Hmm I have no idea what Uber promised in the US, but where I am it's just a more convenient taxi. And it's pretty useful for that.
What they don't talk about is that their "more convenient taxi" ride is heavily subsidized by VC money - that is why Uber has lost billions of dollars every year. Uber uses the subsidies to undercut traditional transportation which has the (desirable, from Uber's POV) side effect of driving traditional transportation out of the market leaving uber sized holes in cities.
Heavily subsidized rides that are more convenient than a taxi are great until the bezzle collapses and suddenly the cheap, convenient Uber rides disappear and we find out how badly traditional transportation (starting with taxis) has been damaged by the bezzle.
While the ultimate premise might be correct, this is not exactly a compelling example. Before Uber, cabs (in SF) refused to take credit cards, regularly didn’t show up when pre booked and often smelled like they had a rotting corpse in the back. They were “ok” in New York City - though frequently cabs would flout the law if the driver saw you had a suitcase, fearing a ride to JFK. But everywhere else they were completely terrible.
At least they accept credit cards now.
edit: I also didn't have to announce to the entire world where I go. I could flag one down, get in and tell them where I was going, pay, get out, and end the relationship.
Talk about privacy concerns - Uber execs were literally tracking decisionmakers and enemies in realtime.
In September 2005 I spent 20 minutes on a Sunday afternoon trying to get a cab at 19th and Judah before giving up and taking a Muni. (For those unfamiliar with San Francisco, 19th is the main north-south route through the city, so is very very busy at all times.) This is the sort of problem that car sharing has completely solved.
Yet there are competitors around where I live that pay the drivers more, bill their clients less, and still manage to make a profit.
The engineering playground full of microservices and $200k+ employees doesn't come for free.
Using credit cards on those small amount apps is such a hassle. This is the reason I don't install many of them.
Uber's getting fairly pricey these days though.
This meme really needs to die. Uber did burn VC cash earlier on, especially in places w/ intense competition (e.g. vs Didi in China), but that's not an accurate portrayal of the company anymore. Uber has been a public company for like 3 years now, and they actually posted a profit on adjusted ebitda basis on Q3 last year (with a promise for a larger profit for Q4).
The Uber-is-cheaper thing isn't an accurate premise these days either. There have been numerous articles of people complaining about high airport trip fares due to the mismatch between demand and supply curves due to covid lockdowns/reopenings. There were also price hikes in two key markets (SF and LA) partly due to regulation.
This suggests that on GAAP metrics, they lost $1.28 a share. Doesn't sound like they're making money.
The being public thing is especially important since it basically means these companies (Uber, Lyft, Grab, Didi, etc) can't rely on cute accounting tricks. It's kinda do or die before the runway ends.
You can just say "fake".
That's what I mean, they have a net loss, which means that they need money from somewhere else to sustain themselves over time.
Like, I've been bearish on Uber for a long time now, but would be happy to be proved wrong.
At least from what I've seen, many analysts are bullish right now (mostly due to a combo of low stock price, growth momentum in hedged verticals and scale of operations). Another data point is Doordash; some have pointed out that Uber eats' volume is bigger than DD, yet that isn't reflecting in the stock price (i.e. they think uber is undervalued considering the trajectory of profit in uber's delivery segment)
Disclaimer: I've been keeping a pretty close eye on uber because I have a fairly sizable stock position. My intention here isn't to shill or cheerlead or whatever. Obviously, take whatever I say with a grain of salt, do your own research, etc.
Totally fair. I would have a different position (obviously) if I had invested in them.
I just really don't see them getting enough profits to justify their valuation, but then I was wrong about FB so I may just be a perma-bear.
Regardless of equity-related stuff, the Q3 report did specifically state that the rides division were in the green for the first time ever (on adjusted ebitda basis), with eats posting a near-break-even loss. The point isn't so much about where exactly the "green" line stands (whether it's adjusted ebitda basis, regular ebitda basis or GAP), but that the data points have been going up (and rather aggressively, according to some). This is supposed to suggest that operations are no longer bleeding cash mindlessly and actually working towards optimizing expenses etc.
It will be interesting to see what Uber can do with the position they're in.
By squeezing out costs of a VC management ownership & hypergrowth objectives, as well as automating more of the core administrative needs, that mix of tech and operating approach should be very competitive for providing modern ride services.
[2] https://www.kqed.org/news/11849055/tired-of-big-tech-co-ops-...
99% of the population find Uber/FB etc. awesome for mundane, day-to-day use.
It would be all fine and well if that just meant that some investors ended up subsidizing movement of people for most of a decade, but those subsidies caused real damage. Diverting people from public transit, municipalities subsidizing rides rather than building infrastructure, entrenching worker precarity via things like Prop 22.