Live data from Hacker News

The Uber Bubble

braveneweurope.com

211–220 of 556 posts

Re: The Uber Bubble

#211

My key takeaways: 1. Uber is actually a higher cost/less efficient producer of urban car services than the taxi companies it has driven out of business 2. Individual Uber drivers with limited capital cannot acquire, finance, maintain and insure vehicles more economically than Yellow Cab 3. Expenses other than drivers, vehicles, and fuel account for 15 percent of traditional taxi costs but Uber charges drivers 25-30 p…

I don't disagree with your points but let me give you some counterpoints:

1. Taxi services are balkanized;

2. Many tax services don't allow you to order a taxi ahead of time. You have to flag one down (eg NYC). For ordering a car, you need to otherwise deal with an (expensive) car service;

3. Uber made the payment process seamless and I cannot overstate how important this is as a user. I hate dealing with NYC yellow cabs, card readers that don't work (or actually have skimmers) and a stupid touch screen where your minimum tip option is 20%, etc;

4. The ability to rate both drivers and passengers may have its issues but IME it tends to keep passengers on better behaviour and cars in better condition;

5. Taxis have weird edge cases. In NYC, for example, getting a cab at 3-4pm was nigh-on impossible because of the shift change. It also means that drivers near the end of their shift may not take you places too out of the way;

6. Whatever the costs of owning and maintaining a car are, the traditional taxi system has huge taxes in the form of medallion costs and quotas. These costs are directly passed on to consumers;

7. Uber may well have a lot of value in value-added services. They're trying this with Uber Eats, for example. I can't say if these will be successful or not. I've certainly seen cities where I've tried to use Uber Eats only to be told "There are no drivers available". Obviously the drivers haven't signed up because there are plenty on Doordash and Seamless/Grubhub.

8. I see the flexibility for drivers as a huge plus rather than the rigid shift system of being a taxi driver.

9. The barrier to entry as a driver tends to be low because for many people they have a car anyway.

Taxis died because it's a horrible user experience that was propped up by a government-enforced monopoly. Good riddance. I mean I feel bad for NYC taxi drivers who were lured into paying a fortune to buy a medallion before the market crashed, many of whom had limitd English proficiency and were the victims of predatory practices that should be illegal.

Re: The Uber Bubble

#212
post #176

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 "W…

>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. What makes you think that shareholders in Twitter or Uber don't care that they'll never make a penny? They're not turning a profit now, but it seems at least somewhat plausible that they'll make money in the fut…

> Congratulations. You just discovered "the price of something is what someone is willing to pay for it", not its actual utility.

There's a some truth to this comment, but only some. Your comment also accurately describes a ponzi scheme.

Re: The Uber Bubble

#213

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.

I have to tell the taxi driver to turn the damn meter on every time without fail. It's ridiculous. I don't know how someone more vulnerable could possibly use taxis since it's basically attempted robbery every time you enter one. Hopefully Uber/Lift win and Taxis die. For the sake of the disabled, women and children at least. I wouldn't even mind if Uber cost more.

Re: The Uber Bubble

#214
Feels to me like there's some pretty big leaps being made in the assertions. Just one example:

>Taxi demand is sociologically bipolar; 35 percent of users have incomes over $100,000 and 55 percent have incomes under $40,000. Thus, on Saturday night wealthier people out for a night on the town compete for service with night shift workers who do not have transit options.

Huge non-sequitur. It seems to be a reasonable assumption that high-income people will use rideshare for nights out, but how do we know night shift workers do not have other transit options? Or that night shift workers use rideshare/taxis at all? I think even for wealthy people it would be pretty crazy to rely on a taxi as their default commute option on a consistent basis, it is just way too expensive.

Re: The Uber Bubble

#215
post #24

They also expatriate profits from economies, and are probably using international tax minimisation methods.

> They also expatriate profits from economies All non-local trade does this. > probably using international tax minimisation methods. All companies and individuals make some effort to minimize their tax liabilities.

Most non local trade which expropriates profits is exchanging goods or fintech. Uber is providing a service which almost exclusively before this was a semi or wholly regulated utility function, largely operated by onshore companies and often driver collectives.

Philosophically I suspect we don't agree about tax, or utility functions or Uber. If you think it's a normal company I don't think you read the article. It's not.

Re: The Uber Bubble

#216
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. What makes you think that shareholders in Twitter or Uber don't care that they'll never make a penny? They're not turning a profit now, but it seems at least somewhat plausible that they'll make money in the fut…

I think stakeholders , not shareholders, was intentional. Stakeholders (users, advertisers, whatever) might not be well served by a lack of edit button or whatever, but that’s only very tenuously connected to company value. Shareholders care that they make their pennies of course. That seems to be (part of) the observation. (Which as you say isn’t earth shattering but still worth remembering when you start wondering…

>Shareholders care that they make their pennies of course. That seems to be (part of) the observation.

I don't get it. The point of a company is to make money for its shareholders. This has been the case forever now, and certainly isn't caused by "financialised logic". I'd be interested to hear what the "rules of traditional business" (which presumably says that the point of a company isn't to make money for its shareholders?) that OP talked about is.

Re: The Uber Bubble

#217
I can't disagree with most of that, but honestly in non-major cities the experience of getting an Uber is just like 10x nicer than the experience of getting a cab. If nothing else they made things way more convenient.

Re: The Uber Bubble

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because depreciation is a paper loss. If you're an average person you're not selling your car for a new one for at least 7-8 years after you buy it. By that time it's worth very little of its original cost anyways. The only actual cost incurred by the driver is repairs and maintenance, which is nowhere near the cost of depreciation on the car. In effect, the depreciation schedule changes, but on the time scale…

Except for having to change tires, oil and brake pads earlier, and also having to deal with more mechanical issues due to sheer mileage.

Those are all maintenance and repair expenses, which GP mentioned.

Re: The Uber Bubble

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, you know, as a gig or piece worker, you can choose to do something else , which as it turns out is not a choice a slave enjoys. Do you feel kind of dirty suggesting that a slave can just choose to kill himself and comparing that to Barcelona cab drivers? If you don't, why not?

> as a gig or piece worker, you can choose to do something else Not if every other job is gig and piecework. > Do you feel kind of dirty suggesting that a slave can just choose to kill himself and comparing that to Barcelona cab drivers? If you don't, why not? No, because choice is a word that means something. You're doing the common rationalization that there are always choices in employment, so while any particular…

I mean, among other things, Spain has a social safety net for people who don't work at all.

There are obviously shitty jobs in the world. There are obviously people whose choices do not include, you know, the ideal of material well-being plus fulfilling days. It is certainly a defensible position that the world owes it to people in that position to try to make their choices better.

Conflating those things to slavery makes you fundamentally an unserious person.

Re: The Uber Bubble

#220
post #176

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 "W…

>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. What makes you think that shareholders in Twitter or Uber don't care that they'll never make a penny? They're not turning a profit now, but it seems at least somewhat plausible that they'll make money in the fut…

> They're not turning a profit now

Uber turned a profit in 2021Q2. [0] Twitter now has had many profitable quarters. [1] Of course, cumulatively, they are both money-losing, but I think the perception of these businesses as only having a 'plausibility' of making money is perhaps dated.

[0] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/UBER/uber-technolo...

[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TWTR/twitter/net-i...

Post reply on HN