Uber Lays Off Another 350 Employees Across Eats, Self-driving and Other Departments (techcrunch.com) 139
Uber has just laid off around 350 employees across a variety of teams within the organization, marking what the company says is its third and final phase of layoffs of the process it began earlier this year, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said to employees today in an email. From a report: Those affected include employees from Eats, performance marketing, Advanced Technologies Group, recruiting, as well as various teams within the global rides and platform departments. Some employees have also been asked to relocate. "Days like today are tough for us all, and the ELT and I will do everything we can to make certain that we won't need or have another day like this ahead of us," Khosrowshahi wrote in the email. "We all have to play a part by establishing a new normal in how we work: identifying and eliminating duplicate work, upholding high standards for performance, giving direct feedback and taking action when expectations aren't being met, and eliminating the bureaucracy that tends to creep as companies grow." In total, the layoffs represent about 1% of the company, an Uber spokesperson told TechCrunch. Further reading: Uber Posts $5.2 Billion Loss and Slowest Ever Growth Rate (August 2019).
Self driving? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone sensible (or isn't lying to make money) knows that self driving isn't going to happen any time soon, if ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever? Really? No doubt there has been a lot of self-driving hubris, but do you honestly think this might be an unsolvable tech problem?
(I'm genuinely curious: to me it's all but guaranteed to be not an 'if' but a 'when')
Re: (Score:2)
Yes well in this case I have specifically seen self driving tech progress quickly. We in the space of less than a decade really have gone from non-existent to consumer vehicles like Tesla models that already handle most highway situations, and companies like Uber doing real world tests of taxi rides in select areas of select cities (on nice days).
Are there a metric ton of corner cases and special cases that will have to be addressed before you can call it 'ready for prime time' certainly but I think things
Re: (Score:3)
And, yes, I know what I'm talking about. I work in transportation - transportation software, to be specific - and am adjacent to groups not only directly in self-driving vehicles, but a lot of the infrastructure used to support it and other initiatives (DSRC & V2X comm for example).
Autonomous self-driving vehicles are coming.
Where you're correct(ish), probably without realizing it, is that they are unlikely to look like "today's vehicle network only no one behind the wheel." There are huge im
Re: (Score:2)
"Autonomous self-driving vehicles are coming."
Well, there you go. Proof. I heard it on the internet.
Sure, if you redesign the road network you can get self driving to work (today). But there isn't enough money to do that. Current efforts aren't guaranteed to work. My guess is they won't and we will have to redesign key roads to be "self driving".
Re: (Score:2)
Are there a metric ton of corner cases and special cases that will have to be addressed before you can call it 'ready for prime time' certainly
It is those "corner cases" that will drive consumer and regulatory acceptance. Refer to the Boeing aircraft that has had just two, two crashes due to a certain corner case issue and yet the entire fleet is still grounded.
Also, there is a term in telecom: "the final mile". Getting data all the way across country is trivial compared to being able to get it the final mile to the home. "Self driving" implies "from door to door", especially in something like an Uber where the passengers go "from door to door"
Re: (Score:2)
It is those "corner cases" that will drive consumer and regulatory acceptance.
Many of the corner cases can be avoided in the early years by keeping the vehicles on known/mapped streets in a city with wide modern streets and no potholes. E.g.: Phoenix, Arizona.
That is what both Waymo and Uber are doing.
Refer to the Boeing aircraft that has had just two, two crashes due to a certain corner case issue and yet the entire fleet is still grounded.
Not quite analogous. Commercial air travel is extremely safe, so the extra crashes were significant.
Vehicle crashes, OTOH, kill 100 people per day in America, 3000 per day worldwide, and thousands more serious injuries.
Self-driving cars don't have to be perfect, they just need to be a
Re: (Score:2)
A self driving car can come across literally "anything" in public road space.
a nearly infinite amount of "corner cases"
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo.
Re: (Score:2)
There have been things that follow one form of 'track' or another for that long. There have been things that can navigate existing roads designed for cars driven by people for about a decade. Prior to that there was not enough computer power to make decisions based on machine vision rapidly enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Self-driving vehicles within restricted - mostly very dangerous industrial - sites were available in the 1970s. The technology wasn't there to really make them practical, but the level of driving skill being exhibited by today's Silicon Valley Wonders has been possible for a long time. As the above poster notes however once you have TV cameras and some form of reliable computer (digital or analog) gett
Re: (Score:2)
It might be but; its also the only realistic approach because again based on observation of our society over the past couple decades; we will be lucky to keep the roads paved let alone augment enough of them with any kind of enhancement to assist automated driving.
