Hacker News Reader

Comment by nodesocket | Hacker News Reader

I'd say this assessment is clouded by your own judgements of Uber. Uber is vastly larger than Lyft. I've taken Uber's all over the world (Europe, South America), Lyft barely has market penetration in rural areas of the United States.

I recently bet my friend who is supremely confident that United Airlines business will be significantly impacted due to the passenger incident. Thus far, it appears United is doing just fine[1], in fact they may be on pace for a blowout Q2 quarter. Money in the bank.

Moral of the story... These types of negative incidents (In my opinion I call it the constant outrage complex) rarely affects finance fundamentals of solid businesses. If you want to take a moral stand against Uber you are absolutely entitled to that and that is fine with me.

[1] https://www.thestreet.com/story/14125827/1/united-reports-7-...

View on HN

I'm in no position to guess which way winds are blowing but...

I don't think uber (or lyft) will ever be totally dominant purely because of network effects. Passengers and (especially) drivers are mobile, and can switch services back and forward between apps. All you need to compete is a regional network. The global network is helpful on the margins, but an uber for Lisbon should work fine.

Anecdata to support your point: in Stockholm the taxi companies have caught up in terms of convenience vis-à-vis apps, registering payment methods etc., to the point where I just use them rather than Uber. To me, Uber never competed on price, it was the convenience, and the competition has caught up to the point where Uber now seems clunky almost.

Uber definitely competes on price. Their fares are almost always the lowest of any competitor, especially compared to traditional cabs. That's essentially their only strategy other than allowing mobile hailing & payment (which is not particularly hard to replicate). The reason Uber is blowing through so much venture capital is because they are bleeding cash in all directions on fare subsidies.

Are you willing to let Uber spy permanently on you in order to save a few bucks?

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/uber-track-location-data-upda...

Not suggesting that this is the difference between it being worth it or not for an individual person, but I didn't feel like taking an Uber this time out of LAX and did a traditional cab to Pasadena -- it was $90. The Uber app quoted me at $38 and $33 if I had wanted to do pool (side note, I've ridden pool 3 times between LAX and Pasadena and not once have they ever picked up another passenger).

A savings of $50 for a one way trip is definitely at the point where the "spying" is worth it for me.

And it's not permanently. It's for a few minutes after drop off.

Assuming you trust them.

  Assuming you trust them.

Well, in my book that's exactly the rub. I, for one, don't trust them at all.

Pulling that extra effort to track Apple devices even after the app has been deleted and other shenagigans they pulled in violating their customer's privacy doesn't really help in the trust building department:

https://m.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/24/uber_cloaked_its_spyi...

Sure, in general, but this is why I wrote "to me" as in I don't care about he price difference. (Which, btw, in Stockholm is not very significant.) My account was simply meant as an anecdote to support the parent comment, that a local alternative can compete quite successfully. In my case, the convenience was key, not cost. That said, if they were consistently half the price of regular taxis I might reconsider. But only might because it's unclear to me who's responsible if things go missing during my trip, if there's an accident or the likes. With the traditional cab companies in Stockholm it's very clear who to turn to.

But I agree with you in the general case, certainly.

But the finance fundamentals of Uber are truly horrible.

Their only explanation for literally lighting billions of dollars in funds on fire to subsidize rides is supposedly to consolidate market share. If they don't have a defensible position and they lose money on every transaction what exactly do they have to show for it?

Sure Uber is losing gobs of money, but that's not the most important metric at this stage for them. Look at Tesla, they lost 330 million in 2017 Q1. You absolutely will find bears against Tesla, but that's mainly because of its current $324 share price, not its fundamental business which is losing money.

but then what is the most important metric for Uber?

AFAIR they are not growing as fast as they were, and have been all but outlawed in many places already.

Actually there are only a handful of places in the US where Uber is banned. Contrary to popular belief (and intentionally propagated by smear campaigns), Uber wasn't banned in Austin TX... they pulled out of that market voluntarily.

