'Uber Is Doomed', Argues Transportation Reporter (jalopnik.com) 334
When an Uber self-driving car ran a red light last year, they blamed and suspended the car's driver, even though it was the car's software that malfunctioned, according to two former employees, ultimately causing Uber cars to run six different red lights. But technical issues may be only the beginning. An anonymous reader writes:
Jalopnik points out that in 2016 Uber "burned through more than $2 billion, amid findings that rider fares only cover roughly 40% of a ride, with the remainder subsidized by venture capitalists" (covering even less than the fares of government-subsidized mass transit systems). So despite Google's lawsuit and other recent bad publicity, "even when those factors are removed, it's becoming more evident that Uber will collapse on its own."
Their long analysis argues that the problems are already becoming apparent. "Uber, which didn't respond to questions from Jalopnik about its viability, recently paid $20 million to settle claims that it grossly misled how much drivers could earn on Craigslist ads. The company's explosive growth also fundamentally required it to begin offering subprime auto loans to prospective drivers without a vehicle."
Last month transportation industry analyst Hubert Horan calculated that Uber Global's losses have been "substantially greater than any venture capital-funded startup in history."
Their long analysis argues that the problems are already becoming apparent. "Uber, which didn't respond to questions from Jalopnik about its viability, recently paid $20 million to settle claims that it grossly misled how much drivers could earn on Craigslist ads. The company's explosive growth also fundamentally required it to begin offering subprime auto loans to prospective drivers without a vehicle."
Last month transportation industry analyst Hubert Horan calculated that Uber Global's losses have been "substantially greater than any venture capital-funded startup in history."
Sounds good to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Few companies rival the dishonesty, misogyny and downright shadiness of Uber. The quicker they are gone and a better company can fill their shoe (Lyft perhaps?), the better.
Nothing of value will be lost.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that I don't have to worry about these things is enough for me to continue using Uber.
Re: (Score:2)
I tip inversely to the amount of odor in the car, be it the excessively potent air freshener (eau de carcinogen) or the smell of the driver's last five meals lingering about. It's really unpleasant to have an olfactory experience on your journey somewhere and a lack of odor is rare these days and deserves reward.
Also why the hell aren't you tipping Uber Drivers? If their car doesn't smell I tip them too. Newbies might say they can't accept it, but they don't exactly come running after you if you leave a
Re: (Score:2)
Lyft allows a passenger to pay tips, but it's not necessary that one do. I drove for Lyft a while back, and while the app allows a passenger to select the tip, one didn't have to. A few passengers that I had tipped me in cash - w/o doing it thru the app. On one occasion that I used the service as a passenger, I tipped my driver to cover the cost of a toll, and more.
I'd assume that even a Uber passenger can tip in cash, if he's so inclined.
Re:Sounds good to me (Score:5, Insightful)
This comment does have merit. One of the really annoying things about traditional taxis is the uncertainty cost.
- You almost never know beforehand because the cost is calculated en route
- in some countries (thailand, vietnam, probably more) they try to avoid using the meter if you don't know what you're doing
- After the journey seemingly random extras can get added for luggage, toll roads, airport fees etc. In civilized countries most are probably legit, but as a visitor how do you know?
- Tips add to the uncertainty. If you travel a lot, you need to learn tipping customs for each country you visit.
With uber, you see the total price on the app, including service and all extras, before you book the ride. I hate their business model and their disrespect for local laws and practice, but in Europe I almost totally avoid cabs because of the reasons above, and a decent app would go a long way towards making me use taxis more often.
Re:Sounds good to me (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not the app that eliminates these "annoying things", it's imposing a set of universal business conditions. Uber is trying to establish onerous universal business conditions on the basis that it makes deals with individual contractors, These aren't "deals" since there's an asymmetry of power and no actual negotiation and they aren't "individual contractors" in any rational labour jurisdiction. Uber's financial model may be hollow, but it's business administration model is also unsustainable if it has to be a worldwide employer.
There are models (such as franchising to established taxi operators) that would deliver the consumer advantages (with the possible exception of the subsidised price). And if Uber were really "just an app", the comparatively low cost of operating the IT infrastructure could be lost in the increased efficiency established firms could get from adopting it. However, Uber is actually a fantasy that a de facto monopoly of personal transport can be established just in time for the drivers to be eliminated in favour of autonomous vehicles. Fortunately, the money will run out way before this could ever happen, but there's nothing so mad as a man on a mission...
