|
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
came into my in box via my linkedin account
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-...jared-carmel-2 posted without comment (for now) tim --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
On Sunday, 18 September 2016 09:08:03 UTC+1, 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) tim Yesterday's (Saturday's) London Times features an exposé of Air B'n'b, which I read in a really desultory sort of way because I'm not that interested. I mention it because in my mind Air b'n'b is a company with the same sort of raison d'être as Uber... |
Quote:
losing money hand over fist. Not making enough profit to provide investers with a satisfactory return is one thing. Actually making a substantial loss is another. As Uber's drivers are paid only a percentage of what customers are charged, in London at least the business must show a profit before overheads are included. Are Uber's overheads far too high? |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
Robin9 wrote:
tim...;158053 Wrote: came into my in box via my linkedin account https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-...jared-carmel-2 posted without comment (for now) tim --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus Interesting. What surprises me is that Uber is deemed to be losing money hand over fist. Not making enough profit to provide investers with a satisfactory return is one thing. Actually making a substantial loss is another. As Uber's drivers are paid only a percentage of what customers are charged, in London at least the business must show a profit before overheads are included. Are Uber's overheads far too high? Uber's overheads are famously low. Why do you think Uber is making a profit in London? It doesn't even make a profit in the US. Uber makes no attempt to make a profit. It is pouring investment funds into growth, with the aim of a mega IPO. "Uber's losses and revenue have generally grown in lockstep as the company's global ambitions have expanded. Uber has lost money quarter after quarter. In 2015, Uber lost at least $2 billion before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. Uber, which is seven years old, has lost at least $4 billion in the history of the company." "Subsidies for Uber's drivers are responsible for the majority of the company's losses globally" http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...t-half-of-2016 |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
On Monday, 19 September 2016 10:06:52 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:
.... Uber makes no attempt to make a profit. It is pouring investment funds into growth, with the aim of a mega IPO. Initial public offering (on the Stock Exchange). "Uber's losses and revenue have generally grown in lockstep Google says, "close adherence to and emulation of another's actions." as the company's global ambitions have expanded. Uber has lost money quarter after quarter. In 2015, Uber lost at least $2 billion before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. Wikipedia says, "the process of reducing, or accounting for, an amount (usually a financial debt) over a period according to a plan." |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
"Recliner" wrote in message ... Robin9 wrote: tim...;158053 Wrote: came into my in box via my linkedin account https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-...jared-carmel-2 posted without comment (for now) tim --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus Interesting. What surprises me is that Uber is deemed to be losing money hand over fist. Not making enough profit to provide investers with a satisfactory return is one thing. Actually making a substantial loss is another. As Uber's drivers are paid only a percentage of what customers are charged, in London at least the business must show a profit before overheads are included. Are Uber's overheads far too high? Uber's overheads are famously low. Why do you think Uber is making a profit in London? It doesn't even make a profit in the US. Uber makes no attempt to make a profit. It is pouring investment funds into growth, with the aim of a mega IPO. "Uber's losses and revenue have generally grown in lockstep as the company's global ambitions have expanded. Uber has lost money quarter after quarter. In 2015, Uber lost at least $2 billion before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. Uber, which is seven years old, has lost at least $4 billion in the history of the company." "Subsidies for Uber's drivers are responsible for the majority of the company's losses globally" And now on earth do Uber spend so much on subsidising drivers? The drivers pay all of the costs of running the car and Uber pay them a percentage of the fare to cover those costs and provide an income for the driver (some argue, a pittance of an income). All Uber pay for is the advertising and the Hailing/tracking "technology". It is, of course, the sunk costs of investing in new technology that causes starts ups to report losses in the initial years of operation that need to be recouped later. But much of it is a one off cost that doesn't re-occur year after year, and in any case Uber's technology is pretty simple. Apart from having to add servers to their cluster (whatever the technical term really is) as demand grows, what additional technology costs do they have in year 2, 3 4 ...? It's the same basic app(s) that need to be downloaded - either by users or by drivers (OK it needs translating, but if that is costing them more than a couple of grand per language they have been ripped off), and the infrastructure that it is downloaded over, and used on, is provided by someone else (with access costs paid by the user/driver) Unless ... Uber are somehow paying for the cars up front for drivers who can't afford to fund them themselves? If there are, and this is the cause of the losses, then they are constructing the accounting for the transaction wrongly. The value of the cars (or the outstanding loans) should remain in the P&L as a capital item and offset any loss in the accounts cause by spending the cash on the cars. All that leaves is the adverting costs as they roll out to new countries but 2 billion per year on advertising - really! Perhaps this is some taxation game that they are playing reporting these losses? tim |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:19:15 +0100, "tim..."
wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... Robin9 wrote: tim...;158053 Wrote: came into my in box via my linkedin account https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-...jared-carmel-2 posted without comment (for now) tim --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus Interesting. What surprises me is that Uber is deemed to be losing money hand over fist. Not making enough profit to provide investers with a satisfactory return is one thing. Actually making a substantial loss is another. As Uber's drivers are paid only a percentage of what customers are charged, in London at least the business must show a profit before overheads are included. Are Uber's overheads far too high? Uber's overheads are famously low. Why do you think Uber is making a profit in London? It doesn't even make a profit in the US. Uber makes no attempt to make a profit. It is pouring investment funds into growth, with the aim of a mega IPO. "Uber's losses and revenue have generally grown in lockstep as the company's global ambitions have expanded. Uber has lost money quarter after quarter. In 2015, Uber lost at least $2 billion before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. Uber, which is seven years old, has lost at least $4 billion in the history of the company." "Subsidies for Uber's drivers are responsible for the majority of the company's losses globally" And now on earth do Uber spend so much on subsidising drivers? The drivers pay all of the costs of running the car and Uber pay them a percentage of the fare to cover those costs and provide an income for the driver (some argue, a pittance of an income). All Uber pay for is the advertising and the Hailing/tracking "technology". Read what I quoted: "Subsidies for Uber's drivers are responsible for the majority of the company's losses globally" It is, of course, the sunk costs of investing in new technology that causes starts ups to report losses in the initial years of operation that need to be recouped later. But much of it is a one off cost that doesn't re-occur year after year, and in any case Uber's technology is pretty simple. Apart from having to add servers to their cluster (whatever the technical term really is) as demand grows, what additional technology costs do they have in year 2, 3 4 ...? Nobody said they were technology costs. As the reports say, they're driver subsidies. It's the same basic app(s) that need to be downloaded - either by users or by drivers (OK it needs translating, but if that is costing them more than a couple of grand per language they have been ripped off), and the infrastructure that it is downloaded over, and used on, is provided by someone else (with access costs paid by the user/driver) Unless ... Uber are somehow paying for the cars up front for drivers who can't afford to fund them themselves? No. But they overpay drivers in most start-up cities, or guarantee a level of business, whether or not it's achieved. If there are, and this is the cause of the losses, then they are constructing the accounting for the transaction wrongly. The value of the cars (or the outstanding loans) should remain in the P&L as a capital item and offset any loss in the accounts cause by spending the cash on the cars. All that leaves is the adverting costs as they roll out to new countries No but 2 billion per year on advertising - really! No. Read the quoted report. Perhaps this is some taxation game that they are playing reporting these losses? No, but those losses will be carried forward to offset future profits when they arrive. Do you *really* think Uber's business is that simple? Do a bit of Googling... http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhue.../#1d82793f2bd6 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/te...hina.html?_r=0 http://therideshareguy.com/how-does-...-pricing-work/ |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
"Recliner" wrote in message ... On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:19:15 +0100, "tim..." wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... Robin9 wrote: tim...;158053 Wrote: came into my in box via my linkedin account https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-...jared-carmel-2 posted without comment (for now) tim --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus Interesting. What surprises me is that Uber is deemed to be losing money hand over fist. Not making enough profit to provide investers with a satisfactory return is one thing. Actually making a substantial loss is another. As Uber's drivers are paid only a percentage of what customers are charged, in London at least the business must show a profit before overheads are included. Are Uber's overheads far too high? Uber's overheads are famously low. Why do you think Uber is making a profit in London? It doesn't even make a profit in the US. Uber makes no attempt to make a profit. It is pouring investment funds into growth, with the aim of a mega IPO. "Uber's losses and revenue have generally grown in lockstep as the company's global ambitions have expanded. Uber has lost money quarter after quarter. In 2015, Uber lost at least $2 billion before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. Uber, which is seven years old, has lost at least $4 billion in the history of the company." "Subsidies for Uber's drivers are responsible for the majority of the company's losses globally" And now on earth do Uber spend so much on subsidising drivers? The drivers pay all of the costs of running the car and Uber pay them a percentage of the fare to cover those costs and provide an income for the driver (some argue, a pittance of an income). All Uber pay for is the advertising and the Hailing/tracking "technology". Read what I quoted: "Subsidies for Uber's drivers are responsible for the majority of the company's losses globally" I read that bit - I saw it in the article as well I am questioning what these subsidies actually are. It is, of course, the sunk costs of investing in new technology that causes starts ups to report losses in the initial years of operation that need to be recouped later. But much of it is a one off cost that doesn't re-occur year after year, and in any case Uber's technology is pretty simple. Apart from having to add servers to their cluster (whatever the technical term really is) as demand grows, what additional technology costs do they have in year 2, 3 4 ...? Nobody said they were technology costs. As the reports say, they're driver subsidies. but what are they? It's the