Discussion:
Is Uber Bleeding to Death?
(too old to reply)
tim...
2016-09-18 08:07:34 UTC
Permalink
came into my in box via my linkedin account

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-bleeding-death-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
Offramp
2016-09-18 09:35:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
came into my in box via my linkedin account
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-bleeding-death-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...
Robin9
2016-09-19 08:26:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
came into my in box via my linkedin account
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-bleeding-death-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


--
Robin9
Recliner
2016-09-19 09:06:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin9
Post by tim...
came into my in box via my linkedin account
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-bleeding-death-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/articles/2016-08-25/uber-loses-at-least-1-2-billion-in-first-half-of-2016
Offramp
2016-09-19 09:30:52 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, 19 September 2016 10:06:52 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:
...
Post by Recliner
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).
Post by Recliner
"Uber's losses and revenue have generally grown in lockstep
Google says, "close adherence to and emulation of another's actions."
Post by Recliner
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."
tim...
2016-09-19 11:19:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin9
Post by tim...
came into my in box via my linkedin account
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-bleeding-death-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
Recliner
2016-09-19 13:01:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin9
Post by tim...
came into my in box via my linkedin account
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-bleeding-death-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"
Post by tim...
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.
Post by tim...
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.
Post by tim...
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
Post by tim...
but 2 billion per year on advertising - really!
No. Read the quoted report.
Post by tim...
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/ellenhuet/2015/01/09/ubers-clever-hidden-move-how-fare-cuts-actually-lock-in-its-drivers/#1d82793f2bd6

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/technology/uber-spends-heavily-to-establish-itself-in-china.html?_r=0

http://therideshareguy.com/how-does-uberpool-pricing-work/
tim...
2016-09-19 14:10:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin9
Post by tim...
came into my in box via my linkedin account
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-bleeding-death-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".
"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.
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
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?
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
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
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
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
Post by tim...
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.
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
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
Recliner
2016-09-19 15:13:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin9
Post by tim...
came into my in box via my linkedin account
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-bleeding-death-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".
"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.
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
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?
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
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.
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
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
Post by tim...
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'.
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
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.
Post by tim...
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.
tim...
2016-09-19 18:25:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
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.
Post by tim...
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
Recliner
2016-09-20 12:10:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
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.
Post by tim...
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.
Post by tim...
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-66-billion-valuation-may-ride-on-shaky-foundation.html
s***@potato.field
2016-09-20 13:46:13 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:10:55 +0100
Post by Recliner
Perhaps they will, but not for the reasons you think.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/08/ubers-66-billion-valuation-may-ride-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
Recliner
2016-09-20 14:08:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:10:55 +0100
Post by Recliner
Perhaps they will, but not for the reasons you think.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/08/ubers-66-billion-valuation-may-ride-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.
s***@potato.field
2016-09-20 15:17:06 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 14:08:48 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
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
David Cantrell
2016-09-21 14:34:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 14:08:48 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
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.
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,
and people who generate their own electricity, and people who insist on
speaking Welsh. If you want to make lots of money you can do it by
concentrating on and pandering to little minorities like that. But if
you want to make a vast amount of money you just don't care about those
minorities, at least when you're starting out.
--
David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information

All children should be aptitude-tested at an early age and,
if their main or only aptitude is for marketing, drowned.
s***@potato.field
2016-09-21 14:48:42 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:34:22 +0100
Post by David Cantrell
Post by s***@potato.field
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
Roland Perry
2016-09-22 07:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@potato.field
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.
The convenience of rental depends a great deal on where you live. I once
had a house in quite a small village and there was a (mom and pop)
rental place within a minute's walk. It was usually possible to turn up
and rent a car on spec.

Today living in a town ten times the size, I have a choice of a half
hour walk to a place that's usually booked up at least a week in
advance, or taking the train for a 45 minute trip to one of the majors.
And then it's at least another half hour drive back home to pick up
whatever it was I needed the car for.

There are a few other places closer, but they specialise in contract
hire and aren't interested (nor have availability) for periods of less
than a week.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2016-09-20 14:32:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:10:55 +0100
Post by Recliner
Perhaps they will, but not for the reasons you think.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/08/ubers-66-billion-valuation-may-ride-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
Recliner
2016-09-20 14:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:10:55 +0100
Post by Recliner
Perhaps they will, but not for the reasons you think.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/08/ubers-66-billion-valuation-may-ride-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.
True
Post by tim...
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)
I think the idea with Ocado (not Ocardo) is that it will make money from
selling its technology on to others, rather than from its own low margin
operations.

http://www.thedrum.com/news/2016/02/29/how-ocado-transitioning-grocer-internet-things-technology-pioneer

But this grand plan has been slow to materialise:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/12130888/Ocado-fails-to-meet-deadline-for-international-licensing-deal.html
tim...
2016-09-20 15:45:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:10:55 +0100
Post by Recliner
Perhaps they will, but not for the reasons you think.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/08/ubers-66-billion-valuation-may-ride-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.
True
Post by tim...
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)
I think the idea with Ocado (not Ocardo) is that it will make money from
selling its technology on to others, rather than from its own low margin
operations.
That's just the management grasping at straws because the primary model
isn't working.

Press reports report no progress in this direction despite several promises.
And why should there be, Ocado aren't the only game in town, what is it that
they have that is unique that's worth tens/hundreds of millions?


tim
tim...
2016-09-20 14:27:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
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.
Post by tim...
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
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
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-66-billion-valuation-may-ride-on-shaky-foundation.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
David Cantrell
2016-09-21 14:03:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
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
Recliner
2016-09-22 12:25:07 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:03:48 +0100, David Cantrell
Post by David Cantrell
Post by tim...
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.
tim...
2016-09-22 15:21:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:03:48 +0100, David Cantrell
Post by David Cantrell
Post by tim...
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
Recliner
2016-09-22 15:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:03:48 +0100, David Cantrell
Post by David Cantrell
Post by tim...
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/
tim...
2016-09-22 16:58:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:03:48 +0100, David Cantrell
Post by David Cantrell
Post by tim...
spending billions on trying to win a market of millions is just silly
Becoming the default choice for taxi services throughout the developed
world (which is what they seem to be going for) is not worth mere
millions.
What they're doing is very similar to what Amazon did early on. They
consistently lost money for the first few years, and only occasionally
made a profit since. It's only very recently that they started to make
vaguely reliable looking profits. Amazon spent those profitless years
buying the market.
Exactly. People who only look at the deliberate short-term losses are
ignoring the bigger picture.
It's possible for Amazon to kill the competition and for it not to come back
again, leaving you in an unassailable position to reap the rewards of
previous work
Once Uber has established in a city, competition can continually spring up
again meaning that you are continually fighting it. There is no path to
killing it off completely (other than making your price so low you don't
make a profit). There are always new drivers prepared to compete with you.
It's an international business, which benefits from network effects.
It's that network focus that makes it vulnerable in each of its local
markets.

only a percentage of your customers in Delhi are going to be
Europeans/Americans taking advantage of already having Uber on their phone
when they get off the plane. Many of the potential customers are going to
be locals who can switch to local competition if the incentives are there.
Post by Recliner
Also,
the long-term game plan is to have self-driving cars,
which I don't believe they will be able to achieve. To do this they have to
hoover up all of the finance available for "buying" rental cars and taxis.
This is an order of magnitude more funding that they currently need.

Are the backers really going to put all their eggs in one basket for this
operation, I think not.

There will be plenty of micro operations of autonomous car pooling that
people will want to invest into spread their risk.
Post by Recliner
which need things
of course they will

All of the parties interest in producing autonomous cars are working on (or
have a partner who is) such maps, it isn't just self driving taxis who have
to find their own way from Waterloo to Kings Cross. All domestically owned
cars will have to be able to do it as well.

It's a nonsense to suggest that this will be unique to Uber's cars
Post by Recliner
https://newsroom.uber.com/uk/mapping-ubers-future/
Recliner
2016-09-22 19:20:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:03:48 +0100, David Cantrell
Post by David Cantrell
Post by tim...
spending billions on trying to win a market of millions is just silly
Becoming the default choice for taxi services throughout the developed
world (which is what they seem to be going for) is not worth mere
millions.
What they're doing is very similar to what Amazon did early on. They
consistently lost money for the first few years, and only occasionally
made a profit since. It's only very recently that they started to make
vaguely reliable looking profits. Amazon spent those profitless years
buying the market.
Exactly. People who only look at the deliberate short-term losses are
ignoring the bigger picture.
It's possible for Amazon to kill the competition and for it not to come back
again, leaving you in an unassailable position to reap the rewards of
previous work
Once Uber has established in a city, competition can continually spring up
again meaning that you are continually fighting it. There is no path to
killing it off completely (other than making your price so low you don't
make a profit). There are always new drivers prepared to compete with you.
It's an international business, which benefits from network effects.
It's that network focus that makes it vulnerable in each of its local
markets.
only a percentage of your customers in Delhi are going to be
Europeans/Americans taking advantage of already having Uber on their phone
when they get off the plane. Many of the potential customers are going to
be locals who can switch to local competition if the incentives are there.
Post by Recliner
Also,
the long-term game plan is to have self-driving cars,
which I don't believe they will be able to achieve. To do this they have to
hoover up all of the finance available for "buying" rental cars and taxis.
This is an order of magnitude more funding that they currently need.
Are the backers really going to put all their eggs in one basket for this
operation, I think not.
There will be plenty of micro operations of autonomous car pooling that
people will want to invest into spread their risk.
Post by Recliner
which need things
of course they will
All of the parties interest in producing autonomous cars are working on (or
have a partner who is) such maps, it isn't just self driving taxis who have
to find their own way from Waterloo to Kings Cross. All domestically owned
cars will have to be able to do it as well.
It's a nonsense to suggest that this will be unique to Uber's cars
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-08-18/uber-s-first-self-driving-fleet-arrives-in-pittsburgh-this-month-is06r7on
s***@potato.field
2016-09-23 08:42:57 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 19:20:52 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
It's a nonsense to suggest that this will be unique to Uber's cars
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-08-18/uber-s-first-self-driving-fle
t-arrives-in-pittsburgh-this-month-is06r7on
Of course those cars still have someone sitting behind the wheel so the
whole thing is nothing more than a marketing gimmick. I'll give it a couple
of years before they quietly revert back to human drivers until the technology
is properly ready.

--
Spud
Recliner
2016-09-23 11:12:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 19:20:52 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
It's a nonsense to suggest that this will be unique to Uber's cars
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-08-18/uber-s-first-self-driving-fle
t-arrives-in-pittsburgh-this-month-is06r7on
Of course those cars still have someone sitting behind the wheel so the
whole thing is nothing more than a marketing gimmick. I'll give it a couple
of years before they quietly revert back to human drivers until the technology
is properly ready.
Yes, it's still at the alpha test stage, and human intervention will
be needed from time to time at the moment. During this test phase,
they actually have two staff on board, one a driver to intervene if
needed, and the other keeping notes on all that happens. The
technology will take several years to mature, and will only be usable
unsupervised where there are very detailed maps, which largely don't
exist yet.