If I had mod points... (Score:3)
I'd mod you up if I had points.
To put it another way, Uber are a taxi company, but its the pretence that they are a ride sharing app that is supposed to make all their bad business practices look like a disruptive technology instead. If it was a ride sharing app then any monetary exchange would be a private matter between driver and passanger and not something fixed by Uber.
Re:Sounds good to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sounds good to me (Score:5, Insightful)
you mean switch to the system they use in most of the world?
Re:Sounds good to me (Score:5, Informative)
For the employer it's a win, but for consumers and staff it's not always
It actually isn't. There was a Freakonomics episode about this a few months ago. The problem is that front-of-house staff in the USA are now getting a significant proportion of their income from tips, which are a percentage of the total cost. This means that their income has gone up a lot more over the past couple of decades than that of kitchen staff, to the point where someone with a cooking qualification can still make more money waiting tables than being a chef. Even worse, it means that the income varies hugely between days, so it's trivial to find someone to work on a Friday or Saturday night, because they'll make loads of money, but restaurants often can't find people to work on Wednesday or Thursdays, because they'll make a lot less (for regular slots, you can establish a rota, but if you need cover for a sick employee then it's much harder).
Re:Sounds good to me (Score:4, Informative)
Taxi driver in Long Island N.Y. here. "TIPS" is an acronym for To Insure Prompt Service"
I'm no English expert but shouldn't that be TEPS (To Ensure Prompt Service)?
You are not insuring prompt service against financial loss, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Try any cab company. All much worse.
At least Uber brings value to the customer. Like actually showing up on time.
Re:Sounds good to me (Score:5, Interesting)
Good riddance!
It would be hard to find an example of a more despicable corporation (with a damn good product idea nonetheless).
Uber’s 10 Worst Actions—Threats, Lies, Sexism & Shady Business Deals
http://observer.com/2016/02/ub... [observer.com]
Anticompetitive and dishonest business practices against rivals.
Using their geolocation data to harassing and personally threaten journalists who didn't cover them favorably.
Exploiting workers, not only as contractors but by enticing them to enter into exploitative financial agreements.
Rampant corporate sexism and misogyn from the CEO on down.
Grossly misled how much they could make? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's clearly not illegal
It is illegal for public companies to misstate their earnings.
But Uber is not a public company.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily... even an independent contractor can be expected to do a job for the client at a rate the client has specified or else not get the job for that client at all. You can argue that an independent contractor could still negotiate their price, but if the client doesn't want to negotiate, then that's still exactly the same story.
If Uber workers were independent contractors, then Uber, in this case, would be the driver's client, not the passengers, and Uber, as it happens, has specified the r
Wait, isn't Uber an anagram for (Score:3)
rube? What am I missing?
Re: (Score:2)
and hore is rot13 for uber, so? let's do numerology next
Less than public transit? (Score:2)
covering even less than the fares of government-subsidized mass transit systems
Which mass transit systems? Plenty get closer to 20% back.
Re: (Score:3)
The government is providing a public service though in these cases, so there is no expectation to turn a profit. Uber's venture capitalists and investors are eventually going to get skittish.
Re:Less than public transit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uber's venture capitalists and investors are eventually going to get skittish.
Which is why there was such a rush to try and IPO it over the past few years. That way the founders and investors could get out with their cash and Wall St. (read - your 401(k)) would be left holding the bag. After all, the Fed is pumping so much printed money into the system something has to soak up all that extra cash. Nowadays it's IPO's. But god help us when the bottom drops out of the market NEXT time...
Re: (Score:2)
That way the founders and investors could get out with their cash and Wall St. (read - your 401(k)) would be left holding the bag.
Only if the managers of your 401(k) were idiots.
After all, the Fed is pumping so much printed money into the system something has to soak up all that extra cash.
The Fed doesn't just "print money", either figurative or literally (the Treasury does the literal printing). It has several methods for adding money to the economy, all of which are quite reversible.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they manage to rapidly pivot to driverless cars.
In which case, those VCs could be walking away with a _lot_ of cash.
Uber is pursuing the wrong thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Uber is a taxi company, it made a name and got support by creating jobs and employing people. Their push to automatic cars destroys the very thing that made them popular to begin with. Uber isn't a car manufacturer, and not an automotive tech company. Any beating they get is well deserved at this point, because they put social engineering above society. The CEO should, but of course won't, be thrown out on their behind.
