Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 13:08:13 on Mon, 3 Oct 2016,
tim... remarked:
Prime is faster, there's also their free postage offering.

Yes, but if you don't order often the membership fee is fairly hefty.

The membership fee is worth it for the streaming TV/movie service.

not if you already have more TV that you can watch without a streaming
service

It's not the hours of programming available, but the quality.

I was using "more that you can watch" in the sense of actually wanting to
watch it.

I happen to like all of the re-run detective/thriller/comedy series on the
many Freeview/sat channels, and now that there are about 10 of them (drama
rerun channels) there is more programming than I can keep up with, so much
so that other genre that I used to like watching, I no longer have time for.

I have yet to see the details of a series exclusively on a steaming service
that is of any interest to me.

Who cares if the budget for one Game of Thrones ep is 10 times that for e.g.
an ep of Bergerac (in real terms).

Give me the latter any day (though I ticked that particular re-run ages ago)

tim

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

In message , at 15:53:21 on Mon, 3 Oct 2016,
tim... remarked:

I have yet to see the details of a series exclusively on a steaming
service that is of any interest to me.

Have you seen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_Bad
--
Roland Perry

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 15:53:21 on Mon, 3 Oct 2016,
tim... remarked:

I have yet to see the details of a series exclusively on a steaming
service that is of any interest to me.

Have you seen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_Bad
--


shown on "Spike"!

tim

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

In message , at 09:01:04 on Tue, 4 Oct 2016,
tim... remarked:

I have yet to see the details of a series exclusively on a steaming
service that is of any interest to me.

Have you seen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_Bad

shown on "Spike"!

So you weren't interested? Doesn't have catch-up for it, either.
--
Roland Perry

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:01:04 on Tue, 4 Oct 2016,
tim... remarked:

I have yet to see the details of a series exclusively on a steaming
service that is of any interest to me.

Have you seen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_Bad

shown on "Spike"!

So you weren't interested?

I recorded it when it was shown. I have yet to find time to watch it (which
just shows you how much stuff that I am interested in, is available from
broadcast TV)

And the important point here is that it did find its way to broadcast TV.

Doesn't have catch-up for it, either.

It's available via naughty download sites (which unfortunately are getting
harder to get to the content avoiding the malware, than they used to be)

tim

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

In message , at 11:39:24 on Tue, 4 Oct 2016,
tim... remarked:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:01:04 on Tue, 4 Oct
2016, tim... remarked:

I have yet to see the details of a series exclusively on a steaming
service that is of any interest to me.

Have you seen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_Bad

shown on "Spike"!

So you weren't interested?

I recorded it when it was shown. I have yet to find time to watch it
(which just shows you how much stuff that I am interested in, is
available from broadcast TV)

And the important point here is that it did find its way to broadcast TV.

Not this Spike then:

http://www.spike.com/tv-schedule
--
Roland Perry

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:39:24 on Tue, 4 Oct 2016,
tim... remarked:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:01:04 on Tue, 4 Oct 2016,
tim... remarked:

I have yet to see the details of a series exclusively on a steaming
service that is of any interest to me.

Have you seen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_Bad

shown on "Spike"!

So you weren't interested?

I recorded it when it was shown. I have yet to find time to watch it
(which just shows you how much stuff that I am interested in, is available
from broadcast TV)

And the important point here is that it did find its way to broadcast TV.

Not this Spike then:

http://www.spike.com/tv-schedule

you are correct

not that one

tim

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 01:21:42PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:44:19
on Mon, 3 Oct 2016, David Cantrell remarked:
If you just order stuff to be delivered I don't see the point of Prime.
Isn't it like buying your groceries online?

It's not quite the same. For my Amazon deliveries I don't really care
when they show up as long as it's sometime within the next week or two.
For my groceries I have to be at home when the delivery arrives. That's
a big difference. Luckily I know what I'm about to run out of several
days in advance, so can place an order several days in advance of
delivery, and get the most convenient delivery time.

I order a few days in advance for different reasons on Amazon and Ocado.