The optimists expect unmanned cabs to be on the road in the early
2020s, but probably only in areas that have the detailed street maps
(much more detailed than Google Maps). So Uber would only offer one if
the journey is entirely within the mapped area (and I wouldn't expect
London to be one of the first cities to get them). I presume that
they'll have a different product name (ie, along with UberX, UberXL,
UberBLACK, UberSUV, UberLUX, UberPOOL, etc) at a lower price, so
customers can choose whether or not they want one.
tim...
2016-09-23 10:01:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:03:48 +0100, David Cantrell
Post by David Cantrell
Post by tim...
spending billions on trying to win a market of millions is just silly
Becoming the default choice for taxi services throughout the developed
world (which is what they seem to be going for) is not worth mere
millions.
What they're doing is very similar to what Amazon did early on. They
consistently lost money for the first few years, and only
occasionally
made a profit since. It's only very recently that they started to make
vaguely reliable looking profits. Amazon spent those profitless years
buying the market.
Exactly. People who only look at the deliberate short-term losses are
ignoring the bigger picture.
It's possible for Amazon to kill the competition and for it not to come back
again, leaving you in an unassailable position to reap the rewards of
previous work
Once Uber has established in a city, competition can continually spring up
again meaning that you are continually fighting it. There is no path to
killing it off completely (other than making your price so low you don't
make a profit). There are always new drivers prepared to compete with you.
It's an international business, which benefits from network effects.
It's that network focus that makes it vulnerable in each of its local
markets.
only a percentage of your customers in Delhi are going to be
Europeans/Americans taking advantage of already having Uber on their phone
when they get off the plane. Many of the potential customers are going to
be locals who can switch to local competition if the incentives are there.
Post by Recliner
Also,
the long-term game plan is to have self-driving cars,
which I don't believe they will be able to achieve. To do this they have to
hoover up all of the finance available for "buying" rental cars and taxis.
This is an order of magnitude more funding that they currently need.
Are the backers really going to put all their eggs in one basket for this
operation, I think not.
There will be plenty of micro operations of autonomous car pooling that
people will want to invest into spread their risk.
Post by Recliner
which need things
of course they will
All of the parties interest in producing autonomous cars are working on (or
have a partner who is) such maps, it isn't just self driving taxis who have
to find their own way from Waterloo to Kings Cross. All domestically owned
cars will have to be able to do it as well.
It's a nonsense to suggest that this will be unique to Uber's cars
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-08-18/uber-s-first-self-driving-fleet-arrives-in-pittsburgh-this-month-is06r7on
I know

but they can afford one city as a trial on the basis of their current
funding

but scaling it up to 10,000 cities just isn't going to be cheap, and I defy
them to find the funding for such.

tim
Recliner
2016-09-23 11:17:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:03:48 +0100, David Cantrell
Post by David Cantrell
Post by tim...
spending billions on trying to win a market of millions is just silly
Becoming the default choice for taxi services throughout the developed
world (which is what they seem to be going for) is not worth mere
millions.
What they're doing is very similar to what Amazon did early on. They
consistently lost money for the first few years, and only occasionally
made a profit since. It's only very recently that they started to make
vaguely reliable looking profits. Amazon spent those profitless years
buying the market.
Exactly. People who only look at the deliberate short-term losses are
ignoring the bigger picture.
It's possible for Amazon to kill the competition and for it not to come back
again, leaving you in an unassailable position to reap the rewards of
previous work
Once Uber has established in a city, competition can continually spring up
again meaning that you are continually fighting it. There is no path to
killing it off completely (other than making your price so low you don't
make a profit). There are always new drivers prepared to compete with you.
It's an international business, which benefits from network effects.
It's that network focus that makes it vulnerable in each of its local
markets.
only a percentage of your customers in Delhi are going to be
Europeans/Americans taking advantage of already having Uber on their phone
when they get off the plane. Many of the potential customers are going to
be locals who can switch to local competition if the incentives are there.
Post by Recliner
Also,
the long-term game plan is to have self-driving cars,
which I don't believe they will be able to achieve. To do this they have to
hoover up all of the finance available for "buying" rental cars and taxis.
This is an order of magnitude more funding that they currently need.
Are the backers really going to put all their eggs in one basket for this
operation, I think not.
There will be plenty of micro operations of autonomous car pooling that
people will want to invest into spread their risk.
Post by Recliner
which need things
of course they will
All of the parties interest in producing autonomous cars are working on (or
have a partner who is) such maps, it isn't just self driving taxis who have
to find their own way from Waterloo to Kings Cross. All domestically owned
cars will have to be able to do it as well.
It's a nonsense to suggest that this will be unique to Uber's cars
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-08-18/uber-s-first-self-driving-fleet-arrives-in-pittsburgh-this-month-is06r7on
I know
but they can afford one city as a trial on the basis of their current
funding
but scaling it up to 10,000 cities just isn't going to be cheap, and I defy
them to find the funding for such.
They won't be rolling driverless cabs worldwide in one go. It'll
happen in stages, and I wouldn't expect large, complex cities to be
among the first to get them. And Uber isn't exactly facing a cash flow
crisis: it has around $4bn in the bank. That will pay for mapping
quite a few cities.

But I'm sure Uber's investors will be keen to seek your expert advice
on Uber's prospects, as you appear to know so much more about the
company than they do.
tim...
2016-09-23 11:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
I know
but they can afford one city as a trial on the basis of their current
funding
but scaling it up to 10,000 cities just isn't going to be cheap, and I defy
them to find the funding for such.
They won't be rolling driverless cabs worldwide in one go.
That's my point

if, once proven, they don't roll out in London/Paris/Rome/loads of other
places at the same time, someone else will

The resident of London, Paris, Rome and loads of other places are not going
to sit back and wait for Uber to reach them with the benefits of driverless
cars, they are going to expect it to arrive today. And there *will* be a PV
prepared to fund that.
Post by Recliner
It'll
happen in stages, and I wouldn't expect large, complex cities to be
among the first to get them. And Uber isn't exactly facing a cash flow
crisis: it has around $4bn in the bank. That will pay for mapping
quite a few cities.
But it won't pay for the capital costs of the taxi fleets for 10,000 cities

It will pay for one (100,000 cabs at 40K each - 100,000 is half the number
of taxis in London, and I very much doubt that first generation autonomous
cars will cost under 40K).
Post by Recliner
But I'm sure Uber's investors will be keen to seek your expert advice
on Uber's prospects, as you appear to know so much more about the
company than they do.
PVs simply do not put all their eggs into one basket (they expect a failure
rate of 2 out of 3).

funding the autonomous taxi needs of 10,000 cities will require more than
the few tech companies currently prepared to fund Uber. It will require the
whole capital market.

And the whole market is not going to put all its eggs in the Uber basket.

And ISTM likely that many of the backers know diddly squat about Uber's
prospects, they are backing a punt and hoping for the bigger fool.

I have seen many a company, backed by PVs who talked up their prospects in
the same way that Uber are, that ultimately failed. Rhetoric is worth
nothing. The only difference her is that Uber are bigger (and then the
fallacy of sunk cost helps to keep them alive longer than they might
otherwise be allowed to prove themselves - this may be enough, it may not)

tim
Recliner
2016-09-24 21:30:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
I know
but they can afford one city as a trial on the basis of their current
funding
but scaling it up to 10,000 cities just isn't going to be cheap, and I defy
them to find the funding for such.
They won't be rolling driverless cabs worldwide in one go.
That's my point
if, once proven, they don't roll out in London/Paris/Rome/loads of other
places at the same time, someone else will
The resident of London, Paris, Rome and loads of other places are not going
to sit back and wait for Uber to reach them with the benefits of driverless
cars, they are going to expect it to arrive today. And there *will* be a PV
prepared to fund that.
Post by Recliner
It'll
happen in stages, and I wouldn't expect large, complex cities to be
among the first to get them. And Uber isn't exactly facing a cash flow
crisis: it has around $4bn in the bank. That will pay for mapping
quite a few cities.
But it won't pay for the capital costs of the taxi fleets for 10,000 cities
It will pay for one (100,000 cabs at 40K each - 100,000 is half the number
of taxis in London, and I very much doubt that first generation autonomous
cars will cost under 40K).
Why do you think Uber will buy its self-driving cabs for cash? That's not
how most business vehicles are bought.

Anyway, here's a recent report of Uber's self-driving tests in Pittsburgh:
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21707263-uber-launches-its-first-self-driving-cars-pitt-stop
tim...
2016-09-25 18:44:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
I know
but they can afford one city as a trial on the basis of their current
funding
but scaling it up to 10,000 cities just isn't going to be cheap, and I defy
them to find the funding for such.
They won't be rolling driverless cabs worldwide in one go.
That's my point
if, once proven, they don't roll out in London/Paris/Rome/loads of other
places at the same time, someone else will
The resident of London, Paris, Rome and loads of other places are not going
to sit back and wait for Uber to reach them with the benefits of driverless
cars, they are going to expect it to arrive today. And there *will* be a PV
prepared to fund that.
Post by Recliner
It'll
happen in stages, and I wouldn't expect large, complex cities to be
among the first to get them. And Uber isn't exactly facing a cash flow
crisis: it has around $4bn in the bank. That will pay for mapping
quite a few cities.
But it won't pay for the capital costs of the taxi fleets for 10,000 cities
It will pay for one (100,000 cabs at 40K each - 100,000 is half the number
of taxis in London, and I very much doubt that first generation autonomous
cars will cost under 40K).
Why do you think Uber will buy its self-driving cabs for cash? That's not
how most business vehicles are bought.
Someone still has to give them all of that credit. Even if the cars are
lease hired and they don't sit directly on the books for Uber, the hirer is
still going to need to be sure of Uber's creditworthiness

The idea that the people doing that will give Uber 100% (or even 50%) of the
worldwide opportunities for autonomous rental cars is just silly
Post by Recliner
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21707263-uber-launches-its-first-self-driving-cars-pitt-stop
"The cars are not truly driverless yet"

so until and unless they are (and I remain sceptical that the industry is
going to get regulatory approve for that any time soon)

