On 2016-09-29 16:49:36 +0000, Roland Perry said:

In the sense you ask, because the only product being cherry picked from
Uber is transport *here*, whereas the thing which isn't in fact being
cherry picked from Amazon is mail ordering a specialist product.

You can of course also compete with Amazon using Amazon's platform!

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 14:37:49 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Although prices aren't mentioned, I suspect it's going to be expensive, as
it uses a beefed-up version of the aluminium platform used by the Range
Rover, Range Rover Sport and 2017 Discoverer. So I suspect it will be
targeted at a completely different niche to the old Defender, perhaps more
like a Mercedes G-Class.

Almost certainly. JLR seem to have their sights permenantly upmarket these
days. I doubt they'll produce another purely utilitarian vehicle anytime soon.
It'll probably be far too complex, too many bells and whistles and far too
expensive for any farmer or similar who really do need its offroading
abilities to buy. It'll just be another Chelsea posing wagon for people with
too much money and no taste.

--
Spud

On 2016-09-30 14:37:49 +0000, Recliner said:

Here's some info on the all-new 2018 Defender:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/ne...ad-2018-launch


Although prices aren't mentioned, I suspect it's going to be expensive, as
it uses a beefed-up version of the aluminium platform used by the Range
Rover, Range Rover Sport and 2017 Discoverer. So I suspect it will be
targeted at a completely different niche to the old Defender, perhaps more
like a Mercedes G-Class.

Possibly, though the G-Wagen is much more like the "old" Defender -
ladder frame chassis etc. If they want to sell a reasonable volume,
the new Defender will need to provide at least some competition with
the Japanese pickups - just appealing to enthusiasts isn't going to
sell all that many, particularly as most of them will continue, for
now, to buy used "old style" Defenders.

I do like the look of it, though. Just as "boxy" as the original,
which is also very practical - the obsession in the 2010s of giving
everything a "fast back" is not very practical for carrying large
loads. And Japanese pickups are all very well, but no good for anyone
wanting 7 "full size" seats, nor for long load carrying.

An electric and hybrid version might be nice. Though I bet someone
will bring out an electric conversion kit for the old-style Defender -
the modular nature of the vehicle would to me make it quite easy to
convert once battery technology can supply enough energy to shift such
a heavy vehicle far enough. It's already been done with milk-float
parts, but that obviously isn't practical for day to day road use
(though may well be fine for farm use where speed is not a necessity).

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On 2016-09-30 16:15:03 +0000, said:

It will interesting to see how the British Army gets on without a
basic utilarian home built 4x4 to use, though some schools of thoughts
suggest that even there a polarization of roles has taken place .

Yes, I think the military are going much more specialised rather than
having a general vehicle (made, as you rightly say, of tin foil).

Such vehicles then become too expensive to be used as general run
arounds so something like one of the 4x4 crewcab pickups may be used
for that,after all they work for many of the various forces fighting
in conflict zones around the world.

Much as we all wish it wasn't, the biggest advert possible for the
Toyota Hilux is its use by terrorist groups - if they can keep them
going in the conditions they are using them in permanent war zones, it
isn't going to break down on your farm. And a pickup, with the part
containing the cow**** separated from the part containing the people,
is probably a more practical farm vehicle anyway - indeed, many farmers
used to opt for Defender pickups, often with canvas backs.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 08:43:53 on Wed, 28 Sep 2016, Recliner
remarked:

Basically, a new entrant can't beat an established market leader just by
having lower prices. It has to offer something better

What's better about Aldi than Tesco, if not the prices?

It's certainly not the range of products or length of checkout queues.

Aldi is a low cost, not just a low price, chain.

Having lower costs is how they can do the lower prices. It's the latter
which attracts the customers.

Absolutely. But it's why they can have sustained low prices. A start-up
Uber competitor would have higher costs

Even if run from someone's back bedroom?

That's probably a higher labour cost per ride than the highly automated
Uber incurs. How would this little operation handle fare calculations,
customer billing, driver payments, advertising, route creation and
monitoring, and all the other things that Uber slickly automates? Or are
you just suggesting a simple, local, manual mini cab operation?

Still automated (writing an app is easy these days) but local market.

and wouldn't be able to compete on price for long.

It could compete for as long as the local drivers were prepared to swap
more business for lower fares.

Not if their payments were less than the running costs of their cars.

At £1/mile typically, there's a big gross margin. The biggest running
cost is sitting for an hour on a rank, with no customers.

Uber's drivers in the same city would earn more per ride, and probably get
more of them.

If there are any.

An Uber start-up competitor would have higher, not lower costs.

A Uber competitor in a small section of their market would have lower
costs. No vanity projects like driverless cars, and they'd probably
expect the drivers to pay their way rather than be subsidised.

They would, and it's why their prices would be higher than Uber's.

Why does drivers not being subsidised make this new-Uber's prices
higher?

Uber's subsidies are basically to allow fares to be lower than what the
drivers earn. The niche competitor, by not doing this, either has to pay
its drivers less than it costs them to run the cars (so zero drivers),

At £1/mile?

or charge more than Uber (so very few customers).

I just looked up Uber where I live, and it said £1.25/mile.

It's why Ryanair and easyJet succeed, where bmi Baby failed.

The reason BMIbaby failed was because they failed to fill the planes up.
Part of that is because as a much smaller airline they had very little
brand recognition on the Continent, where you want a lot of your
customers to be living, so that you don't get excessive tidal flow
arising from mainly UK-based customers.

Whenever I've flown easyJet or Ryanair, it's been on routes that primarily
attract Brits or the Irish, and that's what all the pax were, in both
directions.

You must not have flown to Eastern Europe very often.

And as for brand recognition, Uber will be the easy winner against a niche
local competitor.

I bet more people where I live have heard of Panther [500+ cars in
Cambridge] than Uber.

Perhaps. Does Uber even operate yet in Cambridge?

Since this June, apparently.

And would visitors to
Cambridge have heard of Panther (which is where branding matters)?

Visitors (to Cambridge) are a niche market for cabs.

I'm no sure which part of their costs you think were significantly
higher - they had one of the oldest fleets in the air, and the other two
one of the newest. That must impact the cost.

Yes, it does, in favour of the airlines operating large, modern, homogenous
fleets. It's why true low cost airlines all buy their planes new, and don't
keep them too long. By bulk buying, they get brand-new planes, built to
their exact spec, and support services, all at the lowest possible cost.
BmiBaby had a motley collection of elderly 737s, all acquired second-hand.

So their buyer's fault they failed?

No, the airline's lack of strategy or understanding of the low cost airline

I'm more inclined to think it was the routes they operated.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 23:24:11 on Thu, 29
Sep 2016, Neil Williams remarked:

In the sense you ask, because the only product being cherry picked
from Uber is transport *here*, whereas the thing which isn't in fact
being cherry picked from Amazon is mail ordering a specialist product.

You can of course also compete with Amazon using Amazon's platform!

Only in a small subset of products, preferably ones not available via
Amazon Prime.
--
Roland Perry

On 02/10/2016 11:53, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 23:24:11 on Thu, 29
Sep 2016, Neil Williams remarked:

In the sense you ask, because the only product being cherry picked
from Uber is transport *here*, whereas the thing which isn't in fact
being cherry picked from Amazon is mail ordering a specialist product.

You can of course also compete with Amazon using Amazon's platform!

Only in a small subset of products, preferably ones not available via
Amazon Prime.

Or sell them cheaper than Amazon.

Not everyone has Prime either.

In message , at 14:16:09 on Sun, 2 Oct 2016,
Mizter T remarked:

You can of course also compete with Amazon using Amazon's platform!

Only in a small subset of products, preferably ones not available via
Amazon Prime.

Or sell them cheaper than Amazon.

It's not a sustainable business to sell things cheaper than Amazon,
while also paying them to use the platform.
--
Roland Perry

On 2016-10-02 10:53:03 +0000, Roland Perry said:

In message , at 23:24:11 on Thu, 29
Sep 2016, Neil Williams remarked:

In the sense you ask, because the only product being cherry picked from
Uber is transport *here*, whereas the thing which isn't in fact being
cherry picked from Amazon is mail ordering a specialist product.

You can of course also compete with Amazon using Amazon's platform!

Only in a small subset of products, preferably ones not available via
Amazon Prime.

You can sell any product on Amazon near enough, regardless of whether
it is offered via Prime or not.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On 2016-10-02 14:34:07 +0000, Roland Perry said:

In message , at 14:16:09 on Sun, 2 Oct
2016, Mizter T remarked:

You can of course also compete with Amazon using Amazon's platform!

Only in a small subset of products, preferably ones not available via
Amazon Prime.

Or sell them cheaper than Amazon.

It's not a sustainable business to sell things cheaper than Amazon,
while also paying them to use the platform.

It can be - plenty of people do.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.