Hacker News Reader

Comment by jnks | Hacker News Reader

You're arguing strawman points the article doesn't make. The primary claims I see are

1. Uber drivers don't make as much as Uber PR claims (based on data Uber provided).

2. Uber the business doesn't seem to be wildly profitable, or at least not in a defendable way (based partly on data Uber provided).

3. The large amount of capital being injected into Uber are not indicators of growing real value, but instead indicators of a weaker-than-acknowledged business.

It's possible for all of the above to be true but for drivers and riders to both be very happy with the service. Especially since UberX seems to be offering rides for below market prices but the drivers are getting switching bonuses and per-hour guarantees (see elsewhere in this thread).

View on HN

Also, "I talked to somebody currently working for this company while they're at their job, and they told me it was great" is not exactly a very reliable way to get data.

No, having them voluntarily start gushing about how great it is is better.

Also, who is the boss/supervisor who would fire or penalise the driver for saying it's not great? More importantly, since there no strenuous and expensive licencing going on, it's simple to just stop being an Uber driver if it doesn't suit you.

> Also, who is the boss/supervisor who would fire or penalise the driver for saying it's not great?

From the view of the driver it could be you: It's not that uncommon for corporations to test employees like that using HR people disguised as customers. I have no idea whether Uber does that, though.

If I talk to a hundred drivers and pretty much every one is happy, then I'm going to be skeptical of a rough spreadsheet that's supposed to say they're getting financially shafted and are going to quit.

1. This may be true, but the article doesn't offer a strong rebuttal, nor does it stop there before throwing around a bunch of other arguments against Uber as a business.

2. Uber is extremely profitable and growing a ton. The only argument here is about whether its profitability or growth is not sustainable because drivers are getting a bum deal, or merely a run-of-the-mill deal, while all appearances are to the contrary. It's pretty easy to tell when people are happy. Groupon was generally hated by small businesses, while Uber is loved by operators of limos and taxis. People aren't idiots; they know when a service is good for their bottom line and when it isn't.

3. Raising a big round doesn't in itself mean a company is a strong or weak business, though it will increase debate about it.

3. The large amount of capital being injected into Uber are not indicators of growing real value, but instead indicators of a weaker-than-acknowledged business.

This is a common way for investors to get screwed, but in this case it may reflect their belief that Uber is well-placed to capitalize on the impending self-driving-car phenomenon. They could be wrong about that, of course, for any number of reasons, but at least it's not Groupon.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com