It's all words

tim
Recliner
2016-09-25 20:30:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
I know
but they can afford one city as a trial on the basis of their current
funding
but scaling it up to 10,000 cities just isn't going to be cheap, and I defy
them to find the funding for such.
They won't be rolling driverless cabs worldwide in one go.
That's my point
if, once proven, they don't roll out in London/Paris/Rome/loads of other
places at the same time, someone else will
The resident of London, Paris, Rome and loads of other places are not going
to sit back and wait for Uber to reach them with the benefits of driverless
cars, they are going to expect it to arrive today. And there *will* be a PV
prepared to fund that.
Post by Recliner
It'll
happen in stages, and I wouldn't expect large, complex cities to be
among the first to get them. And Uber isn't exactly facing a cash flow
crisis: it has around $4bn in the bank. That will pay for mapping
quite a few cities.
But it won't pay for the capital costs of the taxi fleets for 10,000 cities
It will pay for one (100,000 cabs at 40K each - 100,000 is half the number
of taxis in London, and I very much doubt that first generation autonomous
cars will cost under 40K).
Why do you think Uber will buy its self-driving cabs for cash? That's not
how most business vehicles are bought.
Someone still has to give them all of that credit. Even if the cars are
lease hired and they don't sit directly on the books for Uber, the hirer is
still going to need to be sure of Uber's creditworthiness
So how do you think current Uber drivers get credit? Do you really think
recent immigrants with no credit history are a better bet than Silocon
Valley's most valuable private corporation?
Post by tim...
The idea that the people doing that will give Uber 100% (or even 50%) of the
worldwide opportunities for autonomous rental cars is just silly
Your sage investment advice is wasted here. You should be earning megabucks
advising the likes of these naive companies:
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/uber/funding-rounds
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21707263-uber-launches-its-first-self-driving-cars-pitt-stop
"The cars are not truly driverless yet"
so until and unless they are (and I remain sceptical that the industry is
going to get regulatory approve for that any time soon)
It's all words
No, it's not all words. There is a growing fleet of real cars, driving
themselves on public roads, in multiple cities (soon to include London),
carrying real passengers. Nobody says that fully autonomous, unsupervised
cabs will be released in the next few months, but the technology has made
remarkable progress. It may only be in alpha test right now, but the
commercial release within a few years is entirely believable.
tim...
2016-09-26 08:08:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
I know
but they can afford one city as a trial on the basis of their current
funding
but scaling it up to 10,000 cities just isn't going to be cheap, and
I
defy
them to find the funding for such.
They won't be rolling driverless cabs worldwide in one go.
That's my point
if, once proven, they don't roll out in London/Paris/Rome/loads of other
places at the same time, someone else will
The resident of London, Paris, Rome and loads of other places are not going
to sit back and wait for Uber to reach them with the benefits of driverless
cars, they are going to expect it to arrive today. And there *will* be
a
PV
prepared to fund that.
Post by Recliner
It'll
happen in stages, and I wouldn't expect large, complex cities to be
among the first to get them. And Uber isn't exactly facing a cash flow
crisis: it has around $4bn in the bank. That will pay for mapping
quite a few cities.
But it won't pay for the capital costs of the taxi fleets for 10,000 cities
It will pay for one (100,000 cabs at 40K each - 100,000 is half the number
of taxis in London, and I very much doubt that first generation autonomous
cars will cost under 40K).
Why do you think Uber will buy its self-driving cabs for cash? That's not
how most business vehicles are bought.
Someone still has to give them all of that credit. Even if the cars are
lease hired and they don't sit directly on the books for Uber, the hirer is
still going to need to be sure of Uber's creditworthiness
So how do you think current Uber drivers get credit?
But they are all individuals

they each arrange their credit on a personal basis. The lender is spreading
his risk amongst 1000s of people, not just one company
Post by Recliner
recent immigrants with no credit history are a better bet than Silocon
Valley's most valuable private corporation?
Post by tim...
The idea that the people doing that will give Uber 100% (or even 50%) of the
worldwide opportunities for autonomous rental cars is just silly
Your sage investment advice is wasted here. You should be earning megabucks
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/uber/funding-rounds
I have already explained, this is risk capital with the backers expecting a
return on only 1 in 3 of their investments. Uber has been measured against
that criteria. You really can't use the measure that VCs are investing as
proof that a venture is guaranteed to be successful. The world is littered
with VC failures, including some that required investments in the Billions.
How much did Microsoft lose buying Skyp?

The sums of money required to buy the number of cars that you need to flood
the world's markets for taxi with autonomous vehicles far exceeds the amount
of risk capital available and needs to move into the world of normal
business funding. These people will be far more circumspect.
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21707263-uber-launches-its-first-self-driving-cars-pitt-stop
"The cars are not truly driverless yet"
so until and unless they are (and I remain sceptical that the industry is
going to get regulatory approve for that any time soon)
It's all words
No, it's not all words. There is a growing fleet of real cars, driving
themselves on public roads, in multiple cities (soon to include London),
carrying real passengers. Nobody says that fully autonomous, unsupervised
cabs will be released in the next few months, but the technology has made
remarkable progress. It may only be in alpha test right now, but the
commercial release within a few years is entirely believable.
If you're prepared to pay 50 grand for a new car, perhaps

tim
Recliner
2016-09-26 09:31:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
I know
but they can afford one city as a trial on the basis of their current
funding
but scaling it up to 10,000 cities just isn't going to be cheap, and
I
defy
them to find the funding for such.
They won't be rolling driverless cabs worldwide in one go.
That's my point
if, once proven, they don't roll out in London/Paris/Rome/loads of other
places at the same time, someone else will
The resident of London, Paris, Rome and loads of other places are not going
to sit back and wait for Uber to reach them with the benefits of driverless
cars, they are going to expect it to arrive today. And there *will* be
a
PV
prepared to fund that.
Post by Recliner
It'll
happen in stages, and I wouldn't expect large, complex cities to be
among the first to get them. And Uber isn't exactly facing a cash flow
crisis: it has around $4bn in the bank. That will pay for mapping
quite a few cities.
But it won't pay for the capital costs of the taxi fleets for 10,000 cities
It will pay for one (100,000 cabs at 40K each - 100,000 is half the number
of taxis in London, and I very much doubt that first generation autonomous
cars will cost under 40K).
Why do you think Uber will buy its self-driving cabs for cash? That's not
how most business vehicles are bought.
Someone still has to give them all of that credit. Even if the cars are
lease hired and they don't sit directly on the books for Uber, the hirer is
still going to need to be sure of Uber's creditworthiness
So how do you think current Uber drivers get credit?
But they are all individuals
they each arrange their credit on a personal basis. The lender is spreading
his risk amongst 1000s of people, not just one company
Post by Recliner
recent immigrants with no credit history are a better bet than Silocon
Valley's most valuable private corporation?
Post by tim...
The idea that the people doing that will give Uber 100% (or even 50%) of the
worldwide opportunities for autonomous rental cars is just silly
Your sage investment advice is wasted here. You should be earning megabucks
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/uber/funding-rounds
I have already explained, this is risk capital with the backers expecting a
return on only 1 in 3 of their investments. Uber has been measured against
that criteria.
Just curious, how much have you invested in VC funds? How any are you
invested in?
Post by tim...
You really can't use the measure that VCs are investing as
proof that a venture is guaranteed to be successful. The world is littered
with VC failures, including some that required investments in the Billions.
VCs stop investing early in the many early stage companies that aren't
likely to make it. They don't participate in funding round after funding
round in the flops. Can't you see this in the many reports you get from
your VC investments, as I do from mine?
[I have investments in dozens of VC funds, as I'm sure you must too.]
Post by tim...
How much did Microsoft lose buying Skyp?
What is Skyp? It sounds like like a rubbish bin.

If you're referring to Skype, it wasn't Microsoft that first bought it. The
original investors in Skype did rather well when it was bought for $2.6bn
in 2005, only two years after its first release. The later VC investors did
even better when MSFT paid $8.5bn in 2011 (a huge increase from the
enterprise value of $2.9bn in 2009). So Skype has been a huge success for
VCs.

As MSFT hasn't sold Skype, and probably won't, I don't know how you are
trying to calculate the loss you think it's made. But whatever it is, MSFT
isn't a VC. It does numerous acquisitions, some of which it handles well,
and many that it doesn't. But it enriches VCs along the way. I have
first-hand knowledge of this -- do you?
Post by tim...
The sums of money required to buy the number of cars that you need to flood
the world's markets for taxi with autonomous vehicles far exceeds the amount
of risk capital available and needs to move into the world of normal
business funding. These people will be far more circumspect.
Again, you seem to live in a different world. Initially, autonomous cabs
will simply replace existing ones, and only in mapped cities. So the
numbers are not huge, and they should be no harder to fund than other
business vehicles.

And, again, if you have such amazing knowledge of the VC industry, why
aren't you selling it to the people who are already making billions, to
help them become even richer? Perhaps they'd like to be as successful in
business as you presumably are?
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21707263-uber-launches-its-first-self-driving-cars-pitt-stop
"The cars are not truly driverless yet"
so until and unless they are (and I remain sceptical that the industry is
going to get regulatory approve for that any time soon)
It's all words
No, it's not all words. There is a growing fleet of real cars, driving
themselves on public roads, in multiple cities (soon to include London),
carrying real passengers. Nobody says that fully autonomous, unsupervised
cabs will be released in the next few months, but the technology has made
remarkable progress. It may only be in alpha test right now, but the
commercial release within a few years is entirely believable.
If you're prepared to pay 50 grand for a new car, perhaps
I dare say the current cars cost a *lot* more than that. But for someone
as knowledgeable about investing as you, who is presumably a billionaire,
that would be a cheap car...
tim...
2016-09-26 09:50:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 11:01:31 +0100, "tim..."
Post by tim...
I know
but they can afford one city as a trial on the basis of their current
funding
but scaling it up to 10,000 cities just isn't going to be cheap, and
I
defy
them to find the funding for such.
They won't be rolling driverless cabs worldwide in one go.
That's my point
if, once proven, they don't roll out in London/Paris/Rome/loads of other
places at the same time, someone else will
The resident of London, Paris, Rome and loads of other places are not going
to sit back and wait for Uber to reach them with the benefits of driverless
cars, they are going to expect it to arrive today. And there *will* be
a
PV
prepared to fund that.
It'll
happen in stages, and I wouldn't expect large, complex cities to be
among the first to get them. And Uber isn't exactly facing a cash flow
crisis: it has around $4bn in the bank. That will pay for mapping
quite a few cities.
But it won't pay for the capital costs of the taxi fleets for 10,000 cities
It will pay for one (100,000 cabs at 40K each - 100,000 is half the number
of taxis in London, and I very much doubt that first generation autonomous
cars will cost under 40K).
Why do you think Uber will buy its self-driving cabs for cash? That's not
how most business vehicles are bought.
Someone still has to give them all of that credit. Even if the cars are
lease hired and they don't sit directly on the books for Uber, the
hirer
is
still going to need to be sure of Uber's creditworthiness
So how do you think current Uber drivers get credit?
But they are all individuals
they each arrange their credit on a personal basis. The lender is spreading
his risk amongst 1000s of people, not just one company
Post by Recliner
recent immigrants with no credit history are a better bet than Silocon
Valley's most valuable private corporation?
Post by tim...
The idea that the people doing that will give Uber 100% (or even 50%)
of
the
worldwide opportunities for autonomous rental cars is just silly
Your sage investment advice is wasted here. You should be earning megabucks
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/uber/funding-rounds
I have already explained, this is risk capital with the backers expecting a
return on only 1 in 3 of their investments. Uber has been measured against
that criteria.
Just curious, how much have you invested in VC funds? How any are you
invested in?
what's that got to do with anything

ask anybody who does invest and they will tell you that they expect a 1 in 3
success rate. It's not a secret
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
You really can't use the measure that VCs are investing as
proof that a venture is guaranteed to be successful. The world is littered
with VC failures, including some that required investments in the Billions.
VCs stop investing early in the many early stage companies that aren't
likely to make it. They don't participate in funding round after funding
round in the flops.
So obviously they don't believe it's a flop - that doesn't make them right

It still has a way to go to prove itself.