So this problem MUST be solved processing the types of inputs humans do. Now if you want use radar spectrum frequencies instead of visible light etc, fine but fundamentally its still vision.
Again though I would say we have seen enough progress in
Re:Self driving? (Score:4, Interesting)
So this problem MUST be solved processing the types of inputs humans do. Now if you want use radar spectrum frequencies instead of visible light etc, fine but fundamentally its still vision.
Nope.
Humans don't see by scanning an image. We manage to pull out information from the image without processing a great deal of it. We have no idea how that works at the moment.
But vision for humans is nothing like vision used on computers right now, regardless of the frequency.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, computer vision (itself) is superior in nearly every way.
Not really, no. We're far better at identifying the animals and objects in a scene than a computer is. We do it much, much faster with a much lower error rate and far less "computing power".
For example, we aren't fooled by a stopped fire truck.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, the processing piece is still a bit lacking but we humans also can't see in IR or Lidar or with a 360degree field of vision. We're optimized for immediate threat detection.
Thinking like a human isn't something we're even close to with computers, nobody even really has a good theory on how to do it, but computer vision is comparatively far simpler and can be brute forced.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans don't see by scanning an image.
If by "scanning" you mean sequentially processing the image pixel by pixel, you are correct. Humans don't do that. Neither do computers.
We manage to pull out information from the image without processing a great deal of it.
The human visual cortex does an enormous amount of processing.
We have no idea how that works at the moment.
We understand a great deal. We understand how the lens and retina work. We understand how the low level edge detection and segmentation work. We sort-of understand how layers of neurons identify higher level objects, and we understand a bit about how those are converted to a 3D model. After that, our unders
Re: (Score:2)
We don't understand any of that stuff. Nice fantasy though. Computer vision is nothing like the way humans do it. How do I know? I actually know how computer vision works.
Re: Self driving? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, the processing piece is still a bit lacking but we humans also can't see in IR or Lidar or with a 360degree field of vision
More pixels is not helpful when you can't properly process the ones you already have.
And we haven't even gotten to the problem of discerning intent from visual cues, which is absolutely critical for driving. We do it trivially, and computers can't do it unless we give them enormous hints, like blinkers.
Getting to 80% of self-driving was hard. Getting from 80-90% was just as hard. Getting from 90-95% is proving just as hard. 95-96 will be just as hard. 96-96.5 will be just as hard. And so on.
Eventually
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's gonna be more like 40-50, barring some sort of amazing breakthrough.
Or we'll decide to change the laws to make 96.5% "good enough" and get rid of pedestrians, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually we had self-driving real intelligence in the form of the horse and the carriage. We lost that with automobiles.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Except there are videos out there showing the considerable capabilities of auto pilot?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
If you don't trust Tesla, how about some other people:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I took an interest in your account though- I noticed you on a few threads today. You posted a bit in 2008 and 2010, where you had two posts that were on topic and reasonable, and then in May 2017 you all of a sudden just started posting multiple times a day pushing forth c
Re: (Score:2)
Auto pilot? You mean lane and car following. Yes. That works. That isn't self driving.
Re: (Score:2)
Except there are videos out there showing the considerable capabilities of auto pilot?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
If you don't trust Tesla, how about some other people:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I took an interest in your account though- I noticed you on a few threads today. You posted a bit in 2008 and 2010, where you had two posts that were on topic and reasonable, and then in May 2017 you all of a sudden just started posting multiple times a day pushing forth conservative viewpoints: https://slashdot.org/users2.pl... [slashdot.org]
How much does a hacked age slashdot account cost?
Let's see some videos of Teslas trying to find their owners in a parking lot...
Re: (Score:2)
Its much more attention grabbing to show when it makes mistakes, but there are people using this successfully, though I will be the first to admit this first cut seems to be super clunky and slow. I can only assume that it tries to be super cautious and the fact that it is "off the map" in a parking lot and has to map the area out. I still think this is progress and a step in the right direction though, don't you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Looks worse than the DARPA off road autonomous tests. In fact, it looks like a bad joke. But Elon said self driving next year, and he would never lie.