Re:Uber is pursuing the wrong thing (Score:5, Informative)
Uber is a taxi company, it made a name and got support by creating jobs and employing people
Don't try telling them that. According to Uber, they're creating "ride sharing opportunities" and they're "independently contracting" people.
What made Uber popular is they're cheap (Score:3)
The reason they might be doomed is they're subsidizing those rides with investment capital. OTOH they might be like Amazon, e.g. allowed by investors to operate at a loss with the expectation of massive profits when they clear up their legal troubles (allowing them to pay much, much less than minimum wage while paying no benefits whatsoever)
Re:Uber is pursuing the wrong thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Google wasn't an OS or a phone company, either.
Re: (Score:2)
And Android still makes almost no money for Google. Comparing Uber to Google is more apt than you probably realized....
Re:Uber is pursuing the wrong thing (Score:4, Informative)
> And Android still makes almost no money for Google.
Stock Android phones come with Chrome, Google Search, etc, and collect tons of telemetry for Google. Google makes its money off of data about people. So, yes, Android does (indirectly) boost Google's bottom line.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Uber is pursuing the wrong thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Uber is a taxi company, it made a name and got support by creating jobs and employing people. Their push to automatic cars destroys the very thing that made them popular to begin with. Uber isn't a car manufacturer, and not an automotive tech company. Any beating they get is well deserved at this point, because they put social engineering above society. The CEO should, but of course won't, be thrown out on their behind.
Yeah, the self-driving car focus is odd, I'm sure there's opportunities for some cool AI managing the Uber fleet, but they've never distinguished themselves as an elite R&D company. They'd be a big consumer of self-driving cars but I don't see them as a manufacturer.
I really think they're in a situation where they have too much VC money and don't know what to do with it. Their fundamental issue is how to turn their network profitable before the traditional Taxi companies are able to get their own app out there.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it makes perfect sense. Becoming the (temporary?) leader of the taxi-without-regulation market has given them massive amounts of venture capital. And what better way to spend it than to hire the best and brightest (say, the entire Carnegie Mellon CS faculty) to solve the self-driving car problem, which could cement their lead for decades in the future?
Re:Uber is pursuing the wrong thing (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly Backwards (Score:3)
Uber is a taxi company, it made a name and got support by creating jobs and employing people.
That part is correct.
Their push to automatic cars destroys the very thing that made them popular to begin with.
Wow, that is so wrong. It enhances what Uber does in many ways:
1) It allows more cars to be at places where and when real humans do not want to drive.
2) Because there is less need to draw as many human drivers to a place and time to meet demand, surge pricing can be lower.
3) It means less employment of dri
The sharing of table scraps economy not viable? (Score:5, Interesting)
Who'd have thunk it?
Uber's not special. If you want to open a lemonade stand you're free to do so. The second you start feeding people en masse then society has a right to make sure your kitchen is clean and you aren't accidentally poisoning people. They're transporting people in bulk, that means some oversight from a public safety perspective is warranted and that means everything that goes along with the rest of the economy including not lying to people about income.
The sharing economy will change things, but only so far. Is the medallion system we've used up until now for taxies ripe for reform? Sure! Why not have a sanity check to bring it into the 21st century. However, pretending the rest of the world, including vehicle inspections, truth in advertising laws and the like do not exist is not the sharing economy, it's being a dumbass.
Like Napster, this may only evolve into a different set of problems.
We'll see if taxis survive self-driving cars.
Re:The sharing of table scraps economy not viable? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the new definition of the "shared economy". You take the risks, they take the profits. They just copied Wall Street and "too big to fail" with their version of "sharing", where profits are private and risk is public.
Re: (Score:2)
Except in this case, people who pay the bills are venture capital firms, and those don't eat at the Fed trough, they burn their Google/Facebook/Etc billions. Like that poor sap who subdisized Twitter with his Google money before getting stabbed in the back by a homeless dress designer he hired out of pity in the first place (all true, look it up).
Re: (Score:2)
They're transporting people in bulk, that means some oversight from a public safety perspective is warranted
In some places, taxis are actually subject to some oversight from a public safety perspective. In those places, it's reasonable to be upset about Uber not doing those things well. In other places, they really aren't. There's really no oversight occurring. In those places, it is not reasonable to be upset at Uber, because they at least do minimal background checks in at least most places where they do business. Taxis are not as safe as you imagine, nor are taxi drivers (in any sense.) Taxi drivers who have b
Re: (Score:2)
Someone's getting paid to do vehicle inspections, which is the same thing as far as the government is concerned.
