|
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
"Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Robin9" wrote in message ... Another point you seem to be overlooking is that Uber now find it necessary to advertise regularly for drivers on LBC and on the Internet. Why do they? Almost certainly because they are losing drivers. If drivers are being subsidised and/or paid 80% of the fare paid, why are they leaving Uber? Why do so many phone-in programs on the radio have drivers complain that they can't make a living working with Uber? Because they aren't subsidising London anymore. It is now a mature market (FSVO). It is (subset of) RoW that gets the subsidies. Here's another part of the Uber business model: leasing cars to drivers. It's not quite a subsidy, but it looks like Uber just about breaks even on it. It's another way of maximising the supply of drivers, many of whom are immigrants without enough credit history to buy new enough cars themselves: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/07/uber-...-industry.html The simple solution to that is not to insist on such a ridiculously high spec car (as I have read that they do) it is cheap and cheerful taxi service FFS, not a limousine service What's wrong with a 5 year old Mondeo? Uber started up as a limo service. The later UberX introduced cheaper cars, but the idea is still that they're clean and new. and of a minimum size (4 , not 3 passengers) and an up market brand, tim |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
"Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:03:48 +0100, David Cantrell wrote: On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 03:10:42PM +0100, tim... wrote: spending billions on trying to win a market of millions is just silly Becoming the default choice for taxi services throughout the developed world (which is what they seem to be going for) is not worth mere millions. What they're doing is very similar to what Amazon did early on. They consistently lost money for the first few years, and only occasionally made a profit since. It's only very recently that they started to make vaguely reliable looking profits. Amazon spent those profitless years buying the market. Exactly. People who only look at the deliberate short-term losses are ignoring the bigger picture. It's possible for Amazon to kill the competition and for it not to come back again, leaving you in an unassailable position to reap the rewards of previous work Once Uber has established in a city, competition can continually spring up again meaning that you are continually fighting it. There is no path to killing it off completely (other than making your price so low you don't make a profit). There are always new drivers prepared to compete with you. It's an international business, which benefits from network effects. It's that network focus that makes it vulnerable in each of its local markets. only a percentage of your customers in Delhi are going to be Europeans/Americans taking advantage of already having Uber on their phone when they get off the plane. Many of the potential customers are going to be locals who can switch to local competition if the incentives are there. Also, the long-term game plan is to have self-driving cars, which I don't believe they will be able to achieve. To do this they have to hoover up all of the finance available for "buying" rental cars and taxis. This is an order of magnitude more funding that they currently need. Are the backers really going to put all their eggs in one basket for this operation, I think not. There will be plenty of micro operations of autonomous car pooling that people will want to invest into spread their risk. which need things like highly detailed maps that new competitors won't have: of course they will All of the parties interest in producing autonomous cars are working on (or have a partner who is) such maps, it isn't just self driving taxis who have to find their own way from Waterloo to Kings Cross. All domestically owned cars will have to be able to do it as well. It's a nonsense to suggest that this will be unique to Uber's cars https://newsroom.uber.com/uk/mapping-ubers-future/ |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
tim... wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:03:48 +0100, David Cantrell wrote: On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 03:10:42PM +0100, tim... wrote: spending billions on trying to win a market of millions is just silly Becoming the default choice for taxi services throughout the developed world (which is what they seem to be going for) is not worth mere millions. What they're doing is very similar to what Amazon did early on. They consistently lost money for the first few years, and only occasionally made a profit since. It's only very recently that they started to make vaguely reliable looking profits. Amazon spent those profitless years buying the market. Exactly. People who only look at the deliberate short-term losses are ignoring the bigger picture. It's possible for Amazon to kill the competition and for it not to come back again, leaving you in an unassailable position to reap the rewards of previous work Once Uber has established in a city, competition can continually spring up again meaning that you are continually fighting it. There is no path to killing it off completely (other than making your price so low you don't make a profit). There are always new drivers prepared to compete with you. It's an international business, which benefits from network effects. It's that network focus that makes it vulnerable in each of its local markets. only a percentage of your customers in Delhi are going to be Europeans/Americans taking advantage of already having Uber on their phone when they get off the plane. Many of the potential customers are going to be locals who can switch to local competition if the incentives are there. Also, the long-term game plan is to have self-driving cars, which I don't believe they will be able to achieve. To do this they have to hoover up all of the finance available for "buying" rental cars and taxis. This is an order of magnitude more funding that they currently need. Are the backers really going to put all their eggs in one basket for this operation, I think not. There will be plenty of micro operations of autonomous car pooling that people will want to invest into spread their risk. which need things like highly detailed maps that new competitors won't have: of course they will All of the parties interest in producing autonomous cars are working on (or have a partner who is) such maps, it isn't just self driving taxis who have to find their own way from Waterloo to Kings Cross. All domestically owned cars will have to be able to do it as well. It's a nonsense to suggest that this will be unique to Uber's cars http://www.bloomberg.com/news/featur...month-is06r7on |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
On 2016-09-22 15:16:38 +0000, tim... said:
it is cheap and cheerful taxi service FFS, not a limousine service It actually started out as a high-spec limousine type service - UberX, the "cheap and cheerful" version, came later but is winning the battle. What's wrong with a 5 year old Mondeo? Not an awful lot - I do think they are too tight on the spec for UberX. That said, if I get a minicab from my local companies these days it's odds on a Prius or similar. Old, knackered Japanese saloons (which previously seemed the default) seem to be on the out. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
On 2016-09-22 15:21:44 +0000, tim... said:
It's possible for Amazon to kill the competition and for it not to come back again, leaving you in an unassailable position to reap the rewards of previous work But unlike Uber there is a bit of a paradox of Amazon, which is that the competition can actually sell through it (albeit at the expense of a hefty cut). The likes of Amazon and eBay are enabling global reach for small companies that was much harder to achieve before - provided you are competing on price and not a lot else (which, let's face it, if you are supplying goods rather than services you near enough always are). For Uber to be the equivalent they'd have to be offering local minicabs and black cabs in addition to their own vehicles. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2016-09-22 15:21:44 +0000, tim... said: It's possible for Amazon to kill the competition and for it not to come back again, leaving you in an unassailable position to reap the rewards of previous work But unlike Uber there is a bit of a paradox of Amazon, which is that the competition can actually sell through it (albeit at the expense of a hefty cut). The likes of Amazon and eBay are enabling global reach for small companies that was much harder to achieve before - provided you are competing on price and not a lot else (which, let's face it, if you are supplying goods rather than services you near enough always are). For Uber to be the equivalent they'd have to be offering local minicabs and black cabs in addition to their own vehicles. Well, they do, don't they? http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...s-a3176266.htm https://www.uber.com/ride/ubertaxi/ Local minicab drivers (assuming they're driving their own cars) can also sign up to Uber anyway. |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 19:20:52 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: tim... wrote: It's a nonsense to suggest that this will be unique to Uber's cars http://www.bloomberg.com/news/featur...lf-driving-fle t-arrives-in-pittsburgh-this-month-is06r7on Of course those cars still have someone sitting behind the wheel so the whole thing is nothing more than a marketing gimmick. I'll give it a couple of years before they quietly revert back to human drivers until the technology is properly ready. -- Spud |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 21:14:52 +0100