same basic app(s) that need to be downloaded - either by users or by drivers (OK it needs translating, but if that is costing them more than a couple of grand per language they have been ripped off), and the infrastructure that it is downloaded over, and used on, is provided by someone else (with access costs paid by the user/driver) Unless ... Uber are somehow paying for the cars up front for drivers who can't afford to fund them themselves? No. But they overpay drivers in most start-up cities, or guarantee a level of business, whether or not it's achieved. It still seems a lot I found an article on the roll out of Uber in London The guy who was responsible for finding new drivers had a budget of 50K per week to subsidise new drivers that 2.5 million per year that's a mile away from 2 billion if they are paying that much to roll out in 1000 new cities a year I suggest that their plans are overly ambitious If there are, and this is the cause of the losses, then they are constructing the accounting for the transaction wrongly. The value of the cars (or the outstanding loans) should remain in the P&L as a capital item and offset any loss in the accounts cause by spending the cash on the cars. All that leaves is the adverting costs as they roll out to new countries No but 2 billion per year on advertising - really! No. Read the quoted report. I did it gave no indication as to what they were paying for. Perhaps this is some taxation game that they are playing reporting these losses? No, but those losses will be carried forward to offset future profits when they arrive. Do you *really* think Uber's business is that simple? Is how simple yes I do spending billions on trying to win a market of millions is just silly tim |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
tim... wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message ... On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:19:15 +0100, "tim..." wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... Robin9 wrote: tim...;158053 Wrote: came into my in box via my linkedin account https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-...jared-carmel-2 posted without comment (for now) tim --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus Interesting. What surprises me is that Uber is deemed to be losing money hand over fist. Not making enough profit to provide investers with a satisfactory return is one thing. Actually making a substantial loss is another. As Uber's drivers are paid only a percentage of what customers are charged, in London at least the business must show a profit before overheads are included. Are Uber's overheads far too high? Uber's overheads are famously low. Why do you think Uber is making a profit in London? It doesn't even make a profit in the US. Uber makes no attempt to make a profit. It is pouring investment funds into growth, with the aim of a mega IPO. "Uber's losses and revenue have generally grown in lockstep as the company's global ambitions have expanded. Uber has lost money quarter after quarter. In 2015, Uber lost at least $2 billion before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. Uber, which is seven years old, has lost at least $4 billion in the history of the company." "Subsidies for Uber's drivers are responsible for the majority of the company's losses globally" And now on earth do Uber spend so much on subsidising drivers? The drivers pay all of the costs of running the car and Uber pay them a percentage of the fare to cover those costs and provide an income for the driver (some argue, a pittance of an income). All Uber pay for is the advertising and the Hailing/tracking "technology". Read what I quoted: "Subsidies for Uber's drivers are responsible for the majority of the company's losses globally" I read that bit - I saw it in the article as well I am questioning what these subsidies actually are. It is, of course, the sunk costs of investing in new technology that causes starts ups to report losses in the initial years of operation that need to be recouped later. But much of it is a one off cost that doesn't re-occur year after year, and in any case Uber's technology is pretty simple. Apart from having to add servers to their cluster (whatever the technical term really is) as demand grows, what additional technology costs do they have in year 2, 3 4 ...? Nobody said they were technology costs. As the reports say, they're driver subsidies. but what are they? It's the same basic app(s) that need to be downloaded - either by users or by drivers (OK it needs translating, but if that is costing them more than a couple of grand per language they have been ripped off), and the infrastructure that it is downloaded over, and used on, is provided by someone else (with access costs paid by the user/driver) Unless ... Uber are somehow paying for the cars up front for drivers who can't afford to fund them themselves? No. But they overpay drivers in most start-up cities, or guarantee a level of business, whether or not it's achieved. It still seems a lot I found an article on the roll out of Uber in London The guy who was responsible for finding new drivers had a budget of 50K per week to subsidise new drivers that 2.5 million per year that's a mile away from 2 billion if they are paying that much to roll out in 1000 new cities a year I suggest that their plans are overly ambitious That may well be so. If there are, and this is the cause of the losses, then they are constructing the accounting for the transaction wrongly. The value of the cars (or the outstanding loans) should remain in the P&L as a capital item and offset any loss in the accounts cause by spending the cash on the cars. All that leaves is the adverting costs as they roll out to new countries No but 2 billion per year on advertising - really! No. Read the quoted report. I did it gave no indication as to what they were paying for. I suggest you read the reports again and look for the word 'China'. Perhaps this is some taxation game that they are playing reporting these losses? No, but those losses will be carried forward to offset future profits when they arrive. Do you *really* think Uber's business is that simple? Is how simple yes I do I look forward to your next management textbook. It should be refreshingly short. spending billions on trying to win a market of millions is just silly Ah well, you'd better sell your well-informed investment advice to the billionaire funds investing in Uber. You clearly understand this market much better than they do. |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
"Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: Perhaps this is some taxation game that they are playing reporting these losses? No, but those losses will be carried forward to offset future profits when they arrive. Do you *really* think Uber's business is that simple? Is how simple yes I do I look forward to your next management textbook. It should be refreshingly short. spending billions on trying to win a market of millions is just silly Ah well, you'd better sell your well-informed investment advice to the billionaire funds investing in Uber. You clearly understand this market much better than they do. Everything that I did find when trying to research this shows that everything in the Garden is not rosy for Uber I suspect that the backers will get cold feet soon tim |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
Robin9 wrote:
'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: ;158072']Robin9 wrote:- tim...;158053 Wrote: - came into my in box via my linkedin account https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-...jared-carmel-2 posted without comment (for now) tim --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus- Interesting. What surprises me is that Uber is deemed to be losing money hand over fist. Not making enough profit to provide investers with a satisfactory return is one thing. Actually making a substantial loss is another. As Uber's drivers are paid only a percentage of what customers are charged, in London at least the business must show a profit before overheads are included. Are Uber's overheads far too high?- Uber's overheads are famously low. Why do you think Uber is making a profit in London? It doesn't even make a profit in the US. If Uber can't make a profit before overheads are included, they must be grossly incompetent. Remember how the London minicab trade works. The driver is deemed to be self-employed, and pays for the car, insurance and petrol himself. The customer pays Uber by credit card and Uber pays a small percentage to the driver. As Uber seems to have taken a huge share of the market away from both Hackney cabs and minicabs, the number of jobs per day must be in the thousands. Multiply that number of jobs by an average net revenue of, say, five pounds and you arrive at a gross income which must be more than the cost of a minimal office set-up. Uber is investing in market growth. That's where the big money goes. So it subsidies drivers to get into new markets, and spends a lot on marketing. I dare say it spends a lot on political lobbying as well. The really big losses were in China, but that's now stopped, so from now on, the losses should taper. But it's still fighting competitive battles in many markets, so bottom line profits will remain illusive. It also seems to be spending a lot on driverless technologies, as it expects these to be cheaper than drivers within a few years. But that means it will need to invest in the cars. |
Quote:
indication that Uber are subsidising their drivers here. I am sceptical that they do anywhere, and I'm not persuaded merely because it is stated on the Internet. I'd like someone who believes that Uber are subsidising their drivers to explain in detail how this is done. |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
Robin9 wrote:
'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: ;158092']Robin9 wrote:- 'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: - ;158072']Robin9 wrote:- tim...;158053 Wrote: - came into my in box via my linkedin account https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-...jared-carmel-2 posted without comment (for now) tim --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus- Interesting. What surprises me is that Uber is deemed to be losing money hand over fist. Not making enough profit to provide investers with a satisfactory return is one thing. Actually making a substantial loss is another. As Uber's drivers are paid only a percentage of what customers are charged, in London at least the business must show a profit before overheads are included. Are Uber's overheads far too high?- Uber's overheads are famously low. Why do you think Uber is making a profit in London? It doesn't even make a profit in the US. - If Uber can't make a profit before overheads are included, they must be grossly incompetent. Remember how the London minicab trade works. The driver is deemed to be self-employed, and pays for the car, insurance and petrol himself. The customer pays Uber by credit card and Uber pays a small percentage to the driver. As Uber seems to have taken a huge share of the market away from both Hackney cabs and minicabs, the number of jobs per day must be in the thousands. Multiply that number of jobs by an average net revenue of, say, five pounds and you arrive at a gross income which must be more than the cost of a minimal office set-up.- Uber is investing in market growth. That's where the big money goes. So it subsidies drivers to get into new markets, and spends a lot on marketing. I dare say it spends a lot on political lobbying as well. The really big losses were in China, but that's now stopped, so from now on, the losses should taper. But it's still fighting competitive battles in many markets, so bottom line profits will remain illusive. It also seems to be spending a lot on driverless technologies, as it expects these to be cheaper than drivers within a few years. But that means it will need to invest in the cars. I'm discussing the situation in London, and there is no indication that Uber are subsidising their drivers here. I am sceptical that they do anywhere, and I'm not persuaded merely because it is stated on the Internet. I'd like someone who believes that Uber are subsidising their drivers to explain in detail how this is done. Google is your friend: https://seattletransitblog.com/2016/...-of-subsidies/ http://www.financialexpress.com/indu...n-loss/358291/ https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...l-survive-uber http://www.hybridcars.com/uber-loses...ke-their-toll/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhue.../#6fcde8ad2bd6 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ubers-hands...f-2016-1578115 http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhue.../#354f4fe08c57 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...y-defeat-lyft/ http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...w/47600297.cms |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 19:25:51 +0100, "tim..."
wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: Perhaps this is some taxation game that they are playing reporting these losses? No, but those losses will be carried forward to offset future profits when they arrive. Do you *really* think Uber's business is that simple? Is how simple yes I do I look forward to your next management textbook. It should be refreshingly short. spending billions on trying to win a market of millions is just silly Ah well, you'd better sell your well-informed investment advice to the billionaire funds investing in Uber. You clearly understand this market much better than they do. Everything that I did find when trying to research this shows that everything in the Garden is not rosy for Uber I think that was your view before doing any research. I suspect that the backers will get cold feet soon Perhaps they will, but not for the reasons you think. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/08/ubers...oundation.html |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:10:55 +0100
Recliner wrote: Perhaps they will, but not for the reasons you think. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/08/ubers...e-on-shaky-fou dation.html Like the majority of the current crop of silicon valley start ups then. I'm amazed the bubble has lasted this long. There must be a boatload of gullible rich idiots out there bankrolling them all. -- Spud |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:10:55 +0100 Recliner wrote: Perhaps they will, but not for the reasons you think. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/08/ubers...e-on-shaky-fou dation.html Like the majority of the current crop of silicon valley start ups then. I'm amazed the bubble has lasted this long. There must be a boatload of gullible rich idiots out there bankrolling them all. Yup, I can never understand the huge valuations put on high profile SV startups. But sometimes they actually prove they can eventually make real profits (eg, Facebook), and in many other cases they exit on a decent valuation. So the early investors often make a very good multiple, which pays for the others that don't make it. With Uber, the investors aren't betting on the current business model, but on an imagined future where people don't own their own cars, but rent transport as they need it. Uber's plan is to dominate that market, and the VCs are prepared to fund it to do so. |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
"Recliner" wrote in message ... On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 19:25:51 +0100, "tim..." wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: Perhaps this is some taxation game that they are playing reporting these losses? No, but those losses will be carried forward to offset future profits when they arrive. Do you *really* think Uber's business is that simple? Is how simple yes I do I look forward to your next management textbook. It should be refreshingly short. spending billions on trying to win a market of millions is just silly Ah well, you'd better sell your well-informed investment advice to the billionaire funds investing in Uber. You clearly understand this market much better than they do. Everything that I did find when trying to research this shows that everything in the Garden is not rosy for Uber I think that was your view before doing any research. Nope I thought that it had questionable business practices, but I (sadly) also thought that it was destined to take over the world I suspect that the backers will get cold feet soon Perhaps they will, but not for the reasons you think. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/08/ubers...oundation.html ISTR that I made some of these comments before (about its MO being easy to replicate) I also don't recognise the basic premise "They integrated a mostly unused stockpile of personal automobiles" Um? Nhow many people do you know with a nearly new Mercedes S class (the mandated type of car for early adopters) sitting in the garage unused whilst they sit in the lounge twiddling their thumbs. The average underemployed person who considers being a cabbie to make ends meet has a beat up old Sierra (at best) in the garage tim |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:10:55 +0100 Recliner wrote: Perhaps they will, but not for the reasons you think. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/08/ubers...e-on-shaky-fou dation.html Like the majority of the current crop of silicon valley start ups then. I'm amazed the bubble has lasted this long. There must be a boatload of gullible rich idiots out there bankrolling them all. with bank interest rate down at zero, there's a lot of money sloshing around looking for a home Early investors don't even need to believe in the long term prospects for the company, all they need to believe in is the bigger fool coming along later. Just look at the absurd valuation of Ocardo against its piddly market share, its piddly profit per delivery and it non-existent growth potential now that every man and his dog supermarket has a competing operation (with lower fulfilment costs) tim |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 14:08:48 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: With Uber, the investors aren't betting on the current business model, but on an imagined future where people don't own their own cars, but rent transport as they need it. Uber's plan is to dominate that market, and the VCs are prepared to fund it to do so. Only people who only ever lived in a city flat would think renting a car on an as-you-need-it basis is a viable model for family life out in the sticks. If taxis and rental cars were the solution to every car problem then there wouldn't be 15 million private cars in the UK. Equally stupid is the rent your self driving car out when you're not using it idea that I've seen put forward. Oh sure, I'll just let any old tom, dick or harriett use the 2nd largest capital investment in my life as they see fit. Vomit on the carpet and everything nicked from the boot is just what I want the next day. Honestly , some of these californian techies live on another planet. And I speak as a techie. -- Spud |