In any case they are waiting for the bigger fool.
Post by Recliner
Can't you see this in the many reports you get from
your VC investments, as I do from mine?
[I have investments in dozens of VC funds, as I'm sure you must too.]
Post by tim...
How much did Microsoft lose buying Skyp?
What is Skyp? It sounds like like a rubbish bin.
If you're referring to Skype, it wasn't Microsoft that first bought it. The
original investors in Skype did rather well when it was bought for $2.6bn
I know - they found their bigger fool
Post by Recliner
in 2005, only two years after its first release. The later VC investors did
even better when MSFT paid $8.5bn in 2011 (a huge increase from the
enterprise value of $2.9bn in 2009). So Skype has been a huge success for
VCs.
But not for the final purchaser who has already written off a chunk of what
they paid for it
Post by Recliner
As MSFT hasn't sold Skype, and probably won't, I don't know how you are
trying to calculate the loss you think it's made. But whatever it is, MSFT
isn't a VC. It does numerous acquisitions, some of which it handles well,
and many that it doesn't. But it enriches VCs along the way. I have
first-hand knowledge of this -- do you?
Post by tim...
The sums of money required to buy the number of cars that you need to flood
the world's markets for taxi with autonomous vehicles far exceeds the amount
of risk capital available and needs to move into the world of normal
business funding. These people will be far more circumspect.
Again, you seem to live in a different world. Initially, autonomous cabs
will simply replace existing ones, and only in mapped cities. So the
numbers are not huge, and they should be no harder to fund than other
business vehicles.
So how's that going to change Uber's business overnight?

1 in 100 of their cars are autonomous. Are they going to charge the lower
fares for these rides immediately, or are they going to make them the same
fare?

If they charge lower fares wont that send a big message to current drivers
telling that they aren't needed (so they will up sticks to the competition
immediately) and if the don't charge lower fares someone else will.
Post by Recliner
And, again, if you have such amazing knowledge of the VC industry, why
aren't you selling it to the people who are already making billions, to
help them become even richer?
All of my knowledge is generic stuff that I am explaining to you,

It is not a secret

Whether a particular investment is a good one or not is for them to decide,
not for me to tell them, but my point is YOU cannot use the fact that VCs
are investing as proof that a company is/will be successful

It is a nonsense

Three times in my career I have been interviewed for a position with a
newish start up that VCs had funded and I was told the story that the
investors fell of their chair in surprise at the uniqueness of the product.
All three companies crashed and burned 1-2 years later, one after 20 million
pounds of investment from the VCs (I know not what the others had received)

Oh and then there's Ionica, now much money was lost there?
Post by Recliner
Perhaps they'd like to be as successful in
business as you presumably are?
I'm not a big risk taker, and I suffer for that.

But OTOH I do alright
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21707263-uber-launches-its-first-self-driving-cars-pitt-stop
"The cars are not truly driverless yet"
so until and unless they are (and I remain sceptical that the industry is
going to get regulatory approve for that any time soon)
It's all words
No, it's not all words. There is a growing fleet of real cars, driving
themselves on public roads, in multiple cities (soon to include London),
carrying real passengers. Nobody says that fully autonomous,
unsupervised
cabs will be released in the next few months, but the technology has made
remarkable progress. It may only be in alpha test right now, but the
commercial release within a few years is entirely believable.
If you're prepared to pay 50 grand for a new car, perhaps
I dare say the current cars cost a *lot* more than that. But for someone
as knowledgeable about investing as you, who is presumably a billionaire,
that would be a cheap car...
but not if I had to buy 10 million of them

tim
Recliner
2016-09-26 10:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 11:01:31 +0100, "tim..."
Post by tim...
I know
but they can afford one city as a trial on the basis of their current
funding
but scaling it up to 10,000 cities just isn't going to be cheap, and
I
defy
them to find the funding for such.
They won't be rolling driverless cabs worldwide in one go.
That's my point
if, once proven, they don't roll out in London/Paris/Rome/loads of other
places at the same time, someone else will
The resident of London, Paris, Rome and loads of other places are not going
to sit back and wait for Uber to reach them with the benefits of driverless
cars, they are going to expect it to arrive today. And there *will* be
a
PV
prepared to fund that.
It'll
happen in stages, and I wouldn't expect large, complex cities to be
among the first to get them. And Uber isn't exactly facing a cash flow
crisis: it has around $4bn in the bank. That will pay for mapping
quite a few cities.
But it won't pay for the capital costs of the taxi fleets for 10,000 cities
It will pay for one (100,000 cabs at 40K each - 100,000 is half the number
of taxis in London, and I very much doubt that first generation autonomous
cars will cost under 40K).
Why do you think Uber will buy its self-driving cabs for cash? That's not
how most business vehicles are bought.
Someone still has to give them all of that credit. Even if the cars are
lease hired and they don't sit directly on the books for Uber, the
hirer
is
still going to need to be sure of Uber's creditworthiness
So how do you think current Uber drivers get credit?
But they are all individuals
they each arrange their credit on a personal basis. The lender is spreading
his risk amongst 1000s of people, not just one company
Post by Recliner
recent immigrants with no credit history are a better bet than Silocon
Valley's most valuable private corporation?
Post by tim...
The idea that the people doing that will give Uber 100% (or even 50%)
of
the
worldwide opportunities for autonomous rental cars is just silly
Your sage investment advice is wasted here. You should be earning megabucks
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/uber/funding-rounds
I have already explained, this is risk capital with the backers expecting a
return on only 1 in 3 of their investments. Uber has been measured against
that criteria.
Just curious, how much have you invested in VC funds? How any are you
invested in?
what's that got to do with anything
ask anybody who does invest and they will tell you that they expect a 1 in 3
success rate. It's not a secret
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
You really can't use the measure that VCs are investing as
proof that a venture is guaranteed to be successful. The world is littered
with VC failures, including some that required investments in the Billions.
VCs stop investing early in the many early stage companies that aren't
likely to make it. They don't participate in funding round after funding
round in the flops.
So obviously they don't believe it's a flop - that doesn't make them right
It still has a way to go to prove itself.
In any case they are waiting for the bigger fool.
Post by Recliner
Can't you see this in the many reports you get from
your VC investments, as I do from mine?
[I have investments in dozens of VC funds, as I'm sure you must too.]
Post by tim...
How much did Microsoft lose buying Skyp?
What is Skyp? It sounds like like a rubbish bin.
If you're referring to Skype, it wasn't Microsoft that first bought it. The
original investors in Skype did rather well when it was bought for $2.6bn
I know - they found their bigger fool
Post by Recliner
in 2005, only two years after its first release. The later VC investors did
even better when MSFT paid $8.5bn in 2011 (a huge increase from the
enterprise value of $2.9bn in 2009). So Skype has been a huge success for
VCs.
But not for the final purchaser who has already written off a chunk of what
they paid for it
You used Skyp(sic) as an example of VCs getting it wrong. You don't seem to
understand that it was an example of VCs doing brilliantly well. It was
eBay and MSFT that overpaid.
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
As MSFT hasn't sold Skype, and probably won't, I don't know how you are
trying to calculate the loss you think it's made. But whatever it is, MSFT
isn't a VC. It does numerous acquisitions, some of which it handles well,
and many that it doesn't. But it enriches VCs along the way. I have
first-hand knowledge of this -- do you?
Post by tim...
The sums of money required to buy the number of cars that you need to flood
the world's markets for taxi with autonomous vehicles far exceeds the amount
of risk capital available and needs to move into the world of normal
business funding. These people will be far more circumspect.
Again, you seem to live in a different world. Initially, autonomous cabs
will simply replace existing ones, and only in mapped cities. So the
numbers are not huge, and they should be no harder to fund than other
business vehicles.
So how's that going to change Uber's business overnight?
1 in 100 of their cars are autonomous. Are they going to charge the lower
fares for these rides immediately, or are they going to make them the same
fare?
If they charge lower fares wont that send a big message to current drivers
telling that they aren't needed (so they will up sticks to the competition
immediately) and if the don't charge lower fares someone else will.
Uber's drivers are not making a long term commitment; I'd imagine hardly
any of them see driving an Uber car as a lifetime ambition. They do it to
earn a bit of money, but it's long hours for not much income. They'll stay
loyal to Uber only until a better offer comes along. I don't suppose many
drive minicabs for very long anyway. Uber will pay them enough to keep
them, while and where it still needs drivers.
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
And, again, if you have such amazing knowledge of the VC industry, why
aren't you selling it to the people who are already making billions, to
help them become even richer?
All of my knowledge is generic stuff that I am explaining to you,
Very generic, and ill-understood, too.
Post by tim...
It is not a secret
Being a successful VC isn't as easy as you seem to think/
Post by tim...
Whether a particular investment is a good one or not is for them to decide,
not for me to tell them, but my point is YOU cannot use the fact that VCs
are investing as proof that a company is/will be successful
It is a nonsense
Of course not. But VCs don't come back for round after round of funding for
the flops. They usually fail early. VCs are ruthless at pulling the plug
or replacing the CEO the moment they smell failure.
Post by tim...
Three times in my career I have been interviewed for a position with a
newish start up that VCs had funded and I was told the story that the
investors fell of their chair in surprise at the uniqueness of the product.
All three companies crashed and burned 1-2 years later, one after 20 million
pounds of investment from the VCs (I know not what the others had received)
Those sound like early stage companies, which do have a high failure rate.
The reason they crashed and burned is that the VCs pulled the plug, as they
often do. Don't you understand the concept of funding rounds?
Roland Perry
2016-09-26 11:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Oh and then there's Ionica, now much money was lost there?
An interesting business model: Try to attract only those customers who
want to spend as little as possible, or who are regarded by BT as too
big a credit risk. And then fail to roll out the only product which had
a technical edge on the competition (faster, but still narrowband,
data).

