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

Lyft losing as much as $50M a month, president confirms

siliconbeat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 114 posts

Re: Lyft losing as much as $50M a month, president confirms

#41

Post by nordsieck »

ForHackernews wrote: post #38
stormbrew wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the play is more or less to strangle the higher priced and over-regulated patchwork taxi industries and build a more uniform national/international regulatory framework that's more amenable to these kinds of businesses. At that point prices will probably rise, and (they hope, and I think they're right) customers will see value in the better product that keeps them in.

> customers will see value in the better product that keeps them in. How is Uber a "better product" than a taxi? As far as I can tell, it's competing on price, and that's it. If cabs were the same price as Uber, I would take a taxi every time.

If you live in one of the few places where you can expect to be able to hail a taxi, you're probably right. If you have to call for a taxi, Uber is infinity times more reliable.

Re: Lyft losing as much as $50M a month, president confirms

#42

Post by wildmusings »

ForHackernews wrote: post #38
stormbrew wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the play is more or less to strangle the higher priced and over-regulated patchwork taxi industries and build a more uniform national/international regulatory framework that's more amenable to these kinds of businesses. At that point prices will probably rise, and (they hope, and I think they're right) customers will see value in the better product that keeps them in.

> customers will see value in the better product that keeps them in. How is Uber a "better product" than a taxi? As far as I can tell, it's competing on price, and that's it. If cabs were the same price as Uber, I would take a taxi every time.

Are you kidding? Have you ever tried to get a cab outside of Manhattan? It's painful even in the downtown core of major cities. And if you live in the suburbs, you have to call like two hours ahead and there's always a good chance they don't show up. In my experience with Uber, drivers are more courteous, billing is more honest, their cars smell better, and bad drivers are held accountable.

Re: Lyft losing as much as $50M a month, president confirms

#44

Post by olalonde »

ForHackernews wrote: post #38
stormbrew wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the play is more or less to strangle the higher priced and over-regulated patchwork taxi industries and build a more uniform national/international regulatory framework that's more amenable to these kinds of businesses. At that point prices will probably rise, and (they hope, and I think they're right) customers will see value in the better product that keeps them in.

> customers will see value in the better product that keeps them in. How is Uber a "better product" than a taxi? As far as I can tell, it's competing on price, and that's it. If cabs were the same price as Uber, I would take a taxi every time.

Why would you take a taxi over Uber? In my experience, Uber drivers are more courteous (probably because they know they get rated at the end of the ride) and arrive faster than taxis (in San Francisco). That being said, when I was living in Shenzhen, taking a taxi was more convenient because there are just so many of them and waiting time is really short.

Re: Lyft losing as much as $50M a month, president confirms

#45

Post by passthefist »

ForHackernews wrote: post #38
stormbrew wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the play is more or less to strangle the higher priced and over-regulated patchwork taxi industries and build a more uniform national/international regulatory framework that's more amenable to these kinds of businesses. At that point prices will probably rise, and (they hope, and I think they're right) customers will see value in the better product that keeps them in.

> customers will see value in the better product that keeps them in. How is Uber a "better product" than a taxi? As far as I can tell, it's competing on price, and that's it. If cabs were the same price as Uber, I would take a taxi every time.

I think it's more convenient, and I've had better experiences with rideshare drivers than any taxi.

You can just call one from your apartment when headed across town instead of waiting for one to drive by on the street. In my experience calling taxis isn't always reliable. Uber etc. show you the driver's location and distance, and they won't stop to bring someone else to the airport.

I think a big part is the quality of the taxis in your area. In San Francisco, they'd do the "card machine is broken" bit (eventually turning it on when you have no cash), or just not pick you up if you were headed out into the Sunset, or drive a longer way hoping you don't notice.

In Dublin, Ireland, calling an Uber will invariably call a taxi. They're usually friendly folks that don't mind that you're only going a few blocks to bring home your groceries because you missed the bus.

But the bar to call Uber a 'better product' is pretty low. There's nothing it does spectacularly better than Lyft or Flywheel or any other app.

A big part of their value is how low the customer experience can go with a traditional taxi. I just want to rent someone's time for point to point transit without any bullshit.

Re: Lyft losing as much as $50M a month, president confirms

#46

Post by anoother »

wildmusings wrote: post #40
oblio wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And even if we do get self-driving cars, people forget that there will be an FDA clinic trial like process before they are allowed on the roads, which will take years. Multiply that by the number of states/countries where you want to operate and by the level of bureaucracy in each country. I'd say that from the day the tech actually works properly (which might be many years away, still), it will take at least 10 year…

The number of people who die every year in car accidents is so massive that any big regulatory hold-up for automated cars, which would almost without a doubt reduce deaths by at least an order of magnitude, is politically untenable.

