Hacker News Reader

Comment by ghaff | Hacker News Reader

Door-to-door general self-driving is utterly irrelevant to the financials of any of these companies within a relevant timeframe.

View on HN

And yet their financials under current limitations of reality are utter shit. Who would buy this?

I honestly don't understand why (barring greater fool theory/delusion/etc.) Uber's new CEO didn't just say that prices had to go up 50%-100% (to basically cab fares) to create a sustainable business. It is a better service in many cases after all. If you're not interested in using the service at those prices? Sorry. We don't want you as a customer.

There would have been howls of rage from young urbanites who had structured their lives around subsidized transportation. But...

Lyft could have contested this but I'm not sure it would have been credible.

> Uber's new CEO didn't just say that prices had to go up 50%-100% (to basically cab fares) to create a sustainable business.

I’m assuming you mean to say he did say that? Otherwise I’m not sure I understand your comment.

If so, can you link the statement you’re referring to?

I'm saying that Uber basically kept prices where they were when they really needed to jack them up. Which he didn't do.

Ah, I took the period at the end of “etc.” to be separating two sentences. It makes much more sense reading it the correct way :)

Regardless, Uber is profitable on a per ride basis in most markets, except for those they’re trying to expand in. In established markets raising prices would lower demand for rides faster than it increases revenue.

Really? You can’t think of any reasons why he wouldn’t say that?

How about: because he was hired to take the company to an IPO, and they’re selling a growth story in that IPO.

That falls under greater fool theory.

Fares only need to go up 11% to break even today and that assumes no increases in efficiency (and similar market size at increased rates...). Lyft had bookings of $8B, and lost $900M.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com