drivers to the network in real time. Our regional on-the-ground operations teams will be critical to maintaining reliable supply for such high-demand events. Deciding which trip receives a vehicle driven by a Driver and which receives an autonomous vehicle, and deploying both in real time while maintaining liquidity in all situations, is a dynamic that we believe is imperative for the success of an autonomous vehicle future. Accordingly, we believe that we will be uniquely suited for this dynamic during the expected long hybrid period of co-existence of Drivers and autonomous vehicles. Drivers are therefore a critical and differentiating advantage for us and will continue to be our valued partners for the long-term. We will continue to partner with original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”) and other technology companies to determine how to most effectively leverage our network during the transition to autonomous vehicle technologies.

Our Growth Strategy - Investing in advanced technologies, including autonomous vehicle technologies.

[0] -https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1543151/000119312519...

Re: Neither, and New: Lessons from Uber and Vision Fund

#29
post #18

I think Uber missed the opportunity to be a more full fledged wallet (which is what Grab started a few years ago). They have a "cash" product now where you can load money, but it's too little too late IMO, and the incentive to load money vs use your cc is small (e.g. tiny discount). Starbucks is the obvious model here...IIRC they have one of the most success mobile payment apps in the country, even competing with App…

Don't wallet plays make more sense in places without strong CC usage already? Uber is strongest in developed countries, which have a strong CC culture already.

Re: Neither, and New: Lessons from Uber and Vision Fund

#30
post #29
post #18

I think Uber missed the opportunity to be a more full fledged wallet (which is what Grab started a few years ago). They have a "cash" product now where you can load money, but it's too little too late IMO, and the incentive to load money vs use your cc is small (e.g. tiny discount). Starbucks is the obvious model here...IIRC they have one of the most success mobile payment apps in the country, even competing with App…

Don't wallet plays make more sense in places without strong CC usage already? Uber is strongest in developed countries, which have a strong CC culture already.

How do you explain the popularity of the Starbucks mobile app? The fact that it rivals Apple Pay in usage is proof that the answer is no.
Post reply on HN