21–30 of 556 posts
Uber’s margin gains have not come from efficiency improvements but from its ability to unilaterally cut driver compensation by 40 percent since 2016. So much more cost-effective than slavery.
Slavery is not a trade you choose to practice. Not sure how this is constructive.
There is a version of Uber that actually makes sense. As a lean SaaS company that sells its software to ordinary taxi companies, takes a cut and makes a profit. Which is basically how they operate in Spain because Spanish law has not tolerated Ubers attempts to capture markets.
I would've expected to see a lot of VC money being thrown there as well, but I'm only seeing Airbnb raising their fees and actually making a profit.
By the measure of growth and market penetration, Uber has been successful. By the measure of establishing a globally operating business that employs thousands of people, Uber has been successful (mostly). By the measure of establishing a profitable business we might argue that they likely will never achieve that. If you look at their SEA competitors who already earlier on introduced financial debt as a tool to create…
A "profitable business" was what we'd call a business, back in the day. Companies weren't able to last 5-10 years of losses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Slavery is not a trade you choose to practice. Not sure how this is constructive.
Slavery has redefined itself into newer forms. One such manifestation is in the form of worker exploitation.
Describing low-paying jobs as “slavery” is a metaphor. Saying “certain aspects of X are like Y” does not mean Y ‘is’ X.
But, of course, that is often why rhetoricians use metaphors and similes… to dupe and confuse people into a false equivalence.
There are slaves in this world… diluting the meaning of the word to include Uber drivers does not help them.
The piece is exactly right. Uber is effectively an instrument to shift economic gains from labour to capital by atomizing the workforce. From a macroeconomic perspective this is terrible because turning taxi firms into countless of one man businesses provides no efficiency gains, it's basically reverse economic development. There is a version of Uber that actually makes sense. As a lean SaaS company that sells its so…
This destroys a lot of value. Most taxi companies suck for reasons independent of their tech stack. (The fact that they’re better post-Uber shouldn’t obscure the effect of that competitive pressure.) Moreover, having a transport app that works in most countries is a value add for such a service’s most-profitable customers. Finally, the claim that taxi companies treat their drivers better than Uber applies in some markets, but it doesn’t in most, e.g. New York and New Delhi.
Uber isn’t profitable as a company, but they’re profitable in some (and a growing number of) markets. There is a recurring set of Uber hot takes that get recycled every few months that ignores this.
By the measure of growth and market penetration, Uber has been successful. By the measure of establishing a globally operating business that employs thousands of people, Uber has been successful (mostly). By the measure of establishing a profitable business we might argue that they likely will never achieve that. If you look at their SEA competitors who already earlier on introduced financial debt as a tool to create…
You made me wonder how many people are actually employed by Uber. I thought thousands sounded like a lot for what they do.
First Google result - 29,000 employees. That blows me away. It sounds like Uber itself is ready for disruption.
Easy answer - They are still experiencing rapid revenue growth, they have a clear path to profitability with a simple monetization strategy, and have dominated the market in many territories.
What is it? The problem I see is that there’s zero switching cost. It’s like buying salt at the supermarket. It’s all the same. They have nothing to differentiate them except their brand.
Sure they can charge a little more because of that. National brands charge a bit more than generic. But you can’t raise prices 50+% and hope people will just stick with you so that you aren’t losing money hand over fist and will only _slowly_ circle the drain.
It feels like Uber’s model was a really good one if you’re operating under the assumption that no one else could ever compete. As soon as a competitor came along they seem to have been screwed. The only play left was to pump more money in and hopes that somehow it magically worked out.