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

The Uber Bubble

braveneweurope.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 556 posts

Re: The Uber Bubble

#161

Post by cameronh90 »

axg11 wrote: post #140
cameronh90 wrote: post #118

Do people actually claim Uber is a successful business? In the UK, none of the original companies that built the railroads still exist. Many of the railway companies were never particularly profitable and the railway boom was a stock market bubble. Lots of them were fraudulent or poorly run. Eventually they all either went out of business, or amalgamated and ultimately got nationalised. Nevertheless, they proved the…

An interesting perspective, but I think the key difference is that Uber has built no lasting infrastructure. I do agree that Uber has improved the taxi/private vehicle transport industry in essentially every market it entered. In London (UK) for example, taxis were previously mainly used by tourists, the rich, or the very drunk. Uber changed this completely, making it accessible for many more people. If Uber disappea…

I suppose it's hard to see what the future will hold, but at least in London there's Gett and Freenow, and a lot of the traditional players like Addy Lee now have apps of varying quality. As you point out, stuff like Deliveroo might not have existed without Uber.

Not quite the same as metal rails running up the country I agree, but I think in hindsight Uber will be remembered as a significant innovation. Think Napster.

Re: The Uber Bubble

#162

Post by scarface74 »

skippyboxedhero wrote: post #136
scarface74 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of all five of the largest tech companies - Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Google. Only Amazon ran at a loss for any significant amount of time before IPOing.

It was very obvious that Amazon wasn't unprofitable in any real sense. They only raised $100m, and they kept growing. The difference with Amazon is that they have a very capital-intensive business, and when these grow very quickly then the accounting is basically useless (you see this with some ecomm companies, in some countries the market literally does not understand operating leverage in these businesses...so the…

I can’t find it now. But I can swear I read that Amazon was lucky enough to get a line of credit right before the dot com bust.

But Amazon wasn’t profitable. It used cash flow from the time it received money from customers and paid suppliers to grow.

Re: The Uber Bubble

#163

Post by germinalphrase »

thematrixturtle wrote: post #16
avs733 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be curious to see independent citations of these claims.

This is hardly an original insight: https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-uber-makes-its-drivers-pay-... And WSJ's survey (above) indicates that many Uber drivers are not actually aware that this is where the money is effectively coming from.

“ And WSJ's survey (above) indicates that many Uber drivers are not actually aware that this is where the money is effectively coming from”

Which is another way of saying that they don’t understand the economics enough to know they’re accepting a bad deal?

Re: The Uber Bubble

#164

Post by chadcmulligan »

lhorie wrote: post #93
MBCook wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they have a clear path to profitability What is it? The problem I see is that there’s zero switching cost. It’s like buying salt at the supermarket. It’s all the same. They have nothing to differentiate them except their brand. Sure they can charge a little more because of that. National brands charge a bit more than generic. But you can’t raise prices 50+% and hope people will just stick with you so that you aren’…

> It’s like buying salt at the supermarket. It’s all the same You can say the same about Coca-cola or McDonalds though. They have a ton of competition and are most certainly not dead. I don't really buy the argument that competition is all that problematic for Uber. Worst comes to worst, taxis made money, so IMHO there's no reason to believe Uber couldn't settle at doing what taxis did in terms of profitability, at a…

thats not true, Coke and McDonalds have barriers to entry - supply chains, buildings etc. Even if you're saying the taste of the food is not unique. Uber has no products/supply chains except for their app, its just randos signing up on the internet and driving with their own car. There are three local apps competing with Uber, and fairly successfully.

Re: The Uber Bubble

#165

Post by lhorie »

amelius wrote: post #133
lhorie wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's not like people are necessarily worse off by choosing to drive for Uber. The thing is that for a lot of drivers, Uber is complementary income on top of a primary, inflexible income source. AFAIK, there's nothing else other than gig economy that lets someone supplement income piecemeal. If you think in terms of socio-economic mobility, isn't the ability to squeeze extra earning opportunities in between other…

> Last year, a lot of drivers were taking home 6 digit gross income due to driver shortages. That's pretty significant for what is effectively a unskilled job. Source needed. Might just as well be a publicity stunt by Uber.

