Hacker News Reader

The problem with Uber is their valuation. Nobody disputes there's a business here-- it's whether it's as big as it needs to be to make the math work. They could conceivably create a monopoly on ride-sharing, but if they do that and raise prices (probably to roughly taxi parity, all told), then demand basically stays at where it was for taxis, we all live slightly more convenient lives, and all Uber's investor's lose their asses because this was not the moonshot they were promised.

For Uber to justify their valuation, they're going to need to invent the self-driving car, and frankly, they don't have time. There will not be a clear winner in the self-driving car market, which does not exist at this point in time, anywhere near the timeframe they're going to have to return their investment or go kick rocks.

How does Uber achieve monopolization?

What can they do that no one else can?

Thus far it's been "suck up all the oxygen in the room so nobody can breathe".

Remains to be seen whether they'll survive it though.

Soak up all the VC attention that might go to other companies that are at least as functional.

> However, not a single thing in that article does a good job of arguing why Uber is doomed.

"rider fares only cover roughly 40 percent of a ride, with the remainder subsidized by venture capitalists" - The equations don't work when the loss-leader is also your only product.

The article also talks about how Uber is also burning through the goodwill of the drivers at the moment. Sleeping in your car is not a way for a long-term employee to behave. And also the goodwill of the developers.

The article seems to make point after point after point about how Uber is overextended and can't sustain itself long-term. Yes, as long as you're subsidised, you can dominate the market, but how long are VCs going to pump in 60% of every fare? What happens when Uber burns through the available workers?

Microsoft was profitable. Uber isn't. Lacking a non-hand-wavy path to profitability and being default-dead[1] are pretty good arguments against a company's viability.

[1]: http://www.paulgraham.com/aord.html

> Back in reality, once a technology company acquires the kind of market position that Uber has, they almost never end up doomed.

Most have, though.

It would explain how we have the big 4, and not the big 94. Some like yahoo get carved up more publicly, but they all do in the end.

This is an overblown statement lacks substance.

If by technology company, it means doing their business through smart phone APP, then Uber is one. In this definition, this statement does not hold strongly.

If it means that the company build their business around proprietary technology that few can match, Uber is not yet. It's obviously that any decent technical group can deliver a comparable service as Uber with reasonable amount of VC money. The proof is that there are many such companies across globe.

Uber actually realized this, and is strategically focusing on self-driven car, which is no doubt a correct and necessary move.

Except one that can be as well undercut by competitors. What goes next?

In some countries Uber is not the largest I know for a fact that Grab in East Asia and Careem in Pakistan and many Arab countries is the first option for many people instead of Uber. It's Market position is not because of any technology break through or advantage that can't be copied it is mostly because of discounts. Someone with larger pockets can out muscle them. With the negative publicity around Uber it could become harder for them to get more cash from investors. The next big thing will be self driving taxis where Uber won't be able to compete with car manufacturers providing the same services directly or to its competitors. Even google saw that it is hard for it to get car manufacturers on board with its self driving tech with most opting to do it on their own despite they are a few years behind in tech.

Not saying I agree with the article, but they do seem to make a more specific argument:

Their argument seems to be "There's no lock in this market, and there doesn't seem to be any network effects."

> Having an emotional reaction and a strong dislike to the way a corporation behaves, isn't an argument for why it must fail.

I agree with you here, but this is hardly the only argument presented in the article.

Something has to change when investor subsidies dry up. It might be a shift to self driving vehicles, a significant fare increase, or a monopolisation of the market. His assertion (which I broadly agree with) is that none of those seem likely to be successful.