A case study in overexpansion (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were running Uber, I would have had it concentrate on an assortment of US cities that are friendly to open-market taxi service, rather than blowing its budget fighting City Hall in every monopoly city in the world. By being profitable and having the capital to treat its drivers well in the short term while getting ready for self-driving cars in the long term, it would eventually expand into monopoly cities because the customers would demand it.
Re:A case study in overexpansion (Score:4, Insightful)
If I were running Uber, I would have had it concentrate on an assortment of US cities that are friendly to open-market taxi service, rather than blowing its budget fighting City Hall in every monopoly city in the world. By being profitable and having the capital to treat its drivers well in the short term while getting ready for self-driving cars in the long term, it would eventually expand into monopoly cities because the customers would demand it.
The risk with that strategy is every city you ignore is going to start its own Uber clones, clones that are going to get favourable treatment from local regulators and be the favourites of local consumers.
If you don't have a presence in that market users are going to flock to the local start-up and one of those start-ups might take off and become your main competitor. Uber has a bit of a paper empire, all they really have is their network and mind-share, and ride-sharing apps are a natural monopoly in the same sense as social networks. They're trying to establish their monopoly so they become the Facebook and not the Myspace.
Re: (Score:2)
"The risk with that strategy is every city you ignore is going to start its own Uber clones, clones that are going to get favourable treatment from local regulators and be the favourites of local consumers."
Monopoly cities are by definition cities in which it's illegal to compete with taxi companies that have been granted status. Therefore no local startups, but if a major company like Uber can become well-liked by both customers and drivers elsewhere, voters in monopoly cities will demand change.
Re: (Score:2)
"The risk with that strategy is every city you ignore is going to start its own Uber clones, clones that are going to get favourable treatment from local regulators and be the favourites of local consumers."
Monopoly cities are by definition cities in which it's illegal to compete with taxi companies that have been granted status. Therefore no local startups, but if a major company like Uber can become well-liked by both customers and drivers elsewhere, voters in monopoly cities will demand change.
By that definition many of the cities in which Uber is currently deployed are "monopoly cities". It doesn't mean they can't operate, it means that they're vulnerable to fines, their drivers are sometimes ticketed, and they might even get court orders against them. But they often still find ways to operate.
Uber's problem is the regulator is more likely to look the other way for the local start-up, or they're going to make a hole in the regulations that allows the local company to compete but bans Uber. These
Re: (Score:2)
"By that definition many of the cities in which Uber is currently deployed are "monopoly cities". It doesn't mean they can't operate, it means that they're vulnerable to fines, their drivers are sometimes ticketed, and they might even get court orders against them. But they often still find ways to operate."
Yes, this is Uber's current business model. The problem is that, although it builds the brand over large areas, it also causes most of the company's resources to be dissipated fighting lawsuits and payin
I remember the same predictions about Amazon (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I remember the same predictions about Amazon (Score:4, Interesting)
The key difference is Amazon went public early, and the VCs cashed out. With Uber, the VCs still have real control over the operation, and are going to want to recover their money. Uber is in OK some markets, and loosing hand over fist in others. The VCs will likely force them to consolidate operations to viable markets.
The problem is Uber really wants self-driving cars. The math on that is still a number of years off. After taking out $1.10/mile of round-trip costs for the car, the $2/mile fare price point doesn't leave much room for profit. There is likely to be more pressure as local services kill trips less than 1.5 miles.
Re:I remember the same predictions about Amazon (Score:5, Informative)
Amazon wasn't profitable as a whole because it kept plowing money from its profitable departments into expanding into new markets. Amazon's most profitable division right now is AWS. AWS is a scalable business where cost don't scale linearly with the number of customers. Uber is not profitable because it is subsidizing each ride. Uber doesn't gain the benefits of scale using its current business model.
Re: (Score:3)
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. --Carl Sagan
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's what he meant, read the title of his post.
just like lightbulbs in a transition economy (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a LED lamp and I hate it. Just like I hate my LED flashlight. LED sucks, it's very bright, I guess it would work well in a surgery room but for home it's awful.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a LED lamp and I hate it. Just like I hate my LED flashlight. LED sucks, it's very bright, I guess it would work well in a surgery room but for home it's awful.
