Hacker News Reader

Comment by goobynight | Hacker News Reader

I'm a Denver local and like them a lot. So much that I bought my own premium model for $2500. Cars, even if they are in designated parking spaces, are even worse litter to me. They are everywhere and get a free pass.

As for the waste, it's not like Bird is funded by people's personal retirement accounts. Nobody invested is getting a fast one pulled on them. The money didn't vanish. The VC goal is to take a massively scalable idea and see if it is possible to find profit in it. This is clearly scalable, so they're testing it out and seeing if they can find a formula. For better or worse, VCs are members of society.

View on HN

The fact that you bought your own for $2500 means their business model is a failure.

If you spent $2500 on Bird subscriptions and rides then that means that the business model is successful at least in your case.

Your comments directly prove the previous poster's thesis.

EDIT:

And yes, Bird has realized the failure in their previous business model of renting scooters, and will be SELLING scooters directly (which in my opinion is a much better business model)

https://shop.bird.co/pdp.html

Alas, "Delivering in US and Europe summer 2019" means that they have lost out on $2500 worth of business from goobynight (and from the market segment represented by goobynight).

> The fact that you bought your own for $2500 means their business model is a failure.

Rubbish: they can be successful because not everyone wants to buy a scooter. Also commenter still probably uses Bird, for example one way trips or when it is just more convenient.

Both of these are true. I can't believe anyone thinks that my hobbyist purchase affects the transportation business model of Bird. That's like thinking cars are putting buses out of business in Chicago.

I've also rented a couple Lyft scooters out of convenience, as you said. They certainly feel worse, now that I'm spoiled, but the convenience of just dropping them off is a huge win.

+1 yeah, I don't get that argument either. does the fact that someone bought a car mean the car rental business model is a failure? does the fact that someone bought a house mean AirBnB's business model is a failure?

Yep. My use case for scooters is when the bus will take too long to get me to/from work, or running errands, or when I'm too tired/it's too far to walk. I decide that I need it at the spur of the moment, and don't want to plan to have it with me.

  running errands

... is exactly the kind of use case for which these shared scooters are ill-suited.

You stop for your first errand, come back outside afterward, and bam! someone else took it. What if there are no others nearby?

Mm, good point. My use case is usually that I'll walk up to 40 minutes 1 way if I need a cable or something like that (non perishable, semi urgent) etc, but am not willing to walk 40 minutes each way. I end up ubering otherwise.

Me dropping cash on a scooter was just an interesting aside. I'm one of two people in town I've seen on a personal e-scooter.

Most people don't want to own. It's less useful for bar hopping and you're on the hook for maintenance/repairs/charging/storage. I'm more handy than the average person that rides these. The average person living in downtown Denver likely doesn't even own a set of tools.

A rental business is much more attractive to VCs, if they can make it profitable. Has a niche retailer has ever received VC attention? Honest question. That doesn't feel like it scales like nearly on demand rentals.

  less useful for bar hopping and you're on the hook

People using motorized scooters for bar hopping (inebriated use) is a specific concern.

Agreed, but insert an equivalent hop without alcohol and you'll see what I mean.

One can buy a scooter at home, and then still rent scooters when traveling to other cities.

In Denver as well and agree completely. There are too many cars as is. I've never been more than two blocks away from one of these scooters, and they're fun to ride. I don't use them often as I have a bicycle. The general concensus among my peers is favorable or neutral on scooters.

Funny enough, because in Austin it's the absolute polar opposite. Sentiment there seems to be to fear and litigation. Even worse in Nashville. Southern, car-dependent cities prioritize the private car-owning driver above all other forms of life.

Overall sentiment among my peer group in Austin is neutral to somewhat positive. My biggest complaint is also probably their biggest asset: they're wildly popular amongst people who would otherwise take a car (basically, non-cyclists) - so there's a lack of understanding around how to operate in this middle ground between being a pedestrian and being the operator of a 2 ton motor vehicle.

What's this based on? It's funny to me that you draw a "Southern" line when Denver and most of the west is as car dependent as Austin. I agree with my sibling's (twalla) comment, by the way.

lots of VC money does, in fact, come from retirement funds (e.g. Calpers, the CA pension fund) and from university endowments.

No way is it the bulk of the funding and I bet VCs do well on the aggregate, which is why they are using their services. These institutions would all abandon ship.

Until the CA pension goes bust due to VCs, I'm still OK with what they do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com