Uber's Loss Exceeds $800M in Q3 on $1.7B in Net Revenue

Post by azakai » Tue, Dec 20, 2016, 4:31 AM UTC

guiambros wrote: post #185

antiviral wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the same FTC page: Pricing below your own costs is also not a violation of the law unless it is part of a strategy to eliminate competitors, and when that strategy has a dangerous probability of creating a monopoly for the discounting firm so that it can raise prices far into the future and recoup its losses. In markets with a large number of sellers, such as gasoline retailing, it is unlikely that one company c…

The key part is " ...has a dangerous probability of creating a monopoly for the discounting firm ". That's not the case here. I don't see Uber creating a monopoly in any way. If they raise prices to unreasonable levels (i.e., more than people used to pay for regular cabs), people will go to Lyft, Juno, or the next ride-hailing startup. If there's no competitor remaining, new ones will show up. Or regular cabs will be…

Post by pfarnsworth » Tue, Dec 20, 2016, 4:34 AM UTC

ylhert wrote: post #88

nstj wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: > Even in the U.S., Uber's home market, the company continues to lose money. After turning a slight profit in the in the first quarter of this year, Uber lost $100 million in the U.S. in the second quarter. The loss increased in the third quarter, the person said. I thought that they'd turned the corner in the US too, but go figure. I guess the claim that Travis makes about driverless cars relates t…

The US is not a mature market for Uber, it still includes a huge amount of cities where Uber is still relatively new and has yet to reach profitability. My understanding is that the profitable markets are places like SF or LA where Uber has been around for 5 years

Post by morgante » Tue, Dec 20, 2016, 4:38 AM UTC

cylinder wrote: post #72

nharada wrote: post #4

Presumably this is intentional -- Uber could raise prices and make more money, but right now they're choosing to keep prices very low in order to undercut Lyft and the cab companies with the assumption that having a monopoly will return more profits in the future. At least anecdotally, here in SF Lyft is almost always more expensive than Uber.

I would just take Juno. The drivers here in NYC are only doing Uber to get enough ratings to qualify for Juno. Uber went way too far squeezing drivers, it's a mess. I've seen their Uber pool earnings ... It should be illegal.

Post by tehlike » Tue, Dec 20, 2016, 4:40 AM UTC

moxious wrote: post #207

tehlike wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

autonomous driving could potentially cut one of the main expenses (like the driver's fee), which could cut down prices even more, and probably get them enough of a margin to make them profitable. that's probably why it makes sense to dominate the market while they still can.

Would it be fair to call it a Hail Mary if a technology that isn't ready for the mass market is a potential savior for a company losing $2 billion per year?

Post by morgante » Tue, Dec 20, 2016, 4:43 AM UTC

untog wrote: post #247

aianus wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do I care what the drivers like? I don't buy any other products or services based on the happiness of the workers. Uber still has the most drivers and the cheapest prices.

To put it the other way around, why not care? In NYC Juno is no more expensive than Uber (in fact there's a promo rate on right now), so if I have the option, why wouldn't I choose the option that does best by the person driving me around in their car? Even if I were entirely selfish it wouldn't be in my interests for them to be stressed and rushing to cram in as many jobs as they can.