You know, ye olde 7W Cree lamps which are just a few bucks now that they're brought out better ones have none of these problems. They are dimmable, they don't flicker, and they put out a nice warm light in a reasonable quantity. There's lots of lamps put out since which are even better.
Re: just like lightbulbs in a transition economy (Score:2)
Color temperature, meh (Score:2)
I just want a lamp that doesn't make the room feel like a near-death experience or an alien abduction. I don't want to do a college degree in lightbulbs.
During science class in high school I was usually drinking beer under the bleachers with trailer park girls; it was fun but apparently it leaves me at a disadvantage when it comes to lightbulbs. I'll do some light reading but really until I find a lamp that works I'm anti-LED.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you hate your LED flashlight? As you said, it's very bright. It's also extremely energy-efficient, something very important in a flashlight. It sounds like you don't like the color spectrum that some LEDs have, but while that is an understandable complaint with LED room lighting, who cares about the color spectrum of a flashlight? All that's important is that it's bright and lasts a long time on a battery.
There's good LED bulbs out there for lamps and other room lighting; you probably picked c
What is this witchery (Score:2)
Sounds like I need to be more careful on my next visit to the hardware store. Could be my inner grumpy old man talking but I can't say I'm thrilled to have to learn more specs for something so mundane as lightbulbs.
Thanks for the tips.
Re: (Score:3)
You're being given choice. I'd say that's pretty nice.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this article summarizes what I'm talking about:
A Spanish University researcher in a study published in the journal Photochemistry and Photobiology reported that LED radiation caused “significant damage to human retinal pigment epithelial cells in vitro” and that ongoing exposure from everyday LED sources such as computers, smart phones, TVs and indoor and outdoor lights may damage retinas.
http://planwashington.org/blog... [planwashington.org]
That's the impression LED lights give me. Too bright, blinding, unhealthy. But again maybe I bought the wrong kind.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, colour temperature != CRI. Colour temperature, which you're talking about is colour temperature. CRI is a measure of how continuous the spectrum produced by the light source is. They're two independent things. You can have an LED with a 5000k colour temperature and an excellent CRI, and a 2700k with a lousy one. Basically a high quality CRI will cause colours on paper/paintings/etc... to look good/normal. A lousy CRI will look off.
Uber is the epitome of startups' IDGAF attitude (Score:3)
What I'm talking about is a company that repeatedly flouts existing regulatory framework because it wants to "revolutionize" for-hire transportation. Drivers don't have to undergo local training (e.g. London drivers who have to memorize the road system in London prior to licensure). Driver vehicles are not required to undergo commercial-grade inspections for safety. Drivers are specifically disallowed by Uber from purchasing commercial insurance for their vehicles, as Uber claims that they will insure passengers up to $1M per passenger. Either the Uber driver is in violation of state insurance laws because they don't have the minimum required insurance, or Uber is in violation of those same laws by not being a licensed insurer with all of the regulatory and reporting burden of an insurer in that state. Want to guess where that leaves an Uber passenger in a crash?
Even if we ignore all of that, now we come to the self-driving vehicle which, even with GPS, lasers and camera AI, has to match years of a trained natural neural network of the most complex organism known on this planet with tremendous amounts more context to make not only technical but ethical decisions and keep not only the passengers safe, but also the car they're in, other people's cars and property, and most of all other lives that are on the road.
It's not an impossible problem to bound to a certain acceptable level, but not within the timeframe that Uber hopes. When considering its fundamental underpinning is compromised by its ethics and its arrogance that is being challenged by governmental and non-governmental entities, and is subsidized by free-flowing VC money, I can't say that the prediction of the demise of Uber is unlikely.
Volentary Expenses. (Score:5, Interesting)
Uber is paying a huge cost to corner the market while it is till a new and opening market. But all of these costs are voluntary and could be given up in a day.
At the end the of the day, Uber is a very simple software company that could operate on a shoe string budget of half a dozen employees and a few servers.
But the investors are obviously willing to spend billions building an iron grip on a transportation monopoly.
Iron grip? (Score:2, Insightful)
In reality Uber don't own the infrastructure (the cars and the people), they just provide the app. There's no loyalty to apps, and the drivers look at tomorrow's paycheck not yesterday's.
Re: Volentary Expenses. (Score:4, Insightful)
...Uber is a very simple software company that could operate on a shoe string budget of half a dozen employees and a few servers.
Six engineers and six thousand lawyers, you mean?