Quote:
change that. Not one persuaded me that Uber are genuinely subsidising their drivers anywhere, least of all in London. It is clear from those links that the idea of Uber's losses arising from subsidies to drivers came from their financial director, Guatam Gupta, who seems to have made no attempt to substantiate the contention. As is the way of the Internet, those unquantified assertions have been repeated by people who are trying to pretend that they have done original research and are in possession of confidential information. There is also the issue of semantics. Some of those links show people confused by the differences between a subsidy, a guarantee and a loss-leading market strategy. |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
Robin9 wrote:
'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: ;158096']Robin9 wrote:- 'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: - ;158092']Robin9 wrote:- 'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: - ;158072']Robin9 wrote:- tim...;158053 Wrote: - came into my in box via my linkedin account https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-...jared-carmel-2 posted without comment (for now) tim --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus- Interesting. What surprises me is that Uber is deemed to be losing money hand over fist. Not making enough profit to provide investers with a satisfactory return is one thing. Actually making a substantial loss is another. As Uber's drivers are paid only a percentage of what customers are charged, in London at least the business must show a profit before overheads are included. Are Uber's overheads far too high?- Uber's overheads are famously low. Why do you think Uber is making a profit in London? It doesn't even make a profit in the US. - If Uber can't make a profit before overheads are included, they must be grossly incompetent. Remember how the London minicab trade works. The driver is deemed to be self-employed, and pays for the car, insurance and petrol himself. The customer pays Uber by credit card and Uber pays a small percentage to the driver. As Uber seems to have taken a huge share of the market away from both Hackney cabs and minicabs, the number of jobs per day must be in the thousands. Multiply that number of jobs by an average net revenue of, say, five pounds and you arrive at a gross income which must be more than the cost of a minimal office set-up.- Uber is investing in market growth. That's where the big money goes. So it subsidies drivers to get into new markets, and spends a lot on marketing. I dare say it spends a lot on political lobbying as well. The really big losses were in China, but that's now stopped, so from now on, the losses should taper. But it's still fighting competitive battles in many markets, so bottom line profits will remain illusive. It also seems to be spending a lot on driverless technologies, as it expects these to be cheaper than drivers within a few years. But that means it will need to invest in the cars.- I'm discussing the situation in London, and there is no indication that Uber are subsidising their drivers here. I am sceptical that they do anywhere, and I'm not persuaded merely because it is stated on the Internet. I'd like someone who believes that Uber are subsidising their drivers to explain in detail how this is done.- Google is your friend: http://tinyurl.com/zrtmng4 http://tinyurl.com/h4a9dz4 http://tinyurl.com/grxowog http://tinyurl.com/j3fknwr http://tinyurl.com/meu2elv http://tinyurl.com/zrfhsdl http://tinyurl.com/pyo4b3m http://tinyurl.com/zk2hg4u http://tinyurl.com/h7aac2h Google is not my friend and none of those links will change that. In other words, your mind is made up, regardless of the evidence. Not one persuaded me that Uber are genuinely subsidising their drivers anywhere, least of all in London. It is clear from those links that the idea of Uber's losses arising from subsidies to drivers came from their financial director, Guatam Gupta, who seems to have made no attempt to substantiate the contention. As is the way of the Internet, those unquantified assertions have been repeated by people who are trying to pretend that they have done original research and are in possession of confidential information. It looks like you've not read many of the links then. There is also the issue of semantics. Some of those links show people confused by the differences between a subsidy, a guarantee and a loss-leading market strategy. What confusion? Uber often pays its drivers more than the usual 80% of the fare the customer paid. That's a driver subsidy, which hits Uber's bottom line. It doesn't matter why Uber chooses to do it. In the UK, new customers get a £15 discount. That's paid by Uber, not the driver. In other words, a driver subsidy: https://www.list.co.uk/offer/2097-ge...jor-uk-cities/ https://www.vouchercodes.co.uk/uber.com So do you still maintain that "there is no indication that Uber are subsidising their drivers here. I am sceptical that they do anywhere, and I'm not persuaded merely because it is stated on the Internet"? And if you disregard everything you read on the internet, what are you doing here? |
Quote:
is that I'm trying to learn the mind-set of people who do believe everything they read on the Internet. The point you seem to have missed is that all those links are repeating and elaborating on an assertion made by someone who has a vested interest in propagating the idea that Uber are subsidising drivers. Can you find anywhere a confirmation by a driver that they are being subsidised? Can you find any verification that the calculations quoted are valid? 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? |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
