Live data from Hacker News

SoftBank Succeeds in Tender Offer for Large Stake in Uber

wsj.com

141–143 of 143 posts

Re: SoftBank Succeeds in Tender Offer for Large Stake in Uber

#141
post #129
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if they pull all of that off, which I'm suspicious of, I don't see what justifies the valuation. The only way it made sense to me is if Uber achieved the same sort of dominance that Google has in search or Facebook in social networking. But Uber's market share is declining [1], and I just don't see a moat that allows them to be able to extract monopoly/monopsony rents. Just the other day a friend caught an Uber…

Think about it. Ridesharing currently only accounts for approximately 0.1% of all miles driven? And you don't see the upside for this market?

Thanks, I have thought about it.

I see some upside, although probably less than you. Even if the market ends up being large, though, that only matters if a) they have a large share of it, and b) competition doesn't drive margins to approximately zero.

Facebook and Google are worth a zillion dollars because there is little competitive pressure. GM's market cap is less than 1/10th of Google's because they face stiff competition. Or compare with airlines. The top 3 airlines by revenue bring in circa $120bn per year versus Google's $90bn. But the market cap of those airlines is only $70bn combined versus $729bn for Google.

I think airlines are good comparison for the pseudo-taxi market. Barrier to entry isn't huge, and lots of well funded people like to play in the space. That means that consumer price competition is cutthroat; profit margins and market caps thus stay low.

But Uber's in a worse position than an airline. A 777 or an A380 costs upwards of $300 million, and you need more than one of them to be a plausible airline. For pseudo-taxis, though, you just need some software (likely available via white label), a few drivers in one city, and a bit of local marketing muscle. It costs 3-4 orders of magnitude less to start a 1-city Uber competitor than a regional airline.

And there are an awful lot of people who want a slice of the future transportation pie, including every single car manufacturer (who can have custom cars at cost), every car rental company (which combined have 2m cars and 20k locations, a number of major tech companies (certainly Google, possibly Apple and Amazon, surely others), and possibly anybody with a strong brand (e.g., perhaps Virgin, GE, Ikea, LVMH).

So no, I don't think Uber's valuation was justified. Neither does Softbank, obviously, or anybody else with the money to buy in. But I think it will go lower still.

Re: SoftBank Succeeds in Tender Offer for Large Stake in Uber

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber is (in my opinion) a scam, and (objectively) not ride sharing. 'Ride sharing' does not even begin to describe Uber. There is no sharing going on whatsoever . It's a taxi company that just ignores the law on principle to gain an advantage, while also spending VC money like crazy in a very illegally anticompetitive manner.

I don't see the VC money and avoiding regulation to be essential parts of the business though. I very rarely take a cab, and am not price sensitive. I tried Lyft, albeit not Uber, and like people repeatedly say, the good things about it are (a) you get fast response and a direct way to contact the driver, (b) you see how close they are to you on a moving map, (c) you get an up front estimate, and (d) they don't deman…

>I don't see the VC money and avoiding regulation to be essential parts of the business though.

But it is. The entire reason they're cheaper than taxis is that the VC money is subsidising their losses because they have capital to burn, and they pay no tax and have uncertified and unlicensed drivers.

>I very rarely take a cab, and am not price sensitive. I tried Lyft, albeit not Uber, and like people repeatedly say, the good things about it are (a) you get fast response and a direct way to contact the driver, (b) you see how close they are to you on a moving map, (c) you get an up front estimate, and (d) they don't demand cash.

Same is true of all the taxis I can think of. Fast response, can contact driver, see them on a map, get an estimate of price, can pay through app, etc.

>While it might slow them down if they weren't subsidizing drivers, or drivers weren't subsidizing them, it wouldn't change the fact that the things they do are actually worth more than a regular cab, so they could charge more and not less, as far as I'm concerned.

In your area? Perhaps. But Uber could not exist without VC money and breaking the law all over the world.

If their service is supposedly worth more, then why are there prices so much lower?

Re: SoftBank Succeeds in Tender Offer for Large Stake in Uber

#143
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask your grandma etc if they would use that. Anyone above 50 these days will probably not give you a nice answer to having to use smartphones or voice assistants that usually understand less than a newborn child.

As someone around that age get off your virtue signaling high horse. People in their fifties today helped build most of the tech you use every day, but even if they hadn’t your implicit ageism levied in service of an accessibility rant is a level of irony that just can’t be ignored.

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines.
Post reply on HN