Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Neither, and New: Lessons from Uber and Vision Fund

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 64 posts

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

#51

Post by tempsy »

harryh wrote: post #48
tempsy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh why would you consider it revenue? It’s more like risk free profit. Meaning they keep some tiny amount of every cup of coffee sold, but 100% of interest earned. And it’s important enough that they call it out in their earnings report. And the more interesting use case is that it’s a billion dollar 0% loan, not necessarily that they make interest off it sitting in a bank.

And the more interesting use case is that it’s a billion dollar 0% loan Maybe this would have been exciting a decade or two ago before interest rates dropped so far. Now Startbucks can issue all the debt it wants for...checks notes...about 2.3%.

Ok. That is still more than 0. And it will continue to be 0 whether interest rates rise or fall in the future. And you missed the other point about how they actually move gift card liabilities to assets after a certain about of time because people forget about balances, so it’s actually negative.

I think it’s a bit naive to think that holding $1.6b in balances is not useful or meaningful to Starbucks or a company hoping to emulate their mobile wallet success.

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

#52

Post by etaioinshrdlu »

dragonwriter wrote: post #50
etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That actually happened. I booked Ubers and lyft from inside Maps a couple years ago. Seems like that feature is just gone now...

If you search for directions, and select the mode of transport icon that looks like someone hailing a taxi, Uber and Lyft options are still displayed; the option hasn't been removed.

But now that just opens the Uber app. It used to book it entirely within maps.

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

#53

Post by sp332 »

jccooper wrote: post #44
sp332 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some cities are better at this. https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/bacp/supp_info/2012_pa...

That's a pretty standard taxi price structure. Open, but not clear. I have no idea based on that how much a trip will cost, even if somehow I managed to keep that whole table memorized.

It seems like it could easily be combined with or even integrated into a maps API like Google Maps. Plot the route and plug the length into the formula. I guarantee it's simpler than Uber's formula.

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

#54

Post by intev »

JetSpiegel wrote: post #46
zwieback wrote: post #15

When I was in Singapore I used the "grab" app, which is super popular and has both regular taxis and uber-like drivers (and food and other stuff). What's different about Singapore and grab? Seems like a good model to me but it must involve heavy regulation to work.

Isn't Grab government-owned?

No it isnt: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/grabtaxi#section-inv...

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

#55

Post by cloud226 »

amelius wrote: 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.

What happened if another search engine comes out, what happened another online shop opens, would Google and Amazon face extinction?

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

#56

Post by mandelbrotwurst »

tempsy wrote: post #47
harryh wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starbucks' annual revenue is about 25 billion. Let's say they are making a (very generous!) 5% on that balance. That's 80 million dollars or about 0.3% of their annual revenue. Starbucks doesn't run its payment app so they can make money on the float.

Uh why would you consider it revenue? It’s more like risk free profit. Meaning they keep some tiny amount of every cup of coffee sold, but 100% of interest earned. And it’s important enough that they call it out in their earnings report. And the more interesting use case is that it’s a billion dollar 0% loan, not necessarily that they make interest off it sitting in a bank.

This feels pedantic, but to answer your question: because it is revenue and calling it profit is incorrect.

It may be a very good revenue source which a high margin and very low expenses associated with it resulting in a large profit, but money in is revenue and money in net of expenses is profit. Parent was discussing the former.

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

#57

Post by zby »

davidivadavid wrote: post #33
zby wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://stratechery.com/2019/what-is-a-tech-company/ - should really be read first

I read that article when it came out, and I still don't really understand the obsession with putting a "tech" or "non-tech" label on companies. Besides that, there are companies that do not satisfy the author's definition that are pretty clear "technology" companies (e.g. Intel). What explanatory power does the label have?

It means different business strategy. Tech companies can have massive revenues without having many employees. They write software, this is the initial big fixed cost, then making a copy of the software or servicing another customer in a SaaS is extremely cheap. This has not started with software - a factory has the same characteristics in comparison with manufacture: https://medium.com/hackernoon/aggregators-bffd36063a72 - but with sofware it goes on another level. The Stratchery article is great in analysing all the angles of this.

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

#58

Post by amelius »

cloud226 wrote: post #55
amelius wrote: 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.

What happened if another search engine comes out, what happened another online shop opens, would Google and Amazon face extinction?

That other search engine/shop has no eyeballs aimed at them yet, so is no threat.

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

#59

Post by twic »

perseusprime11 wrote: post #12

Uber is a taxi company until it can show meaningful revenue from other business models on its platform.

Addison Lee is a taxi company. They operate in London and some other UK cities. They have a website and an app where you can book taxis:

https://www.addisonlee.com/apps/

Having booked, a taxi comes and takes you somewhere, then your card gets charged.

The service is substantially identical to Uber's. If Addison Lee is a taxi company, Uber is a taxi company.

For extra resemblance, Addison Lee's drivers are notionally self-employed, but they've recently been put through the same "actually they're employees" wringer as Uber:

https://www.crosslandsolicitors.com/site/cases/Addison-Lee-v...

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

#60

Post by cloud226 »

amelius wrote: post #58
cloud226 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happened if another search engine comes out, what happened another online shop opens, would Google and Amazon face extinction?

That other search engine/shop has no eyeballs aimed at them yet, so is no threat.

So you essentially saying Google can do anything successfully since they already attract lots of traffic
Post reply on HN