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. -- David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
|
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:34:22 +0100
David Cantrell wrote: On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 03:17:06PM +0000, d wrote: Only people who only ever lived in a city flat would think renting a car on an as-you-need-it basis is a viable model for family life out in the sticks. There is an implicit "most" between "where" and "people". Obviously there will still be a small market for people with their own cars, just like there is a small market today for people who use horses, Cars were an enormous improvement on horses. Renting a car is zero improvement upon owning one unless you have nowhere to park it or can't afford to buy one. There are plenty of places to rent cars at the moment but do you see people replacing their own cars with rentals or just using taxis? No. And just because in the future a car might be able to drive itself will make zero difference to that. -- Spud |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
Robin9 wrote:
'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: ;158116']Robin9 wrote:- 'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: - ;158096']Robin9 wrote:- 'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: - ;158092']Robin9 wrote:- 'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: - ;158072']Robin9 wrote:- tim...;158053 Wrote: - came into my in box via my linkedin account https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-...jared-carmel-2 posted without comment (for now) tim --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus- Interesting. What surprises me is that Uber is deemed to be losing money hand over fist. Not making enough profit to provide investers with a satisfactory return is one thing. Actually making a substantial loss is another. As Uber's drivers are paid only a percentage of what customers are charged, in London at least the business must show a profit before overheads are included. Are Uber's overheads far too high?- Uber's overheads are famously low. Why do you think Uber is making a profit in London? It doesn't even make a profit in the US. - If Uber can't make a profit before overheads are included, they must be grossly incompetent. Remember how the London minicab trade works. The driver is deemed to be self-employed, and pays for the car, insurance and petrol himself. The customer pays Uber by credit card and Uber pays a small percentage to the driver. As Uber seems to have taken a huge share of the market away from both Hackney cabs and minicabs, the number of jobs per day must be in the thousands. Multiply that number of jobs by an average net revenue of, say, five pounds and you arrive at a gross income which must be more than the cost of a minimal office set-up.- Uber is investing in market growth. That's where the big money goes. So it subsidies drivers to get into new markets, and spends a lot on marketing. I dare say it spends a lot on political lobbying as well. The really big losses were in China, but that's now stopped, so from now on, the losses should taper. But it's still fighting competitive battles in many markets, so bottom line profits will remain illusive. It also seems to be spending a lot on driverless technologies, as it expects these to be cheaper than drivers within a few years. But that means it will need to invest in the cars.- I'm discussing the situation in London, and there is no indication that Uber are subsidising their drivers here. I am sceptical that they do anywhere, and I'm not persuaded merely because it is stated on the Internet. I'd like someone who believes that Uber are subsidising their drivers to explain in detail how this is done.- Google is your friend: http://tinyurl.com/zrtmng4 http://tinyurl.com/h4a9dz4 http://tinyurl.com/grxowog http://tinyurl.com/j3fknwr http://tinyurl.com/meu2elv http://tinyurl.com/zrfhsdl http://tinyurl.com/pyo4b3m http://tinyurl.com/zk2hg4u http://tinyurl.com/h7aac2h- Google is not my friend and none of those links will change that. - In other words, your mind is made up, regardless of the evidence. - Not one persuaded me that Uber are genuinely subsidising their drivers anywhere, least of all in London. It is clear from those links that the idea of Uber's losses arising from subsidies to drivers came from their financial director, Guatam Gupta, who seems to have made no attempt to substantiate the contention. As is the way of the Internet, those unquantified assertions have been repeated by people who are trying to pretend that they have done original research and are in possession of confidential information. - It looks like you've not read many of the links then. - There is also the issue of semantics. Some of those links show people confused by the differences between a subsidy, a guarantee and a loss-leading market strategy.