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

441–450 of 556 posts

Re: The Uber Bubble

#441

Post by tgv »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #369
nonrandomstring wrote: post #169

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…

That’s called speculation.

It’s more like a pyramid scheme: investors require more investors to get a good ROI when profit is irrelevant.

Edit: not=>more

Re: The Uber Bubble

#442

Post by FabHK »

acchow wrote: post #48
thematrixturtle wrote: post #9

The real magic of Uber is that it allows drivers to convert the depreciation of their car into cash at a time and schedule of their own choosing. For the reasons discussed in the story, this may still technically be a net negative in the long term compared to driving a regular cab fulltime, but a) drivers find it far preferable to/cheaper than alternatives like payday loans, and b) many Uber drivers have multiple job…

You are 100% correct. This is the magic There are people who want to make a positive return on their time + vehicle depreciation. But they are on the open market competing against people who are in a cash crunch and happy to have a net negative return on the same, as long as it temporarily allows them to convert depreciation into cash. This is why drivers will always lose in the long term. They are racing against eac…

Maybe Uber could be forced to display Total Cost of Ownership numbers for the car (per mile driven), and contrast with the revenue the drivers obtain. Make it fancy and throw in average and marginal cost. The data should be readily available for most cars, from sites such as Edmunds etc.

Re: The Uber Bubble

#443

Post by appleflaxen »

mikeryan wrote: post #270
jmharvey wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First this is just inherently wrong. You’ve been able to call and schedule a cab, even in the burbs, since before the internet was a thing. And maybe the driver would show up on time, or maybe they'd see a street hail en route to picking you up and decide to make you wait an extra 40 minutes. Uber drivers cancel, too, of course, but "automatically fall back to a different driver after a cancellation" is a meaningfu…

And maybe the driver would show up on time, or maybe they'd see a street hail en route to picking you up and decide to make you wait an extra 40 minutes. That’s not how it worked, or works (see Curb). You didn’t schedule a particular cab you call the cab service and the dispatcher sends a cab to you and makes sure they got there. If they didn’t show up you call dispatch back and they call the guy and find out what th…

> That’s not how it worked...

In my experience that's exactly how it worked.

Re: The Uber Bubble

#444

Post by FabHK »

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.

This software aspect is entirely orthogonal to the "drivers use their own car" aspect. In other countries, you have good old taxi companies providing the experience you describe.

Re: The Uber Bubble

#445

Post by tyingq »

rsanek wrote: post #220
gruez wrote: 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…

> 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.…

>Uber turned a profit in 2021Q2

Yes, though read this, then do the math.

"Net income attributable to Uber Technologies, Inc. was $1.1 billion, including $272 million in stock-based compensation expense. Net income benefited from unrealized gains of $1.4 billion and $471 million due to the revaluation of Uber’s equity investments in Didi and Aurora, respectively." (Uber 2021Q2)

Re: The Uber Bubble

#446

Post by mjburgess »

nicbou wrote: post #432
mjburgess wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont think refusing to hire chimney sweep children had anything at all to do with the end of child labour. I can't even really comprehend this world view very well, though it is common. Child labour ended around the time it wasnt needed, as did all phases of economic labour division (slavery, child labour, gendered labour, etc.). In economic conditions which require poor quality labour, all you can do is decide whe…

> Child labour ended around the time it wasnt needed It ended in England in part because of social pressure and subsequent Parliamentary inquiries [0] > as did all phases of economic labour division (slavery, ...) If it ended when it was no longer needed, what do you suppose the second bloodiest war in US history [1] was about? > A very bizarre thought, which I can only imagine stems from some misperceived impression…

So, slavery has existed for almost all of human history, and ended (yes, with a catalyst) during the height of the industrial revolution (when automation replaced the need for slave labour).

The american civil war wasnt the end of slavery, Britain ended slavery when as the controlling empire of the world, it made it illegal. It did so, in part, because it couldn't compete with slave-states on their export costs, had no significant dependence on slave labour, and was the heart of the new industrialisation which largely obsoleted it anyway.

France, which owned Haiti, did depend on slave labour -- and despite the French revolution which basically said all the "nice political stuff" --- they still couldn't end slavery. Initially they tried, but as soon as they realised Haiti was a cash cow, suddenly freedom became a French idea.

The US civil war was the american manifestation of those new economic conditions.

All of these systems: slavery, child labour, gendered division of labour -- etc. existed for basically all of human history; and still exist for large numbers of people today.

There were political events at the time of their obsolescence which were costly, sure -- as there will inevitably be when economic systems are obsoleted. The US south wasn't going to be able to compete on impoverished slave labour for very long.

I'm not exactly sure how you think history or economics works, but it has nothing to do with some self-righteous middle class people turning their noses up at chimney sweeps.

Re: The Uber Bubble

#447

Post by oneoff786 »

nerdponx wrote: post #181
westcort wrote: post #35

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…

With this many billion dollars on the line, one can never be too cynical. One has to wonder if this has been the endgame all along: driving taxi services out of business, replacing them with a monopoly where consumers pay the same price (or higher) and where drivers are paid less. I will say that services like Uber have been very beneficial for areas that were previously underserved by traditional taxi companies. But…

No you should always be cynical and assume the simplest dumbest reason. They didn’t think it through this far. They thought driverless would work. They just did what they thought was best along the way.

(Not to suggest that thinking things through this far out from the beginning is a feasible task)

Re: The Uber Bubble

#448

Post by bee_rider »

maybelsyrup wrote: post #331
kanbara wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in europe there are many taxi companies that have started to do uber app features and prepayment and all the jazz that make uber so great. the main issues i have with uber are that it's now almost more expensive than taxis, there's almost no regulation, the drivers are taken advantage of / not making profit and also not getting proper benefits. just because taxis suck doesn't mean uber should replace them. government…

> in europe there are many taxi companies that have started to do uber app features and prepayment and all the jazz that make uber so great For me this is the real evolution, and what was needed all along. I've used the apps you're talking about in Europe and Asia, and they're great. > just because taxis suck doesn't mean uber should replace them. Hear, hear. I don't miss the old taxi model, and Uber/Lyft came in wit…

I actually don't get what the differentiating factor is for Lyft, but based on the ads they ran on a podcast I was listening to, it seems to be "Uber, but at least somewhat trying to be socially responsible." If that's a viable niche, tells you something about Uber I guess.

Re: The Uber Bubble

#449

Post by gwbas1c »

gruez wrote: post #176
nonrandomstring wrote: post #169

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…

> What makes you think that shareholders in Twitter or Uber don't care that they'll never make a penny?

Well, do they believe they'll be able to sell their stock for more than they paid it?

Were they caught up in the excitement and bought the stock against better judgement?

Re: The Uber Bubble

#450

Post by Elyra »

omegalulw wrote: post #240
jmyeet wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Taxis died because it's a horrible user experience that was propped up by a government-enforced monopoly. This cannot be understated. Also, as an introvert, negotiating with drivers, especially those that don't drive by the meter was always stressful, I mostly ended up overpaying.

Or when they "accidentally" make a wrong turn, or purposefully take a "shortcut" just to take you a longer/slower route to drive up the meter, almost making you late.
Post reply on HN