And losing £150m on a turnover of £10m is pretty much a world record I'd
have thought.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
2016-09-26 11:06:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
I have already explained, this is risk capital with the backers
expecting a return on only 1 in 3 of their investments. Uber has been
measured against that criteria. You really can't use the measure that
VCs are investing as proof that a venture is guaranteed to be
successful. The world is littered with VC failures, including some
that required investments in the Billions. How much did Microsoft lose
buying Skyp?
Twitter is looking for White Knight at the moment, having consistently
lost money with no turn-around on the horizon.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2016-09-26 11:54:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
I have already explained, this is risk capital with the backers
expecting a return on only 1 in 3 of their investments. Uber has been
measured against that criteria. You really can't use the measure that
VCs are investing as proof that a venture is guaranteed to be
successful. The world is littered with VC failures, including some
that required investments in the Billions. How much did Microsoft lose
buying Skyp?
Twitter is looking for White Knight at the moment, having consistently
lost money with no turn-around on the horizon.
Of course, Twitter had a successful IPO, so the VCs have already got
their return. It's the later TWTR investors who are hoping for a
generous buyout. But the company is making money, albeit much less
than hoped-for:

"The company posted second-quarter adjusted earnings of 13 cents a
share on revenue of $602 million. Wall Street expected it to post
earnings of 10 cents a share on revenue of $607 million, according to
a Thomson Reuters consensus estimate. Profit per share was up from 7
cents a year earlier, and revenue rose 20 percent."

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/26/twitter-reporting-second-quarter-2016-earnings.html
Roland Perry
2016-09-26 12:11:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
I have already explained, this is risk capital with the backers
expecting a return on only 1 in 3 of their investments. Uber has been
measured against that criteria. You really can't use the measure that
VCs are investing as proof that a venture is guaranteed to be
successful. The world is littered with VC failures, including some
that required investments in the Billions. How much did Microsoft lose
buying Skyp?
Twitter is looking for White Knight at the moment, having consistently
lost money with no turn-around on the horizon.
Of course, Twitter had a successful IPO, so the VCs have already got
their return. It's the later TWTR investors who are hoping for a
generous buyout. But the company is making money, albeit much less
"The company posted second-quarter adjusted earnings of 13 cents a
share on revenue of $602 million. Wall Street expected it to post
earnings of 10 cents a share on revenue of $607 million, according to
a Thomson Reuters consensus estimate. Profit per share was up from 7
cents a year earlier, and revenue rose 20 percent."
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/26/twitter-reporting-second-quarter-
2016-earnings.html
Alternatively:

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/07/26/twitter-shares-dive-
as-it-reports-heavy-loss/>
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2016-09-26 12:47:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
I have already explained, this is risk capital with the backers
expecting a return on only 1 in 3 of their investments. Uber has been
measured against that criteria. You really can't use the measure that
VCs are investing as proof that a venture is guaranteed to be
successful. The world is littered with VC failures, including some
that required investments in the Billions. How much did Microsoft lose
buying Skyp?
Twitter is looking for White Knight at the moment, having consistently
lost money with no turn-around on the horizon.
Of course, Twitter had a successful IPO, so the VCs have already got
their return. It's the later TWTR investors who are hoping for a
generous buyout. But the company is making money, albeit much less
"The company posted second-quarter adjusted earnings of 13 cents a
share on revenue of $602 million. Wall Street expected it to post
earnings of 10 cents a share on revenue of $607 million, according to
a Thomson Reuters consensus estimate. Profit per share was up from 7
cents a year earlier, and revenue rose 20 percent."
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/26/twitter-reporting-second-quarter-
2016-earnings.html
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/07/26/twitter-shares-dive-
as-it-reports-heavy-loss/>
Both are probably correct. It depends on what adjustments are
included:

- Q2 GAAP net loss of $107 million and non-GAAP net income of $93
million.

- Q2 GAAP diluted EPS of ($0.15) and non-GAAP diluted EPS of $0.13.

- Q2 adjusted EBITDA of $175 million, up 45% year-over-year,
representing an adjusted EBITDA margin of 29%.

<http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMDA-2F526X/2906934520x0x901385/664658CA-D1D8-4635-83F4-8C9D5A9A1F52/ShareholderLetter_Q2_16.pdf>
Roland Perry
2016-09-26 11:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
If you're prepared to pay 50 grand for a new car, perhaps
I was astonished to see *second hand* Land Rover Discos for sale on a
forecourt for more than 50k. Some people have money to burn.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2016-09-26 12:05:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
If you're prepared to pay 50 grand for a new car, perhaps
I was astonished to see *second hand* Land Rover Discos for sale on a
forecourt for more than 50k. Some people have money to burn.
Yes, that is a lot. It must have been loaded with extras.

The new, more upmarket Disco 5 is expected to have an entry price of
~£45k for the 2 litre diesel version when it ships next year. The
top-end Disco price is likely to be around £60k or more, before
options.
Roland Perry
2016-09-26 12:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
If you're prepared to pay 50 grand for a new car, perhaps
I was astonished to see *second hand* Land Rover Discos for sale on a
forecourt for more than 50k. Some people have money to burn.
Yes, that is a lot. It must have been loaded with extras.
"It" - there were loads[1], perhaps not very old, but there have always
been a lot of very low mileage Discos for sale. People buying them
expecting a cheap Range Rover not an expensive Defender, perhaps?
Post by Recliner
The new, more upmarket Disco 5 is expected to have an entry price of
~£45k for the 2 litre diesel version when it ships next year. The
top-end Disco price is likely to be around £60k or more, before
options.
[1] https://goo.gl/maps/zNthwYkdsQ42
<https://www.hunterslandrover.co.uk/cars/search-our-stock/?ranges=Di
scovery&price=1000-110000&age=5&co2emissions=1-400&sortType=combinedmpg&
sortOrder=desc&view=list-view%20vtype-car&p=1>
Says they have fifteen for sale In Guildford. Most expensive this
week £43,499; others in the chain have them up to £51,500.
<https://www.hunterslandrover.co.uk/vehicles/discovery/discovery-
30-sdv6-landmark/discovery-30-sdv6-landmark-pk16mbf-2793321/>
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
2016-09-26 08:05:36 UTC
Permalink
In message
<2053404985.496445190.875809.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-sept
ember.org>, at 21:30:40 on Sat, 24 Sep 2016, Recliner
Post by Recliner
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21707263-uber-launches-its-first-self-driving-cars-pitt-stop
I think you'll find that's the University's testing, and because Uber
funds that programme they get to go "along for the ride" so to speak.

It's also an early testing phase, which the cars won't necessarily pass.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2016-09-26 08:45:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
In message
ember.org>, at 21:30:40 on Sat, 24 Sep 2016, Recliner
Post by Recliner
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21707263-uber-launches-its-first-self-driving-cars-pitt-stop
I think you'll find that's the University's testing, and because Uber
funds that programme they get to go "along for the ride" so to speak.
It's also an early testing phase, which the cars won't necessarily pass.
It's not really a pass or fail issue. It's an alpha test. I assume the
software, algorithms and mapping database will be continually adjusted
during this testing phase, but no-one is planning to roll out this version
as a commercial release. But these improvements will feed back into the
eventual commercial release, which is probably several years away.

The big step in this phase is that it's not just the private test running
that Google has been doing for years, but a public test, with random
members of the public actually using the cars as a taxi service. It seems
to be a little more ambitious than the nuTonomy trial that started a few
days earlier in Singapore, but is still well short of a commercial release.

As an aside, it's interesting how much much hardware these early
self-driving cars currently need (numerous sensors, Lidar, Radar, cameras,
etc) compared to just the eyes and ears we human drivers get by with.
Roland Perry
2016-09-26 11:26:00 UTC
Permalink
In message
<2022914251.496571244.419279.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-sept
ember.org>, at 08:45:29 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
In message
ember.org>, at 21:30:40 on Sat, 24 Sep 2016, Recliner
Post by Recliner
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21707263-uber-launches-its-firs
t-self-driving-cars-pitt-stop
I think you'll find that's the University's testing, and because Uber
funds that programme they get to go "along for the ride" so to speak.
It's also an early testing phase, which the cars won't necessarily pass.
It's not really a pass or fail issue. It's an alpha test. I assume the
software, algorithms and mapping database will be continually adjusted
during this testing phase, but no-one is planning to roll out this version
as a commercial release. But these improvements will feed back into the
eventual commercial release, which is probably several years away.
Like fusion power, you mean?
Post by Recliner
The big step in this phase is that it's not just the private test running
that Google has been doing for years, but a public test, with random
members of the public actually using the cars as a taxi service.
I've always assumed the Google test was at the very least assisting
their employees to commute to work. Or is it only people driving around
at random during their work day with the firm?
Post by Recliner
It seems to be a little more ambitious than the nuTonomy trial that
started a few days earlier in Singapore, but is still well short of a
commercial release.
The novelty is the way they are spinning it for PR purposes. I don't
blame them for that, but it does appear to have got many people rather
over-excited. Didn't BR run the APT in Alpha-testing revenue service,
before scrapping the project?
Post by Recliner
As an aside, it's interesting how much much hardware these early
self-driving cars currently need (numerous sensors, Lidar, Radar, cameras,
etc) compared to just the eyes and ears we human drivers get by with.
20 cameras, and radar! I wonder how fault-tolerant it is when one or
more of the cameras fails because of an electrical fault, or become
covered in snow. And don't forget, one of the problems Volvo has found
is the radar antennas getting clogged with snow.

