> completely agree, but are the small, local competitors not subsidized by investors like Uber? I don't understand how a competitor without backing could compete against an established super corp.
The small local competitors were doing this long before Uber came along. They're called taxis. Sure, they did a good job increasing competition in this market. But by and large, all they've done is transferred money from poor drivers and rich investors to middle-class customers.
All they do is collect payments, coordinate dots on a map, and provide driver rating. And any competitor starting now has the advantage of not being $8 billion below water.
?> The sheer volume/scale of scandal engulfing the company may be impossible to recover from
? I think this is magnified by the Valley -- peers and friends outside of California seem to either not know, or not care deeply. I honestly don't think Uber's bottom line has been harmed.
Uber has many stakeholder that are more important than customers: they need their drivers' motivation, they need employees (valley!), the need politicians and judges, and they need investors. All of these groups differ from their customers that they're much better informed, and engaging with Uber is a much bigger risk for them than just using their service.
Per http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/11/07/number-of-uber-l... in SF there are 1.8k taxis and 45k Uber/Lyft drivers. That's 4% taxi vs. Uber/Lyft.
Barring changes in the law, number of taxis is limited by number of medallions. Number of Uber/Lyft is limited only by demand, which we probably are not even close to meeting (surge pricing during rush hours is still a thing).
If anything, the reports are that number of taxi rides went down and some taxi companies literally went bankrupt.
So taxis are not a competition.
You claim it's easy to compete with Uber/Lyft. Where is this competition in SF?
How do you explain what happened in Austin? When Uber/Lyft stopped service in Austin, several local competitors emerged.
When Uber/Lyft came back, they all folded within weeks. They just couldn't compete on price or availability.
Furthermore, if you claim that Uber, at their scale, has to subsidize to stay in business, how does that not apply to any other competitor.
Either this can be profitable business, in which case Uber has significant advantage due to their scale, existing user base and marketing presence, or it's not, in which case no-one can make money.
This is spoken like someone who hasn't lived in a city that only had a taxi monopoly before Uber arrived. It's like saying all the iPhone did was take an iPod and put it in a Nokia. It completely misses all the little nuances and subtleties that made Uber successful and makes people keep coming back to them.
Before Uber, in New York City:
* To get a taxi, I had to be physically near a taxi (and before the outer borough cabs, I had to be basically in Manhattan or Brooklyn right next to the East River). Good luck getting a lift home from south Brooklyn at 2:30 in the morning.
* I had to be physically near the street to hail a cab. With Uber, I can get a car moving towards me while I'm still indoors. This is huge when it's raining in the city. It's huge when you're in a shady area and you don't want to stand outside waiting around, asking to be mugged.
* I was vulnerable to someone walking in front of me and grabbing the cab I was getting the attention of
* I had to be in the cab with the door closed before telling the driver where to go. And if he huffed and said he didn't want to go there, I'd have to threaten him with a call to 311. Great start to a trip where you're stuck in someone's backseat - threatening them after they told you they don't feel like driving somewhere you need to go.
* I often had to carry cash because (even though it's illegal to have a non-working card reader) many taxi's card readers just "stopped working man." I don't even need to have my wallet with me to take an Uber.
* I've had cab drivers get out of the cab and yell at me on the street because he didn't think my 15% tip was enough. Similarly I'm sure some people don't tip. Uber helps both drivers and passengers by providing ratings for both.
And, I don't want to speak for anyone but I imagine plenty of black New Yorkers have some experiences with cab drivers and hailing a cab and the difficulty of getting a ride somewhere. I wonder if any black folks who've dealt with racist cabbies agree with you that all Uber does is collect payments and coordinate dots on a map.
The real test is how all the competitors in Austin are doing. We'll find out in a year or so.
https://www.curbed.com/2017/6/14/15803138/austin-uber-lyft-t...
> Uber cannot support its operational business without massive VC subsidies (without drastically raising prices and losing their primary competitive advantage)
-- As they're not yet public, we have mostly speculation. We don't know this for sure.
----- I believe there have been enough anecdotal data points and shared financials to strongly support my viewpoint, but I guess it could be argued the other way as well.
> It's too easy for small, local competitors to enter the market
-- I completely agree, but are the small, local competitors not subsidized by investors like Uber? I don't understand how a competitor without backing could compete against an established super corp.
----- Small, local competitors are much better than Established Super Corp at meeting the needs of the local market. They also don't need nearly as much capital as they're just trying to dominate the local market, not the entire world. A proliferation of small, local competitors may be Uber's ultimate undoing - i.e. death by a thousand cuts
> Uber has been trounced in two of the largest non-US markets
-- From an investor's perspective, they came out ahead.
----- But Uber is not in the investment business.