Re:Self driving? (Score:4)
LOL, I'm amazed at how much you know about me! I've never really created anything complex and I don't understand the problems, eh? If you only knew...
Look, I went out of my way to politely ask for insight into your opinion and not only did you utterly fail to respond with substance, you did so in a condescending and rude way. Now, instead of doing the same to you in return, let's just try again, shall we?
What specific aspect of this problem do you feel is inherently unsolvable and why?
Re:Self driving? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're an interesting person - someone tries to engage in an honest conversation and all you can do is reply with vitriol and judgement? I'm a complete stranger and you immediately draw all sorts of unfounded conclusions about me. That's not normal or healthy. How does that make you feel inside when you do that? Anyway, best of luck, I'm moving on and won't take up any more of your time, but in the future you'll find discussions are far more enriching when you learn to just talk to people.
FWIW it turns out I do know quite a lot about solving complex problems, and while I'm far from an expert in the field of self-driving tech specifically, I have quite a lot of relevant experience in related fields. I never suggested that the current approach would get us there - like you, I have my doubts about it. But that's a far cry from a problem being unsolvable. You have inadvertently answered my questions about your opinion though.
Have a great day!
Re: (Score:2)
You ignore all the hard work and smart people that make it happen.
We are not ignoring the smart people who make things happen.
We are assuming they exist ... and that they will make things happen.
It is the AI denialists who are ignoring them.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't assume smart people exist and are working on what you want. Progress is NOT inevitable.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't assume smart people exist and are working on what you want.
There are several multi-billion dollar companies working on self-driving vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
Because smart people would never say "to me it's all but guaranteed to be not an 'if' but a 'when'" when talking about something as complex as self driving.
Even cockroaches have no problem navigating and avoiding obstacles.
Unless you believe that biological brains rely on magic or a soul, no rational person should believe that a computer can't do what a brain can do.
Re: (Score:2)
No knowledgeable person truly believes a digital computer can do everything a brain can do. I really can't believe you even said that out loud.
Re: (Score:2)
So because some nuts think we'll have a Mars base in 10 years, that means self driving cars (newsflash, we have them now) are less than highly likely. You're making an odd argument. We already have self driving cars capable of operating in ideal conditions (and I don't mean in a lab or on a test track, I just mean a very well known area with limited 'odd' circumstances). My position is that it's a near 100% certainty that we will have self-driving cars within 25 years. Yours seems to be what, 25%? 50%?
And a
Re: (Score:2)
Waymo still hasn't ditched drivers. There is no doubt there can be self driving cars in controlled circumstances. Demonstrated 70 years ago and every decade since.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they have [businessinsider.com] (or are).
And no, cars following a set track is not a self driving car. If you insist on pretending the "self driving" cars of 50+ years ago were meaningful to the current approach, let's call today's goal "autonomous, self navigating cars interacting on standard roadways via computer control", though it doesn't roll of the tongue.
Re: (Score:2)
No. If you read carefully you will see they still have a Waymo employee in the cars. It doesn't really matter which approach you take, it is possible the current approach (using digital computers and sensors) won't work either. I know you guys think computers can do everything, but they can't. How do I know? I actually know how computers work. It isn't magic. I don't know how the human brain and systems work. I have no clue. Waymo doesn't know either.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to know how the brain works. Driving doesn't require a lot of thought. You can zone out and drive somewhere and forget what you were thinking, if anything, while driving. It's mostly mechanical, that's why even morons can usually do at least OK driving.
Driving is pattern analysis and physics-based prediction with a tiny bit of intuitiveness (what will that other moron driver do) built in. Computers can mechanically see better than humans (lidar, IR, 360 field of view, etc...). They can model
Re: (Score:2)
"Driving is pattern analysis and physics-based prediction with a tiny bit of intuitiveness"
"You don't have to know how the brain works. Driving doesn't require a lot of thought"
Wow. You sound like an expert. Where were you the last 80 years when we were trying to make self driving cars?
Re: (Score:2)
I do know. Because smart people would never say "to me it's all but guaranteed to be not an 'if' but a 'when'" when talking about something as complex as self driving.
People have been saying that kind of shit forever. And they've been wrong, over and over. The only way you're right is if human society collapses.
You are the same type of guys who talk about Space Factories and Mars and all that crap like it is inevitable. IT ISN'T. It requires a lot of smart people working very hard to make these things happen.