Re: (Score:3)
The Oracle business model.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber has a tiny percentage of the expense of a regular taxi. Their drivers make jack shit, they don't pay for commercial insurance, and millions are saved per vehicle by not buying medallions. Uber can easily meet the price of any competitor, and can easily beat the price of a taxi ride, by the simple method of their expenses being darn pretty close to the theoretical minimum for a taxi company to operate at.
They said the same of Amazon.com in its early days (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It was completely clear by anyone that could read a general ledger that Amazon made the choice to be not profitable, but to expand and to turn their revenue back into the business. Their day to day P/L in fact looked very healthy early, it was simply the case they spend their money building datacentres / warehouses / accqusitions / (insert method of business growth here), which on the ledger for a financial year is a loss but pays dividends down the road. Remove a lot of the business expansion and you have
Re: (Score:2)
Uber may be in trouble but no self driving cars (Score:4, Interesting)
Self driving cars are the future. Once there is self driving cars, the taxis will be as cheap as private cars on per mile basis when averaged over entire year. Most people would stop owning cars and large families may keep only one car. Also, this naturally leads to all electric cars as well. The taxis will take people to work in rush hour and then will charge themselves and will be ready in the evening.
Any business that depends on traditional car ownership is in peril. Gas stations, repair places, parts, dealers, car insurance, paid parking etc. Even auto makers are in big trouble because you will need far fewer taxis as they can service more people per vehicle.
Re: (Score:3)
Even auto makers are in big trouble because you will need far fewer taxis as they can service more people per vehicle.
The automakers are not collectively in any trouble at all, because someone is going to have to build these vehicles and that someone is going to be the automakers. Remember, there are literally billions of humans without mobility today. If these new types of transportation network permit more of them to have mobility, that represents a need for more vehicles. Some automakers will almost certainly fail, or at least some redundant marques, but there will continue to be a need for a large number of vehicles in
Far From Doom (Score:2)
Communist Taxi Lobby Propaganda (Score:3)
Wow, that comment title. Now that I got you attention: it's exactly that.
Let unicorns be unicorns. If there is a market for it, let it be. There are investors, drivers, and passengers willing. So the company doesn't show a profit? Who cares. Do you know how many sports associations (with financial definitions) actually make a profit? I'll give you the European example: more than half, including the top-tier-most soccer clubs are technically bankrupt. Do you see them going down anytime soon? Hell no! And there are people investing like it's the risk capital panacea.
Now when I see an article bashing at a company with terms like "subprime", it reminds me of the 2007 real estate and mortgage crisis. Saying stuff like "fares are 40% subsidized by venture capitalists" is yet another great remark at the target of such bullshit. They WANT stock price to go down, it is widely known that saying shit about a company is the best way to bring it down. Why do you think Trump talks so much crap about China? This holds especially true when the company ahs no public stock but only a very speculative valuation, but it applies generally, and in some instances, it is considered a crime.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Bloggers (Score:2, Informative)
Jalopnik is a big step above random basement bloggers. Most car companies do respond to them.
Re: Bloggers (Score:4, Insightful)
If he's ever used Uber though, he should be watching his back. They have a track record of using their geolocation data to find out where journalists they don't like live and personally threatening and doxing them.
If this company dies, the sooner the better. It's hard to imagine a more evil corporation, despite the fact they had a damn good product idea.
Uber’s 10 Worst Actions—Threats, Lies, Sexism & Shady Business Deals
http://observer.com/2016/02/ub [observer.com]... [observer.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to imagine a more evil corporation
Sure, but so far the evilness has worked in Uber's favor. The have repeatedly prevailed against rivals that were hobbled by ethical compunctions. Their only clear loss so far was against Didi Chuxing, which is arguably even more evil, and even there Uber came out pretty good with a 20% equity stake.
Disclaimer: I use Lyft.
Re: Bloggers (Score:2)
The have repeatedly prevailed against rivals that were hobbled by ethical compunctions
A pink mustache hardly equates to "ethical niceness" regardless of whether the marketing psychologists have determined otherwise... and I know you're not talking about cab companies... so who are you referring to??
Re: Bloggers (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, they had a damned good product idea.
Then they ABANDONED that idea in favor of seeing just how much shit they could get away with before the collective governments of the planet came down on them like a bag of bricks.
Seriously, it's been years since you could call Uber "ride-sharing" with a straight face.
