Neither, and New: Lessons from Uber and Vision Fund • Hacker News Board

Re: Neither, and New: Lessons from Uber and Vision Fund

#31

Post by novok » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 8:23 PM UTC

tempsy wrote: post #30

novok wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't wallet plays make more sense in places without strong CC usage already? Uber is strongest in developed countries, which have a strong CC culture already.

How do you explain the popularity of the Starbucks mobile app? The fact that it rivals Apple Pay in usage is proof that the answer is no.

But people don't use it more than a special gift card and loyalty program although, and it seem that starbucks does not have ambitions to be a general wallet. I'm guessing why starbucks promoted it heavily is to reduce card fees eating into their margins and all the other typical loyalty and gift card reasons.

I'm not seeing rumblings anything close to something like grab pay coming from starbucks for example.

Re: Neither, and New: Lessons from Uber and Vision Fund

#32

Post by jonnydubowsky » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 8:46 PM UTC

dvdhsu wrote: post #26

jonnydubowsky wrote: post #25

Another great post. Does anyone know what software this blog is published with that creates the hypertext bubble where the content can be extended in a little pop up?

I wondered as well, since I've seen it on Instapaper and marco.org, and always wanted something similar! If you inspect the element, you'll see some classnames that give it away: http://www.bigfootjs.com

Instead of giving me a fish you taught me how to fish in this case thanks. I know how the answer and picked up what is now an obvious method for figuring it out myself next time. Much obliged

Re: Neither, and New: Lessons from Uber and Vision Fund

#33

Post by davidivadavid » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 8:47 PM UTC

zby wrote: post #23

yuy910616 wrote: post #8

This is a great article but I doubt many people will actually make it to the second half...where everything is tied together.

https://stratechery.com/2019/what-is-a-tech-company/ - should really be read first

I read that article when it came out, and I still don't really understand the obsession with putting a "tech" or "non-tech" label on companies.

Besides that, there are companies that do not satisfy the author's definition that are pretty clear "technology" companies (e.g. Intel).

What explanatory power does the label have?

Re: Neither, and New: Lessons from Uber and Vision Fund

#34

Post by sp332 » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 9:10 PM UTC

thrav wrote: post #22

amelius wrote: post #14

What happens if people start ordering taxis from within Google Maps? And what if Google Maps adds more taxi services? What if Android starts integrating the function of ordering taxis that way? What would happen to Uber's value then? You can't "own" a market unless you also entirely own the way people access that market.

Have to transition taxis from meter to set-pricing first. The uncertainty of getting into a cab and agreeing to pay an unknown price is a big part of why I avoid them. I’ve been hit with a ridiculous price at the end of a ride enough to distrust the whole concept of giving them a blank check.

Some cities are better at this. https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/bacp/supp_info/2012_pa...

Re: Neither, and New: Lessons from Uber and Vision Fund

#35

Post by azylman » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 9:11 PM UTC

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #5

luckydata wrote: post #2

The whole beginning of the article is based on the assumption that Uber's story is played out. I don't think we can call that one yet, IMHO the market hasn't discovered what is Uber WORTH just yet.

When does the market discover what something is worth? I only know of two main lines of thinking: 1) that the market is more or less a random walk, and prices are approximately random. 2) that the market is efficient and the price at all times accurately reflects all available information. So Uber is either priced accurately (forever) or randomly (forever). I'm not familiar with a third line of thinking that it's ran…

The third line of thinking is a combination of the two: "In the short term, the market is a voting machine. In the long term, the market is a weighing machine". This is a popular quote from Benjamin Graham (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Graham), who taught Warren Buffett. It's basically the whole principle behind value investing.

Re: Neither, and New: Lessons from Uber and Vision Fund

#36

Post by freediver » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 9:12 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #14

What happens if people start ordering taxis from within Google Maps? And what if Google Maps adds more taxi services? What if Android starts integrating the function of ordering taxis that way? What would happen to Uber's value then? You can't "own" a market unless you also entirely own the way people access that market.