--
David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information

Today's previously unreported paraphilia is tomorrow's Internet sensation

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 01:20:38PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:08:13 on Mon, 3 Oct 2016,
tim... remarked:
Prime is faster, there's also their free postage offering.
Yes, but if you don't order often the membership fee is fairly hefty.
The membership fee is worth it for the streaming TV/movie service.
not if you already have more TV that you can watch without a streaming
service
It's not the hours of programming available, but the quality.

I don't care what the quality is like if I don't have the time to watch
it, or if I have better things to do with my time.

--
David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive

One person can change the world, but most of the time they shouldn't
-- Marge Simpson

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

In message , at 12:36:16
on Wed, 5 Oct 2016, David Cantrell remarked:
Prime is faster, there's also their free postage offering.
Yes, but if you don't order often the membership fee is fairly hefty.
The membership fee is worth it for the streaming TV/movie service.
not if you already have more TV that you can watch without a streaming
service
It's not the hours of programming available, but the quality.

I don't care what the quality is like if I don't have the time to watch
it, or if I have better things to do with my time.

YMMV, but I use my limited TV-watching time on good quality programming,
not bad. With the one exception that watching some "so bad they are good
again" programmes does help keep up with topical memes.
--
Roland Perry

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

In message , at 12:29:04
on Wed, 5 Oct 2016, David Cantrell remarked:

If you just order stuff to be delivered I don't see the point of Prime.
Isn't it like buying your groceries online?

It's not quite the same. For my Amazon deliveries I don't really care
when they show up as long as it's sometime within the next week or two.

Whereas I tend to order stuff that I really do need in a hurry, usually
because the local High Street has come up blank.
--
Roland Perry

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

On 2016-10-05 12:37:27 +0000, Roland Perry said:

Whereas I tend to order stuff that I really do need in a hurry, usually
because the local High Street has come up blank.

As do I, or because it's quicker and easier to order online than have
to go and walk round a horribly busy shopping centre in my lunch
break[1].

[1] Yes, I do take one. Yes, a proper one. I'd rather work an hour on
the end of the day than not do so - working a solid 8 hours really saps
my performance in the afternoon.

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

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 01:36:02PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:36:16
on Wed, 5 Oct 2016, David Cantrell remarked:
Prime is faster, there's also their free postage offering.
Yes, but if you don't order often the membership fee is fairly hefty.
The membership fee is worth it for the streaming TV/movie service.
not if you already have more TV that you can watch without a streaming
service
It's not the hours of programming available, but the quality.
I don't care what the quality is like if I don't have the time to watch
it, or if I have better things to do with my time.
YMMV

And that was my point. Peoples' preferences differ. I said that Prime
didn't look like a good deal if you weren't interested in the video
service. You are asserting that the video service THAT I'M NOT
INTERESTED IN makes it worth paying for.

but I use my limited TV-watching time on good quality programming,

So do I. It does not follow that Prime is worth paying for. This may
come as a surprise to you, but there is plenty of good quality
programming available elsewhere.

Also note that the definition of "good quality programming" differs from
person to person. Just because Amazon's offering closely matches your
preferences doesn't mean that it matches everyones' preferences.
Because, as you said, YMMV.

Once Amazon start carrying substantial numbers of documentaries *on
subjects I find interesting* and they start carrying current rugby
matches then I might consider promoting them from "slightly more
interesting than watching paint dry" to "quality programming worth
paying for".

--
David Cantrell | semi-evolved ape-thing

Irregular English:
you have anecdotes; they have data; I have proof

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

In message , at 13:38:20
on Thu, 6 Oct 2016, David Cantrell remarked:
Prime is faster, there's also their free postage offering.
Yes, but if you don't order often the membership fee is fairly hefty.
The membership fee is worth it for the streaming TV/movie service.
not if you already have more TV that you can watch without a streaming
service
It's not the hours of programming available, but the quality.
I don't care what the quality is like if I don't have the time to watch
it, or if I have better things to do with my time.
YMMV

And that was my point. Peoples' preferences differ. I said that Prime
didn't look like a good deal if you weren't interested in the video
service. You are asserting that the video service THAT I'M NOT
INTERESTED IN makes it worth paying for.

but I use my limited TV-watching time on good quality programming,

So do I. It does not follow that Prime is worth paying for. This may
come as a surprise to you, but there is plenty of good quality
programming available elsewhere.

