Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
When you step back and look at what service the actual company provides, it's unbelievable that they lose money....much less 2 billion. They link dudes that need rides with dudes that provide rides. How the hell do you lose money doing that?
There should be a minimum car requirement... just basics.
That's part of the article's argument. They're extremely overvalued and there's a big burst coming. Uber is perhaps going to be the biggest of them all.
At first I believe there was. Car had to be no more than 6 or 7 years old. I knew a guy who did it and he said they actually came and inspected his car. That's obviously gone away.
Was going to ask how they enforce the proposed rules. Obviously the bold is not scale-able. Perhaps requiring feedback on the vehicle before your next ride or some such?
I've used Uber all over the world, including Paris and Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. They are spending a ton of money right now to get set up in these other markets, but once that's done they will be raking in cash worldwide. Once driverless cars hit the road they will be able to cut out the money going to the driver and collect the entire fee.
They also got out of China. Haven't read this article but from other stuff I have read when they first reported earnings if you exclude China they made a small profit.
Yes, they subsidize UberPool. I believe the driver gets the normal amount even if they don't pick anyone up.
The cars are filthy. The cars stink. The cars are old and gross. The drivers are bitter ###holes because uber is squeezing them. Maybe they're a victim of their early success because it isn't the same product now.
So what's different with cabs? Im not saying Uber is great but I think it's a better option that what we currently have (cabs).
Ok, should have read it first but the article doesn't discuss results excluding china. Not saying it is a good investment but they sold China business on August 1 so most of first half had china is baked in. Of course since it is a private company it is hard to know what its real results are.AnonymousBob said:
Maybe that's the long term plan.
Cabs are more expensive, cars are in worse condition, and the drivers don't care about you since they'll never see you again and you can't give them a rating. Every time I see a cab I think "they're still in business?".
I killed my comment because felt it was being a touch snarky and detracting from the point of the article itself. My apologies and thanks for not harping on that.
My issue is the $2.5 billion number they create doesn't make sense. You lose 1.2 billion for first half year (so result through June 30) and a big part of that loss is from China. Second half of year they won't have those Chinese losses since China deal happened Aug 1 so to just double the 1.2 billion loss to get to $2.5 billion doesn't make sense. I do remember reading an article saying they made a profit in USA in Q1 but a lose of about $100M in USA in quarter 2. Don't recall if they said overall in first half of year they made money in the USA. I imagine they have losses elsewhere outside the USA and not just China but that $2.5 billion estimate for full year loss is probably off base. I have also read they have about 8 billion in cash on their balance sheet as of June 30 and got $1 billion coming to them due to China deal so they have a lot of cash on hand to make them profitable before they go public. I will try to dig up the article. Not saying that they are in great shape I just don't buy that $2.5 billion number from what I have read.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
Any app can direct drivers. Not every company has a critical mass of drivers that's required to get folks to trust the network for consistent, reliable transportation.
This.
Also this.. global expansion isn't cheap. We all know there are pockets to grease, lobbying to be done, legal fees to be paid, etc... for every country they enter.
Meh. They aren't the only ones that have this, and drivers double dip on Uber and Lyft all the time.
I don't think NYC or SFO is a good metric for how viable a service like this is. For these services to thrive they have to be ubiquitous in any reasonably populated area (including suburbs. MANY Parts of the coutry, lyft has far fewer drivers, so customers default to using Uber to source a ride after a certain number of times opening the app to find no drivers.
Lyft is desperate to sell - I think there is too much competition for them and they know they will be squeezed out with Google entering the market.
I expect they will buy their own fleet. I'm not a driver but I'd estimate they keep 80% after gas and maintenance expense. With a driverless car Uber would have some extra expenses (cleaning and storing cars) but nowhere near what drivers are keeping after expenses.
Eventually they will have a lot but they will introduce them slowly.
They have time. Driverless cars are a long way from being cut loose in real, around-the-clock conditions that would be suitable for picking up fares autonomously.
There's no 'magic profit' - they get to keep what drivers earn after paying their expenses and can run the car 2 to 3 times as much as a single driver can.
These losses are inflated because they were forced to write off their business in China. Their normal losses can be sustained as long as private investors keep pumping cash into them.
We know their long term goal is the driverless car but now instead of paying a driver, they would still have to pay the owners of driverless cars. Would it scale from a cost perspective to buy/lease, operate, and maintain a global fleet of their own driverless cars? Uber offered a leasing program to UberX drivers through a subsidiary but all Uber cars are still owned or leased by the drivers.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