ObRail: Right or wrong sort of snow, I wonder?
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2016-09-26 11:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
In message
ember.org>, at 08:45:29 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
In message
ember.org>, at 21:30:40 on Sat, 24 Sep 2016, Recliner
Post by Recliner
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21707263-uber-launches-its-firs
t-self-driving-cars-pitt-stop
I think you'll find that's the University's testing, and because Uber
funds that programme they get to go "along for the ride" so to speak.
It's also an early testing phase, which the cars won't necessarily pass.
It's not really a pass or fail issue. It's an alpha test. I assume the
software, algorithms and mapping database will be continually adjusted
during this testing phase, but no-one is planning to roll out this version
as a commercial release. But these improvements will feed back into the
eventual commercial release, which is probably several years away.
Like fusion power, you mean?
No, exactly the opposite. This stuff works, and just needs
fine-tuning. Fusion has never got that far.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
The big step in this phase is that it's not just the private test running
that Google has been doing for years, but a public test, with random
members of the public actually using the cars as a taxi service.
I've always assumed the Google test was at the very least assisting
their employees to commute to work. Or is it only people driving around
at random during their work day with the firm?
I think it's just a test programme, with professional testers driving
around.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
It seems to be a little more ambitious than the nuTonomy trial that
started a few days earlier in Singapore, but is still well short of a
commercial release.
The novelty is the way they are spinning it for PR purposes. I don't
blame them for that, but it does appear to have got many people rather
over-excited. Didn't BR run the APT in Alpha-testing revenue service,
before scrapping the project?
The self-driving cars are already much further ahead than the APT
reached.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
As an aside, it's interesting how much much hardware these early
self-driving cars currently need (numerous sensors, Lidar, Radar, cameras,
etc) compared to just the eyes and ears we human drivers get by with.
20 cameras, and radar! I wonder how fault-tolerant it is when one or
more of the cameras fails because of an electrical fault, or become
covered in snow. And don't forget, one of the problems Volvo has found
is the radar antennas getting clogged with snow.
All stuff to be evaluated during the test phase. Hopefully the
commercial version won't need quite so many cameras and sensors.
Post by Roland Perry
ObRail: Right or wrong sort of snow, I wonder?
Roland Perry
2016-09-26 12:25:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
But these improvements will feed back into the
eventual commercial release, which is probably several years away.
Like fusion power, you mean?
No, exactly the opposite. This stuff works,
Only with human drivers available to take over.
Post by Recliner
and just needs fine-tuning.
There's general agreement in the industry that they "just don't work" in
snow. That's not "only-just don't work", flat "don't work".
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2016-09-26 17:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
In message
ember.org>, at 08:45:29 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
In message
ember.org>, at 21:30:40 on Sat, 24 Sep 2016, Recliner
Post by Recliner
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21707263-uber-launches-its-firs
t-self-driving-cars-pitt-stop
I think you'll find that's the University's testing, and because Uber
funds that programme they get to go "along for the ride" so to speak.
It's also an early testing phase, which the cars won't necessarily pass.
It's not really a pass or fail issue. It's an alpha test. I assume the
software, algorithms and mapping database will be continually adjusted
during this testing phase, but no-one is planning to roll out this version
as a commercial release. But these improvements will feed back into the
eventual commercial release, which is probably several years away.
Like fusion power, you mean?
Post by Recliner
The big step in this phase is that it's not just the private test running
that Google has been doing for years, but a public test, with random
members of the public actually using the cars as a taxi service.
I've always assumed the Google test was at the very least assisting their
employees to commute to work. Or is it only people driving around at
random during their work day with the firm?
The German company that I recently worked for ran their trial autonomous car
solely around the factor site (it was a big factory site)

It only just avoided knocking down its garage as they put it to bed one day
:-)

tim
David Cantrell
2016-09-26 11:09:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
but they can afford one city as a trial on the basis of their current
funding
but scaling it up to 10,000 cities just isn't going to be cheap, and I defy
them to find the funding for such.
If they can show that it works in one place, and makes money, then I'm
sure that the funding will be available. Not enough to go straight to
10,000 cities, but to roll it out to another 10 and do a larger trial.
And then to expand that, and to expand that, and so on, until all 10,000
are covered.

You could have levelled the same criticism against bold plans 130 years
ago to do ridiculous things like connect every single house in the
country to the electricity supply.
--
David Cantrell
Professor of Unvironmental Science
University of Human Progress
Recliner
2016-09-26 12:00:09 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 12:09:23 +0100, David Cantrell
Post by David Cantrell
Post by tim...
but they can afford one city as a trial on the basis of their current
funding
but scaling it up to 10,000 cities just isn't going to be cheap, and I defy
them to find the funding for such.
If they can show that it works in one place, and makes money, then I'm
sure that the funding will be available. Not enough to go straight to
10,000 cities, but to roll it out to another 10 and do a larger trial.
And then to expand that, and to expand that, and so on, until all 10,000
are covered.
You could have levelled the same criticism against bold plans 130 years
ago to do ridiculous things like connect every single house in the
country to the electricity supply.
And I don't know where Tim got the idea that Uber is aiming to
instantly roll out self-driving cars in 10,000 cities. It's currently
only active in about 500, and I suspect it only plans to generate
detailed maps of a small subset of these.

Perhaps it will one day find 10,000 cities to dominate, but that must
be many decades away, if ever, particularly now it's pulled out of
China.
Neil Williams
2016-09-22 20:16:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
It's possible for Amazon to kill the competition and for it not to come
back again, leaving you in an unassailable position to reap the rewards
of previous work
But unlike Uber there is a bit of a paradox of Amazon, which is that
the competition can actually sell through it (albeit at the expense of
a hefty cut). The likes of Amazon and eBay are enabling global reach
for small companies that was much harder to achieve before - provided
you are competing on price and not a lot else (which, let's face it, if
you are supplying goods rather than services you near enough always
are).

For Uber to be the equivalent they'd have to be offering local minicabs
and black cabs in addition to their own vehicles.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Recliner
2016-09-22 20:39:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Williams
Post by tim...
It's possible for Amazon to kill the competition and for it not to come
back again, leaving you in an unassailable position to reap the rewards
of previous work
But unlike Uber there is a bit of a paradox of Amazon, which is that
the competition can actually sell through it (albeit at the expense of
a hefty cut). The likes of Amazon and eBay are enabling global reach
for small companies that was much harder to achieve before - provided
you are competing on price and not a lot else (which, let's face it, if
you are supplying goods rather than services you near enough always
are).
For Uber to be the equivalent they'd have to be offering local minicabs
and black cabs in addition to their own vehicles.
Well, they do, don't they?

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/uber-in-fresh-row-with-black-cabs-after-free-app-offer-for-taxi-drivers-a3176266.htm

https://www.uber.com/ride/ubertaxi/

Local minicab drivers (assuming they're driving their own cars) can also
sign up to Uber anyway.
David Cantrell
2016-09-26 11:01:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
It's possible for Amazon to kill the competition and for it not to come back
again, leaving you in an unassailable position to reap the rewards of
previous work
Once Uber has established in a city, competition can continually spring up
again meaning that you are continually fighting it. There is no path to
killing it off completely (other than making your price so low you don't
make a profit). There are always new drivers prepared to compete with you.
What's different about them that makes it possible for someone to pop up
and start competing with Uber, but impossible for someone to pop up and
start competing with Amazon?
--
David Cantrell | Pope | First Church of the Symmetrical Internet

Support terrierism! Adopt a dog today!
Roland Perry
2016-09-26 11:31:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Cantrell
Post by tim...
It's possible for Amazon to kill the competition and for it not to come back
again, leaving you in an unassailable position to reap the rewards of
previous work
Once Uber has established in a city, competition can continually spring up
again meaning that you are continually fighting it. There is no path to
killing it off completely (other than making your price so low you don't
make a profit). There are always new drivers prepared to compete with you.
What's different about them that makes it possible for someone to pop up
and start competing with Uber, but impossible for someone to pop up and
start competing with Amazon?
Mainly that Uber's buyers are only dealing with one commodity - drivers,
and their product is self-delivering. Amazon has tens of thousands of
product suppliers and tens of thousands of people required for
picking/packing and delivering them.
--
Roland Perry
David Cantrell
2016-09-27 12:51:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by David Cantrell
What's different about them that makes it possible for someone to pop up
and start competing with Uber, but impossible for someone to pop up and
start competing with Amazon?
Mainly that Uber's buyers are only dealing with one commodity - drivers,
and their product is self-delivering. Amazon has tens of thousands of
product suppliers
So do Tesco.
Post by Roland Perry
and tens of thousands of people required for
picking/packing and delivering them.
So they're a bit bigger than any of the supermarket home delivery
things or something like Sports Direct, but that's not an insurmountable
problem.

In any case, to compete with a business you don't have to do everything
that that business does or do it in the same way. The few remaining
bookshops, for example, are in competition with Amazon, despite not
also selling beer and sex toys, despite not stocking many books, and
despite not delivering them to your door for free.
--
David Cantrell | top google result for "topless karaoke murders"

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Roland Perry
2016-09-27 14:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Cantrell
Post by Roland Perry
Post by David Cantrell
What's different about them that makes it possible for someone to pop up
and start competing with Uber, but impossible for someone to pop up and
start competing with Amazon?
Mainly that Uber's buyers are only dealing with one commodity - drivers,
and their product is self-delivering. Amazon has tens of thousands of
product suppliers
So do Tesco.
Hence you couldn't set up in competition to tesco as easily (as you can
with Uber) either. What's your point?
Post by David Cantrell
Post by Roland Perry
and tens of thousands of people required for
picking/packing and delivering them.
So they're a bit bigger than any of the supermarket home delivery
things or something like Sports Direct, but that's not an insurmountable
problem.
I only takes abut ten years to grow a company of the size you are taking
about.
Post by David Cantrell
In any case, to compete with a business you don't have to do everything
that that business does or do it in the same way. The few remaining
bookshops, for example, are in competition with Amazon, despite not
also selling beer and sex toys, despite not stocking many books, and
despite not delivering them to your door for free.
Which is why people can easily set up competitors for Uber by
cherry-picking a bit of its market (just one of the types of service,
one city, etc).
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2016-09-27 15:32:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by David Cantrell
Post by Roland Perry
Post by David Cantrell
What's different about them that makes it possible for someone to pop up
and start competing with Uber, but impossible for someone to pop up and
start competing with Amazon?
Mainly that Uber's buyers are only dealing with one commodity - drivers,
and their product is self-delivering. Amazon has tens of thousands of
product suppliers
So do Tesco.
Hence you couldn't set up in competition to tesco as easily (as you can
with Uber) either. What's your point?
Post by David Cantrell
Post by Roland Perry
and tens of thousands of people required for
picking/packing and delivering them.
So they're a bit bigger than any of the supermarket home delivery
things or something like Sports Direct, but that's not an insurmountable
problem.
I only takes abut ten years to grow a company of the size you are taking
about.
Post by David Cantrell
In any case, to compete with a business you don't have to do everything
that that business does or do it in the same way. The few remaining
bookshops, for example, are in competition with Amazon, despite not
also selling beer and sex toys, despite not stocking many books, and
despite not delivering them to your door for free.
Which is why people can easily set up competitors for Uber by
cherry-picking a bit of its market (just one of the types of service,
one city, etc).
They can, but as soon as it notices the new competition, Uber then just
cuts prices in that narrow market segment (without reducing what it pays
drivers). It has deeper pockets than any new competitor, and can outlast
them. It's what the established airlines did to drive Laker out of
business.

Basically, a new entrant can't beat an established market leader just by
having lower prices. It has to offer something better, that is hard for the
incumbent to match. Virgin Atlantic learned from Laker's experiences and
included a superior business class that it sold at the same price as BA
Club World; BA could undercut Virgin, but couldn't bring out a superior
product just on the routes where it competed with Virgin. And it couldn't
afford to have a better business class on the many routes where it wasn't
competing with Virgin. Virgin also invented Mid Class (now Premium Economy)
which BA did eventually copy.
Roland Perry
2016-09-27 16:02:35 UTC
Permalink
In message
<2122870447.496682207.697611.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-sept
ember.org>, at 15:32:41 on Tue, 27 Sep 2016, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Basically, a new entrant can't beat an established market leader just by
having lower prices. It has to offer something better
What's better about Aldi than Tesco, if not the prices?

