For my own anecdote, I'd bet 75% of my FB friends with smartphones within my age range, 21-40, have Uber on their phone or have only ridden Uber. And a fraction of them will have Lyft. Among people I actually know, this is roughly the case, with Lyft being a bit more popular, but that's because of who I am/surround myself with.

[1] http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/27/technology/uber-travis-kalan...

I dunno. The comment doesn't seem very relevant, being basically one random guy's opinion of what he read on the 'tubes about another guy he probably never met, and extrapolating that to be some sort of argument about the profitability of a company. To me, it just kinda feels like thinly disguised bandwagoning to get internet points.

I recall people making similarly tone deaf comments about Steve Jobs around the time he took time off due to cancer, or Bill Gates in his early philanthropic days. Perhaps this particular case bothers me more than the average person because I've been through the same loss, but I guess as long as one get internet points, poor taste is forgiven?

Like I said, I think it depends on context. In this case, I wouldn't say it's tone deaf to mention the CEO of Uber being one of the main reasons you don't use Uber anymore, unless the article is directly talking about something bad happening to him. For example, if the article about his mom's death got to the front page, and people made comments about how bad of a CEO he is or he's the main reason they don't use Uber, that's not ok.

At least from my own perception, the character of the CEO usually doesn't come up as relevant for the people using the platform. On the rider side, it's usually been a matter of how convenient/frustrating their experience with any given platform is, and on the driver side, there's generally no concept of loyalty whatsoever; they just try to be on as many platforms as possible to maximize income.

https://pando.com/2014/02/27/we-call-that-boob-er-the-four-m...

Read it and weep.

Some people I know tried to switch to Lyft when all the bad PR on Uber hit, but the prices were higher so either they switched back to Uber or the more passionate ones are now riding the metro again.

And was the second app, which I deleted. Right after Facebook.

Define most people. As far as I could tell Uber has a far bigger user base and market share. So I'm not sure how Lyft could suddenly be used the most.

During the whole #DeleteUber protest it took longer to get an Uber at my house in the bay area. Lyft was quicker for about two weeks. Then it shifted back. Now I can't get a Lyft in under 20 minutes whereas Uber is usually 5-8 minutes away.

My experience is anecdotal but I see no evidence to suggest yours was not as well. If there is something showing Lyft taking over a larger slice of the pie then please post it.

Sounds like the parent is referring to his/her town. It's still anecdotal because surely the parent doesn't have that statistic but it very well may be the case in his/her town.

Where is this and what facts is this number based on ?

In Australia for example Lyft is simply non existent. And sure it's a smaller market but it demonstrates that Uber's aggressive international expansion strategy is the right one.

> Plus, most of the Uber drivers are shady

Pretty libellous, ridiculous and unfair thing to say.

Does it?

"We lose money on every customer, but we'll make it up in volume" is one of the classic ways to run a business into bankruptcy. Sometimes, taking one's time is the far sounder strategy, even if a hyper-growth competitor is "everywhere" and "dominating" in the eyes of the uninformed public.

In other words, even Lyft's best case scenario would be a huge step down for Uber.

Sooner or later the free money is going to run out and Uber is going to have to stop hemorrhaging nearly a billion dollars every quarter. When that day comes they're not going to have a lot of options to stop the bleeding: raising prices and cutting back the markets they operate in are likely to be the first things they do, or are forced to do by investors.

Meanwhile, the way you build a huge multinational is by first figuring out a way to make money and then scaling it to everywhere, not by figuring out how to be everywhere and then realizing "crap, we have to actually turn a profit now".

Apparently Uber is already profitable in the US and thus can use that to finance further growth, but nothing is stopping Lyft from going back in that game at a later date. If anything Uber's best strat would probably be to refocus on the US and crush Lyft everywhere, rather than give it the room to breath it needs.

    2016 numbers:

    Lyft Revenue: $700 million
    Lyft Losses: $600 million
    Uber Revenue: $6 billion
    Uber Losses: $2.8 billion

You can go into nearly any state and most countries (I think all of the first world countries and a bunch of second world ones too) and book an Uber.

As long as that stays true and Uber continues to grow outside of the US, Lyft doesn't stand a chance.

If Lyft could light up worldwide scale right now, they absolutely would have. Something is holding them back. It's likely new rideshare laws that Uber spawned due to it having first mover advantage.

Disclosure: I am a Lyft user and deleted my Uber account.

Well, except they do because the local market is simply huge. There is room for multiple competitors.

Just like we have ATT, Verizon, Etc.

It is a totally different space from taxis, where the experience is mostly fungible.

In germany and other european countries Uber is also completly useless, they have to use local law abiding apps like MyTaxi.

So no, Uber does not have a solid worldwide presence i would say, Singapore, Germany and other are clearly what u call first world...

Why's that?

Nope.

I bet you'll think that you're not a racist or a bigot, and yet you're making the exact same connection a racist or bigot would. Just because someone drives for Uber, they are shady? That's a terrible stereotype to be propagating, just like our esteemed president saying "Most illegal immigrants are rapists."