One source is just an acquaintance of mine. A couple of others are people on youtube. Mind you, the caveat is these people worked 50+ hours per week. If you want something that looks less anecdotal, google "uber salary". Glassdoor lists a range from 18k-93k/yr.

Re: The Uber Bubble

#166

Post by willio58 »

amelius wrote: post #144

Why isn't it illegal to disrupt a market by undercutting the competition in a long-term structural way? What makes it worse is that money is pumped into it like a ponzi scheme (first investors cash, last investors are left with the bubble), which should be illegal in itself.

How would you go about enforcing the alternative? Force companies to charge the same as the their competitors? And how would you evaluate if the undercut is sustainable or not?

Re: The Uber Bubble

#167

Post by jlund-molfese »

inamberclad wrote: post #67

Uber as a business is a massive loss, but consumers still _chose_ Uber over taxis because the process of getting and riding in a car is a million times more transparent than a taxi ever was. You can see what car and what driver are picking you up, what route they're going to take, and how much it will cost. Taxis failed because they failed to modernize.

One of the nice things about ridesharing is that, at least in some cities, taxis have started modernizing. I've been using Curb in Philadelphia, and it's significantly cheaper when Uber/Lyft have surge pricing. Otherwise, it's usually a little more expensive, but the drivers are more reliable so it's sometimes worth paying a few extra bucks.

I've had Uber drivers accept my ride, then drive away from me, refuse calls, and not cancel the ride (expecting me to do it, so they avoid getting dinged, I guess) on multiple occasions. One time I ended up walking to my destination and saw the driver cancelled it after 2 hours. Uber, of course, doesn't have a way to report this behavior.

The UI still isn't as perfect as Uber's, but it's good enough for me. Pretty similar to Uber without any bells or whistles. It wouldn't be convenient for me to hail taxis without an app.

Re: The Uber Bubble

#168

Post by KptMarchewa »

mupuff1234 wrote: post #23

Why are there so many competitors in the delivery/taxi type services, but in the short term rental industry Airbnb seems to be mostly unchallenged? I would've expected to see a lot of VC money being thrown there as well, but I'm only seeing Airbnb raising their fees and actually making a profit.

I very rarely see Airbnb that's any better than what I can find on booking and it's more expensive. Not a huge sample size, but that was true in London, Paris, Berlin and few Polish cities.

Re: The Uber Bubble

#169

Post by nonrandomstring »

I feel this entire thread has quite missed the point of the question the way a neutrino passes through a solid object and interacts with nothing but empty space.

People have talked about microeconomics, gig economies, labour shifting, bad old days, safety, subsidies, licenses.... but we've gotten no closer to understanding;

"Why Is a Company That Lost Billions Claimed to Be Successful?"

To answer this one must ask "What is financialisation?" The short answer is; a system in which the success or failure of a company is of no relevance to its "value". Under financialised logic it is absolutely immaterial whether Twitter, Uber or whatever make a penny. Ever. Or whether any of the stakeholders are served. The rules of traditional business go out the window. All that matters is the stock price of a tradable financial entity (a company) based on brand confidence/perception.

Under that system, Uber is successful so long as the financial market says it is. When it decides it's not successful, it's not. One has to realise that a total detachment of political economics and power has taken place.

Re: The Uber Bubble

#170

Post by pessimizer »

maxerickson wrote: post #154
inamberclad wrote: post #67

Uber as a business is a massive loss, but consumers still _chose_ Uber over taxis because the process of getting and riding in a car is a million times more transparent than a taxi ever was. You can see what car and what driver are picking you up, what route they're going to take, and how much it will cost. Taxis failed because they failed to modernize.

Uber losing money on a ride should be expected to make it a more attractive option than close equivalents that do not lose money.

Exactly. If they were opaque, uncomfortable, and free, they would still "win" (by losing.)
Post reply on HN