Neil Williams wrote: On 2016-09-22 15:16:38 +0000, tim... said: it is cheap and cheerful taxi service FFS, not a limousine service It actually started out as a high-spec limousine type service - UberX, the "cheap and cheerful" version, came later but is winning the battle. What's wrong with a 5 year old Mondeo? Not an awful lot - I do think they are too tight on the spec for UberX. You could buy the previous gen of Mondeo with a nice 3.0 V6. But its all droning thrashy 4 cylinders in the current lot presumably for emissions reasons. Not quite what you want in a limo. -- Spud |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
"Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:03:48 +0100, David Cantrell wrote: On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 03:10:42PM +0100, tim... wrote: spending billions on trying to win a market of millions is just silly Becoming the default choice for taxi services throughout the developed world (which is what they seem to be going for) is not worth mere millions. What they're doing is very similar to what Amazon did early on. They consistently lost money for the first few years, and only occasionally made a profit since. It's only very recently that they started to make vaguely reliable looking profits. Amazon spent those profitless years buying the market. Exactly. People who only look at the deliberate short-term losses are ignoring the bigger picture. It's possible for Amazon to kill the competition and for it not to come back again, leaving you in an unassailable position to reap the rewards of previous work Once Uber has established in a city, competition can continually spring up again meaning that you are continually fighting it. There is no path to killing it off completely (other than making your price so low you don't make a profit). There are always new drivers prepared to compete with you. It's an international business, which benefits from network effects. It's that network focus that makes it vulnerable in each of its local markets. only a percentage of your customers in Delhi are going to be Europeans/Americans taking advantage of already having Uber on their phone when they get off the plane. Many of the potential customers are going to be locals who can switch to local competition if the incentives are there. Also, the long-term game plan is to have self-driving cars, which I don't believe they will be able to achieve. To do this they have to hoover up all of the finance available for "buying" rental cars and taxis. This is an order of magnitude more funding that they currently need. Are the backers really going to put all their eggs in one basket for this operation, I think not. There will be plenty of micro operations of autonomous car pooling that people will want to invest into spread their risk. which need things like highly detailed maps that new competitors won't have: of course they will All of the parties interest in producing autonomous cars are working on (or have a partner who is) such maps, it isn't just self driving taxis who have to find their own way from Waterloo to Kings Cross. All domestically owned cars will have to be able to do it as well. It's a nonsense to suggest that this will be unique to Uber's cars http://www.bloomberg.com/news/featur...month-is06r7on I know but they can afford one city as a trial on the basis of their current funding but scaling it up to 10,000 cities just isn't going to be cheap, and I defy them to find the funding for such. tim |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
|
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 11:01:31 +0100, "tim..."
wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:03:48 +0100, David Cantrell wrote: On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 03:10:42PM +0100, tim... wrote: spending billions on trying to win a market of millions is just silly Becoming the default choice for taxi services throughout the developed world (which is what they seem to be going for) is not worth mere millions. What they're doing is very similar to what Amazon did early on. They consistently lost money for the first few years, and only occasionally made a profit since. It's only very recently that they started to make vaguely reliable looking profits. Amazon spent those profitless years buying the market. Exactly. People who only look at the deliberate short-term losses are ignoring the bigger picture. It's possible for Amazon to kill the competition and for it not to come back again, leaving you in an unassailable position to reap the rewards of previous work Once Uber has established in a city, competition can continually spring up again meaning that you are continually fighting it. There is no path to killing it off completely (other than making your price so low you don't make a profit). There are always new drivers prepared to compete with you. It's an international business, which benefits from network effects. It's that network focus that makes it vulnerable in each of its local markets. only a percentage of your customers in Delhi are going to be Europeans/Americans taking advantage of already having Uber on their phone when they get off the plane. Many of the potential customers are going to be locals who can switch to local competition if the incentives are there. Also, the long-term game plan is to have self-driving cars, which I don't believe they will be able to achieve. To do this they have to hoover up all of the finance available for "buying" rental cars and taxis. This is an order of magnitude more funding that they currently need. Are the backers really going to put all their eggs in one basket for this operation, I think not. There will be plenty of micro operations of autonomous car pooling that people will want to invest into spread their risk. which need things like highly detailed maps that new competitors won't have: of course they will All of the parties interest in producing autonomous cars are working on (or have a partner who is) such maps, it isn't just self driving taxis who have to find their own way from Waterloo to Kings Cross. All domestically owned cars will have to be able to do it as well. It's a nonsense to suggest that this will be unique to Uber's cars http://www.bloomberg.com/news/featur...month-is06r7on I know but they can afford one city as a trial on the basis of their current funding but scaling it up to 10,000 cities just isn't going to be cheap, and I defy them to find the funding for such. They won't be rolling driverless cabs worldwide in one go. It'll happen in stages, and I wouldn't expect large, complex cities to be among the first to get them. And Uber isn't exactly facing a cash flow crisis: it has around $4bn in the bank. That will pay for mapping quite a few cities. But I'm sure Uber's investors will be keen to seek your expert advice on Uber's prospects, as you appear to know so much more about the company than they do. |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
"Recliner" wrote in message ... On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 11:01:31 +0100, "tim..." wrote: I know but they can afford one city as a trial on the basis of their current funding but scaling it up to 10,000 cities just isn't going to be cheap, and I defy them to find the funding for such. They won't be rolling driverless cabs worldwide in one go. That's my point if, once proven, they don't roll out in London/Paris/Rome/loads of other places at the same time, someone else will The resident of London, Paris, Rome and loads of other places are not going to sit back and wait for Uber to reach them with the benefits of driverless cars, they are going to expect it to arrive today. And there *will* be a PV prepared to fund that. It'll happen in stages, and I wouldn't expect large, complex cities to be among the first to get them. And Uber isn't exactly facing a cash flow crisis: it has around $4bn in the bank. That will pay for mapping quite a few cities. But it won't pay for the capital costs of the taxi fleets for 10,000 cities It will pay for one (100,000 cabs at 40K each - 100,000 is half the number of taxis in London, and I very much doubt that first generation autonomous cars will cost under 40K). But I'm sure Uber's investors will be keen to seek your expert advice on Uber's prospects, as you appear to know so much more about the company than they do. PVs simply do not put all their eggs into one basket (they expect a failure rate of 2 out of 3). funding the autonomous taxi needs of 10,000 cities will require more than the few tech companies currently prepared to fund Uber. It will require the whole capital market. And the whole market is not going to put all its eggs in the Uber basket. And ISTM likely that many of the backers know diddly squat about Uber's prospects, they are backing a punt and hoping for the bigger fool. I have seen many a company, backed by PVs who talked up their prospects in the same way that Uber are, that ultimately failed. Rhetoric is worth nothing. The only difference her is that Uber are bigger (and then the fallacy of sunk cost helps to keep them alive longer than they might otherwise be allowed to prove themselves - this may be enough, it may not) tim |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