Also note that the definition of "good quality programming" differs from
person to person. Just because Amazon's offering closely matches your
preferences doesn't mean that it matches everyones' preferences.
Because, as you said, YMMV.

Once Amazon start carrying substantial numbers of documentaries *on
subjects I find interesting* and they start carrying current rugby
matches then I might consider promoting them from "slightly more
interesting than watching paint dry" to "quality programming worth
paying for".

I would pay extra for TV channels (in whatever guise) which agreed not
to show any sport at all. Good documentaries are hard to find. What I
like are what are termed in the trade "Police procedural dramas".
Anything from Inspector Morse, to Person of Interest.
--
Roland Perry

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

In message , at 18:11:28 on Tue, 27 Sep
2016, Roland Perry remarked:

[Aldi]

A smaller range of products *can* be a good thing, provided it is very
well selected, which by and large it is.

Their product range is extremely unpredictable. Only yesterday I went
in to buy something they've had for sale for a few months, and they've
obviously churned their stock in that [soft drinks] aisle from "Summer"
to "Autumn" and it's no longer available.

They also never stock quite a few really basic things (sour cream is
something I think is on that list, and yet they sell lots of 'other'
Tex-Mex stuff).

I almost didn't find frozen Yorkshire puddings there yesterday, but they
do have two types (neither of them the home-bake variety).
--
Roland Perry

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

tim... wrote:
came into my in box via my linkedin account

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-...jared-carmel-2

posted without comment (for now)

Uber's latest figures suggest that its UK business is growing fast, and
modestly profitable (though it may be exporting some of its UK profits to
lower tax domains, just as other US multinationals do):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/10/uber-drivers-racked-up-115m-of-fares-in-the-uk-last-year---doubl/

Quote:

Uber’s growing popularity has been confirmed after new accounts revealed
the taxi technology’s drivers billed more than £100m in UK fares last year,
leading to a doubling of profits at its parent company.

Uber London, the taxi app’s UK holding company, recorded a profit before
tax of £1.83m, up 105pc on the prior year, on the back of revenue that more
than doubled.

Accounts filed at Companies House show that Uber generated sales of £23.3m
in the year to December 2015, up from £11.34m. The sales figure reflects
only Uber’s share of fares for trips booked on its app.

Although Uber’s exact revenue split is not known, it is believed Uber gives
approximately 80pc of any fare to the driver, retaining 20pc for itself.

Based on that understanding and Uber’s £23m take, the company’s network of
drivers did some £115m of business in the UK last year, the majority of
which is thought to have been in the capital.

However sources indicated that due to the complicated nature of Uber's
multi-national accounts structure, the actual figure will be higher than
that.

The scale of growth in the business, which only began trading in London
four years ago, is reflected in the amount of cash it now holds on its
balance sheet £5.6m at the end of 2015, against £3.5m a year earlier.

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:
came into my in box via my linkedin account

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-...jared-carmel-2

posted without comment (for now)

Uber's latest figures suggest that its UK business is growing fast, and
modestly profitable (though it may be exporting some of its UK profits to
lower tax domains, just as other US multinationals do):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/10/uber-drivers-racked-up-115m-of-fares-in-the-uk-last-year---doubl/

Quote:

Uber’s growing popularity has been confirmed after new accounts revealed
the taxi technology’s drivers billed more than £100m in UK fares last
year,
leading to a doubling of profits at its parent company.

Uber London, the taxi app’s UK holding company, recorded a profit before
tax of £1.83m, up 105pc on the prior year, on the back of revenue that
more
than doubled.

Accounts filed at Companies House show that Uber generated sales of £23.3m
in the year to December 2015, up from £11.34m. The sales figure reflects
only Uber’s share of fares for trips booked on its app.

Although Uber’s exact revenue split is not known, it is believed Uber
gives
approximately 80pc of any fare to the driver, retaining 20pc for itself.