That doesn't mean it's not inevitable, unless the smart people all die before it happens. So I take it you're expecting the demise of the species?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and we still haven't cured the common cold even though there are literally 100s of billions of dollars to the person who does it.
What does that have to do with the price of rocket launches in China?
You Space/AI nutters all think that things will get better and better.
That's the history of technology. It gets better.
It isn't guaranteed. It requires a LOT of effort.
Nothing is guaranteed, we could get hit by a comet. A lot of effort is being expended. Do you have a point?
THERE ARE PROBLEMS THAT EVEN SMART PEOPLE CANNOT SOLVE.
What evidence do you have that self-driving or improved spaceflight are among them?
Amazing. I know.
What would be amazing is if you stopped stroking yourself and just got to the fucking point.
Re: (Score:2)
What evidence DO YOU have? Basically digital computers have hit a dead end. They are the same as they have been for 50 years. The difference is just the engineering effort to make them faster. Technology is not inevitable. It doesn't always "get better". There were thousands of years where there was little technological progress. There are limits to everything. Physics. I am very doubtful that digital computers will produce "self driving" cars in the "drive everywhere" sense. We can have self driving cars n
Re: Self driving? (Score:2)
Until they're solved.
Then everyone says, look at how easy that is.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe dumb people say that. I am just saying there are unsolvable problems. Or problems that we can't figure out how to solve.
Re: (Score:2)
I am just saying there are unsolvable problems.
Of course there are unsolvable problems.
But there is no reason to believe that driving a car better than a human is one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. There are plenty of reasons. We have been trying for decades and haven't done it. The opposite is more true: there is no evidence that digital computers can drive a car better than a human. But I guess you guys are experts.
Re: (Score:2)
We have been trying for decades and haven't done it.
You must really love trolling self-driving because you're number one for whenever it comes up. And everytime I have to point out, that we already have cars that do better than humans. You keep approaching the problem as one of "perfected driving" and I keep reminding you that the real goal is "better driving". Lane keeping, ABS systems, airbag systems, lane keeping, cruise control both passive and adaptive, collision avoidance, and so on are all technologies that have shown that as we add more and more t
Re: (Score:2)
I am not trying to troll. I see this sickness everywhere: people just ASSUME that things are going to happen. Self-driving cars. Mars. Space Factories. Every faster computers. They don't try to make them happen, they just ASSUME someone is working on it and it will magically appear at some point. It is spoiled little children. It isn't cynical. I KNOW how hard people work to make these things happen. I KNOW that there were literally hundreds of years where NO PROGRESS was made. Nothing is inevitable. Stop a
Re: (Score:2)
I see this sickness everywhere: people just ASSUME that things are going to happen.
That's because advancement has been going on at a steady pace and there isn't signs that it is going to slow. Additionally, it is a safe bet to assume it will happen since profit motive is still a thing.
They don't try to make them happen, they just ASSUME someone is working on it and it will magically appear at some point.
Well I'll put it bluntly then. What the fuck are you doing then? What's you're amazing contribution to the advancement of mankind? Geez, get a grip on scale of things and people's places in them. Everyone is working on something. Not everything is something that magically advances humanity into the gre
Re: (Score:2)
Given long enough, humans are going to create an actual AI. Since it's already possible for humans to drive cars, it's trivial to imagine an actual full
Re: (Score:2)
"People used to claim that it was impossible for a computer to beat a chess grand master,"
And plus since we crossed the Atlantic we can go to Mars, etc, etc. Someone once said that humans couldn't fly, but look at us now!!! Same old story. You Nutters are so predictable. Yeah, I get it: you guys think everything is possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be absurd, of course it's going to happen. I agree it has been overhyped and people thought Teslas early versions meant it was "just around the corner" when it's not.
It will certainly happen broadly within 25 years, and I'd wager more like 10-15 years. It will be possible in limited geographical areas well before that (see e.g. Waymo in the Phoenix area). The problem is people who think it's going to happen in
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Elon says before the end of 2020 ...
https://www.wired.com/story/el... [wired.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. And Mars. And Hyperloop. Just send money now.
Re: (Score:2)
Now you're just being absurd. I am basing my position on the progress already made, in a relatively short time, and the remaining hurdles which aren't insurmountable. What exactly would lead one to believe we won't have self driving cars in, say conservatively, 25 years? Hand-waving and pessimism? Good luck with that.