It may be _logically_ untenable. But certainly not politically...

Re: Lyft losing as much as $50M a month, president confirms

#47

Post by jpalomaki »

jahnu wrote: post #26
niftich wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are absolutely excited about the time when self-driving cars will be actually here. But the real play here is to use taxi service as a pretext/generator for building up an on-demand courier service [1] with superior returns -- and performance that vastly dwarfs any incumbents. [1] https://rush.uber.com/how-it-works EDIT: after the introduction of courier services, picking up passengers serves as a baseline load…

I'm probably in the minority here but I'm not convinced we are particularly close to real self-driving cars. It's definitely possible but I strongly suspect there are more challenges ahead than most people believe.

One option could be for them to use the self driving cars on some routes, or maybe even on just part of the route.

If things were implemented really well, I could imagine travelling part of the journey in self driving car and then jumping to regular one for the "last mile" (or the other way round). This way one could use the self driving cars in the easy, but time consuming sections (for example congested high ways leading to airport).

Re: Lyft losing as much as $50M a month, president confirms

#48

Post by kuschku »

wildmusings wrote: post #42
ForHackernews wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> customers will see value in the better product that keeps them in. How is Uber a "better product" than a taxi? As far as I can tell, it's competing on price, and that's it. If cabs were the same price as Uber, I would take a taxi every time.

Are you kidding? Have you ever tried to get a cab outside of Manhattan? It's painful even in the downtown core of major cities. And if you live in the suburbs, you have to call like two hours ahead and there's always a good chance they don't show up. In my experience with Uber, drivers are more courteous, billing is more honest, their cars smell better, and bad drivers are held accountable.

Yes, I've called taxis several times in a tiny (280k) city in Germany - they're there faster than the police would come if you'd call 911, they're reliable, clean, and you can pay via app before the ride.

I really don't get what's so good about uber, they're just like taxis, but worse quality, and bending the law.

Re: Lyft losing as much as $50M a month, president confirms

#49

Post by freyir »

niftich wrote: post #17
liquidise wrote: post #7

What shocks me about both Lyft and Uber's enormous burn rates are that they suggest the companies are heavily subsidizing their drivers. This subsidy is in part to spur penetration in new markets (as all marketplace apps must do), but also suggests that they have reason to believe customers will simply not pay a rate that makes the business profitable. Assuming the latter is the case, i'm not sure if they have reason…

They are absolutely excited about the time when self-driving cars will be actually here. But the real play here is to use taxi service as a pretext/generator for building up an on-demand courier service [1] with superior returns -- and performance that vastly dwarfs any incumbents. [1] https://rush.uber.com/how-it-works EDIT: after the introduction of courier services, picking up passengers serves as a baseline load…

> But the real play here is to use taxi service as a pretext/generator for building up an on-demand courier service [1] with superior returns

So people will drive their sedans around the city delivering flowers and cakes and laundry? And instead of picking up flowers at the flower store, or laundry from the laundromat down the street, I'll pay $5 more for everything to have it delivered? Uber and Lyft's master plan for superior returns is to become Postmates?

Somehow I'm skeptical.

> picking up passengers serves as a baseline load ... to keep drivers incentivized to be on the roads, but the real prize will be the courier tasks.

Why waste valuable space with bodies if courier tasks are the real prize? Drivers are incentivized by money. If drivers could make more money driving dresses than humans, most would fill their car with dresses and kick the humans to the curb.

Re: Lyft losing as much as $50M a month, president confirms

#50

Post by ralfd »

niftich wrote: post #17
liquidise wrote: post #7

What shocks me about both Lyft and Uber's enormous burn rates are that they suggest the companies are heavily subsidizing their drivers. This subsidy is in part to spur penetration in new markets (as all marketplace apps must do), but also suggests that they have reason to believe customers will simply not pay a rate that makes the business profitable. Assuming the latter is the case, i'm not sure if they have reason…

They are absolutely excited about the time when self-driving cars will be actually here. But the real play here is to use taxi service as a pretext/generator for building up an on-demand courier service [1] with superior returns -- and performance that vastly dwarfs any incumbents. [1] https://rush.uber.com/how-it-works EDIT: after the introduction of courier services, picking up passengers serves as a baseline load…

> They are absolutely excited about the time when self-driving cars will be actually here.

But wouldn't everyone use self-driving cars and that level the playing field again? If you can't make a profit now, would that really change later?

Post reply on HN