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

Uber's Still Not Profitable

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 105 posts

Re: Uber's Still Not Profitable

#21

Post by mudrockbestgirl »

sneak wrote: post #17
rciorba wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And even before apps became common-place, in Europe it was common to call a dispatch and ask for a cab at an address.

Uber was founded because the same was true in SF; however then oftentimes the cab only arrived after an hour, if at all.

It's a fair value prop in SF, where you have to scream like a cave-person while wading through poop-filled streets with gun-wielding semi-homeless trying to mug you at each corner. Unfortunately for Uber the rest of the world doesn't look quite like that and normal taxis work just fine...

Re: Uber's Still Not Profitable

#22

Post by Eji1700 »

shreyshnaccount wrote: post #20

I don't get the endgame here. Uber provides super cheap cab rides by going into a loss so competitors don't spring up. then eventually when they've dominated the market they do what? increase prices? so competitors spring up again? makes no sense

Regulatory capture most likely.

As shitty as cabs were, they also had regulations to follow (in theory). Sooo they'll do something similar. Lock up the market, do all the suuuper unethical political junk they're known form, and make it impossible for anyone to compete with them.

THEN they'll jack up the prices.

Re: Uber's Still Not Profitable

#23

Post by thematrixturtle »

I think this article conflates two different things: the concept of app-based ride-hail services like Uber, for which there is clearly a huge amount of demand even without VCs juicing it; and the actual implementation of it by Uber, which is a hugely bloated and unsustainable company that's proven primarily to be an unparalleled bonfire of VC money.

> That is, rather than having to wait longer because drivers tapped "accept," realized they'd lose money on your business, and tapped "cancel," you would now wait longer because drivers just didn't accept your run.

The blog is implying this is a bad thing, but this seems preferable both from the driver and rider's POV?

> Today, Uber offers the same poor service as traditional taxis, but must charge enormously higher fares because of its much higher cost structure.

No, Uber's model of being able to order a car from anywhere to anywhere with transparent location tracking, routing and pricing (as in, you know what you'll pay) has always been and remains superior to "traditional" taxis. In some markets taxi companies have finally followed suit, down to fares fixed in advance, but by doing so they've also shown the superiority of the Uber model.

Re: Uber's Still Not Profitable

#24

Post by virgildotcodes »

sneak wrote: post #17
rciorba wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And even before apps became common-place, in Europe it was common to call a dispatch and ask for a cab at an address.

Uber was founded because the same was true in SF; however then oftentimes the cab only arrived after an hour, if at all.

Yeah, and god help you if you were somewhere other than a major city.

I remember calling cabs multiple times in Southern California suburbs and waiting for hours only for them never to show up.

Taxis essentially didn’t exist outside of downtown/airports. Ridesharing apps were a revolution, not that I’m defending their practices here.

Re: Uber's Still Not Profitable

#25

Post by smcl »

nowherebeen wrote: post #8
smcl wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if Elon Musk's nonsense was involved - they had their own autonomous driving project in-house didn't they?

Have you forgetton the whole Google lawsuit against Uber? Anthony Levandowski. Uber’s self driving project is still no where near production ready.

I think you mis-read - I'm saying they did have a self-driving car project, not that they didn't. And yeah nobody has production ready self-driving tech, it wouldn't surprise me if they had canned it.

Re: Uber's Still Not Profitable

#26

Post by ReadTheLicense »

bschne wrote: post #14
alkonaut wrote: post #12

Predatory pricing should be made more illegal than it is. No one wins when a company operates at a loss to kill incumbents in a market. At least for markets where the incumbents have no other protections (unregulated taxi markets). This is very few of Uber’s markets and probably not those where they do best, but the principle of not being allowed to operate at a loss with investor money year after year feels sound.

This only occurred to me now in reference to Uber and other serial offenders, and I don't know what the situation in other countries is, but... In Switzerland there's actually a law against unfair competitive practices, and it has a clause prohibiting you from constantly or repeatedly (i.e. not as a one-off clearance sale or whatever) offering goods or services below cost! Wonder how it would go if you were to sue on…

Uber operates in "strict" (as in 'technically correct') adherence to local policy. That means, in places where the policy is strict, like for example Italy (Milan), they have only licensed taxi drivers with licensed taxi cars. And where law allows (even with a loophole) they have less.

Uber is structured so that each country has one business entity, thus it's very easy for them to say "our Swiss entity does not do any such thing in Switzerland". Many EU countries have similar laws too, btw - and they have a very clear separation of base price and promo price here, and the base price is regulated.

Re: Uber's Still Not Profitable

#27

Post by incrudible »

shreyshnaccount wrote: post #20

I don't get the endgame here. Uber provides super cheap cab rides by going into a loss so competitors don't spring up. then eventually when they've dominated the market they do what? increase prices? so competitors spring up again? makes no sense

The idea is that Uber will develop a self-driving car that will ultimately offset its loss leader, much like Amazon and AWS.

Re: Uber's Still Not Profitable

#28

Post by AndyMcConachie »

thematrixturtle wrote: post #23

I think this article conflates two different things: the concept of app-based ride-hail services like Uber, for which there is clearly a huge amount of demand even without VCs juicing it; and the actual implementation of it by Uber, which is a hugely bloated and unsustainable company that's proven primarily to be an unparalleled bonfire of VC money. > That is, rather than having to wait longer because drivers tapped…

Where I live, Rotterdam NL, traditional taxis work pretty well. Not everywhere is as fucked up as America.

Re: Uber's Still Not Profitable

#30

Post by ghoomketu »

fallingknife wrote: post #19

I stopped reading at the claim that Uber provides worse service at a higher price than traditional cab companies. No one who experienced the hell of taxis could ever say that with a straight face.

100x more true for places like India which has notorious taxi and auto drivers who would charge you anywhere from 2x to 10x if you don't know the area or see you in need.

For all the things uber has done wrong they have done a lot of right too. It was truly a nightmare to get a taxi here and most autos and taxis won't even stop or refuse fare outright if it wasn't for a profitable route.

Post reply on HN