- What confusion? Uber often pays its drivers more than the usual 80% of the fare the customer paid. That's a driver subsidy, which hits Uber's bottom line. It doesn't matter why Uber chooses to do it. In the UK, new customers get a £15 discount. That's paid by Uber, not the driver. In other words, a driver subsidy: http://tinyurl.com/z5hsuer https://www.vouchercodes.co.uk/uber.com So do you still maintain that "there is no indication that Uber are subsidising their drivers here. I am sceptical that they do anywhere, and I'm not persuaded merely because it is stated on the Internet"? And if you disregard everything you read on the internet, what are you doing here? The facetious answer to your ill-mannered question is that I'm trying to learn the mind-set of people who do believe everything they read on the Internet. And it appears that you only believe things on the internet if they are things you believed already. If you didn't already believe it, you believe it must be a lie. So, I ask again, why are you here? You're not going to believe anything you don't already believe, so reading all these lies must be very tedious for you. The point you seem to have missed is that all those links are repeating and elaborating on an assertion made by someone who has a vested interest in propagating the idea that Uber are subsidising drivers. Can you find anywhere a confirmation by a driver that they are being subsidised? How would they even know? The customer pays Uber directly. Can you find any verification that the calculations quoted are valid? Why should I? You're the one doubting everything, with no evidence to support your assertions. Disprove it yourself, if you can. Simply saying you disbelieve everything you don't like doesn't count. 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. You seem to have forgotten that Uber is growing as fast as possible. That's why it constantly advertises for both drivers and customers. Undoubtedly there will be significant driver turnover, but even if there wasn't, Uber would still be advertising for more 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? Obviously some can't. That doesn't mean that others don't. But just because Uber feels the need to sometimes subside drivers doesn't mean that they're well paid. Uber has a policy of reducing fares to gain market share, which hurts driver income. Uber sometimes subsidises drivrs to reduce this effect. In any case, no-one has said that Uber always subsidises drivers, just that it does so often enough to make hefty losses. This was particularly the case in China, but that source of losses has now ceased. Incidentally, the normal payment to drivers is 80% of the fare. It's a subsidy when driver payments are more than that, for example when Uber gives introductory discounts to new customers without cutting driver payments. It's also a subsidy if drivers are guaranteed a certain level of business, but the drivers may not see it that way. But of course you won't accept any of this as you didn't believe it already. |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
"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. tim |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
On 21/09/2016 19:09, tim... wrote: "Robin9" wrote: 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. 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 Uber Bleeding to Death?
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 |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
|
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
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). -- Roland Perry |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 08:46:39 +0100, 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). As I said upthread, Uber pays. In effect, it's part of the driver subsidy. I don't suppose the driver even knows the customer is getting a discount, as he/she isn't involved in the financial transaction (unless the customer mentions it). |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
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. |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 01:11:32PM +0200, Robin9 wrote:
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? You appear to be confusing Uber in London with Uber as a whole. The article that started this whole thread was about the latter. It is possible for both of these statements to be true: * Uber subsidises some drivers * Uber does not subsidise drivers in London As for why they're advertising for drivers in London, it could be because they're losing drivers. In fact they almost certainly are losing drivers, because just like in every other business there is natural staff turnover (please don't get pedantic about the employment relationship, it's not relevant). It could also be because they are still expanding and need more drivers, but they now have to advertise for them because they've already got all the ones they didn't need to advertise at. In reality it'll be a combination of both of those. BTW, have you noticed that Arriva are *always* advertising for bus drivers in London? Argh, doom, disaster! Arriva are bleeding to death! -- David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club" One person can change the world, but most of the time they shouldn't -- Marge Simpson |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
"Mizter T" wrote in message ... On 21/09/2016 19:09, tim... wrote: "Robin9" wrote: 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. 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. I frequently read posts on TA from people saying "please help us what to see, restaurants to go to etc. We intend to Uber everywhere" even before they have checked to see if Uber exists in that location (cos sometimes they are met with - there is no Uber here) tim |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
"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? tim |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
"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. tim |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
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. |
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
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. Also, the long-term game plan is to have self-driving cars, which need things like highly detailed maps that new competitors won't have: https://newsroom.uber.com/uk/mapping-ubers-future/ |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk