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

How Uber Got Lost

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 144 posts

Re: How Uber Got Lost

#101

Post by tyingq »

whatshisface wrote: post #19
dumbfoundded wrote: post #15

I think NYT misses the point. The problem with Uber isn't some cultural issue, it's that they're in an extremely tough and competitive business. It's really a race to the bottom. The logic I kept hearing repeated is ride-sharing is a winner take all market. Like once you have a network of drivers setup giving people the lowest times for rides, you can force other competitors out and raise prices. Time has proven how…

The cultural problem is with the investors that are willing to spend $100B to win a cut-throat $10M/year profit market.

It feels like there are two classes of Uber investors, and money is flowing from one to the other. Maybe that was the point all along, versus disrupting taxis.

Re: How Uber Got Lost

#102

Post by skywhopper »

jfoster wrote: post #68
dumbfoundded wrote: post #15

I think NYT misses the point. The problem with Uber isn't some cultural issue, it's that they're in an extremely tough and competitive business. It's really a race to the bottom. The logic I kept hearing repeated is ride-sharing is a winner take all market. Like once you have a network of drivers setup giving people the lowest times for rides, you can force other competitors out and raise prices. Time has proven how…

If it's so easy to compete, why aren't there more competitors with a larger market share? I don't know of any ride share market with more than two major players. US: Uber / Lyft South East Asia: Grab / GoJek Australia: Mainly just Uber (lots of smaller players but none with very significant market share)

Uber and Lyft are running huge deficits. Of course they can keep the competition at bay so long as they don't have to make money.

Re: How Uber Got Lost

#103

Post by human20190310 »

cryptica wrote: post #73

Uber didn't get lost. It simply was never the kind of company that could acquire a monopoly big enough and fast enough to justify a multi-billion dollar valuation. I'm starting to think that many of the most successful tech companies of the past decade are not real monopolies but succeeded purely because the centralization of capital made it difficult for alternative projects to compete for a limited period of time.…

I agree with your assessment of Uber, and the manner in which its massive funding deters possibly-better competition.

But your inter-generational theory has a major contradiction. You're asserting that each generation of ambitious workers takes ownership of the capital of previous generations, and that this same capital is inherited by incompetent heirs. They can't both be true.

Re: How Uber Got Lost

#104

Post by [deleted] »

devoply wrote: post #4

It seems none of this turn people into peon services at behest of capitalists are really sustainable other than for deceptive tactics to bilk more money than customers are willing to pay by for instance stealing tips in order to make them seem like they are sustainable or growth businesses.

[deleted]

Re: How Uber Got Lost

#105

Post by nosianu »

sokoloff wrote: post #84
freehunter wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to compete with the company, but hard to compete with the VC money Uber pulls in. Uber's only competitive advantage is the $24b they were given to keep them alive. If VCs keep funding Uber, Uber is unstoppable. But as soon as that money runs out, they're just another taxi company. Except they're a taxi company who loses $350 million dollars every month. That's not hard to compete against.

Or are they a taxi company that makes $100MM/month and spends $450MM on R&D that they could stop if they aspired to only be a taxi company? (I think UBER is comically over-valued, but I also think their core business is probably quite profitable.)

"R&D" sounds grandiose but what meaning does it actually have in this context? I think that's the bet on autonomous cars? Problem is, they won't be the only one to have them, and not even among the first and best ones it seems. Nor is it clear how anything but complete autonomy could solve their problems. Actually, not even if that actually worked it's clear why Uber's Über-ambitious plans would work out. As far as I can tell that "R&D" money is just wasted - but I'm mainly saying this in order to hear counter-arguments, not because I know (I don't really)...

Re: How Uber Got Lost

#106

Post by edoceo »

human20190310 wrote: post #103
cryptica wrote: post #73

Uber didn't get lost. It simply was never the kind of company that could acquire a monopoly big enough and fast enough to justify a multi-billion dollar valuation. I'm starting to think that many of the most successful tech companies of the past decade are not real monopolies but succeeded purely because the centralization of capital made it difficult for alternative projects to compete for a limited period of time.…

I agree with your assessment of Uber, and the manner in which its massive funding deters possibly-better competition. But your inter-generational theory has a major contradiction. You're asserting that each generation of ambitious workers takes ownership of the capital of previous generations, and that this same capital is inherited by incompetent heirs. They can't both be true.

No contradiction. Some people want to take ownership of capital, some people have inherited capital - two groups.

Re: How Uber Got Lost

#107

Post by sokoloff »

nosianu wrote: post #105
sokoloff wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or are they a taxi company that makes $100MM/month and spends $450MM on R&D that they could stop if they aspired to only be a taxi company? (I think UBER is comically over-valued, but I also think their core business is probably quite profitable.)

"R&D" sounds grandiose but what meaning does it actually have in this context? I think that's the bet on autonomous cars? Problem is, they won't be the only one to have them, and not even among the first and best ones it seems. Nor is it clear how anything but complete autonomy could solve their problems. Actually, not even if that actually worked it's clear why Uber 's Über-ambitious plans would work out. As far as…

"R&D" typically includes software and application development, so it's probably not all wasted.

Re: How Uber Got Lost

#108

Post by mturmon »

jen20 wrote: post #49
ENOTTY wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agree re competitors. If you look at when Uber and Lyft left Austin, almost overnight, competitors willing to follow the local laws sprung up and soon began providing equivalent service. In my opinion, it's going to be impossible to establish a moat (aside from incumbency) in ridesharing (absent some kind of regulatory change heavily favoring incumbents). The second someone thinks they can do it better, th…

I was in Austin many times over the period that Uber and Lyft were not there. One of my takeaways was that building a mobile app which feels polished and actually works as advertised is _hard_ - not one of the local competitors managed it. Most of them didn’t even bother to distribute their app outside the US App Stores (a common issue with American companies) making it next to impossible to use for international vis…

> ...Uber’s GPS navigation is unspeakably bad in most metros, offering idiotic routes...

On this tangent: I took a few Lyfts around LA recently, with the driver following Lyft navigation. For the longer airport rides, that navigation was indeed "unspeakably bad", diverting onto surface roads that ended up adding 15 minutes to a 45-minute trip.

Not being in a hurry, I let it play out on two trips. I looked at traffic conditions on my own phone and there was no construction or accident that would cause the diversion.

Are Uber and Lyft using their own nav solution, or are they contracting it out?

Re: How Uber Got Lost

#109

Post by human20190310 »

edoceo wrote: post #106
human20190310 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your assessment of Uber, and the manner in which its massive funding deters possibly-better competition. But your inter-generational theory has a major contradiction. You're asserting that each generation of ambitious workers takes ownership of the capital of previous generations, and that this same capital is inherited by incompetent heirs. They can't both be true.

No contradiction. Some people want to take ownership of capital, some people have inherited capital - two groups.

His theory is that the ambitious workers prevail, not that two groups will continue to compete.

If the heirs of capital continued to exist from one generation to the next, then there would be a vested interest in Uber's success across generations, undermining the argument the poster is making.

Re: How Uber Got Lost

#110

Post by dymk »

_hardwaregeek wrote: post #26
kazinator wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have to respond that ... Says who?

Well, politeness dictates. I suppose I could lie. Or just refuse to answer.

You're overthinking this; when I say what Big Evil Tech Company I work at, 9/10 times they say "Oh that's neat I bet working there is really fun", and the remaining 1/10 time is "Oh what do you think about Cambridge Analytica"
Post reply on HN