On 22/09/2016 16:12, tim... wrote: "Mizter T" wrote: FWIW, Uber runs a v successful referral scheme - I think currently in London it's £15 credit for the new customer, £10 for the referrer (only valid on one journey though). still? I would have thought that with all the banter on social medial Uber needed no more help with finding customers, even in locations where they are new players. There's always new customers to be had, and a little word of mouth encouragement might just help someone who's heard of them to actually install and use the app. There are also occasional non-referral sign-up offers such as this one: https://www.vouchercodes.co.uk/uber.com (£15 credit for new customers.) |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
On 22/09/2016 08:46, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 19:54:50 on Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Mizter T remarked: Because they aren't subsidising London anymore. It is now a mature market (FSVO). It is (subset of) RoW that gets the subsidies. FWIW, Uber runs a v successful referral scheme - I think currently in London it's £15 credit for the new customer, £10 for the referrer (only valid on one journey though). Is the £25 deducted off the drivers who win those lucky rides, or is it Uber? If the latter that's something which could be called a subsidy (because the drivers are getting 80% of £25, more than the passengers are paying). Uber covers the free credit. Somehow I don't think drivers would be very keen on covering the free credit, given that they aren't going to have a direct relationship with the customer on an ongoing basis! (You cannot request a specific driver via the Uber app.) |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
On 22/09/2016 21:14, Neil Williams wrote: On 2016-09-22 15:16:38 +0000, tim... said: it is cheap and cheerful taxi service FFS, not a limousine service It actually started out as a high-spec limousine type service - UberX, the "cheap and cheerful" version, came later but is winning the battle. What's wrong with a 5 year old Mondeo? Not an awful lot - I do think they are too tight on the spec for UberX. That said, if I get a minicab from my local companies these days it's odds on a Prius or similar. Old, knackered Japanese saloons (which previously seemed the default) seem to be on the out. Certainly the majority of UberX cars in London are Prii, and many of the larger minicab firms also have Prii as a major part of their fleet. The drivers I've spoken to all seem to like them, they seem a pretty reliable vehicle. Prii / Priora / Priores etc! https://www.cars.com/articles/2011/02/plural-of-prius-prii-not-according-to-latin-experts/ |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
On 23 Sep 2016, Mizter T wrote
(in article ): On 22/09/2016 21:14, Neil Williams wrote: On 2016-09-22 15:16:38 +0000, tim... said: it is cheap and cheerful taxi service FFS, not a limousine service It actually started out as a high-spec limousine type service - UberX, the "cheap and cheerful" version, came later but is winning the battle. What's wrong with a 5 year old Mondeo? Not an awful lot - I do think they are too tight on the spec for UberX. That said, if I get a minicab from my local companies these days it's odds on a Prius or similar. Old, knackered Japanese saloons (which previously seemed the default) seem to be on the out. Certainly the majority of UberX cars in London are Prii, and many of the larger minicab firms also have Prii as a major part of their fleet. The drivers I've spoken to all seem to like them, they seem a pretty reliable vehicle. Prii / Priora / Priores etc! https://www.cars.com/articles/2011/0...according-to-l atin-experts/ Prius is an increasingly popular choice for private hire drivers (both Uber and otherwise) and operators for several reasons: - Increasing availability of 3-year-old models with FSH coming off-lease (or should that be off personal contract) - Reliability - Passenger romfort .... and above all, reduced operating costs because of low fuel consumption. One of the local drivers who has picked me up numerous times for trips in / to / from SE London and the City turned up recently in a sparkling new-to-him Prius. A replacement for his previous Skoda Octavia, it had come off-contract a few weeks before. In his first couple of weeks using the Prius he had spent £100 less on fuel compared with the Skoda, for similar hours and mileage. And a friend who has been private hire operator for 20-plus years (not in London) has now standardised on the Prius for company-owned vehicles for similar reasons. He now has more than a dozen, with a couple more on order. Ken |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
On 23/09/2016 18:18, Water musician wrote: On 23 Sep 2016, Mizter T wrote [...] That said, if I get a minicab from my local companies these days it's odds on a Prius or similar. Old, knackered Japanese saloons (which previously seemed the default) seem to be on the out. Certainly the majority of UberX cars in London are Prii, and many of the larger minicab firms also have Prii as a major part of their fleet. The drivers I've spoken to all seem to like them, they seem a pretty reliable vehicle. Prii / Priora / Priores etc! https://www.cars.com/articles/2011/02/plural-of-prius-prii-not-according-to-latin-experts/ Prius is an increasingly popular choice for private hire drivers (both Uber and otherwise) and operators for several reasons: - Increasing availability of 3-year-old models with FSH coming off-lease (or should that be off personal contract) - Reliability - Passenger romfort ... and above all, reduced operating costs because of low fuel consumption. One of the local drivers who has picked me up numerous times for trips in / to / from SE London and the City turned up recently in a sparkling new-to-him Prius. A replacement for his previous Skoda Octavia, it had come off-contract a few weeks before. In his first couple of weeks using the Prius he had spent £100 less on fuel compared with the Skoda, for similar hours and mileage. And a friend who has been private hire operator for 20-plus years (not in London) has now standardised on the Prius for company-owned vehicles for similar reasons. He now has more than a dozen, with a couple more on order. Thanks Ken, seems like they really are good vehicles. And - something not yet mentioned - they're quieter, which is a plus too. |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
Water musician wrote:
On 23 Sep 2016, Mizter T wrote (in article ): On 22/09/2016 21:14, Neil Williams wrote: On 2016-09-22 15:16:38 +0000, tim... said: it is cheap and cheerful taxi service FFS, not a limousine service It actually started out as a high-spec limousine type service - UberX, the "cheap and cheerful" version, came later but is winning the battle. What's wrong with a 5 year old Mondeo? Not an awful lot - I do think they are too tight on the spec for UberX. That said, if I get a minicab from my local companies these days it's odds on a Prius or similar. Old, knackered Japanese saloons (which previously seemed the default) seem to be on the out. Certainly the majority of UberX cars in London are Prii, and many of the larger minicab firms also have Prii as a major part of their fleet. The drivers I've spoken to all seem to like them, they seem a pretty reliable vehicle. Prii / Priora / Priores etc! https://www.cars.com/articles/2011/0...according-to-l atin-experts/ Prius is an increasingly popular choice for private hire drivers (both Uber and otherwise) and operators for several reasons: - Increasing availability of 3-year-old models with FSH coming off-lease (or should that be off personal contract) - Reliability - Passenger romfort ... and above all, reduced operating costs because of low fuel consumption. One of the local drivers who has picked me up numerous times for trips in / to / from SE London and the City turned up recently in a sparkling new-to-him Prius. A replacement for his previous Skoda Octavia, it had come off-contract a few weeks before. In his first couple of weeks using the Prius he had spent £100 less on fuel compared with the Skoda, for similar hours and mileage. And a friend who has been private hire operator for 20-plus years (not in London) has now standardised on the Prius for company-owned vehicles for similar reasons. He now has more than a dozen, with a couple more on order. Apart from the significant fuel saving, I think they're also lighter on brakes and tyres, thanks to the regenerative braking. |
Quote:
picked up from the Internet and present them as reliable, proven facts. Your suggestion that because I don't believe everything on the Internet, therefore I shouldn't use it at all is childish nonsense. Uber's continuing growth in London is open to question, as is your belief that it is the reason Uber advertises for drivers. Conversations I've had with various people, including minicab drivers, indicate that in London the market for cabs is becoming more settled. Like those Internet scribes in whom you have unquestioning faith, you have difficulty understanding what constitutes a subsidy. If Bob the plumber turns down a low paying job in December when he is busy but in January accepts it when it is offered again, he takes a pay cut. He does not however pay less for his plumbing supplies in January. The fact that he gave a price reduction has nothing to do with his suppliers, and they are not being subsidised when they demand normal prices any more than you subsidise Tesco by paying their normal price for milk and butter. If Uber lease a car for £100.00 a week and rent that car to a driver for £ 50.00 a week, that unquestionably constitutes a subsidy. If Uber charge a customer £75.00 to Gatwick and pay the driver £40.00, that is their normal business practice. If Uber later find that to keep market share they need to reduce their price to £60.00 but still find it necessary to pay the driver £40.00, that does not constitute a subsidy. They are paying the normal price. (I've still to find confirmation from any Uber customer that they are being charged less than they were previously) |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
tim... wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message ... On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 11:01:31 +0100, "tim..." wrote: I know but they can afford one city as a trial on the basis of their current funding but scaling it up to 10,000 cities just isn't going to be cheap, and I defy them to find the funding for such. They won't be rolling driverless cabs worldwide in one go. That's my point if, once proven, they don't roll out in London/Paris/Rome/loads of other places at the same time, someone else will The resident of London, Paris, Rome and loads of other places are not going to sit back and wait for Uber to reach them with the benefits of driverless cars, they are going to expect it to arrive today. And there *will* be a PV prepared to fund that. It'll happen in stages, and I wouldn't expect large, complex cities to be among the first to get them. And Uber isn't exactly facing a cash flow crisis: it has around $4bn in the bank. That will pay for mapping quite a few cities. But it won't pay for the capital costs of the taxi fleets for 10,000 cities It will pay for one (100,000 cabs at 40K each - 100,000 is half the number of taxis in London, and I very much doubt that first generation autonomous cars will cost under 40K). Why do you think Uber will buy its self-driving cabs for cash? That's not how most business vehicles are bought. Anyway, here's a recent report of Uber's self-driving tests in Pittsburgh: http://www.economist.com/news/busine...cars-pitt-stop |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
"Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 11:01:31 +0100, "tim..." wrote: I know but they can afford one city as a trial on the basis of their current funding but scaling it up to 10,000 cities just isn't going to be cheap, and I defy them to find the funding for such. They won't be rolling driverless cabs worldwide in one go. That's my point if, once proven, they don't roll out in London/Paris/Rome/loads of other places at the same time, someone else will The resident of London, Paris, Rome and loads of other places are not going to sit back and wait for Uber to reach them with the benefits of driverless cars, they are going to expect it to arrive today. And there *will* be a PV prepared to fund that. It'll happen in stages, and I wouldn't expect large, complex cities to be among the first to get them. And Uber isn't exactly facing a cash flow crisis: it has around $4bn in the bank. That will pay for mapping quite a few cities. But it won't pay for the capital costs of the taxi fleets for 10,000 cities It will pay for one (100,000 cabs at 40K each - 100,000 is half the number of taxis in London, and I very much doubt that first generation autonomous cars will cost under 40K). Why do you think Uber will buy its self-driving cabs for cash? That's not how most business vehicles are bought. Someone still has to give them all of that credit. Even if the cars are lease hired and they don't sit directly on the books for Uber, the hirer is still going to need to be sure of Uber's creditworthiness The idea that the people doing that will give Uber 100% (or even 50%) of the worldwide opportunities for autonomous rental cars is just silly Anyway, here's a recent report of Uber's self-driving tests in Pittsburgh: http://www.economist.com/news/busine...cars-pitt-stop "The cars are not truly driverless yet" so until and unless they are (and I remain sceptical that the industry is going to get regulatory approve for that any time soon) It's all words tim |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
tim... wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 11:01:31 +0100, "tim..." wrote: I know but they can afford one city as a trial on the basis of their current funding but scaling it up to 10,000 cities just isn't going to be cheap, and I defy them to find the funding for such. They won't be rolling driverless cabs worldwide in one go. That's my point if, once proven, they don't roll out in London/Paris/Rome/loads of other places at the same time, someone else will The resident of London, Paris, Rome and loads of other places are not going to sit back and wait for Uber to reach them with the benefits of driverless cars, they are going to expect it to arrive today. And there *will* be a PV prepared to fund that. It'll happen in stages, and I wouldn't expect large, complex cities to be among the first to get them. And Uber isn't exactly facing a cash flow crisis: it has around $4bn in the bank. That will pay for mapping quite a few cities. But it won't pay for the capital costs of the taxi fleets for 10,000 cities It will pay for one (100,000 cabs at 40K each - 100,000 is half the number of taxis in London, and I very much doubt that first generation autonomous cars will cost under 40K). Why do you think Uber will buy its self-driving cabs for cash? That's not how most business vehicles are bought. Someone still has to give them all of that credit. Even if the cars are lease hired and they don't sit directly on the books for Uber, the hirer is still going to need to be sure of Uber's creditworthiness So how do you think current Uber drivers get credit? Do you really think recent immigrants with no credit history are a better bet than Silocon Valley's most valuable private corporation? The idea that the people doing that will give Uber 100% (or even 50%) of the worldwide opportunities for autonomous rental cars is just silly Your sage investment advice is wasted here. You should be earning megabucks advising the likes of these naive companies: https://www.crunchbase.com/organizat...funding-rounds Anyway, here's a recent report of Uber's self-driving tests in Pittsburgh: http://www.economist.com/news/busine...cars-pitt-stop "The cars are not truly driverless yet" so until and unless they are (and I remain sceptical that the industry is going to get regulatory approve for that any time soon) It's all words No, it's not all words. There is a growing fleet of real cars, driving themselves on public roads, in multiple cities (soon to include London), carrying real passengers. Nobody says that fully autonomous, unsupervised cabs will be released in the next few months, but the technology has made remarkable progress. It may only be in alpha test right now, but the commercial release within a few years is entirely believable. |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
In message
-sept ember.org, at 21:30:40 on Sat, 24 Sep 2016, Recliner remarked: Anyway, here's a recent report of Uber's self-driving tests in Pittsburgh: http://www.economist.com/news/busine...cars-pitt-stop I think you'll find that's the University's testing, and because Uber funds that programme they get to go "along for the ride" so to speak. It's also an early testing phase, which the cars won't necessarily pass. -- Roland Perry |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
"Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 11:01:31 +0100, "tim..." wrote: I know but they can afford one city as a trial on the basis of their current funding but scaling it up to 10,000 cities just isn't going to be cheap, and I defy them to find the funding for such. They won't be rolling driverless cabs worldwide in one go. That's my point if, once proven, they don't roll out in London/Paris/Rome/loads of other places at the same time, someone else will The resident of London, Paris, Rome and loads of other places are not going to sit back and wait for Uber to reach them with the benefits of driverless cars, they are going to expect it to arrive today. And there *will* be a PV prepared to fund that. It'll happen in stages, and I wouldn't expect large, complex cities to be among the first to get them. And Uber isn't exactly facing a cash flow crisis: it has around $4bn in the bank. That will pay for mapping quite a few cities. But it won't pay for the capital costs of the taxi fleets for 10,000 cities It will pay for one (100,000 cabs at 40K each - 100,000 is half the number of taxis in London, and I very much doubt that first generation autonomous cars will cost under 40K). Why do you think Uber will buy its self-driving cabs for cash? That's not how most business vehicles are bought. Someone still has to give them all of that credit. Even if the cars are lease hired and they don't sit directly on the books for Uber, the hirer is still going to need to be sure of Uber's creditworthiness So how do you think current Uber drivers get credit? But they are all individuals they each arrange their credit on a personal basis. The lender is spreading his risk amongst 1000s of people, not just one company recent immigrants with no credit history are a better bet than Silocon Valley's most valuable private corporation? The idea that the people doing that will give Uber 100% (or even 50%) of the worldwide opportunities for autonomous rental cars is just silly Your sage investment advice is wasted here. You should be earning megabucks advising the likes of these naive companies: https://www.crunchbase.com/organizat...funding-rounds I have already explained, this is risk capital with the backers expecting a return on only 1 in 3 of their investments. Uber has been measured against that criteria. You really can't use the measure that VCs are investing as proof that a venture is guaranteed to be successful. The world is littered with VC failures, including some that required investments in the Billions. How much did Microsoft lose buying Skyp? The sums of money required to buy the number of cars that you need to flood the world's markets for taxi with autonomous vehicles far exceeds the amount of risk capital available and needs to move into the world of normal business funding. These people will be far more circumspect. Anyway, here's a recent report of Uber's self-driving tests in Pittsburgh: http://www.economist.com/news/busine...cars-pitt-stop "The cars are not truly driverless yet" so until and unless they are (and I remain sceptical that the industry is going to get regulatory approve for that any time soon) It's all words No, it's not all words. There is a growing fleet of real cars, driving themselves on public roads, in multiple cities (soon to include London), carrying real passengers. Nobody says that fully autonomous, unsupervised cabs will be released in the next few months, but the technology has made remarkable progress. It may only be in alpha test right now, but the commercial release within a few years is entirely believable. If you're prepared to pay 50 grand for a new car, perhaps tim |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
Roland Perry wrote:
In message -sept ember.org, at 21:30:40 on Sat, 24 Sep 2016, Recliner remarked: Anyway, here's a recent report of Uber's self-driving tests in Pittsburgh: http://www.economist.com/news/busine...cars-pitt-stop I think you'll find that's the University's testing, and because Uber funds that programme they get to go "along for the ride" so to speak. It's also an early testing phase, which the cars won't necessarily pass. It's not really a pass or fail issue. It's an alpha test. I assume the software, algorithms and mapping database will be continually adjusted during this testing phase, but no-one is planning to roll out this version as a commercial release. But these improvements will feed back into the eventual commercial release, which is probably several years away. The big step in this phase is that it's not just the private test running that Google has been doing for years, but a public test, with random members of the public actually using the cars as a taxi service. It seems to be a little more ambitious than the nuTonomy trial that started a few days earlier in Singapore, but is still well short of a commercial release. As an aside, it's interesting how much much hardware these early self-driving cars currently need (numerous sensors, Lidar, Radar, cameras, etc) compared to just the eyes and ears we human drivers get by with. |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
tim... wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 11:01:31 +0100, "tim..." wrote: I know but they can afford one city as a trial on the basis of their current funding but scaling it up to 10,000 cities just isn't going to be cheap, and I defy them to find the funding for such. They won't be rolling driverless cabs worldwide in one go. That's my point if, once proven, they don't roll out in London/Paris/Rome/loads of other places at the same time, someone else will The resident of London, Paris, Rome and loads of other places are not going to sit back and wait for Uber to reach them with the benefits of driverless cars, they are going to expect it to arrive today. And there *will* be a PV prepared to fund that. It'll happen in stages, and I wouldn't expect large, complex cities to be among the first to get them. And Uber isn't exactly facing a cash flow crisis: it has around $4bn in the bank. That will pay for mapping quite a few cities. But it won't pay for the capital costs of the taxi fleets for 10,000 cities It will pay for one (100,000 cabs at 40K each - 100,000 is half the number of taxis in London, and I very much doubt that first generation autonomous cars will cost under 40K). Why do you think Uber will buy its self-driving cabs for cash? That's not how most business vehicles are bought. Someone still has to give them all of that credit. Even if the cars are lease hired and they don't sit directly on the books for Uber, the hirer is still going to need to be sure of Uber's creditworthiness So how do you think current Uber drivers get credit? But they are all individuals they each arrange their credit on a personal basis. The lender is spreading his risk amongst 1000s of people, not just one company recent immigrants with no credit history are a better bet than Silocon Valley's most valuable private corporation? The idea that the people doing that will give Uber 100% (or even 50%) of the worldwide opportunities for autonomous rental cars is just silly Your sage investment advice is wasted here. You should be earning megabucks advising the likes of these naive companies: https://www.crunchbase.com/organizat...funding-rounds I have already explained, this is risk capital with the backers expecting a return on only 1 in 3 of their investments. Uber has been measured against that criteria. Just curious, how much have you invested in VC funds? How any are you invested in? You really can't use the measure that VCs are investing as proof that a venture is guaranteed to be successful. The world is littered with VC failures, including some that required investments in the Billions. VCs stop investing early in the many early stage companies that aren't likely to make it. They don't participate in funding round after funding round in the flops. Can't you see this in the many reports you get from your VC investments, as I do from mine? [I have investments in dozens of VC funds, as I'm sure you must too.] How much did Microsoft lose buying Skyp? What is Skyp? It sounds like like a rubbish bin. If you're referring to Skype, it wasn't Microsoft that first bought it. The original investors in Skype did rather well when it was bought for $2.6bn in 2005, only two years after its first release. The later VC investors did even better when MSFT paid $8.5bn in 2011 (a huge increase from the enterprise value of $2.9bn in 2009). So Skype has been a huge success for VCs. As MSFT hasn't sold Skype, and probably won't, I don't know how you are trying to calculate the loss you think it's made. But whatever it is, MSFT isn't a VC. It does numerous acquisitions, some of which it handles well, and many that it doesn't. But it enriches VCs along the way. I have first-hand knowledge of this -- do you? The sums of money required to buy the number of cars that you need to flood the world's markets for taxi with autonomous vehicles far exceeds the amount of risk capital available and needs to move into the world of normal business funding. These people will be far more circumspect. Again, you seem to live in a different world. Initially, autonomous cabs will simply replace existing ones, and only in mapped cities. So the numbers are not huge, and they should be no harder to fund than other business vehicles. And, again, if you have such amazing knowledge of the VC industry, why aren't you selling it to the people who are already making billions, to help them become even richer? Perhaps they'd like to be as successful in business as you presumably are? Anyway, here's a recent report of Uber's self-driving tests in Pittsburgh: http://www.economist.com/news/busine...cars-pitt-stop "The cars are not truly driverless yet" so until and unless they are (and I remain sceptical that the industry is going to get regulatory approve for that any time soon) It's all words No, it's not all words. There is a growing fleet of real cars, driving themselves on public roads, in multiple cities (soon to include London), carrying real passengers. Nobody says that fully autonomous, unsupervised cabs will be released in the next few months, but the technology has made remarkable progress. It may only be in alpha test right now, but the commercial release within a few years is entirely believable. If you're prepared to pay 50 grand for a new car, perhaps I dare say the current cars cost a *lot* more than that. But for someone as knowledgeable about investing as you, who is presumably a billionaire, that would be a cheap car... |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
"Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 11:01:31 +0100, "tim..." wrote: I know but they can afford one city as a trial on the basis of their current funding but scaling it up to 10,000 cities just isn't going to be cheap, and I defy them to find the funding for such. They won't be rolling driverless cabs worldwide in one go. That's my point if, once proven, they don't roll out in London/Paris/Rome/loads of other places at the same time, someone else will The resident of London, Paris, Rome and loads of other places are not going to sit back and wait for Uber to reach them with the benefits of driverless cars, they are going to expect it to arrive today. And there *will* be a PV prepared to fund that. It'll happen in stages, and I wouldn't expect large, complex cities to be among the first to get them. And Uber isn't exactly facing a cash flow crisis: it has around $4bn in the bank. That will pay for mapping quite a few cities. But it won't pay for the capital costs of the taxi fleets for 10,000 cities It will pay for one (100,000 cabs at 40K each - 100,000 is half the number of taxis in London, and I very much doubt that first generation autonomous cars will cost under 40K). Why do you think Uber will buy its self-driving cabs for cash? That's not how most business vehicles are bought. Someone still has to give them all of that credit. Even if the cars are lease hired and they don't sit directly on the books for Uber, the hirer is still going to need to be sure of Uber's creditworthiness So how do you think current Uber drivers get credit? But they are all individuals they each arrange their credit on a personal basis. The lender is spreading his risk amongst 1000s of people, not just one company recent immigrants with no credit history are a better bet than Silocon Valley's most valuable private corporation? The idea that the people doing that will give Uber 100% (or even 50%) of the worldwide opportunities for autonomous rental cars is just silly Your sage investment advice is wasted here. You should be earning megabucks advising the likes of these naive companies: https://www.crunchbase.com/organizat...funding-rounds I have already explained, this is risk capital with the backers expecting a return on only 1 in 3 of their investments. Uber has been measured against that criteria. Just curious, how much have you invested in VC funds? How any are you invested in? what's that got to do with anything ask anybody who does invest and they will tell you that they expect a 1 in 3 success rate. It's not a secret You really can't use the measure that VCs are investing as proof that a venture is guaranteed to be successful. The world is littered with VC failures, including some that required investments in the Billions. VCs stop investing early in the many early stage companies that aren't likely to make it. They don't participate in funding round after funding round in the flops. So obviously they don't believe it's a flop - that doesn't make them right It still has a way to go to prove itself. In any case they are waiting for the bigger fool. Can't you see this in the many reports you get from your VC investments, as I do from mine? [I have investments in dozens of VC funds, as I'm sure you must too.] How much did Microsoft lose buying Skyp? What is Skyp? It sounds like like a rubbish bin. If you're referring to Skype, it wasn't Microsoft that first bought it. The original investors in Skype did rather well when it was bought for $2.6bn I know - they found their bigger fool in 2005, only two years after its first release. The later VC investors did even better when MSFT paid $8.5bn in 2011 (a huge increase from the enterprise value of $2.9bn in 2009). So Skype has been a huge success for VCs. But not for the final purchaser who has already written off a chunk of what they paid for it As MSFT hasn't sold Skype, and probably won't, I don't know how you are trying to calculate the loss you think it's made. But whatever it is, MSFT isn't a VC. It does numerous acquisitions, some of which it handles well, and many that it doesn't. But it enriches VCs along the way. I have first-hand knowledge of this -- do you? The sums of money required to buy the number of cars that you need to flood the world's markets for taxi with autonomous vehicles far exceeds the amount of risk capital available and needs to move into the world of normal business funding. These people will be far more circumspect. Again, you seem to live in a different world. Initially, autonomous cabs will simply replace existing ones, and only in mapped cities. So the numbers are not huge, and they should be no harder to fund than other business vehicles. So how's that going to change Uber's business overnight? 1 in 100 of their cars are autonomous. Are they going to charge the lower fares for these rides immediately, or are they going to make them the same fare? If they charge lower fares wont that send a big message to current drivers telling that they aren't needed (so they will up sticks to the competition immediately) and if the don't charge lower fares someone else will. And, again, if you have such amazing knowledge of the VC industry, why aren't you selling it to the people who are already making billions, to help them become even richer? All of my knowledge is generic stuff that I am explaining to you, It is not a secret Whether a particular investment is a good one or not is for them to decide, not for me to tell them, but my point is YOU cannot use the fact that VCs are investing as proof that a company is/will be successful It is a nonsense Three times in my career I have been interviewed for a position with a newish start up that VCs had funded and I was told the story that the investors fell of their chair in surprise at the uniqueness of the product. All three companies crashed and burned 1-2 years later, one after 20 million pounds of investment from the VCs (I know not what the others had received) Oh and then there's Ionica, now much money was lost there? Perhaps they'd like to be as successful in business as you presumably are? I'm not a big risk taker, and I suffer for that. But OTOH I do alright Anyway, here's a recent report of Uber's self-driving tests in Pittsburgh: http://www.economist.com/news/busine...cars-pitt-stop "The cars are not truly driverless yet" so until and unless they are (and I remain sceptical that the industry is going to get regulatory approve for that any time soon) It's all words No, it's not all words. There is a growing fleet of real cars, driving themselves on public roads, in multiple cities (soon to include London), carrying real passengers. Nobody says that fully autonomous, unsupervised cabs will be released in the next few months, but the technology has made remarkable progress. It may only be in alpha test right now, but the commercial release within a few years is entirely believable. If you're prepared to pay 50 grand for a new car, perhaps I dare say the current cars cost a *lot* more than that. But for someone as knowledgeable about investing as you, who is presumably a billionaire, that would be a cheap car... but not if I had to buy 10 million of them tim |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
tim... wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 11:01:31 +0100, "tim..." wrote: I know but they can afford one city as a trial on the basis of their current funding but scaling it up to 10,000 cities just isn't going to be cheap, and I defy them to find the funding for such. They won't be rolling driverless cabs worldwide in one go. That's my point if, once proven, they don't roll out in London/Paris/Rome/loads of other places at the same time, someone else will The resident of London, Paris, Rome and loads of other places are not going to sit back and wait for Uber to reach them with the benefits of driverless cars, they are going to expect it to arrive today. And there *will* be a PV prepared to fund that. It'll happen in stages, and I wouldn't expect large, complex cities to be among the first to get them. And Uber isn't exactly facing a cash flow crisis: it has around $4bn in the bank. That will pay for mapping quite a few cities. But it won't pay for the capital costs of the taxi fleets for 10,000 cities It will pay for one (100,000 cabs at 40K each - 100,000 is half the number of taxis in London, and I very much doubt that first generation autonomous cars will cost under 40K). Why do you think Uber will buy its self-driving cabs for cash? That's not how most business vehicles are bought. Someone still has to give them all of that credit. Even if the cars are lease hired and they don't sit directly on the books for Uber, the hirer is still going to need to be sure of Uber's creditworthiness So how do you think current Uber drivers get credit? But they are all individuals they each arrange their credit on a personal basis. The lender is spreading his risk amongst 1000s of people, not just one company recent immigrants