Based on that understanding and Uber’s £23m take, the company’s network of
drivers did some £115m of business in the UK last year, the majority of
which is thought to have been in the capital.


From

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...in-London.html

Uber claims "more than 15,000 drivers in London"

so that's a turnover of 7600 each?

That's before expenses.

Before fuel costs

before paying financing costs for the car.

Something doesn't add up

tim

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

In message , at 18:49:16 on Tue, 11 Oct
2016, tim... remarked:

Uber claims "more than 15,000 drivers in London"

so that's a turnover of 7600 each?

That's before expenses.

Before fuel costs

before paying financing costs for the car.

Something doesn't add up

Forgotten the subsidy so soon?
--
Roland Perry

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 18:49:16 on Tue, 11 Oct 2016,
tim... remarked:

Uber claims "more than 15,000 drivers in London"

so that's a turnover of 7600 each?

That's before expenses.

Before fuel costs

before paying financing costs for the car.

Something doesn't add up

Forgotten the subsidy so soon?

They no longer pay a subsidy in London (apparently)

And you made your comment like it was me who introduced the issue of subsidy
to the thread. It wasn't


tim

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

In message , at 19:53:13 on Tue, 11 Oct
2016, tim... remarked:
Uber claims "more than 15,000 drivers in London"

so that's a turnover of 7600 each?

That's before expenses.

Before fuel costs

before paying financing costs for the car.

Something doesn't add up

Forgotten the subsidy so soon?

They no longer pay a subsidy in London (apparently)

Citation required.

And you made your comment like it was me who introduced the issue of
subsidy to the thread. It wasn't

Indeed, you were the one denying it ever existed.
--
Roland Perry

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

tim... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:
came into my in box via my linkedin account

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-...jared-carmel-2

posted without comment (for now)

Uber's latest figures suggest that its UK business is growing fast, and
modestly profitable (though it may be exporting some of its UK profits to
lower tax domains, just as other US multinationals do):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/10/uber-drivers-racked-up-115m-of-fares-in-the-uk-last-year---doubl/

Quote:

Uber’s growing popularity has been confirmed after new accounts revealed
the taxi technology’s drivers billed more than £100m in UK fares last
year,
leading to a doubling of profits at its parent company.

Uber London, the taxi app’s UK holding company, recorded a profit before
tax of £1.83m, up 105pc on the prior year, on the back of revenue that
more
than doubled.

Accounts filed at Companies House show that Uber generated sales of £23.3m
in the year to December 2015, up from £11.34m. The sales figure reflects
only Uber’s share of fares for trips booked on its app.

Although Uber’s exact revenue split is not known, it is believed Uber
gives
approximately 80pc of any fare to the driver, retaining 20pc for itself.

Based on that understanding and Uber’s £23m take, the company’s network of
drivers did some £115m of business in the UK last year, the majority of
which is thought to have been in the capital.


From

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...in-London.html

Uber claims "more than 15,000 drivers in London"

so that's a turnover of 7600 each?

That's before expenses.

Before fuel costs

before paying financing costs for the car.

Something doesn't add up

It confirms that most Uber drivers are part-time.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/06/02/majority-of-uber-drivers-in-london-work-part-time-study-says/

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 19:53:13 on Tue, 11 Oct 2016,
tim... remarked:
Uber claims "more than 15,000 drivers in London"

so that's a turnover of 7600 each?

That's before expenses.

Before fuel costs

before paying financing costs for the car.

Something doesn't add up

Forgotten the subsidy so soon?

They no longer pay a subsidy in London (apparently)

Citation required.

I posted it last time it was discussed.

And you made your comment like it was me who introduced the issue of
subsidy to the thread. It wasn't

Indeed, you were the one denying it ever existed.

Um, no

wrong again

tim

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:
came into my in box via my linkedin account

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-...jared-carmel-2

posted without comment (for now)

Uber's latest figures suggest that its UK business is growing fast, and
modestly profitable (though it may be exporting some of its UK profits
to
lower tax domains, just as other US multinationals do):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/10/uber-drivers-racked-up-115m-of-fares-in-the-uk-last-year---doubl/

Quote:

Uber’s growing popularity has been confirmed after new accounts revealed
the taxi technology’s drivers billed more than £100m in UK fares last
year,
leading to a doubling of profits at its parent company.