The most absurd thing about your entire claim is that we _already fucking have_ self driving cars. They aren't perfect but in controlled circumstances they work very well. "But, but, moving fro
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know the remaining hurdles are unsolvable? Hand waving. Completely unscientific but typical thinking. Yes, we have had self driving cars since the 1920s. But that isn't the type of self driving we are really discussing here.
Re: (Score:2)
Self driving is the only way forward for Uber, if they aren't putting everything they can into that then they are doomed.
So you're in marketing.
Why not just say so? (Just kidding; you did.)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you caught me. I do my job by marketing to the least relevant relic of the pre-social media age I can find, Slashdot. My backup is Myspace, and I also sometimes astroturf on Usenet to really reach the masses.
When I want to reach a larger, more reasonable audience than Slashdot I break out the old POTS modem and post on some old bulletin board forums still kicking around!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you caught me. I do my job by marketing to the least relevant relic of the pre-social media age I can find, Slashdot. My backup is Myspace, and I also sometimes astroturf on Usenet to really reach the masses.
When I want to reach a larger, more reasonable audience than Slashdot I break out the old POTS modem and post on some old bulletin board forums still kicking around!
to be fair, he didn't say you "were" marketing. He said you were "in" marketing.
Nuance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Self driving is the only way forward for Uber
How so? Sure, you may get rid of the cost of drivers, but now they will be shouldering the cost of actually OWNING and MAINTAINING these self driving cars. That cost was previously offloaded to the drivers. Uber will not be profitable. Ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Self driving? (Score:2)
They WERE putting money into that, but between cutting edge AI R&D and paying to drive everyone around, their burn rate got too high, so they're waiting for Waymo to get their shit together before the loss is untenable.
Uber is not a business (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
^^THIS^^
While I have very little doubt self driving cars will be a reality in our time. I don't see Uber as anything but a huge multi-level scam. (although one I too have benefited from in the form of heavily subsidized rides).
I don't see how Uber becomes profitable. Their only hope was to be first out the gate with self drive and control some important patents. Otherwise they would have to eat enormous capital costs of acquiring a fleet of vehicles which was going to be hard having burned through all th
Re: (Score:2)
^^THIS^^
While I have very little doubt self driving cars will be a reality in our time. I don't see Uber as anything but a huge multi-level scam. (although one I too have benefited from in the form of heavily subsidized rides).
I don't see how Uber becomes profitable. Their only hope was to be first out the gate with self drive and control some important patents. Otherwise they would have to eat enormous capital costs of acquiring a fleet of vehicles which was going to be hard having burned through all their cash. Remember existing stock holders don't really like additional dilution of their ownership to raise more cash. Or someone other better capitalized company was going to just eat their lunch, once it was finally prepared.
Uber doesn't charge enough for rides. There are plenty of people that would still need and use Uber, they could be profitable and drivers would get paid. I drove Uber for a lonnng time, and while it's great that a $9/hour worker at the mall can afford a 30 minute ride home at the end of their shift it isn't sustainable.
Yes, but... (Score:2)
A business would have profits or a reasonable path to profitability. Uber has neither; only a pie in the sky bet that self driving cars show up before the money runs out.
We said the same thing about Amazon for 20+ years. It operated in the red for decades, and we chided the suckers for continuing to pour venture capital in. And then Jeff Bezos discovered the Cloud, created Amazon Web Services, and Bam!, cash flow as wide as the river its named after.
SHOULD Uber go under according to their business model? Yes. But so should Amazon have. Sometimes smart con men keep the suckers on the hook long enough to find something, anything, that's actually profitable. Who knows if Uber
Re: (Score:2)
And every money losing company is just like Amazon. They should bring Enron back.
Re: (Score:2)
We said the same thing about Amazon for 20+ years. It operated in the red for decades,
Wrong. I know it's a common belief, but it's wrong. Amazon had a positive EBITDA [koyfin.com] back in 2002 - just 4 years after going IPO. And 7 years after founding. Nearly every quarter sees a profit - a small (often tiny) one, but a profit nevertheless. Amazon is a perfect example of how it's supposed to work - show great growth, in a new space, have a defined path to profitability (which it did when it filed IPO), and then transition to profit (if not already making it) within a year or two of IPO.
Re: (Score:3)
...within a year or two of IPO.
... back in 2002 - just 4 years after going IPO.
or 4.
