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

71–80 of 114 posts

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

#71

Post by sfifs »

alsetmusic wrote: post #52
freyir wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 f…

I pay extra to get my groceries delivered because it saves me time. I also tested same-day delivery services from Amazon and Apple in the last several months. Amazon is a little different, but my local Apple Store and supermarket are pretty close. However, I used to suffer a grueling commute and it made me hate driving. I'm now happy to pay someone to reduce the time that I have to spend behind the wheel.

In most economies, it's only the top 5-10% that really can afford to value time over cash. The rest are happy to trade off their time and effort to conserve cash.

That's a market for sure - but really not such a big market.

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

#72

Post by Shivetya »

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.

As I posted in the Tesla crash thread, the current "self driving" cars are only assisting in conditions the driver actually needs the least help, good visibility and weather conditions. Its not a safety feature yet, it is little more than an advanced cruise control.

Until they can prove a self driving car can navigate a road at night in horrible weather conditions with and without other cars then its not self driving.

If anything the current crop should be emphasizing that they can warn of bad driving habits.

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

#73

Post by Noseshine »

ejcx wrote: post #9

This might be a dumb question. How does that compare to Uber? I see Uber has been raising like a billion dollars every month I'm guessing their spending is a lot higher (especially having something ridiculous like 5000 non-driver employees).

I just googled "uber financials" and here is one link:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/uber-financials-for-2014-and-2...

This one might be relevant too:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2016/06/02/uber-is-...

-----

EDIT: This is ridiculous. Why am I getting downvoted? I think the linked sites clearly answer the question of the parent as well as is possible. If it's about the "I googled" I was merely trying to show what search I used in case the reader has a better idea for a search string that results in better links. Some people here IMHO show ridiculous voting behavior. I made a serious effort at trying to answer the question - with a very usable result IMHO.

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

#74

Post by brianwawok »

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.

Apaprently you have never taken a taxi in Chicago?

Rusty car. Driver doesnt speak english. Smoking out the window and talking on cell phone in another language. Floors it and slams on the brakes. Seatbelts broken. Credit card machine broken.

Hum why would I take a lyft.

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

#75

Post by hyperdeficit »

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…

I don't understand why anybody thinks that Uber and Lyft will be the ones to capitalize on a fleet of automated cars. Once auto manufacturers have solved the arguably harder problem of creating automated vehicles, why wouldn't they then just run the fleet of cars themselves? Especially if there is as much profit in it as people assume. Even if they didn't run the fleets themselves, it seems like they already have a great infrastructure through their dealership networks to allow the dealerships to run their own fleet of vehicles. That even helps solve one of the obvious challenges of how to build out the infrastructure to manage the fleet in each city.

So if Uber is building their long term business plan on the idea that once automated cars exist they will buy them in bulk, build the infrastructure to maintain them in each city they operate in, and reap the profits then I am pessimistic on their model.

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

#76

Post by mikeash »

msandford wrote: post #67
foota wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, just like how rigorously Tesla's auto pilot has been vetted?

How long do you think they're going to be allowed to call it "Autopilot" when it's clearly not, and that confusion causes customers to trust it in ways that they shouldn't, and end up dying? I'm not saying Tesla should be stopped or that Elon should go to jail. But I think it's a clear case of false advertising, where lives are on the line.

Actual airplane "autopilots" can be something as simple as automatic wing leveling or altitude hold. Using that name for Tesla's technology is only inaccurate in that they don't make airplanes. Where did everybody get the idea that "autopilot" implies full autonomy?

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

#77

Post by serg_chernata »

hyperdeficit wrote: post #75
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…

I don't understand why anybody thinks that Uber and Lyft will be the ones to capitalize on a fleet of automated cars. Once auto manufacturers have solved the arguably harder problem of creating automated vehicles, why wouldn't they then just run the fleet of cars themselves? Especially if there is as much profit in it as people assume. Even if they didn't run the fleets themselves, it seems like they already have a g…

This! I think that's why Lyft has also partnered with GM, if I'm correct. I bet they saw this from the same angle and wanted to get as close as possible to the actual manufacturer of vehicles.

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

#78

Post by mikeash »

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'd pay a significant premium over taxis to take Uber. Taxis around here are old and dirty and the drivers are usually crazy. Uber cars are nice and driven by friendly people who aren't usually trying to get me killed.

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

#79

Post by adiabatty »

kuschku wrote: post #48
wildmusings wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Taxis where I live aren't as good as yours are. That's why Uber is nice — it brings taxi service in my unassuming suburb to the quality you take for granted.

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

#80

Post by leoedin »

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…

In the UK Uber has to compete under the same regulatory framework as all other pre-booked cars for hire. Their prices are perhaps marginally lower than the existing car services (of which there are many), and their convenience (when they're actually available) is considerably higher.

So, at least here, it's pretty obvious to me that they do have a viable business model. There's thousands of hire-car drivers and mini-cab companies already making profit in the space. All Uber is doing is making the process of getting a hire car to pick you up significantly more convenient.

Post reply on HN