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

41–50 of 105 posts

Re: Uber's Still Not Profitable

#41

Post by swores »

rafale wrote: post #31
ReadTheLicense wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

This sounds like a great way to quantify policy/law impact on businesses, by comparing their financial performance.

Obviously to an extent it can be compared, but considering laws aren't the only difference (economics of how many people in each country need work at what price, culture of who owns cars vs uses taxis vs cycles, etc etc) it would take an awful lot of analysis to compare them usefully (which no doubt various people both inside and outside Uber are doing, of course - and Ive no knowledge of how successful they are at that).

You couldn't just look at one being twice as profitable and say "that's the effect of country A's legal regulations vs. country B's".

Re: Uber's Still Not Profitable

#42

Post by Vespasian »

epolanski wrote: post #33

As someone who has used Uber quite a bit across Europe I cannot understand how they are not profitable. They take what 10/20% of the ride and they do millions of rides every day. I myself have spent few thousands in their service alone. How can they not be profitable after all these years.

If the costs per ride are higher than the fare, it doesn't matter how many they do.

In the end they have to pay for all the maintenance and initial purchase of the vehicle as well even if they manage to put those on the driver's as well.

Their "independent contractor" employment model doesn't work in some markets where they end up paying regular benefits and taxes.

Re: Uber's Still Not Profitable

#44

Post by xuki »

incrudible wrote: post #27
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.

Now this has been proven a pipe dream, I really don't understand the current valuation of Uber.

Re: Uber's Still Not Profitable

#45

Post by jon_adler »

golergka wrote: post #37
ginko wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>for passengers you get a cab instead of shouting like a cave-person on the street. Maybe I'm a cave person but to me just waving to hail a cab or just entering the first car in line at a taxi stand seems much more convenient than having to fiddle around with a mobile app and wait until it arrives.

It's convenient to you to wait for a cab to appear for 20 minutes in rain and snow instead of opening an app inside?

In addition to taxi ranks in popular areas, my local area (U.K.) has local taxi companies with their own apps. You can even still call them on the phone (quaint as it is) to make a booking.

Re: Uber's Still Not Profitable

#46

Post by fleventynine »

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.

Wouldn't such a law stop Google from releasing Android as open source? AOSP cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop, but it doesn't cost anything to use.

In such a world, could companies even contribute patches to Linux? Making Linux better without expectation of profit could be considered predatory pricing against Microsoft.

Re: Uber's Still Not Profitable

#47

Post by bigDinosaur »

semiquaver wrote: post #38
incrudible wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That was the idea once; They gave up on that part, their self driving car division has been shuttered and they don’t plan to replace it. From the article: > Uber's bag of tricks is nearing its bottom. Its fantasy of magic, self-driving robo-taxis is over (the company spent $2.5b to make a car that had a fatal crash every 0.25 miles, and then had to pay another company $400m to take the division off its hands): > http…

Huh. A piece of news perhaps many missed due to other events overshadowing it completely? I had no idea.

Re: Uber's Still Not Profitable

#48

Post by thaumasiotes »

mudrockbestgirl wrote: post #21
sneak wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

> Unfortunately for Uber the rest of the world doesn't look quite like that and normal taxis work just fine...

Not in the slightest. One of the biggest problems with normal taxis in Shanghai is that they won't stop if it's raining. And it rains all the time. I don't suddenly need a taxi less if it starts to rain; if anything, I need one more.

Re: Uber's Still Not Profitable

#49

Post by Ekaros »

fleventynine wrote: post #46
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.

Wouldn't such a law stop Google from releasing Android as open source? AOSP cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop, but it doesn't cost anything to use. In such a world, could companies even contribute patches to Linux? Making Linux better without expectation of profit could be considered predatory pricing against Microsoft.

There should be difference between releasing something for free like Open Source. And then providing real product or service for less than it costs to produce without any alternative income streams.

Re: Uber's Still Not Profitable

#50

Post by bschne »

swores wrote: post #41
rafale wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like a great way to quantify policy/law impact on businesses, by comparing their financial performance.

Obviously to an extent it can be compared, but considering laws aren't the only difference (economics of how many people in each country need work at what price, culture of who owns cars vs uses taxis vs cycles, etc etc) it would take an awful lot of analysis to compare them usefully (which no doubt various people both inside and outside Uber are doing, of course - and Ive no knowledge of how successful they are at t…

Also I'm not sure the data is available, does the US entity which is publicly traded have to report on all subentities' financials separately? Don't they usually just consolidate the financials?
Post reply on HN