Re: Bloggers (Score:5, Insightful)
If they're still burning through money after all that then there is something seriously fucked up with their product idea and their business model. I won't miss them if they go under. More likely they'll try to do an IPO and pass the buck onto some other saps. The founds and 1st round of investors will take the money and run.
Re: Bloggers (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem for Uber is that there's absolutely nothing stopping the taxi companies adopting all of these. Many will already do fixed-price trips. If you have a corporate account, they'll happily just bill the company rather than the rider. An open protocol for interfacing with their dispatcher system and allowing them to provide locations of taxis that could be dispatched and quotes would let a federated system work. Some individual taxi companies already have apps that let you provide GPS start and endpoints.
Re: Bloggers (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well they sure weren't too busy counting the beans to respond. ;)
Re:Maybe, but maybe not (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe, but maybe not (Score:5, Informative)
Sure but my Uber account works in 20+ countries worldwide, I don't have to sign up for the local transit whatever. That's a huge plus. Not only that but sales people use uber religiously as they don't even need to expense their uber travel, they just charge it to the company card, that's a massive, massive boost. Uber and AirBnB are the largest business expenses in total number of line items for many companies these days. You can't auto-expense every single local transit app automatically, with uber comes that convenience. As someone traveling in Hawaii, California, Texas, London and Hungary it's really nice to be able to just open the app, plug in the location, and have someone drive you there without having to worry about the local currency, working out how to sign up for the service in Hungarian or Maltese or whatever. Step off the plane and GO. I don't care if it's 5% more, for the three days I'm going to be there, the cost difference just doesn't matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure but my Uber account works in 20+ countries worldwide, I don't have to sign up for the local transit whatever. That's a huge plus. (...) As someone traveling in Hawaii, California, Texas, London and Hungary
...you might be in a niche market. Everything you said about billing sure but for most people most the time it's a very limited geographical area. You can search for "taxi <city>" and install the local app ten times waiting to get off the plane, not that airports lack taxi queues. And I usually pay by a credit card that's linked to the travel and expense system no matter what the currency is, it not only works for taxi rides it works for everything else. I'm not saying it's not nice to have... but in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not only that but sales people use uber religiously as they don't even need to expense their uber travel, they just charge it to the company card, that's a massive, massive boost.
I've expense
Uber has an enormous barrier to entry (Score:4, Insightful)
Uber's legal risk is monumental. I'm not sure if it's luck or connections that have kept them going but you can't just do what Uber's doing because what they're doing is not legal...
Re: (Score:3)
You don't know what you're talking about and are not a lawyer.
Actually, he knows what he's talking about because he listens to the judges, not the lawyers - and it's the judges who have said Uber is illegal in many many places. Only a fool listens to a lawyer's opinion when there's a bunch of judges who have already laid out jurisprudence in the matter, so don't be a fool and make reference to lawyers, be like rsilvergun. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
And if they get to automated vehicles, which do not need drivers, and dramatically reduce their operating costs, then they may become profitable again.
Getting there from here is hard.
Re: (Score:3)
Only if the TCO of said automated vehicles over their amortized life is lower than the cost of sub-contracting the whole thing for the same duration.
Path to profitibility (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The path is very clear. Establish a user base, put the current cab system out of business then raise your prices. Just like Wal Mart does when going to a new town.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber was circling the respectability drain long before this womans complaint came to light.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One has to question the integrity of one or two disgruntled employee's.
Does one? One does not, because we're not seeing reports about Uber by just one or two disgruntled employees. Also, you don't know how to use apostrophes. Someone should take those away from you.
Lets remember that we need to treat all news from the entertainment industry with a grain of salt. There's big money in cabs and it's not outside the realm of possibility that this is part of a concerted attack on Uber.
It's not outside the realm of possibility that you have something valid worth saying, but I scanned your comment, and nope. You're just using FUD against victims.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Also,
It has yet to be established if this person is a victim. Accusation is not evidence. Lets have a real investigation by a non-vested third party like the police. Then lets see where it goes.
It could be proven she's right, or she has charges filed for filing a false report. In the meantime it's all he-said she-said.
Re: (Score:2)
Naw. This just provides balance to the previous love fest.
Re: (Score:2)
And perhaps I didn't lay on hard enough, for the average reader, how this applies to the original submission.
Some guy, talking out of his ass for ad-revenue, does not affect my view of Uber, or their financial future, in the least. (Even though I dislike them anyway.)
Re:As much as I dislike Uber.. (Score:4, Interesting)