It's certainly not the range of products or length of checkout queues.
--
Roland Perry
Neil Williams
2016-09-27 16:40:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
What's better about Aldi than Tesco, if not the prices?
It's certainly not the range of products or length of checkout queues.
Simple price and price/quality ratio primarily, but also a smaller shop
meaning it doesn't take as long to complete a weekly shop.

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

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Roland Perry
2016-09-27 17:11:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Roland Perry
What's better about Aldi than Tesco, if not the prices?
It's certainly not the range of products or length of checkout queues.
Simple price and price/quality ratio primarily, but also a smaller shop
meaning it doesn't take as long to complete a weekly shop.
You've never been in a Tesco Express, then?
Post by Neil Williams
A smaller range of products *can* be a good thing, provided it is very
well selected, which by and large it is.
Their product range is extremely unpredictable. Only yesterday I went in
to buy something they've had for sale for a few months, and they've
obviously churned their stock in that [soft drinks] aisle from "Summer"
to "Autumn" and it's no longer available.

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

The other thing they do, which is sort of clever but backfires, is
packing several varieties of the same thing in one tray.

So they'll have a pile of mixed trays of cottage cheese, cottage cheese
with pineapple and cottage cheese with something else [chives maybe],
and people have gone through picking out all the plain cottage cheese,
leaving a sorry pile of all those other sorts that no-one [especially
me] wants.

Of course, their non-food takes these features to extremes, with much of
the stock being for sale for only a few weeks a year, and bins full of
clothing that within a day or two are entirely the unpopular sizes
no-one wants.
--
Roland Perry
Neil Williams
2016-09-27 17:37:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
You've never been in a Tesco Express, then?
Of course I have (I do quite often, I don't tend to use full size
supermarkets in person, rather if I want to do that I have a delivery),
and that indeed offers that part of the business model, albeit
generally at a higher price. Companies don't necessarily have to have
totally unique business models, you know :)
Post by Roland Perry
So they'll have a pile of mixed trays of cottage cheese, cottage cheese
with pineapple and cottage cheese with something else [chives maybe],
and people have gone through picking out all the plain cottage cheese,
leaving a sorry pile of all those other sorts that no-one [especially
me] wants.
Yes, I've hit issues with that, they won't get a new one out until it's
all gone.
Post by Roland Perry
Of course, their non-food takes these features to extremes, with much
of the stock being for sale for only a few weeks a year, and bins full
of clothing that within a day or two are entirely the unpopular sizes
no-one wants.
That's a very German thing, there are other variants e.g. the Tchibo
coffee chain which is a curious combination of Costalottabucks, Argos
(for order) and the Aldi non-food section. The concept fits the
typical German small shop quite well.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Recliner
2016-09-27 21:29:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
In message
ember.org>, at 15:32:41 on Tue, 27 Sep 2016, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Basically, a new entrant can't beat an established market leader just by
having lower prices. It has to offer something better
What's better about Aldi than Tesco, if not the prices?
It's certainly not the range of products or length of checkout queues.
Aldi is a low cost, not just a low price, chain. An Uber start-up
competitor would have higher, not lower costs. It's why Ryanair and easyJet
succeed, where bmi Baby failed.
Roland Perry
2016-09-28 06:07:44 UTC
Permalink
In message
<927985229.496704415.569378.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-septe
mber.org>, at 21:29:33 on Tue, 27 Sep 2016, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Basically, a new entrant can't beat an established market leader just by
having lower prices. It has to offer something better
What's better about Aldi than Tesco, if not the prices?
It's certainly not the range of products or length of checkout queues.
Aldi is a low cost, not just a low price, chain.
Having lower costs is how they can do the lower prices. It's the latter
which attracts the customers.
Post by Recliner
An Uber start-up competitor would have higher, not lower costs.
A Uber competitor in a small section of their market would have lower
costs. No vanity projects like driverless cars, and they'd probably
expect the drivers to pay their way rather than be subsidised.
Post by Recliner
It's why Ryanair and easyJet succeed, where bmi Baby failed.
The reason BMIbaby failed was because they failed to fill the planes up.
Part of that is because as a much smaller airline they had very little
brand recognition on the Continent, where you want a lot of your
customers to be living, so that you don't get excessive tidal flow
arising from mainly UK-based customers.

I'm no sure which part of their costs you think were significantly
higher - they had one of the oldest fleets in the air, and the other two
one of the newest. That must impact the cost.
--
Roland Perry
unknown
2016-09-26 11:57:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Cantrell
Post by tim...
It's possible for Amazon to kill the competition and for it not to come back
again, leaving you in an unassailable position to reap the rewards of
previous work
Once Uber has established in a city, competition can continually spring up
again meaning that you are continually fighting it. There is no path to
killing it off completely (other than making your price so low you don't
make a profit). There are always new drivers prepared to compete with you.
What's different about them that makes it possible for someone to pop up
and start competing with Uber, but impossible for someone to pop up and
start competing with Amazon?
The capital needed to expand into a new market. Number of suppliers and
distribution.

Amazon uses existing infrastructure e.g. Royal Mail and other couriers
to hit a new market. A competetor has to get connectionbs with all the
suppliers and have a physical centre (although that might be avoidable)
So cost for setting up a new organisation is large.

Uber provides infrastructure e.g. the cars (and currently drivers). To
get a new market it needs to get all those. A competetor has to do
exactly the same. There are no suppliers and the central control can be
anywhwre it is just computers and support staff. So cost for a new
organisation is smaller but it is the cost to enter a new martket that
is large.
--
Mark
Robin9
2016-09-19 17:07:30 UTC
Permalink
tim...;158053 Wrote: -
came into my in box via my linkedin account
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-bleeding-death-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
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


--
Robin9
Recliner
2016-09-19 21:02:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin9
tim...;158053 Wrote: -
came into my in box via my linkedin account
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-bleeding-death-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.
Robin9
2016-09-20 07:57:04 UTC
Permalink
'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
tim...;158053 Wrote: -
came into my in box via my linkedin account
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-bleeding-death-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. S
it
subsidies drivers to get into new markets, and spends a lot o
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 fro
now
on, the losses should taper. But it's still fighting competitive battle
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 tha
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


--
Robin9
Recliner
2016-09-20 09:11:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin9
'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
tim...;158053 Wrote: -
came into my in box via my linkedin account
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-bleeding-death-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/2016/09/07/uber-discovers-the-necessity-of-subsidies/

http://www.financialexpress.com/industry/companies/uber-blames-drivers-subsidies-for-1-27-billion-loss/358291/

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-10-26/regular-taxis-can-still-survive-uber

http://www.hybridcars.com/uber-loses-1-27-billion-as-driver-subsidies-and-competition-take-their-toll/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2015/01/09/ubers-clever-hidden-move-how-fare-cuts-actually-lock-in-its-drivers/#6fcde8ad2bd6

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ubers-handsome-subsidy-drivers-drags-its-losses-1-2bn-first-half-2016-1578115

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/07/02/ubers-newest-tactic-pay-drivers-more-than-they-earn/#354f4fe08c57

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/08/23/ubers-controversial-strategy-to-finally-defeat-lyft/

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/why-uber-is-paying-its-china-drivers-more-than-the-fares-they-collect/articleshow/47600297.cms
Robin9
2016-09-20 17:18:52 UTC
Permalink
'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
tim...;158053 Wrote: -
came into my in box via my linkedin account
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-bleeding-death-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 competitiv
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.-
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.

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


--
Robin9
Recliner
2016-09-20 21:38:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin9
'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
tim...;158053 Wrote: -
came into my in box via my linkedin account
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-bleeding-death-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.-
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.
Post by Robin9
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.
Post by Robin9
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-get-a-free-uber-ride-up-to-15-in-major-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?
Robin9
2016-09-21 11:11:32 UTC
Permalink
'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
tim...;158053 Wrote: -
came into my in box via my linkedin account
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-bleeding-death-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.-
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
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.

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?
--
Robin9
Recliner
2016-09-21 15:23:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin9
'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
tim...;158053 Wrote: -
came into my in box via my linkedin account
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-bleeding-death-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.-
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
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.
Post by Robin9
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.
Post by Robin9
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.
Post by Robin9
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.
Post by Robin9
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.
Robin9
2016-09-24 11:51:44 UTC
Permalink
'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
tim...;158053 Wrote: -
came into my in box via my linkedin account
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-bleeding-death-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.-
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
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.
You continue to repeat figures and assertions that you've
picked up from the Internet and present them as reliable,
proven facts. Your suggestion that because I don't believe
everything on the Internet, therefore I shouldn't use it at all
is childish nonsense.

Uber's continuing growth in London is open to question, as is
your belief that it is the reason Uber advertises for drivers.
Conversations I've had with various people, including minicab
drivers, indicate that in London the market for cabs is
becoming more settled.

Like those Internet scribes in whom you have unquestioning
faith, you have difficulty understanding what constitutes a
subsidy.

If Bob the plumber turns down a low paying job in December
when he is busy but in January accepts it when it is offered
again, he takes a pay cut. He does not however pay less for
his plumbing supplies in January. The fact that he gave a price
reduction has nothing to do with his suppliers, and they are not
being subsidised when they demand normal prices any more
than you subsidise Tesco by paying their normal price for milk
and butter.

If Uber lease a car for £100.00 a week and rent that car
to a driver for £ 50.00 a week, that unquestionably constitutes
a subsidy. If Uber charge a customer £75.00 to Gatwick and pay
the driver £40.00, that is their normal business practice. If Uber
later find that to keep market share they need to reduce their
price to £60.00 but still find it necessary to pay the driver £40.00,
that does not constitute a subsidy. They are paying the normal
price. (I've still to find confirmation from any Uber customer that
they are being charged less than they were previously)
--
Robin9
tim...
2016-09-21 18:09:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin9
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
Mizter T
2016-09-21 18:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Robin9
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).
Roland Perry
2016-09-22 07:46:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mizter T
Post by tim...
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
Recliner
2016-09-22 12:23:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mizter T
Post by tim...
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).
Mizter T
2016-09-23 13:53:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Mizter T
Post by tim...
Because they aren't subsidising London anymore.
It is now a mature market (FSVO).
It is (subset of) RoW that gets the subsidies.
FWIW, Uber runs a v successful referral scheme - I think currently in
London it's £15 credit for the new customer, £10 for the referrer
(only valid on one journey though).
Is the £25 deducted off the drivers who win those lucky rides, or is it
Uber? If the latter that's something which could be called a subsidy
(because the drivers are getting 80% of £25, more than the passengers
are paying).
Uber covers the free credit. Somehow I don't think drivers would be very
keen on covering the free credit, given that they aren't going to have a
direct relationship with the customer on an ongoing basis! (You cannot
request a specific driver via the Uber app.)
tim...
2016-09-22 15:12:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mizter T
Post by tim...
Post by Robin9
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
Mizter T
2016-09-23 13:48:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Mizter T
FWIW, Uber runs a v successful referral scheme - I think currently in
London it's £15 credit for the new customer, £10 for the referrer
(only valid on one journey though).
still?
I would have thought that with all the banter on social medial Uber
needed no more help with finding customers, even in locations where they
are new players.
There's always new customers to be had, and a little word of mouth
encouragement might just help someone who's heard of them to actually
install and use the app.