Uber London, the taxi app’s UK holding company, recorded a profit before
tax of £1.83m, up 105pc on the prior year, on the back of revenue that
more
than doubled.

Accounts filed at Companies House show that Uber generated sales of
£23.3m
in the year to December 2015, up from £11.34m. The sales figure reflects
only Uber’s share of fares for trips booked on its app.

Although Uber’s exact revenue split is not known, it is believed Uber
gives
approximately 80pc of any fare to the driver, retaining 20pc for itself.

Based on that understanding and Uber’s £23m take, the company’s network
of
drivers did some £115m of business in the UK last year, the majority of
which is thought to have been in the capital.


From

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...in-London.html

Uber claims "more than 15,000 drivers in London"

so that's a turnover of 7600 each?

That's before expenses.

Before fuel costs

before paying financing costs for the car.

Something doesn't add up

It confirms that most Uber drivers are part-time.

But even so

As I said previously, I don't believe that the type of car required to be an
Uber driver is the type of car that someone who wants to increase their
income by a few tens of pounds a week working ****ty hours as an Uber
driver, will already have sitting on their drive.

and 7 grand a year isn't enough to finance such a car after you have paid
the other expenses.

I still don't get it (from the pov of the driver).

tim





http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/06/02/majority-of-uber-drivers-in-london-work-part-time-study-says/

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

tim... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:
came into my in box via my linkedin account

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-...jared-carmel-2

posted without comment (for now)

Uber's latest figures suggest that its UK business is growing fast, and
modestly profitable (though it may be exporting some of its UK profits
to
lower tax domains, just as other US multinationals do):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/10/uber-drivers-racked-up-115m-of-fares-in-the-uk-last-year---doubl/

Quote:

Uber’s growing popularity has been confirmed after new accounts revealed
the taxi technology’s drivers billed more than £100m in UK fares last
year,
leading to a doubling of profits at its parent company.

Uber London, the taxi app’s UK holding company, recorded a profit before
tax of £1.83m, up 105pc on the prior year, on the back of revenue that
more
than doubled.

Accounts filed at Companies House show that Uber generated sales of
£23.3m
in the year to December 2015, up from £11.34m. The sales figure reflects
only Uber’s share of fares for trips booked on its app.

Although Uber’s exact revenue split is not known, it is believed Uber
gives
approximately 80pc of any fare to the driver, retaining 20pc for itself.

Based on that understanding and Uber’s £23m take, the company’s network
of
drivers did some £115m of business in the UK last year, the majority of
which is thought to have been in the capital.


From

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...in-London.html

Uber claims "more than 15,000 drivers in London"

so that's a turnover of 7600 each?

That's before expenses.

Before fuel costs

before paying financing costs for the car.

Something doesn't add up

It confirms that most Uber drivers are part-time.

But even so

As I said previously, I don't believe that the type of car required to be an
Uber driver is the type of car that someone who wants to increase their
income by a few tens of pounds a week working ****ty hours as an Uber
driver, will already have sitting on their drive.

and 7 grand a year isn't enough to finance such a car after you have paid
the other expenses.

I still don't get it (from the pov of the driver).

Many Uber drivers are also local minicab drivers. Some might also driver
for other apps. So the same car is used to generate more than one income
stream.

Also, the number of Uber drivers at any one date is probably much lower
than the numbers cited.

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

In message , at 21:55:38 on Tue, 11 Oct
2016, tim... remarked:
They no longer pay a subsidy in London (apparently)

Citation required.

I posted it last time it was discussed.

And you made your comment like it was me who introduced the issue of
subsidy to the thread. It wasn't

Indeed, you were the one denying it ever existed.

Um, no

What's your assertion, then? That Uber used to pay a subsidy in London,
but don't now.