I worked for CDNOW - 97-99. Amazon was our biggest competitor , after we bought out Musicboulevard.com. The general consensus was "oh look at the bookstore trying to sell CD's. Then it was like , oh they are selling other merch too. Then it was like oh , they are selling more CD's than us too.... the bookstore.
They are a beast.
Re: (Score:2)
...within a year or two of IPO.
... back in 2002 - just 4 years after going IPO.
or 4.
I worked for CDNOW - 97-99. Amazon was our biggest competitor , after we bought out Musicboulevard.com. The general consensus was "oh look at the bookstore trying to sell CD's. Then it was like , oh they are selling other merch too. Then it was like oh , they are selling more CD's than us too.... the bookstore.
They are a beast.
For the record, I did tell anyone that would listen that it was genius to take advantage of the existing traffic.
So I couldn't figure out why anyone would invest (Score:2)
TL;DR; is that private investments like Uber have very high rates of return (10-16%) because they're high risk. Pension funds will invest in them too.
So what happens is this: 1%ers invest in Uber and companies like them, as do pension fund managers. When the company inevitably collapses the 1%ers, being much more nimble (and probably having some inside knowledge) get out quick, leaving the public pension funds holding the bag.
When the pens
Second Dotcom Bubble will pop soon (Score:3)
I was just starting in the IT world as the First Dotcom Bubble was inflating in the late 90s. The only difference between this one and the last one is that individual investors aren't involved as much. Other than that, it's the same...way too much VC money sloshing around, crazy partying founder CEOs, startup kids working 90 hours a week for free food and stock options, wacky office space...you name it, it's just like they took the 90s bubble and said, "Let's do that again!"
There are actually other differences too...public cloud is allowing flaky business models to live on longer, hoping to make money with exposure. Now the founders don't have to raise $100 million for data centers...they just put it on credit and hope they'll be bought out or IPO before the money runs out.
Between the WeWork IPO being cancelled, below-IPO valuations and Uber getting rid of staff, plus the days of cheap credit coming to an end soon...I think it's time for the expansionary party to end unfortunately. It's too bad...just like you could make 6 figures in 1990s money for HTML design, anyone who can fog a mirror and say "DevOps" is making $200k+ in NYC and SV/SF. It's going to be a rude awakening for those who've ever known good times. The Uber thing is just a sign of the money faucet being turned off...some places really went on a hiring frenzy.
Re: (Score:3)
I tend to agree with you here; but I don't know the cheap credit is coming to an end. Unlike the 90's the entire Western Hemisphere has a unified political goal of keeping borrowing cheap. Because the cheap credit bubble goes way beyond the tech bubble. Its the entire monetary system that is built on cheap credit now. When the private cheap credit bubble popped; the solution they chose was a to make it a public debt bubble. There is no fixing that if it pops; that is when governments collapse; so until th
On waiting for bubbles to pop... (Score:2)
I tend to agree with you here; but I don't know the cheap credit is coming to an end. Unlike the 90's the entire Western Hemisphere has a unified political goal of keeping borrowing cheap. Because the cheap credit bubble goes way beyond the tech bubble. Its the entire monetary system that is built on cheap credit now..
The entire Western Hemisphere had a unified political position to keep real estate credit flowing 12 years ago too. You saw how that turned out.
Whether it's real estate or credit cards, what can't go on forever, won't. Sooner or later, someone is going to make that margin call, and the dominos come tumbling down.
Not just a rude awakening (Score:2)
It's too bad...just like you could make 6 figures in 1990s money for HTML design, anyone who can fog a mirror and say "DevOps" is making $200k+ in NYC and SV/SF. It's going to be a rude awakening for those who've ever known good times.
It's not just a rude awakening they're in for. Even worse, if the original Dot Bomb was any guide, most of those people won't ever make that kind of money anymore. Hell, most will end up in jobs that won't even sniff that kind of money. Their old jobs follow them around like a rotting haze. Do you think many of the DrKoop.com IT staff went on to big things later? A lot of those guys end up leaving IT altogether, and if they stay in, many end up taking other jobs (such as moving from coding to general Sysadm
Re: (Score:2)
Now the founders don't have to raise $100 million for data centers...they just put it on credit and hope they'll be bought out or IPO before the money runs out.
Much of what you say holds merit. But where do i sign up for my $100 million line of credit?
Re: (Score:3)
Be the (former) CEO of WeWork...banks gave him five times that!
