221–230 of 413 posts
In my opinion, giving large scale subsidies to customers seems like a business anti-pattern, and is surely gonna kill a lot of startups in near future. I have been sold to the Idea that Investors are killing any Internet "Business" by advising Founders against simple & straight-forward business plans. They constantly ask founders not to monetize earlier and wait until founders have no choice but to trash out the comp…
Amen! VC's favor this approach because this is the only strategy that requires their scale of money. If you just go out and make a useful product and sell it to people you may do very well... but there isn't room for the kind of huge returns VC's need. Through massive subsidies the VC's are trying to buy monopolies in entire markets... and it may be that transportation is such a large market that no amount of private…
And there you have it, the core of the Silicon Valley concept, the ideal startup, the business model of VCs.
1. Create a new product.
2a. Create a new market; have first mover advantage
or 2b. Use Predatory Pricing or Anticompetitive actions to gain advantage
3. Establish monopoly
4. Cash out big.
5. Use money to fund new business ventures, see 1.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bing might be 90% as good as google, but when people are trying to search for something they are just going to use google. I really started to realize how useful Uber was when i was traveling internationally I just pulled out my phone and a car came. I didn't have to worry about what the rate was going to be. It might have even been above what a taxi might charge, but at least I knew what the cost was going to be. It…
I touched on this point in the post. If there's a significantly cheaper local competitor, most people will be happy to use that service when they're home. Then they'll use Uber (or some other globally operating competitor) while they travel.
The commercial airline industry has lost money over the whole of its existence. If I'm flying from NYC to DAL, I'm flying the cheapest carrier (with a slight nod to Frequent Flyer programs). I'm not sure how Uber, Lyft, etc are any different than Southwest, American, etc. Cab companies (which I hate) and airlines saw this years ago and promoted regulations to protect their fees (and, thereby, wages). Airlines lost th…
> 250% surge pricing or $90. Lemme check Lyft. Sweet, Lyft is about $50. Our Lyft will be here in 3 minutes." There was zero friction switching from Uber to Lyft. That's not zero friction. Zero friction would be if you routed the directions under "Public Transit" in Google Maps and scrolled to the bottom where you can see both Lyft and Uber pricing (and clickable links) next to each other.
I think Uber's business model relies on self-driving cars. They're paying subsidies now to build a brand -- the name "Uber" has become synonymous with "pull out your cell phone and call for a ride" -- that will be very valuable once self-driving taxis become a commodity (which will happen shortly after their introduction). Uber is not a bet on who can build the most profitable taxi company now -- it's a bet on a bran…
Living in an area covered by both Lyft and Uber (and probably with many/most drivers working both), I will pretty much exclusively use Lyft - and I pay more for it as well, as I've tipped the drivers on every one of my rare trips. In the long term I expect their prices to rise to the point where it's more comparable to taxi services, but they still have some advantages there at least to my mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't say I speak for everyone but I mostly walk to get to places and drive when I have to. I live close enough to an ALDI to get most of my groceries by walking and I can walk to work too. Owning a car means always needing a parking space, going out to get gas, paying for insurance, inspections, etc, having to be capable of driving (because when I'm sauced on a Saturday night I really want to get greasy food, but I…
The thing is that this is really only true for people in dense urban environments. For instance, parking is not an issue in suburbia. There are use cases, like getting from your home to the train station, but it's not nearly as universal as it is for people who can currently get by with no car at all.
I think Uber's business model relies on self-driving cars. They're paying subsidies now to build a brand -- the name "Uber" has become synonymous with "pull out your cell phone and call for a ride" -- that will be very valuable once self-driving taxis become a commodity (which will happen shortly after their introduction). Uber is not a bet on who can build the most profitable taxi company now -- it's a bet on a bran…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So then Amazon is not a success either?
Amazon's position in the market is so weird that Matt Levine calls it a charity for the American consumer sponsored by the stock market. But it's at least clear how Amazon could generate money long-term; if it wasn't, nobody would invest in it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does Uber have that would not be feasible for any of those companies to build? Uber doesn't lock in customers or create any switching pain whatsoever so their current customer base doesn't given them much of an advantage. Their software is slick and robust but it's not so technically advanced that a competitor couldn't create their own ride-calling and dispatch system (as evidenced by Lyft).
> What does Uber have that would not be feasible for any of those companies to build? usage data. they know where people that use their app actually go on a daily basis, and how much they're willing to pay for that service.