What do you call the referral bonus, paid for by Uber not the drivers,
if not a subsidy to the drivers fulfilling those trips?
--
Roland Perry

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


As I said previously, I don't believe that the type of car required to be
an
Uber driver is the type of car that someone who wants to increase their
income by a few tens of pounds a week working ****ty hours as an Uber
driver, will already have sitting on their drive.

and 7 grand a year isn't enough to finance such a car after you have paid
the other expenses.

I still don't get it (from the pov of the driver).

Many Uber drivers are also local minicab drivers. Some might also driver
for other apps. So the same car is used to generate more than one income
stream.

Whilst I have no personal knowledge of this,

many of the reports that I have read say that it is impossible use this MO
because the London mini-cab companies insist that you rent the car from them
when you drive for them. Your own car sits on your drive.

Also, the number of Uber drivers at any one date is probably much lower
than the numbers cited.

Hm - not convinced (that the papers would report it that way, not that it
doesn't happen)

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 21:55:38 on Tue, 11 Oct 2016,
tim... remarked:
They no longer pay a subsidy in London (apparently)

Citation required.

I posted it last time it was discussed.

And you made your comment like it was me who introduced the issue of
subsidy to the thread. It wasn't

Indeed, you were the one denying it ever existed.

Um, no

What's your assertion, then? That Uber used to pay a subsidy in London,
but don't now.

That is what my investigation at the time established, and I have previously
posted posts saying so - look back yourself

What do you call the referral bonus, paid for by Uber not the drivers, if
not a subsidy to the drivers fulfilling those trips?

so when I get a 20 quid M&S voucher for recommending my insurance company
(whoever) to a friend, that is a subsidy, is it?

tim

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

In message , at 11:39:14 on Wed, 12 Oct
2016, tim... remarked:

What do you call the referral bonus, paid for by Uber not the
drivers, if not a subsidy to the drivers fulfilling those trips?

so when I get a 20 quid M&S voucher for recommending my insurance
company (whoever) to a friend, that is a subsidy, is it?

No, because the insurance company buys them in bulk off M&S (at a
discount because many get lost/thrown away). To bribe people to refer
insurance customers - it's not M&S bribing the insurance company £20 to
drum up more M&S customers.

Uber taxi drivers don't buy the £15 vouchers and hand them to potential
new customers (thus reducing their first fare by £15). That £15 is paid
by Uber HQ, and is therefore a £15 subsidy to the driver accepting the
voucher.

Promotional marketing models not your strong point are they?
--
Roland Perry

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:36:50 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


As I said previously, I don't believe that the type of car required to be
an
Uber driver is the type of car that someone who wants to increase their
income by a few tens of pounds a week working ****ty hours as an Uber
driver, will already have sitting on their drive.

and 7 grand a year isn't enough to finance such a car after you have paid
the other expenses.

I still don't get it (from the pov of the driver).

Many Uber drivers are also local minicab drivers. Some might also driver
for other apps. So the same car is used to generate more than one income
stream.

Whilst I have no personal knowledge of this,

many of the reports that I have read say that it is impossible use this MO
because the London mini-cab companies insist that you rent the car from them
when you drive for them. Your own car sits on your drive.

It almost certainly depends on the firm. I'm sure many of the drivers
are using their own cars. It doesn't take long on Google to find ads
like this:
http://www.swiftcars.co.uk/employment-opportunities/

REQUIREMENTS:

-Own Vehicle in good condition, 2010 Reg or above.

– Minimum 1 months minicab work experience in London.

-spoken and written English language

-good knowledge of Central London

-OWN PROFESSIONAL NAVIGATION SYSTEM WITH LIVE TRAFFIC INFORMATION

-PCO license

PDA, Manuals, Support and Training provided.


Or this:
http://www.indeed.co.uk/cmp/Clock-Ca...Minicab+Driver



Also, the number of Uber drivers at any one date is probably much lower
than the numbers cited.

Hm - not convinced (that the papers would report it that way, not that it
doesn't happen)

They probably get the number from Uber -- who else would know? And
I'm sure that there;s a steady stream of drivers giving it a go, and
then deciding it's not for them. But they probably remain registered
as Uber drivers. Also that report was based on last year's figures,
when the number of driver's would have been lower on average.