WeWork CEO’s Lenders Seek Changes to His $500 Million Credit Line [bloomberg.com]
One thing I'll give these startup founders is that they have amazing dream-selling skills. Elizabeth Holmes turned out to be a total fraud and people were willing to invest anything they had in Theranos.
self driving layoffs (Score:2)
Maybe the robots should form a union.
anti competitive (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You have some serious anger issues. Have you thought about addressing those as opposed to worrying about things that will have zero impact on your life?
Re: (Score:2)
Some people won't be happy until everyone is forced to be as miserable as they choose to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Serious questions - how is it "injustice" for a CEO to announce layoffs? Did those laid off previously receive compensation from the company the CEO runs? What value do they bring to the future of the company, relative to the CEO?
I know it is common to rant about high salaries for CxOs and VPs - but the reality is that investors (owners) and the market (media, etc) are much more influenced by those in the exec suites than the engineers at their open floor plan desk. And when you're discussing the surviva
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Beyond Meat and Tesla actually have a product. The rest can go pound sand for all I care.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Party is closing for....Tesla
I wouldn't be so sure about that; an article posted today on AutoNews.com [autonews.com] claims Tesla is outselling the German luxury auto companies:
Robust demand for Tesla's performance electric cars, particularly the Model 3, is accelerating the slide in German luxury used-car prices, a new report by finance company Capital One says. That could pressure profitability at BMW and Mercedes-Benz just as they embark on pricey electrification plans.
Residual values for the German luxe leaders have fallen 6 percentage points since 2015, compared with a 4-point decline in residuals for the overall luxury sector, according to Edmunds.
The market is "becoming flooded" with more affordable cars from Mercedes, Audi, BMW and others — without a corresponding increase in demand, Capital One said.
"It's strong enough to cause prices to plummet, because the market has an excess supply of used luxury cars," it said.And Tesla is complicating the situation by chipping away at the traditional luxury customer base. Tesla's $40,000 midsize electric sedan was the most considered model among luxury shoppers in the second quarter, according to the KBB Brand Watch Survey. And much of that interest came from BMW and Mercedes Benz customers. Tesla receives European vehicles as trade-ins 22.2 percent of the time, more than double the industry average of 10.9 percent, according to Capital One.
and
Among the German luxury brands, BMW lost the largest share of customers to Tesla, according to research firm AutoPacific. Eight percent of new Tesla buyers traded in a BMW; 5.7 percent traded in a Mercedes; and 2 percent swapped an Audi.
Through September, Tesla delivered an estimated 67,000 Model 3s, according to the Automotive News Data Center. Meanwhile, BMW delivered just 32,837 of its 3-series flagship sedan, Mercedes sold 38,174 C-class sedans, and Audi delivered 20,049 A4 sedans.
Re: (Score:2)
What does that have to do with anything? It just means that those makers are struggling as well. The party is over. Tesla is losing tons of real money every quarter. Once the recession hits, that luxury market will dry up and game over.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Tesla lost $408 million. That's the point - even when BMW or Audi are "down" - they still make a profit. Tesla loses money. Win the battle, lose the war...
Tesla produced 97,000 cars in the 3rd quarter: Tesla's Q3 Deliveries: What You Need to Know [fool.com]
At that rate, Telsa can produce 38,800 cars per year. A $408 Million loss divided by 38,800 cars is only $1,051/car, so I think there is a really good chance that Tesla will be breaking even in the near future because Tesla keeps increasing their rate of production while decreasing their costs.
On the other hand, I have not seen any indication that BWM and Audi know how to produce desirable electric cars as profita
Re: (Score:2)
So Tesla is selling cars for less than it costs to make them. And when subsidies end sales slump [torontosun.com]. So I guess they could bump up the price to try to make a profit (and slash sales even more), or just continue to lose money - like they have done.
As far as BMW and Audi making electric cars - maybe the demand isn't there, if people aren't paid (rebates) to take the car? A healthy company makes products that people buy so they have profit to continue operations and make more products. Building something that
Re: (Score:2)
I can only hope so. It's better to pop sooner than later. But since venture capitalists have more experience today with bursting economic bubbles, this is going be less of a POP! and more of a ppbbbbbllllt. People will continue to play the bounce and VC firms will continue to hype vaporware so that the fools keep dropping in their retirement savings.
It's annoying because they've gotten REALLY good at hyping believable products while simply lying about either the longevity and profitability of the business m