There are also occasional non-referral sign-up offers such as this one:
<https://www.vouchercodes.co.uk/uber.com>
(£15 credit for new customers.)
Recliner
2016-09-22 05:58:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Robin9
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-wants-to-disrupt-the-auto-leasing-industry.html
tim...
2016-09-22 15:16:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Robin9
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
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/07/uber-wants-to-disrupt-the-auto-leasing-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
Recliner
2016-09-22 15:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Robin9
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
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/07/uber-wants-to-disrupt-the-auto-leasing-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.
tim...
2016-09-22 16:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Robin9
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
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/07/uber-wants-to-disrupt-the-auto-leasing-industry.html
The simple solution to that is not to insist on such a ridiculously high
spec car (as I have read that they do)
it is cheap and cheerful taxi service FFS, not a limousine service
What's wrong with a 5 year old Mondeo?
Uber started up as a limo service. The later UberX introduced cheaper cars,
but the idea is still that they're clean and new.
and of a minimum size (4 , not 3 passengers) and an up market brand,

tim
Recliner
2016-09-23 11:21:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Robin9
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
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/07/uber-wants-to-disrupt-the-auto-leasing-industry.html
The simple solution to that is not to insist on such a ridiculously high
spec car (as I have read that they do)
it is cheap and cheerful taxi service FFS, not a limousine service
What's wrong with a 5 year old Mondeo?
Uber started up as a limo service. The later UberX introduced cheaper cars,
but the idea is still that they're clean and new.
and of a minimum size (4 , not 3 passengers) and an up market brand,
Well, cars like the Toyota Prius are allowed. That seems to be the
preferred choice of other mini cab firms.
Neil Williams
2016-09-22 20:14:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
it is cheap and cheerful taxi service FFS, not a limousine service
It actually started out as a high-spec limousine type service - UberX,
the "cheap and cheerful" version, came later but is winning the battle.
Post by tim...
What's wrong with a 5 year old Mondeo?
Not an awful lot - I do think they are too tight on the spec for UberX.

That said, if I get a minicab from my local companies these days it's
odds on a Prius or similar. Old, knackered Japanese saloons (which
previously seemed the default) seem to be on the out.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
s***@potato.field
2016-09-23 08:46:26 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 21:14:52 +0100
Post by Neil Williams
Post by tim...
it is cheap and cheerful taxi service FFS, not a limousine service
It actually started out as a high-spec limousine type service - UberX,
the "cheap and cheerful" version, came later but is winning the battle.
Post by tim...
What's wrong with a 5 year old Mondeo?
Not an awful lot - I do think they are too tight on the spec for UberX.
You could buy the previous gen of Mondeo with a nice 3.0 V6. But its all
droning thrashy 4 cylinders in the current lot presumably for emissions
reasons. Not quite what you want in a limo.

--
Spud
Neil Williams
2016-09-23 10:18:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@potato.field
You could buy the previous gen of Mondeo with a nice 3.0 V6. But its all
droning thrashy 4 cylinders in the current lot presumably for emissions
reasons. Not quite what you want in a limo.
UberX is not a limo service. That's now called UberBlack.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Mizter T
2016-09-23 13:58:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Williams
Post by tim...
it is cheap and cheerful taxi service FFS, not a limousine service
It actually started out as a high-spec limousine type service - UberX,
the "cheap and cheerful" version, came later but is winning the battle.
Post by tim...
What's wrong with a 5 year old Mondeo?
Not an awful lot - I do think they are too tight on the spec for UberX.
That said, if I get a minicab from my local companies these days it's
odds on a Prius or similar. Old, knackered Japanese saloons (which
previously seemed the default) seem to be on the out.
Certainly the majority of UberX cars in London are Prii, and many of the
larger minicab firms also have Prii as a major part of their fleet. The
drivers I've spoken to all seem to like them, they seem a pretty
reliable vehicle.

Prii / Priora / Priores etc!
<https://www.cars.com/articles/2011/02/plural-of-prius-prii-not-according-to-latin-experts/>
Water musician
2016-09-23 17:18:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mizter T
Post by Neil Williams
Post by tim...
it is cheap and cheerful taxi service FFS, not a limousine service
It actually started out as a high-spec limousine type service - UberX,
the "cheap and cheerful" version, came later but is winning the battle.
Post by tim...
What's wrong with a 5 year old Mondeo?
Not an awful lot - I do think they are too tight on the spec for UberX.
That said, if I get a minicab from my local companies these days it's
odds on a Prius or similar. Old, knackered Japanese saloons (which
previously seemed the default) seem to be on the out.
Certainly the majority of UberX cars in London are Prii, and many of the
larger minicab firms also have Prii as a major part of their fleet. The
drivers I've spoken to all seem to like them, they seem a pretty
reliable vehicle.
Prii / Priora / Priores etc!
<https://www.cars.com/articles/2011/02/plural-of-prius-prii-not-according-to-l
atin-experts/>
Prius is an increasingly popular choice for private hire drivers (both Uber
and otherwise) and operators for several reasons:

- Increasing availability of 3-year-old models with FSH coming off-lease (or
should that be off personal contract)
- Reliability
- Passenger romfort

... and above all, reduced operating costs because of low fuel consumption.

One of the local drivers who has picked me up numerous times for trips in /
to / from SE London and the City turned up recently in a sparkling new-to-him
Prius. A replacement for his previous Skoda Octavia, it had come off-contract
a few weeks before. In his first couple of weeks using the Prius he had spent
£100 less on fuel compared with the Skoda, for similar hours and mileage.

And a friend who has been private hire operator for 20-plus years (not in
London) has now standardised on the Prius for company-owned vehicles for
similar reasons. He now has more than a dozen, with a couple more on order.

Ken
Mizter T
2016-09-23 17:23:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Water musician
[...]
Post by Mizter T
Post by Neil Williams
That said, if I get a minicab from my local companies these days it's
odds on a Prius or similar. Old, knackered Japanese saloons (which
previously seemed the default) seem to be on the out.
Certainly the majority of UberX cars in London are Prii, and many of the
larger minicab firms also have Prii as a major part of their fleet. The
drivers I've spoken to all seem to like them, they seem a pretty
reliable vehicle.
Prii / Priora / Priores etc!
<https://www.cars.com/articles/2011/02/plural-of-prius-prii-not-according-to-latin-experts/>
Prius is an increasingly popular choice for private hire drivers (both Uber
- Increasing availability of 3-year-old models with FSH coming off-lease (or
should that be off personal contract)
- Reliability
- Passenger romfort
... and above all, reduced operating costs because of low fuel consumption.
One of the local drivers who has picked me up numerous times for trips in /
to / from SE London and the City turned up recently in a sparkling new-to-him
Prius. A replacement for his previous Skoda Octavia, it had come off-contract
a few weeks before. In his first couple of weeks using the Prius he had spent
£100 less on fuel compared with the Skoda, for similar hours and mileage.
And a friend who has been private hire operator for 20-plus years (not in
London) has now standardised on the Prius for company-owned vehicles for
similar reasons. He now has more than a dozen, with a couple more on order.
Thanks Ken, seems like they really are good vehicles.

And - something not yet mentioned - they're quieter, which is a plus too.
Recliner
2016-09-23 19:33:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Water musician
Post by Mizter T
Post by Neil Williams
Post by tim...
it is cheap and cheerful taxi service FFS, not a limousine service
It actually started out as a high-spec limousine type service - UberX,
the "cheap and cheerful" version, came later but is winning the battle.
Post by tim...
What's wrong with a 5 year old Mondeo?
Not an awful lot - I do think they are too tight on the spec for UberX.
That said, if I get a minicab from my local companies these days it's
odds on a Prius or similar. Old, knackered Japanese saloons (which
previously seemed the default) seem to be on the out.
Certainly the majority of UberX cars in London are Prii, and many of the
larger minicab firms also have Prii as a major part of their fleet. The
drivers I've spoken to all seem to like them, they seem a pretty
reliable vehicle.
Prii / Priora / Priores etc!
<https://www.cars.com/articles/2011/02/plural-of-prius-prii-not-according-to-l
atin-experts/>
Prius is an increasingly popular choice for private hire drivers (both Uber
- Increasing availability of 3-year-old models with FSH coming off-lease (or
should that be off personal contract)
- Reliability
- Passenger romfort
... and above all, reduced operating costs because of low fuel consumption.
One of the local drivers who has picked me up numerous times for trips in /
to / from SE London and the City turned up recently in a sparkling new-to-him
Prius. A replacement for his previous Skoda Octavia, it had come off-contract
a few weeks before. In his first couple of weeks using the Prius he had spent
£100 less on fuel compared with the Skoda, for similar hours and mileage.
And a friend who has been private hire operator for 20-plus years (not in
London) has now standardised on the Prius for company-owned vehicles for
similar reasons. He now has more than a dozen, with a couple more on order.
Apart from the significant fuel saving, I think they're also lighter on
brakes and tyres, thanks to the regenerative braking.
David Cantrell
2016-09-26 11:25:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
The simple solution to that is not to insist on such a ridiculously high
spec car (as I have read that they do)
it is cheap and cheerful taxi service FFS, not a limousine service
What's wrong with a 5 year old Mondeo?
From the driver's point of view - running costs.

I assume that Uber also want a certain amount of consistency in the cars
as it helps their brand.

I used Uber on Saturday. I've noticed that in the last few months I've
not had a single Prius from Uber, but that previously it was almost all
Priuses. I asked the driver about it. He said that the Prius's fuel
economy is no longer a unique selling point as other cars have caught
up, but the Prius is still expensive. He claimed that the comfortable
efficient Honda we were in had cost him 6 grand second hand. He chose it
because the purchase price was reasonable, it was cheap to run, it was
reliable, and it didn't hurt his arse to sit in it all day.
--
David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

Fashion label: n: a liferaft for personalities
which lack intrinsic buoyancy
Roland Perry
2016-09-26 12:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Cantrell
I used Uber on Saturday. I've noticed that in the last few months I've
not had a single Prius from Uber, but that previously it was almost all
Priuses.
Prii, shirley?

<https://www.engadget.com/2011/02/21/toyota-decrees-the-plural-of-prius-
is-prii-your-latin-teach/>
--
Roland Perry
David Cantrell
2016-09-22 12:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin9
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
Loading...