with no credit history are a better bet than Silocon Valley's most valuable private corporation? The idea that the people doing that will give Uber 100% (or even 50%) of the worldwide opportunities for autonomous rental cars is just silly Your sage investment advice is wasted here. You should be earning megabucks advising the likes of these naive companies: https://www.crunchbase.com/organizat...funding-rounds I have already explained, this is risk capital with the backers expecting a return on only 1 in 3 of their investments. Uber has been measured against that criteria. Just curious, how much have you invested in VC funds? How any are you invested in? what's that got to do with anything ask anybody who does invest and they will tell you that they expect a 1 in 3 success rate. It's not a secret You really can't use the measure that VCs are investing as proof that a venture is guaranteed to be successful. The world is littered with VC failures, including some that required investments in the Billions. VCs stop investing early in the many early stage companies that aren't likely to make it. They don't participate in funding round after funding round in the flops. So obviously they don't believe it's a flop - that doesn't make them right It still has a way to go to prove itself. In any case they are waiting for the bigger fool. Can't you see this in the many reports you get from your VC investments, as I do from mine? [I have investments in dozens of VC funds, as I'm sure you must too.] How much did Microsoft lose buying Skyp? What is Skyp? It sounds like like a rubbish bin. If you're referring to Skype, it wasn't Microsoft that first bought it. The original investors in Skype did rather well when it was bought for $2.6bn I know - they found their bigger fool in 2005, only two years after its first release. The later VC investors did even better when MSFT paid $8.5bn in 2011 (a huge increase from the enterprise value of $2.9bn in 2009). So Skype has been a huge success for VCs. But not for the final purchaser who has already written off a chunk of what they paid for it You used Skyp(sic) as an example of VCs getting it wrong. You don't seem to understand that it was an example of VCs doing brilliantly well. It was eBay and MSFT that overpaid. As MSFT hasn't sold Skype, and probably won't, I don't know how you are trying to calculate the loss you think it's made. But whatever it is, MSFT isn't a VC. It does numerous acquisitions, some of which it handles well, and many that it doesn't. But it enriches VCs along the way. I have first-hand knowledge of this -- do you? The sums of money required to buy the number of cars that you need to flood the world's markets for taxi with autonomous vehicles far exceeds the amount of risk capital available and needs to move into the world of normal business funding. These people will be far more circumspect. Again, you seem to live in a different world. Initially, autonomous cabs will simply replace existing ones, and only in mapped cities. So the numbers are not huge, and they should be no harder to fund than other business vehicles. So how's that going to change Uber's business overnight? 1 in 100 of their cars are autonomous. Are they going to charge the lower fares for these rides immediately, or are they going to make them the same fare? If they charge lower fares wont that send a big message to current drivers telling that they aren't needed (so they will up sticks to the competition immediately) and if the don't charge lower fares someone else will. Uber's drivers are not making a long term commitment; I'd imagine hardly any of them see driving an Uber car as a lifetime ambition. They do it to earn a bit of money, but it's long hours for not much income. They'll stay loyal to Uber only until a better offer comes along. I don't suppose many drive minicabs for very long anyway. Uber will pay them enough to keep them, while and where it still needs drivers. And, again, if you have such amazing knowledge of the VC industry, why aren't you selling it to the people who are already making billions, to help them become even richer? All of my knowledge is generic stuff that I am explaining to you, Very generic, and ill-understood, too. It is not a secret Being a successful VC isn't as easy as you seem to think/ Whether a particular investment is a good one or not is for them to decide, not for me to tell them, but my point is YOU cannot use the fact that VCs are investing as proof that a company is/will be successful It is a nonsense Of course not. But VCs don't come back for round after round of funding for the flops. They usually fail early. VCs are ruthless at pulling the plug or replacing the CEO the moment they smell failure. Three times in my career I have been interviewed for a position with a newish start up that VCs had funded and I was told the story that the investors fell of their chair in surprise at the uniqueness of the product. All three companies crashed and burned 1-2 years later, one after 20 million pounds of investment from the VCs (I know not what the others had received) Those sound like early stage companies, which do have a high failure rate. The reason they crashed and burned is that the VCs pulled the plug, as they often do. Don't you understand the concept of funding rounds? |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 04:21:44PM +0100, tim... wrote:
It's possible for Amazon to kill the competition and for it not to come back again, leaving you in an unassailable position to reap the rewards of previous work Once Uber has established in a city, competition can continually spring up again meaning that you are continually fighting it. There is no path to killing it off completely (other than making your price so low you don't make a profit). There are always new drivers prepared to compete with you. What's different about them that makes it possible for someone to pop up and start competing with Uber, but impossible for someone to pop up and start competing with Amazon? -- David Cantrell | Pope | First Church of the Symmetrical Internet Support terrierism! Adopt a dog today! |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
In message , at 09:08:36 on Mon, 26 Sep
2016, tim... remarked: I have already explained, this is risk capital with the backers expecting a return on only 1 in 3 of their investments. Uber has been measured against that criteria. You really can't use the measure that VCs are investing as proof that a venture is guaranteed to be successful. The world is littered with VC failures, including some that required investments in the Billions. How much did Microsoft lose buying Skyp? Twitter is looking for White Knight at the moment, having consistently lost money with no turn-around on the horizon. -- Roland Perry |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:01:31AM +0100, tim... wrote:
but they can afford one city as a trial on the basis of their current funding but scaling it up to 10,000 cities just isn't going to be cheap, and I defy them to find the funding for such. If they can show that it works in one place, and makes money, then I'm sure that the funding will be available. Not enough to go straight to 10,000 cities, but to roll it out to another 10 and do a larger trial. And then to expand that, and to expand that, and so on, until all 10,000 are covered. You could have levelled the same criticism against bold plans 130 years ago to do ridiculous things like connect every single house in the country to the electricity supply. -- David Cantrell Professor of Unvironmental Science University of Human Progress |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
In message , at 10:50:29 on Mon, 26 Sep
2016, tim... remarked: Oh and then there's Ionica, now much money was lost there? An interesting business model: Try to attract only those customers who want to spend as little as possible, or who are regarded by BT as too big a credit risk. And then fail to roll out the only product which had a technical edge on the competition (faster, but still narrowband, data). And losing £150m on a turnover of £10m is pretty much a world record I'd have thought. -- Roland Perry |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 04:16:38PM +0100, tim... wrote:
The simple solution to that is not to insist on such a ridiculously high spec car (as I have read that they do) it is cheap and cheerful taxi service FFS, not a limousine service What's wrong with a 5 year old Mondeo? From the driver's point of view - running costs. I assume that Uber also want a certain amount of consistency in the cars as it helps their brand. I used Uber on Saturday. I've noticed that in the last few months I've not had a single Prius from Uber, but that previously it was almost all Priuses. I asked the driver about it. He said that the Prius's fuel economy is no longer a unique selling point as other cars have caught up, but the Prius is still expensive. He claimed that the comfortable efficient Honda we were in had cost him 6 grand second hand. He chose it because the purchase price was reasonable, it was cheap to run, it was reliable, and it didn't hurt his arse to sit in it all day. -- David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david Fashion label: n: a liferaft for personalities which lack intrinsic buoyancy |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