That's like believing a politician is ACTUALLY resigning to spend more time with their family.

You are so wrong I don't know where to start.

You're talking about a situation where a politician resigns to avoid being impeached or otherwise deposed.

That has basically zero to do with Uber and Lyft leaving Austin. We know exactly what laws Austin has (laws are not secret). And it's not like it's remotely unclear what happened: Uber and Lyft left in protest of the law requiring background checks for them. You could speculate that they were trying to strong-arm Austin into repealing that law, but it didn't work.

But there's zero reason to believe that they were secretly forced out, unlike the case with the politician, where the incentives are obvious.

If I enter a market, then the market penalizes me for breaching its rules, and I pull out, I am not calling it "voluntary".

Why talk about the US? It's only one market of many. In many other countries Uber has been banned.

Yeah, this is a really pervasive attitude on HN and tech in general. By not taking that path WhatsApp has pretty much locked down the international messaging market, so it's a stupid attitude too.

>>Sure Uber is losing gobs of money, but that's not the most important metric at this stage for them. Look at Tesla, they lost 330 million in 2017 Q1.

Apples and oranges. Tesla is losing money because they are investing massive amounts of capital to improve their supply chain and production capabilities. Uber is losing money because they subsidize rides to try to push competitors out of business. Tesla is actually profitable. Uber? We don't know.

"Uber is losing money because they subsidize rides to try to push competitors out of business."

?? I think thats the wrong way to phrase this. Uber is loosing money as Uber and its competitors are giving a lot of incentives to drivers to win business. All of them are loosing money.

I think the original statement was accurate. And it's not working. Uber will have a rough awakening.

It is interesting that you and him describe essentially the same mechanism with different words. I would personally call it dumping.

In effect, Uber is selling something at a lower cost than it buys, in order to acquire the market.

Note that all companies in the ride-sharing market are doing the same thing, not just Uber. Uber in fact looses less money than Lyft per ride.

Uber doesn't even have competitors in many markets they expanded to. Well, save for traditional taxis.

Yes, taxis and public transportation are Uber's main competitors.

> literally lighting billions of dollars in funds on fire

Figuratively. But even that's not true, since customers have saved real money and spent it elsewhere.

So, uber is really a secret socialist scheme to redistribute wealth from the investors to uber's customers?

I should start using Uber more often if that is true.

Heh, it's kind of funny when you look at it like that. It's the opposite of the typical fleecing scheme, wherein a publicly owned company enriches the big guys at the little guys' expense (a la Enron). Uber is doing the opposite, since it isn't publicly traded and only has large rich investors: They're saving lots of little guys' money on car fares at the expense of the few big guy investors.

For now.

Their plan, as far as I can see, is to totally dominate the market. Once, and if that happens, they will raise their prices, and once again the little guy's money will be going in the pockets of the big guys.

On a short enough timescale sure. On a longer one it is exactly the opposite: a play to redefine and own the future of automotive transportation.

Literally.

Usage #2: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

Well that's.... Sad. I think I will take what little authority I (don't) have and veto that definition, seeing as it literally defeats the purpose of definition #1.

And I was invoking definition #1 there, in case that wasn't clear.

It's not quite as bad as you think, literally is usually used figuratively in "A is literally B" to indicate that while A is obviously not literally B, the outcome that A will have will be practically the same as that from B.

That's actually a pretty reasonable defense of what I've generally considered a cringe worthy usage of the word "literally".

Language changes, and as speakers of modern English, we should adapt to changes instead of tilting at that particular windmill. However, I commiserate with you over the transformation of a useful word into yet another synonym for "really".

It's essentially a contronym now.

Not unlike "egregious" [1].

[1] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/egregious

I'll just leave this right here.

http://www.polysyllabic.com/?q=navigating/intro/prescriptive

"Sad" used to mean "sated". Why are you spreading the incorrect usage perpetuated by fools in the 1690s? These days nobody understands me when I use the true definition.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&searc...

