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

Uber S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 559 posts

Re: Uber S-1

#211

Post by janfoeh »

largehotcoffee wrote: post #181
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. http://www.rideaustin.com/ was launched in Austin a couple years ago when Uber and Lyft were temporarily kicked out of the city. The app had some growing pains but now I use them whenever I can in preference to Uber and Lyft because they pay their drivers more. If Uber and Lyft suddenly went away Ride could easily pop up all over. Of course, Uber and Lyft right now ARE so big because of all the advantages…

A service that exists in one city, (and can't even keep their appstore rating above 4 stars in that city) is not a good comparison.

Yes, they are. I don't care whether a ride service is available in one, a dozen or three hundred locations. I care about the best option in my city, and I would bet dollars to donuts that this aligns with the market majority.

A thousand local or regional competitors are just as much an existential threat to Uber as one or two big ones.

Re: Uber S-1

#212

Post by raphaelj »

dougmwne wrote: post #163
danappelxx wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Uber raises prices, they immediately lose customers to Lyft. It was always a race to the bottom and I don’t see why it would be any different now.

Why wouldn't both Uber and Lift simultaneously raise their prices by a few percent? Once they're both public and the VC cash injections dry up they'll both need to raise prices if they don't want to be out of business. Coke and Pepsi don't sell at a loss to try to steal each other's market share. What would cause these two public companies to run themselves into the ground if the market could absorb a 7% price increa…

Because that's market collusion, and that is illegal.

Re: Uber S-1

#213

Post by SimonPStevens »

eye900 wrote: post #172
panarky wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does it, though? It absolutely takes tremendous capital expenditure to build the network. Uber has an accumulated deficit of $20 billion precisely because they subsidized both drivers and riders to build the two-sided network. It doesn't have to be winner-take-all. A duopoly in most medium to large cities is perfectly viable. But you won't see dozens of competitors because the drivers and riders would wait too long…

> It absolutely takes tremendous capital expenditure to build > the network. I always think some Uber drivers shall copy Uber and run a non-profit version of Uber to compete on pricing. What can prevent this?

Uber is a non-profit version of Uber. They made a 10% loss last year. So a non-profit (assuming they intend to at least break even) would actually need to pay the drivers less.

Re: Uber S-1

#214

Post by phonon »

sixhobbits wrote: post #97

> The Company has from time to time issued nonrecourse loans to certain employees for the exercise of stock options or for personal use. As of December 31, 2017 and 2018, the total outstanding employee loan balances were $21 million and $16 million, respectively. A total of 16 million and 10 million shares were pledged as collateral to secure the loans as of December 31, 2017 and 2018, respectively. Is loaning 20 mil…

No, it's usually negotiated as part of an options package. "We will lend you the money to exercise your options". Then they can pay it back once they sell the shares they received.

Re: Uber S-1

#215

Post by thelock85 »

inverse_pi wrote: post #160
freeone3000 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not unreasonable, people do it all the time. Look at the window stickers in a rideshare, if they've got one they've got four, all around Seattle.

like i said it's reasonable to drive for all at different points in the past but it's unreasonable to drive for all 4 at the same time. Think about it, incentive-wise, if you complete 50 trips you got $x , if you complete 100 trips you got $2x. If you only got 50 trips in you, why are you splitting them between two apps 25 trips each and got $0 incentive?

I'm not at all well-versed in statistics, but it seems that without enough extra cash to consistently one-up the competition in terms of incentive structures, a ride share company could not make the driver's choice of which app to use a non-random event. So yes, a driver wouldn't necessarily choose all four at once, but they also wouldn't consistently pick one.

Re: Uber S-1

#216

Post by yashap »

partingshots wrote: post #18

So... Let me see if I have this straight: 1. Uber is unprofitable and the only way it can become profitable is to get SDC's 2. Uber is significantly (years) behind Waymo in the SDC space. 3. Waymo will launch SDC taxi services first meaning: - When it puts in an order for SDC components no one else is going to be buying in bulk and thus it can have effectively 100% of capacity of these specialized equipment makers -…

Let’s say Waymo get to legit, truly market ready SDC taxi tech 3 years before Uber, and they start expanding into Uber’s markets at lower prices. This is bad for Uber, but hardly the end of their business. People won’t immediately trust SDCs, so Uber will lose market share only gradually even if their prices are higher. Plus Waymo have to scale up massively to significantly compete with Uber - that’ll take time.

If Waymo don’t make much of a dent in Uber’s market share in 3 years, Uber gets their SDC tech to market and problem solved. If they DO start making a big dent, Uber can likely raise enough money to simply drop prices to Waymo levels (with human drivers), and just bleed cash until they get the tech out to be profitable. Uber (and their investors) are well versed in this strategy.

Re: Uber S-1

#217

Post by btmiller »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #46
panarky wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> can't imagine how Uber is worth anything If the operation doesn't make an economic profit, and if there isn't sufficient moat to defend the operation until it can become profitable, then I agree with you it's not worth anything. But in fact, Uber does have a massive moat -- its network of drivers and riders in thousands of cities around the world. No competitor is even close. It takes tremendous capital expenditure…

> It takes tremendous capital expenditure to build that network, and it will take tremendous capital expenditure to neutralize it. Does it, though? Every driver I've talked to basically drives for "all of them". Several told me they try to find whatever apps are local for driving and they setup those alone with Uber and Lyft and simply take whatever pays the most / is more frequent. Uber's software and network are so…

Is there a valid comparison between Uber and a company like Amazon? Amazon's loss leader strategy paid off and they're doing well now, so can Uber "become profitable whenever they want to" and be fine?

Re: Uber S-1

#218

Post by drcross »

gbear605 wrote: post #207
magicalhippo wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. Uber is unprofitable and the only way it can become profitable is to get SDC's So I'm not following this closely, but why is Uber unprofitable? I mean the app worked last time I was in the US and surely can't be that expensive to develop and maintain.

Because most of the income from the rider goes directly to the driver.

Worse than that, Uber are taking money from investors and directly giving it to the drivers to subsidise the trip price for the consumer all in an effort to build market share. It's folly to think that customers are going to remain loyal to such a service once the money runs out.

Re: Uber S-1

#219

Post by brianpgordon »

coryfklein wrote: post #182
gonehome wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed - Facebook has a network effect/moat because a new service that's better in every way is useless if your friends aren't on it. Getting the network to migrate is hard and when this does happen FB is quick to buy the threat (Instagram, WhatsApp) or compete and kill them (Snap). Nobody holds an allegiance to Lyft or Uber - they pick whichever is currently a better deal for both driving and riding. Uber's recent l…

FWIW, I have a loyalty to Lyft and will use its service even if Uber is a bit cheaper, but that's because I'm a techie that is aware of all the shady shit Uber has done.

I do this as a rider, but I suspect it's different when you're a driver and your livelihood depends on it.

Re: Uber S-1

#220

Post by tinus_hn »

SimonPStevens wrote: post #213
eye900 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It absolutely takes tremendous capital expenditure to build > the network. I always think some Uber drivers shall copy Uber and run a non-profit version of Uber to compete on pricing. What can prevent this?

Uber is a non-profit version of Uber. They made a 10% loss last year. So a non-profit (assuming they intend to at least break even) would actually need to pay the drivers less.

That’s an amusing proposition but a true non-profit could have more advantages like tax breaks and volunteer staff.
Post reply on HN