In message
-sept ember.org, at 08:45:29 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016, Recliner remarked: Roland Perry wrote: In message -sept ember.org, at 21:30:40 on Sat, 24 Sep 2016, Recliner remarked: Anyway, here's a recent report of Uber's self-driving tests in Pittsburgh: http://www.economist.com/news/busine...nches-its-firs t-self-driving-cars-pitt-stop I think you'll find that's the University's testing, and because Uber funds that programme they get to go "along for the ride" so to speak. It's also an early testing phase, which the cars won't necessarily pass. It's not really a pass or fail issue. It's an alpha test. I assume the software, algorithms and mapping database will be continually adjusted during this testing phase, but no-one is planning to roll out this version as a commercial release. But these improvements will feed back into the eventual commercial release, which is probably several years away. Like fusion power, you mean? The big step in this phase is that it's not just the private test running that Google has been doing for years, but a public test, with random members of the public actually using the cars as a taxi service. I've always assumed the Google test was at the very least assisting their employees to commute to work. Or is it only people driving around at random during their work day with the firm? It seems to be a little more ambitious than the nuTonomy trial that started a few days earlier in Singapore, but is still well short of a commercial release. The novelty is the way they are spinning it for PR purposes. I don't blame them for that, but it does appear to have got many people rather over-excited. Didn't BR run the APT in Alpha-testing revenue service, before scrapping the project? As an aside, it's interesting how much much hardware these early self-driving cars currently need (numerous sensors, Lidar, Radar, cameras, etc) compared to just the eyes and ears we human drivers get by with. 20 cameras, and radar! I wonder how fault-tolerant it is when one or more of the cameras fails because of an electrical fault, or become covered in snow. And don't forget, one of the problems Volvo has found is the radar antennas getting clogged with snow. ObRail: Right or wrong sort of snow, I wonder? -- Roland Perry |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
In message , at 09:08:36 on Mon, 26 Sep
2016, tim... remarked: If you're prepared to pay 50 grand for a new car, perhaps I was astonished to see *second hand* Land Rover Discos for sale on a forecourt for more than 50k. Some people have money to burn. -- Roland Perry |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
In message , at 12:01:29
on Mon, 26 Sep 2016, David Cantrell remarked: It's possible for Amazon to kill the competition and for it not to come back again, leaving you in an unassailable position to reap the rewards of previous work Once Uber has established in a city, competition can continually spring up again meaning that you are continually fighting it. There is no path to killing it off completely (other than making your price so low you don't make a profit). There are always new drivers prepared to compete with you. What's different about them that makes it possible for someone to pop up and start competing with Uber, but impossible for someone to pop up and start competing with Amazon? Mainly that Uber's buyers are only dealing with one commodity - drivers, and their product is self-delivering. Amazon has tens of thousands of product suppliers and tens of thousands of people required for picking/packing and delivering them. -- Roland Perry |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 12:26:00 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message -sept ember.org, at 08:45:29 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016, Recliner remarked: Roland Perry wrote: In message -sept ember.org, at 21:30:40 on Sat, 24 Sep 2016, Recliner remarked: Anyway, here's a recent report of Uber's self-driving tests in Pittsburgh: http://www.economist.com/news/busine...nches-its-firs t-self-driving-cars-pitt-stop I think you'll find that's the University's testing, and because Uber funds that programme they get to go "along for the ride" so to speak. It's also an early testing phase, which the cars won't necessarily pass. It's not really a pass or fail issue. It's an alpha test. I assume the software, algorithms and mapping database will be continually adjusted during this testing phase, but no-one is planning to roll out this version as a commercial release. But these improvements will feed back into the eventual commercial release, which is probably several years away. Like fusion power, you mean? No, exactly the opposite. This stuff works, and just needs fine-tuning. Fusion has never got that far. The big step in this phase is that it's not just the private test running that Google has been doing for years, but a public test, with random members of the public actually using the cars as a taxi service. I've always assumed the Google test was at the very least assisting their employees to commute to work. Or is it only people driving around at random during their work day with the firm? I think it's just a test programme, with professional testers driving around. It seems to be a little more ambitious than the nuTonomy trial that started a few days earlier in Singapore, but is still well short of a commercial release. The novelty is the way they are spinning it for PR purposes. I don't blame them for that, but it does appear to have got many people rather over-excited. Didn't BR run the APT in Alpha-testing revenue service, before scrapping the project? The self-driving cars are already much further ahead than the APT reached. As an aside, it's interesting how much much hardware these early self-driving cars currently need (numerous sensors, Lidar, Radar, cameras, etc) compared to just the eyes and ears we human drivers get by with. 20 cameras, and radar! I wonder how fault-tolerant it is when one or more of the cameras fails because of an electrical fault, or become covered in snow. And don't forget, one of the problems Volvo has found is the radar antennas getting clogged with snow. All stuff to be evaluated during the test phase. Hopefully the commercial version won't need quite so many cameras and sensors. ObRail: Right or wrong sort of snow, I wonder? |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 12:06:13 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 09:08:36 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016, tim... remarked: I have already explained, this is risk capital with the backers expecting a return on only 1 in 3 of their investments. Uber has been measured against that criteria. You really can't use the measure that VCs are investing as proof that a venture is guaranteed to be successful. The world is littered with VC failures, including some that required investments in the Billions. How much did Microsoft lose buying Skyp? Twitter is looking for White Knight at the moment, having consistently lost money with no turn-around on the horizon. Of course, Twitter had a successful IPO, so the VCs have already got their return. It's the later TWTR investors who are hoping for a generous buyout. But the company is making money, albeit much less than hoped-for: "The company posted second-quarter adjusted earnings of 13 cents a share on revenue of $602 million. Wall Street expected it to post earnings of 10 cents a share on revenue of $607 million, according to a Thomson Reuters consensus estimate. Profit per share was up from 7 cents a year earlier, and revenue rose 20 percent." http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/26/twitt...-earnings.html |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 04:21:44PM +0100, tim... wrote: It's possible for Amazon to kill the competition and for it not to come back again, leaving you in an unassailable position to reap the rewards of previous work Once Uber has established in a city, competition can continually spring up again meaning that you are continually fighting it. There is no path to killing it off completely (other than making your price so low you don't make a profit). There are always new drivers prepared to compete with you. What's different about them that makes it possible for someone to pop up and start competing with Uber, but impossible for someone to pop up and start competing with Amazon? The capital needed to expand into a new market. Number of suppliers and distribution. Amazon uses existing infrastructure e.g. Royal Mail and other couriers to hit a new market. A competetor has to get connectionbs with all the suppliers and have a physical centre (although that might be avoidable) So cost for setting up a new organisation is large. Uber provides infrastructure e.g. the cars (and currently drivers). To get a new market it needs to get all those. A competetor has to do exactly the same. There are no suppliers and the central control can be anywhwre it is just computers and support staff. So cost for a new organisation is smaller but it is the cost to enter a new martket that is large. -- Mark |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:41 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk