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

Uber Bonds Term Sheet Reveals $470M in Operating Losses

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–137 of 137 posts

Re: Uber Bonds Term Sheet Reveals $470M in Operating Losses

#131

Post by wpietri »

eru wrote: post #129
wpietri wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that many people have substituted a faith in "the market" for a faith in god, so forgive me if I offend somebody's religious sensibilities here. But it turns out there were historical reasons the supply of taxis was artificially limited. An argument like this, which conflates "good" with "whatever the market does" is a terrible argument because it is only sidestepping the point. If you want to say the su…

> If you want to say the supply restrictions are bad, then you either need to find a different solution that solves the problem [...] Or just point out that the problem that was ostensibly solved wasn't.

One could do that, assuming one demonstrated it. Were you planning to do that?

Re: Uber Bonds Term Sheet Reveals $470M in Operating Losses

#132

Post by prostoalex »

prawn wrote: post #66
geofft wrote: post #38

There was a comment thread earlier today about whether Uber is solving rich-people problems or common-people problems. I wonder the extent to which Uber's pricing is sustainable -- are they subsidizing uberX and uberPOOL pricing out of money they're raising, or are the debts just in the pursuit of growth to new cities? Or put another way, if they ceased all growth, froze prices, and laid off all engineering and marke…

Maybe their plan is just to subsidise drivers until self-driving cars arrive, by which time they will have brand dominance and can carry on merrily.

What makes Uber a competent owner/operator of a car fleet, compared to someone like Avis?

Re: Uber Bonds Term Sheet Reveals $470M in Operating Losses

#133

Post by lsc »

Dwolb wrote: post #105
lsc wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, I think the "one big marketplace" model is best. I... honestly, I don't want another relationship I have to worry about. I know it sounds terrible, but I just want to get to work every now and again, and I don't want to have to plan it ahead. My point is that you don't have to run the cars to run a marketplace, though the money is being thrown at doing both at once in an effort to lock the running of the cars int…

Hm, I think 'one big marketplace' is how people originally thought about messaging online. I don't need WhatsApp, I have SMS. I don't need Snapchat I have WhatsApp. I don't need Facebook, I have Twitter.' However, horizontal differentiation in messaging and social has allowed people to use different tools depending on context. In fact, it's currently a bit silly to think you'd spam all your message or social apps at…

I... honestly I have no idea why there are players other than IRC and email, with sufficiently fancy clients.

Either it's primarily a marketing game, and the people willing to invest in marketing want their own network so that they have more control/can extract more value, or I just don't understand the market.

Re: Uber Bonds Term Sheet Reveals $470M in Operating Losses

#134

Post by rokhayakebe »

lsc wrote: post #46

I've been pondering how you'd break the uber lock on the market. I mean, I use Uber and not Lyft 'cause there are more Uber drivers, so on average, the car is gonna be there faster if I use Uber. However, if I had an app on my phone to check the nearest uber and the nearest lyft and the nearest whatever else? that would remove the barrier to entry that Uber has set up. in that case (at least when lyft had a nearby ca…

If their pitch is immediacy, pitch for cheaper rides if the person books 6 hours ahead or does not mind waiting one hour for a cheaper ride.

Re: Uber Bonds Term Sheet Reveals $470M in Operating Losses

#135

Post by wpietri »

eru wrote: post #128
HappyTypist wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes local laws are not worth complying. Taxi medallions are one example - they artificially limit supply and break the market. The argument that a limit on taxis is needed to prevent congestion ignores the whole concept of 'supply and demand'. Too many taxis? The market will correct itself, just like what's happening with Uber drivers (I know many are quitting due to the excess supply).

Also, taxis are only a small fraction of all traffic. Restricting the number of taxis will even worsen congestion (and definitely parking), if people are substituting with their own cars.

Can you demonstrate that? I've had taxi drivers say the exact opposite: in times when there are too many medallions available, they believe that cabs spend a lot more time either looking for fares or stopped waiting for fares. That's because the incentive for each individual cab driver is to keep driving during the slow times hoping to get lucky, and hoping to make things up during the peaks.

Re: Uber Bonds Term Sheet Reveals $470M in Operating Losses

#136

Post by Kalium »

iiiggglll wrote: post #64
Kalium wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having used the apps that literally hail a taxi through a smartphone button, I feel compelled to note that Uber has solved a lot more than that. They've also solved the utterly miserable taxi experience that follows pressing the button.

A few years ago I would have agreed with that, but I recently switched to Flywheel in SF because I was tired of the Uber drivers wandering around downtown's one-way streets for half an hour every time I hailed one of them because they don't know the city. I'm not exactly thrilled about going back to taxis, but at least they don't act like it's their first day behind the wheel. (And with Flywheel they can no longer li…

I used Flywheel exactly once. It led to a driver taking an incredible series of wrong turns, wasting a bunch of my time, and me spending nearly double what I needed to. All because the driver took a lot of wrong turns, didn't know the area at all, and didn't rely on technology.

In SF.

Re: Uber Bonds Term Sheet Reveals $470M in Operating Losses

#137

Post by Tycho »

threeseed wrote: post #90
Tycho wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber has come along and made every single thing about cab journeys better. People complaining about it look like idiots. The only evil here is whatever it was that made it take so long for this change to come about.

People that don't believe that a US company whose business model is based solely on breaking the law in other countries and compromising passenger safety aren't idiots. And let's be clear in many countries taxi drivers are far more rigorously screened and of course have security cameras. Both of which Uber has been a bit lax at.

I disagree. They can't see the wood for the trees.

Über is inherently safe. The drivers are licenced. The cars are modern. And most importantly, the drivers have skin in the game. If you spend any time on the road at all it's frankly irrational to worry about driver safety.

Complaining about Uber, a company that operates entirely through mutual consent, being 'evil' is ridiculous, against the backdrop of a deeply corrupt industry.

Post reply on HN