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

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

#61

Post by mbesto » Thu, Sep 26, 2019, 6:09 PM UTC

paxys wrote: post #38

mbesto wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Reread what you just wrote. Why would a for profit company put time and effort into research for a technology that replaces humans and that not be part of their goal? I'm thoroughly confused...

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

#62

Post by davidivadavid » Thu, Sep 26, 2019, 6:22 PM UTC

zby wrote: post #57

davidivadavid wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It means different business strategy. Tech companies can have massive revenues without having many employees. They write software, this is the initial big fixed cost, then making a copy of the software or servicing another customer in a SaaS is extremely cheap. This has not started with software - a factory has the same characteristics in comparison with manufacture: https://medium.com/hackernoon/aggregators-bffd3606…

The point is that there's nothing particularly "tech" about these companies, unless you're redefining the word completely. They're scalable companies. They're low marginal cost companies. They're software companies. Fine. But that's not what a "tech" company is.

This pervasive notion that the "tech sector" is software companies from the Bay Area is creating an engineering brain drain that seems oblivious to the fact there's technology in literally every industry, and it's probably damageable to innovation.

The Stratechery analysis seems to me to just restate obvious things using homemade terms ("aggregators") and doesn't explain much. I must confess I still don't understand the hype around that newsletter which to me has the style and substance of run of the mill B-school case analyses. I wish there was a "tech sector" equivalent of Matt Levine.

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

#63

Post by zby » Thu, Sep 26, 2019, 7:36 PM UTC

davidivadavid wrote: post #62

zby wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means different business strategy. Tech companies can have massive revenues without having many employees. They write software, this is the initial big fixed cost, then making a copy of the software or servicing another customer in a SaaS is extremely cheap. This has not started with software - a factory has the same characteristics in comparison with manufacture: https://medium.com/hackernoon/aggregators-bffd3606…

The point is that there's nothing particularly "tech" about these companies, unless you're redefining the word completely. They're scalable companies. They're low marginal cost companies. They're software companies. Fine. But that's not what a "tech" company is. This pervasive notion that the "tech sector" is software companies from the Bay Area is creating an engineering brain drain that seems oblivious to the fact…

In common language you might call a software house a tech company - but in the context of business it is good to have a term that would distinguish companies that are good candidates for facebook or google like growth. The "What is a tech company" article is an analysis of what that means.

I kind of agree that Stratechery does a bit of word juggling - "aggregators" are a good example of this - but I still like his writing because there is more in them than just that :)

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

#64

Post by ethbro » Fri, Sep 27, 2019, 12:08 AM UTC

harryh wrote: post #43

tempsy wrote: post #18

I think Uber missed the opportunity to be a more full fledged wallet (which is what Grab started a few years ago). They have a "cash" product now where you can load money, but it's too little too late IMO, and the incentive to load money vs use your cc is small (e.g. tiny discount). Starbucks is the obvious model here...IIRC they have one of the most success mobile payment apps in the country, even competing with App…

Starbucks' annual revenue is about 25 billion. Let's say they are making a (very generous!) 5% on that balance. That's 80 million dollars or about 0.3% of their annual revenue. Starbucks doesn't run its payment app so they can make money on the float.

Obligatory Buffett-esque: "Cash isn't always about the profit. Sometimes it's about access to it."