Uber would not have a problem with that. Rather the entire future of Uber relies on invention of self-driving cars. If they get that, they can stop relying on drivers which are currently 80% of cost and reason they are not profitable.

Re: Neither, and New: Lessons from Uber and Vision Fund

#37

Post by mandevil » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 9:21 PM UTC

thrav wrote: post #22

amelius wrote: post #14

What happens if people start ordering taxis from within Google Maps? And what if Google Maps adds more taxi services? What if Android starts integrating the function of ordering taxis that way? What would happen to Uber's value then? You can't "own" a market unless you also entirely own the way people access that market.

Have to transition taxis from meter to set-pricing first. The uncertainty of getting into a cab and agreeing to pay an unknown price is a big part of why I avoid them. I’ve been hit with a ridiculous price at the end of a ride enough to distrust the whole concept of giving them a blank check.

Been hit by that with Uber as well, due to traffic. 'You were so late you missed the first act of the show AND we charged you twice as much as we said we would!' was a fun night.

Re: Neither, and New: Lessons from Uber and Vision Fund

#38

Post by paxys » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 9:26 PM UTC

mbesto wrote: post #28

paxys wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Uber’s goal is to be a driverless platform Everyone keeps using this argument but I don't buy it. Uber itself hasn't once stated that this is their goal, not even to shareholders. When the company was founded in 2008 self driving cars weren't on anyone's radar. And it ignores the fact that if/when self driving cars become viable the entire "ridesharing" landscape will be instantly changed, and Uber will not have an…

> Uber itself hasn't once stated that this is their goal, not even to shareholders. Uhhh what? This is patently false. So, like maybe, people think that this is Uber's strategy, because they literally dictated it was part of their strategy. Autonomous vehicle is mentioned 103 times in their S-1. [0] We also hope to add autonomous vehicles, delivery drones, and vertical takeoff and landing vehicles to our network, alo…

They are doing research, and have autonomous vehicles on their long-term roadmap - that much is public knowledge. What I am arguing against is the general belief that Uber's goal as a company is to get rid of human drivers.

Re: Neither, and New: Lessons from Uber and Vision Fund

#39

Post by rossdavidh » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 9:32 PM UTC

novok wrote: post #31

tempsy wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you explain the popularity of the Starbucks mobile app? The fact that it rivals Apple Pay in usage is proof that the answer is no.

But people don't use it more than a special gift card and loyalty program although, and it seem that starbucks does not have ambitions to be a general wallet. I'm guessing why starbucks promoted it heavily is to reduce card fees eating into their margins and all the other typical loyalty and gift card reasons. I'm not seeing rumblings anything close to something like grab pay coming from starbucks for example.

Exactly. The typical purchase size at Starbucks is small enough that the CC fees (which are something like 3%, but also have a minimum per-transaction cost which is something like $0.25) are problematic. If all that Starbucks gets out of it is that those people who use their wallet are paying about $0.20 more to Starbucks (and not the CC company) per purchase, that already is a win for them.

Plus, many Starbucks customers go there 5 days a week, so it is easier to get a one-place payment method used. For other places, where one shops once a week or once a month, it would be harder to get people into the habit of using their special payment method for just them.

Re: Neither, and New: Lessons from Uber and Vision Fund

#40

Post by esoterica » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 9:35 PM UTC

mandevil wrote: post #37

thrav wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have to transition taxis from meter to set-pricing first. The uncertainty of getting into a cab and agreeing to pay an unknown price is a big part of why I avoid them. I’ve been hit with a ridiculous price at the end of a ride enough to distrust the whole concept of giving them a blank check.

Been hit by that with Uber as well, due to traffic. 'You were so late you missed the first act of the show AND we charged you twice as much as we said we would!' was a fun night.

Uber has used fixed up front pricing for years.