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

Uber, DoorDash and similar firms can’t defy the laws of capitalism after all

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 158 posts

Re: Uber, DoorDash and similar firms can’t defy the laws of capitalism after all

#81

Post by vkou »

agentdrtran wrote: post #80
Jasper_ wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They faked the bots. They require human physical presence, and a remote controller. > The Kiwibots do not figure out their own routes. Instead, people in Colombia, the home country of Chavez and his two co-founders, plot “waypoints” for the bots to follow, sending them instructions every five to 10 seconds on where to go. > On the ground in Berkeley, people also do a lot of robot support. Traveling at 1 to 1½ mph, th…

This seems comically complex and wasteful compared to the extremely old fashioned "restaurant hires person with a bike" solution.

It is, but you can't get VC funding to subsidize your restaurant's 'person with a bike' hire.

Capitalism does not optimize for sustainable global maxima, only local ones - and in this case, the incentives aligned for this to be a local maxima.

Re: Uber, DoorDash and similar firms can’t defy the laws of capitalism after all

#82

Post by Ekaros »

mmazing wrote: post #79
newfonewhodis wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are starting to get profitable I don't know what you are basing this on but it's definitely not based on data. $UBER EPS over the last few quarters: -1.28 0.61 -0.06 -0.54 -0.62 $DASH EPS -0.30 -0.34 -2.67 The only way they are getting profitable is on an "adjusted basis", in other words when they exclude most of their expenses. That's not a business, that's a game.

I still contend that many of these types of "startups" are merely elaborate ponzi schemes. Actually, I think a lot of businesses are just that.

They are not even ponzi schemes. They are blackholes, which if they are lucky are IPOed/sold to greater fools...

Re: Uber, DoorDash and similar firms can’t defy the laws of capitalism after all

#83

Post by titanomachy »

cryptoz wrote: post #68
roystonvassey wrote: post #38

If there was any time to be skeptical of Uber's longevity, it is now (at least for me). My experience is anecdotal but I visit my home country every year for a few months and I can clearly notice the declining quality of Uber's services: 1. Vehicles, on average, take at least 10-15 mins longer to get 2. Even if you find a vehicle, 60% of these rides are canceled (either by the driver because they call me and find out…

It's like this in Tacoma, WA right now. An Uber or Lyft may never arrive. 5-10 cancelled drivers before the car arrives is normal. A notice saying "No cars available" is shown 70-80% of the time for XL size cars. Often it takes 1h or so to get a ride. Sometimes it will come in 4 minutes, sometimes it will say 4 minutes but then 5+ drivers cancel and it takes an hour of real time, while the app just says 4 minutes. I…

> I don’t know how else to make it in this world

There are places in the world with substantially better transit than Tacoma. It’s always been a pretty difficult place to live without a car, except maybe for a brief period between 2013 and 2021 when Uber was heavily subsidized by VC.

Re: Uber, DoorDash and similar firms can’t defy the laws of capitalism after all

#84

Post by Zanfa »

lhorie wrote: post #61
bostonsre wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they still lose money on every ride they give? I've been skeptical for a while now, it's a ponzi scheme.

No, according to the latest report, rides have been profitable[0] (@ +544M in the last quarter). Deliveries are still in the red, but only barely (@ -12M, up from -183M from previous quarter). "Losses" largely come from G&A/R&D. [0] https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Screen-Sho...

That's just creative accounting. Uber actually incurred a $2B loss, but for some reason they insist on ignoring expenses when calculating their "profits".

Re: Uber, DoorDash and similar firms can’t defy the laws of capitalism after all

#86

Post by vkou »

carabiner wrote: post #40

I just know that when Uber was charging $60 for a ride to the airport (a couple years ago it was half that), my sister found a way to take transit for $3. This was in Seattle.

There are a number of disadvantages to getting to the airport by LINK, especially if you have heavy bags.

The more apt comparison is calling a cab to take you to the airport. I've never had to wait more than a few minutes at any hour of day or night, and the pricing is equivalent to Uber.

Re: Uber, DoorDash and similar firms can’t defy the laws of capitalism after all

#87

Post by [deleted] »

xoa wrote: post #19

A core aspect seems to come at the end as a tossed in aside but gets disappointingly little consideration: > Real business flywheels do exist. Software makers have managed to lock users in and thus generate gross margins typically above 70%. No, it's not just "lock in" it's the magic of minimal to zero marginal cost, near zero "stocking" cost, instantaneous reaction to demand, etc. Software and digital services firms…

[deleted]

Re: Uber, DoorDash and similar firms can’t defy the laws of capitalism after all

#88

Post by lostmsu »

titanomachy wrote: post #83
cryptoz wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's like this in Tacoma, WA right now. An Uber or Lyft may never arrive. 5-10 cancelled drivers before the car arrives is normal. A notice saying "No cars available" is shown 70-80% of the time for XL size cars. Often it takes 1h or so to get a ride. Sometimes it will come in 4 minutes, sometimes it will say 4 minutes but then 5+ drivers cancel and it takes an hour of real time, while the app just says 4 minutes. I…

> I don’t know how else to make it in this world There are places in the world with substantially better transit than Tacoma. It’s always been a pretty difficult place to live without a car, except maybe for a brief period between 2013 and 2021 when Uber was heavily subsidized by VC.

You are forgetting the epidemic is still here, peak deaths in WA was just 1 month ago.

Re: Uber, DoorDash and similar firms can’t defy the laws of capitalism after all

#89

Post by hervature »

dktoao wrote: post #74
bogota wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please explain what you think a ponzi scheme is. Because losing money on something isn’t close to the definition

I think they mean it is sort of a ponzi scheme for those invested. It requires more and more investor money to operate and will eventually collapse leaving the last round of investors holding the bag while those that got in early may get out fine. I think the ponzi scheme is more an apt metaphor than the actual structure of the company?

A Ponzi scheme requires an element of fraud. Very difficult to tell me that building a global fleet of ride hailing and being transparent with the financials is a Ponzi scheme. The outcome might be similar (later investors bearing most of the losses) but that's more of an investor problem and not fraud.

Re: Uber, DoorDash and similar firms can’t defy the laws of capitalism after all

#90

Post by quickthrowman »

Zanfa wrote: post #84
lhorie wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, according to the latest report, rides have been profitable[0] (@ +544M in the last quarter). Deliveries are still in the red, but only barely (@ -12M, up from -183M from previous quarter). "Losses" largely come from G&A/R&D. [0] https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Screen-Sho...

That's just creative accounting. Uber actually incurred a $2B loss, but for some reason they insist on ignoring expenses when calculating their "profits".

The loss last quarter was mostly ($2.5B) a mark-to-market write down of their stake in Didi, which they have not sold.
Post reply on HN