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

In message , at 13:59:56 on
Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Recliner remarked:

many of the reports that I have read say that it is impossible use this MO
because the London mini-cab companies insist that you rent the car from them
when you drive for them. Your own car sits on your drive.

It almost certainly depends on the firm. I'm sure many of the drivers
are using their own cars.

One common business model is that you have to rent the 2-way radio from
the minicab firm (and that's a kind of "retainer fee" for the firm). Of
course, Uber has made those redundant.
--
Roland Perry

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:17:44 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:59:56 on
Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Recliner remarked:

many of the reports that I have read say that it is impossible use this MO
because the London mini-cab companies insist that you rent the car from them
when you drive for them. Your own car sits on your drive.

It almost certainly depends on the firm. I'm sure many of the drivers
are using their own cars.

One common business model is that you have to rent the 2-way radio from
the minicab firm (and that's a kind of "retainer fee" for the firm). Of
course, Uber has made those redundant.

I think they've been redundant for a while. I use minicabs 3 or 4 times a
year and I can't remember the last time I saw a 2 way radio in one. It was
mobile phones long before Uber came along.

--
Spud

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:17:44 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:59:56 on
Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Recliner remarked:

many of the reports that I have read say that it is impossible use this MO
because the London mini-cab companies insist that you rent the car from them
when you drive for them. Your own car sits on your drive.

It almost certainly depends on the firm. I'm sure many of the drivers
are using their own cars.

One common business model is that you have to rent the 2-way radio from
the minicab firm (and that's a kind of "retainer fee" for the firm). Of
course, Uber has made those redundant.

I think they've been redundant for a while. I use minicabs 3 or 4 times a
year and I can't remember the last time I saw a 2 way radio in one. It was
mobile phones long before Uber came along.

Yes, same here.

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 15:23:31 on Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Recliner
remarked:
One common business model is that you have to rent the 2-way radio from
the minicab firm (and that's a kind of "retainer fee" for the firm). Of
course, Uber has made those redundant.

I think they've been redundant for a while. I use minicabs 3 or 4 times a
year and I can't remember the last time I saw a 2 way radio in one. It was
mobile phones long before Uber came along.

Yes, same here.

I've not been in a minicab for about six years, but the one up until
then had the 2-way radios.
--
Roland Perry

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:39:14 on Wed, 12 Oct 2016,
tim... remarked:

What do you call the referral bonus, paid for by Uber not the drivers,
if not a subsidy to the drivers fulfilling those trips?

so when I get a 20 quid M&S voucher for recommending my insurance company
(whoever) to a friend, that is a subsidy, is it?

No, because the insurance company buys them in bulk off M&S (at a discount
because many get lost/thrown away). To bribe people to refer insurance
customers - it's not M&S bribing the insurance company £20 to drum up more
M&S customers.

Uber taxi drivers don't buy the £15 vouchers and hand them to potential
new customers (thus reducing their first fare by £15). That £15 is paid by
Uber HQ, and is therefore a £15 subsidy to the driver accepting the
voucher.

Promotional marketing models not your strong point are they?

I understand that the vouchers work on the basis that not everyone will
spend them

But nevertheless the 15 pound "first ride free" is still a marketing cost,
not a driver subsidy.

How about "get your first 10 pound bet free" at the online bookies. Is that
a subsidy?

And I know that this is just a bait to get people hooked, but there is real
costs associated with it from the group of people who arbitrage that free
bet into real money and never come back (except for the next free bet
offer) - Go on MSN and you'll find a community discussing how to do this,
some report making several 100 a month this way (no I don't believe it
either).

tim

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

In message , at 10:28:37 on Thu, 13 Oct
2016, tim... remarked:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:39:14 on Wed, 12 Oct
2016, tim... remarked:

What do you call the referral bonus, paid for by Uber not the
drivers, if not a subsidy to the drivers fulfilling those trips?

so when I get a 20 quid M&S voucher for recommending my insurance
company (whoever) to a friend, that is a subsidy, is it?

No, because the insurance company buys them in bulk off M&S (at a
discount because many get lost/thrown away). To bribe people to refer
insurance customers - it's not M&S bribing the insurance company £20
to drum up more M&S customers.