It's one thing when a word evolves. It's another thing entirely when the evolution is the opposite of the original meaning. So let's not get condescending when it's more than a simple shift in meaning, okay?

I guess it's a little different but it happens all the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym#Examples

Also, "sad" and "sated" aren't quite opposites but they're very different. Are you telling me you wouldn't be annoyed if people started talking about how sad they were at the end of a great meal?

Eternal shame on merriam-webster.

A dictionary that fails to document usage is a lot worse than one that documents usage you don't like.

A good dictionary will also document widespread distaste for particular usages, though. It's a losing battle with any intensifier -- we've already lost "really" and "very" to this problem, and "literally" will pass too. That doesn't mean it's not worth trying to extend its life a little longer, though.

("Objectively" is also being used as an intensifier in casual conversation, though I think always with a touch of irony... Good fun.)

Did they add this bit today?

Should literally be used for emphasis?

Sense 2 is common and not at all new but has been frequently criticized as an illogical misuse. It is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis, but it often appears in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary.

I wish this had never happened and I will probably use a different dictionary from now on.

That makes no sense. It's like saying that "yes" means "yes", but it could also mean "no".

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=yeah+right

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/cleave

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sanction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym#Examples

Merrian-Webster is garbage. https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=literally

Oxford supports MW [1]. And so does common usage.

[1]: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/literally

yeah we may have won the battle but not the war. I have currently taken it upon me to use "figuratively" improperly and I won't stop until all language has lost meaning.

I guess Uber loses money on each sale but makes it up on volume? :)

This thread is about Uber, but in my opinion United will not be largely affected because they have a quasi monopoly on many routes, especially out of Newark.

[1]https://futuretravel.today/united-airlines-should-go-out-of-...

Although Uber has a better market penetration right now, it seems each day we're getting closer to the tipping point for Uber. Once Uber loses traction and grip, what prevents the now uber driver to switch to become lyft drivers ? People looking for rides do not care if it's uber or lyft or something else as long they have a ride and it's not too expensive.

United Airlines having a good Q2 quarters will not help Uber in any way escape the trial vs google or suddenly give them a profitable business model other than let's burn through investor money and conspire to get google technology to get rid of the drivers in the not so distant future.

> what prevents the now uber driver to switch to become lyft drivers ?

The (non)availability of Lyft all over the world except one country. According to some quick googling, Uber exists in 80 countries without Lyft.

I think the point OP is making is that Uber doesn't really own anything outside mindshare. The drivers are after all free agents. Once the VC money used to subsidize rides dries out basically any company can challenge Uber.

Which is why Uber wants to cut their dependence on drivers by using self driving cars. Then they will actually own something (the technology) in addition to the mindshare.

I just think that this will take possibly a very long time. Lyft wants to stay in the US and just partner with services in other countries. So new ones need to pop up and not suck (I tried a local South African one, besides no available drivers where I was, the app was absolutely horrible) AND manage to survive long enough to actually be a relevant service compared to uber.

They own the process knowledge to operate a Taxi company in 80 countries. Atleast what I have see in India they are beating OLA another competitor like Lyft.

I'm not really seeing how knowing how to sell two dollar bills for one dollar in 80 different countries is really all that valuable.

Because few people make four dollars in the same amount of time it takes for the exchange to happen. So they are choosing it for a different reason. It's possible you may not be seeing the value in the service they provide. But for me personally they are as revolutionary (execution) as Amazon and Facebook.

To kill the any future competition they jut need to start a global loyalty program.

Such incidents set the climate for the debate that is perhaps relatively unimportant for United but critical for Uber: regulation.

Uber in Europe stopped expanding and is very different in some places. For instance in Berlin you hail normal cabs with it.

It can be argued that the very significant changes United made to their training and rebooking procedures are the business impact. Just because they were able to quickly triage and come up with a workable solution I wouldn't say they weren't impacted.

Yes, another example is Wells Fargo, stock not that much affected - yet. It takes time, but consumer sentiment is eventually unstoppable like water wearing down rock

Reply on news.ycombinator.com