I'd love to hear some smart people opinions on this idea:
"Uber doesn't need to be profitable, they just need to survive until their autonomous cars are deployed"
Uber Q3 Results
11–20 of 172 posts
Re: Uber Q3 Results
#12I'd love to hear some smart people opinions on this idea: "Uber doesn't need to be profitable, they just need to survive until their autonomous cars are deployed"
IMHO, autonomous cars actually breaks Uber's model. It changes it from taking a % off the top of a market to a capital and maintenance intensive business. Only seems to work if they end up with some sort of franchise model. Sort of like how Coke has a bunch of distributors.
Re: Uber Q3 Results
#13I'd love to hear some smart people opinions on this idea: "Uber doesn't need to be profitable, they just need to survive until their autonomous cars are deployed"
I am not smart , but before the phoenix accident that statement may have some basis but after that the uber autonomous car is tainted to an extent couple that with theft of intellectual property from Alphabet autonomous trucking and the subsequent deal made, it is hard to argue Uber is going to lead the autonomous revolution when it happens. Their current moat is their driver network (one of the moats), once that is gone Waymo and Tesla can pretty much pull what Uber does.
Re: Uber Q3 Results
#14You have to go past a lot of non-GAAP accounting to see that they actually lost $1.1B last quarter, almost all from operations. There is a nice chart showing all the things they are taking out to get their adjusted EBITDA of -0.5B. It seems like they are always taking out a bunch of one time charges to claim that there core business would be profitable. But every quarter they have those charges. I don't understand ho…
Someday, I want to see a financial statement where the non-GAAP accounting makes the company look worse than GAAP accounting. Statistically, that should happen half the time. It doesn't.
Re: Uber Q3 Results
#15I'd love to hear some smart people opinions on this idea: "Uber doesn't need to be profitable, they just need to survive until their autonomous cars are deployed"
IMHO, autonomous cars actually breaks Uber's model. It changes it from taking a % off the top of a market to a capital and maintenance intensive business. Only seems to work if they end up with some sort of franchise model. Sort of like how Coke has a bunch of distributors.
That's about right. Running a fleet of autonomous vehicles is an expensive proposition, and probably will be for years after they start working. Waymo outsources some of that to Avis Rent-A-Car, which already has garages, maintenance facilities, parking lots, car washes, etc.
It's quite possible that when automomous vehicle operations start working, the big players will be car rental companies. It's a natural extension to their business.
Re: Uber Q3 Results
#16I'd love to hear some smart people opinions on this idea: "Uber doesn't need to be profitable, they just need to survive until their autonomous cars are deployed"
I am not smart , but before the phoenix accident that statement may have some basis but after that the uber autonomous car is tainted to an extent couple that with theft of intellectual property from Alphabet autonomous trucking and the subsequent deal made, it is hard to argue Uber is going to lead the autonomous revolution when it happens. Their current moat is their driver network (one of the moats), once that is…
Waymo/Alphabet/Tesla are one push notification to their apps away from building a driver network.
Re: Uber Q3 Results
#17Having new “one-time” charges every quarter means those are not one-time charges. They’re part of the business, which means the business doesn’t work.
One of Ubers biggest problems is that they have zero brand loyalty. For a company that sells a utility (get me, or my food, from A to B) rather than an experience (like a cool vacation in a unique mansion), I will always pick the cheapest option. Whether that’s Uber or Bobs Taxis it doesn’t matter. That means this whole business is a race to the bottom. Profits will stabilize at approximately zero for everyone in that business. The second huge problem is that nothing about providing this utility (neither the driving itself, nor the human labor required of the driver) has decreased since Uber came into existence. Driving a car from A to B still costs the same per mile (gas or electricity and wear and tear), and the driver still costs the same per hour (at least minimum wage). Uber has only made finding the ride more efficient but it has not made the actual ride itself more efficient. So in the best case, Uber can be as profitable as a taxi company. But ONLY if it raises its prices to taxi company levels. And then it’s a taxi company. Taxis are expensive for a reason, because without a VC subsidy they have to be profitable to exist. And what if there are robot drivers? Wouldn’t that eliminate at least the human cost? It would. But it would do so for every other transport company as well, and by the same amount. Since there is no customer loyalty for a transport like this, Uber would still be fighting the same competitors in a similar race to the bottom. In summary, nothing can save Uber.
Re: Uber Q3 Results
#18I'd love to hear some smart people opinions on this idea: "Uber doesn't need to be profitable, they just need to survive until their autonomous cars are deployed"
Uber doesn't need to be profitable, they just need to survive until their investors can cash out
Re: Uber Q3 Results
#19I'd love to hear some smart people opinions on this idea: "Uber doesn't need to be profitable, they just need to survive until their autonomous cars are deployed"
[deleted]
Re: Uber Q3 Results
#20You have to go past a lot of non-GAAP accounting to see that they actually lost $1.1B last quarter, almost all from operations. There is a nice chart showing all the things they are taking out to get their adjusted EBITDA of -0.5B. It seems like they are always taking out a bunch of one time charges to claim that there core business would be profitable. But every quarter they have those charges. I don't understand ho…
Someday, I want to see a financial statement where the non-GAAP accounting makes the company look worse than GAAP accounting. Statistically, that should happen half the time. It doesn't.
Non-GAAP accounting shown to the general public/investors is marketing material. Of course it's going to make them look good. That doesn't mean it's the only non-GAAP accounting being done. They're just using the useful stuff internally.
The criteria for figures you use is audience dependent. Report creation 101. Decision makers, regulators, investors are all different audiences.