Uber taxi drivers don't buy the £15 vouchers and hand them to
potential new customers (thus reducing their first fare by £15). That
£15 is paid by Uber HQ, and is therefore a £15 subsidy to the driver
accepting the voucher.

Promotional marketing models not your strong point are they?

I understand that the vouchers work on the basis that not everyone will
spend them

But nevertheless the 15 pound "first ride free" is still a marketing
cost, not a driver subsidy.

It's a marketing cost *to Uber*, and it arises from them subsidising the
*drivers* by £15 for that inaugural trip.

How about "get your first 10 pound bet free" at the online bookies. Is
that a subsidy?

I wouldn't use that word as it's entirely internal to the bookie site.

And I know that this is just a bait to get people hooked, but there is
real costs associated with it from the group of people who arbitrage
that free bet into real money and never come back (except for the next
free bet offer) - Go on MSN and you'll find a community discussing how
to do this, some report making several 100 a month this way (no I don't
believe it either).

There are people who claim to make thousands by signing up for, and then
reselling, Uber vouchers.
--
Roland Perry

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 11:36:50AM +0100, tim... wrote:
Many Uber drivers are also local minicab drivers. Some might also driver
for other apps. So the same car is used to generate more than one income
stream.

Whilst I have no personal knowledge of this, many of the reports that
I have read say that it is impossible use this MO because the London
mini-cab companies insist that you rent the car from them when you
drive for them.

If that were the case Uber wouldn't have been so cross about TfL's
proposal to make it much harder for a driver to work for multiple cab
companies. Not saying that it doesn't happen, but it clearly isn't the
case for all operators.

If you think about it - if cab companies owned (or even rented a fleet)
of cars and rented them out to drivers, those cars would have their
branding on. At least their name and phone number. That's rare in
London. Most mini-cabs have no branding on them at all.

--
David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive

comparative and superlative explained:

Huhn worse, worser, worsest, worsted, wasted

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

In message , at 16:57:38
on Mon, 17 Oct 2016, David Cantrell remarked:

If you think about it - if cab companies owned (or even rented a fleet)
of cars and rented them out to drivers, those cars would have their
branding on. At least their name and phone number. That's rare in
London. Most mini-cabs have no branding on them at all.

Addison Lee being one the few which do.
--
Roland Perry

Exactly. One of the very few.

With almost all minicab firms in London, the driver obtains
the car himself - by buying, by leasing, by renting on a
week-to-week basis - and the car is effectively his to work
with wherever and with whomever he wants.

Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
 

In article ,
(Robin9) wrote:

*Subject:* Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
*From:* Robin9
*Date:* Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:00:55 +0200

Roland Perry;158741 Wrote:
In message , at
16:57:38 on Mon, 17 Oct 2016, David Cantrell
remarked:
-
If you think about it - if cab companies owned (or even rented a
fleet)
of cars and rented them out to drivers, those cars would have their
branding on. At least their name and phone number. That's rare in
London. Most mini-cabs have no branding on them at all.-

Addison Lee being one the few which do.

Exactly. One of the very few.

One of the few firms, sure, but what proportion of the hire cars?

With almost all minicab firms in London, the driver obtains
the car himself - by buying, by leasing, by renting on a
week-to-week basis - and the car is effectively his to work
with wherever and with whomever he wants.

How large are such fleets though?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Most minicab firms in London are quite small. The cab
firm at a suburban station may have only about forty
drivers. I've been told that Clarks at South Woodford
Station has about half that number and that Masons at
Woodford Station has about twice that number. There
is a handful of conventional cab firms - i.e. catering to
the general public on a cash basis - which are substantially
larger: e.g. Greyhound, The Keen Group, GLH.

There are also cab firms which deal exclusively with account
customers, 99 per cent of which are organisations. These cab
firms have their own fleet which their drivers have to use.
Addison Lee has an enormous account portfolio but also has
numerous cash customers. At one time they had about 1000
drivers, all using Addison Lee vehicles.

If there are 80,000 minicab drivers in London, even Addison
Lee's share is a small percentage.