> Waymo legal mess
-- We'll have to wait and see, but I think everyone needs to take this with a grain of salt. Many, many large companies are in constant lawsuits with each other. Read the Amazon Investor's report, for example -- there are three pages of lawsuits, some of which have been ongoing for over a decade.
----- Yes, who knows what will happen here - probably some settlement that doesn't have a long term effect on either company. But it's just one more crappy thing to have to deal with
> The sheer volume/scale of scandal engulfing the company may be impossible to recover from
-- I think this is magnified by the Valley -- peers and friends outside of California seem to either not know, or not care deeply. I honestly don't think Uber's bottom line has been harmed.
----- I think the largest impact of the scandals will be Uber's ability to attract and retain key talent. With all of the other awesome tech companies in the valley, why would I choose to work at Uber? At the very least, they'll have to overpay for talent.
> Current valuation makes an IPO under less than perfect conditions very challenging.
-- I think this was always the case. I don't see what's new now versus two years ago. I think Uber has just as hard a time as, say, AirBNB.
----- You are correct, but today is much further from "perfect conditions" than two years ago
> If this was a well organized, planned round of funding, Benchmark wouldn't have gone behind the backs of the other board members to try and strike some shady deal.
-- At least in my circle, it's widely understood that Bill Gurley burned all his bridges to get Travis out. It's even been suggested he's been the leaker Mike Isaac of the New York Times has been getting his information from. I think Benchmark has destroyed their confidence with the rest of the board (which Travis is still on) and wants to rinse their hands -- I'm sure the feeling is mutual.
----- fair enough, maybe another reason Benchmark wants to move on from their relationship with Uber.
You are 100% correct. The moment Uber and Lyft left Austin, competitors sprang up. The moment Uber and Lyft came back, the competitors are getting crunched.
Once the VC subsidies dry up, however, Uber and Lyft have no barrier to entry.
[ADDED: Of course, I don't get the VC subsidies that way. But, in general, cab into city from airport hasn't been a particularly broken system relative to getting cabs in other places.]
And many people don't have the same attitude as you. Some with avoid uber because of ethical concerns, some will install every rideshare app and carefully consider prices before getting a ride and others will just install whatever and do whatever else.
At that point there really is no moat to protect Uber's business from competitors of all sizes.
And until then, I think most of us will gladly take 30s to install a new app for a better fare.
And then spend 20 minutes signing up with a username/password, storing it to your password manager, adding credit card details, adding customer information to the app, setting privacy settings, etc. etc. No thanks.
I'm with OP here. It is a huge barrier of entry for me to install an app. Mostly because exceedingly few apps should actually be apps (this is why we invented web browsers, but it seems everyone lost their collective minds lately) and I don't need a 50MB thing to invade my privacy to display what effectively is a web application written in html5 and javascript.
Uber is one of those apps that makes it onto my phone solely because it's universal. I have less than zero interest in installing a few dozen apps on my phone for my travels - how the hell would you even know which to use where? Yet another "30s" google?
Amen!
How did people live before flushing toilets? I guess we will never know because life is uber. If uber doesnt provide it it must be impossible.
Let's break it down:
> Uber cannot support its operational business without massive VC subsidies (without drastically raising prices and losing their primary competitive advantage)
As they're not yet public, we have mostly speculation. We don't know this for sure.
> It's too easy for small, local competitors to enter the market
I completely agree, but are the small, local competitors not subsidized by investors like Uber? I don't understand how a competitor without backing could compete against an established super corp.
> Uber has been trounced in two of the largest non-US markets
From an investor's perspective, they came out ahead.
> Waymo legal mess
We'll have to wait and see, but I think everyone needs to take this with a grain of salt. Many, many large companies are in constant lawsuits with each other. Read the Amazon Investor's report, for example -- there are three pages of lawsuits, some of which have been ongoing for over a decade.
> The sheer volume/scale of scandal engulfing the company may be impossible to recover from
I think this is magnified by the Valley -- peers and friends outside of California seem to either not know, or not care deeply. I honestly don't think Uber's bottom line has been harmed.
> Current valuation makes an IPO under less than perfect conditions very challenging.
I think this was always the case. I don't see what's new now versus two years ago. I think Uber has just as hard a time as, say, AirBNB.
> If this was a well organized, planned round of funding, Benchmark wouldn't have gone behind the backs of the other board members to try and strike some shady deal.
At least in my circle, it's widely understood that Bill Gurley burned all his bridges to get Travis out. It's even been suggested he's been the leaker Mike Isaac of the New York Times has been getting his information from. I think Benchmark has destroyed their confidence with the rest of the board (which Travis is still on) and wants to rinse their hands -- I'm sure the feeling is mutual.
What does it say if Softbank takes the deal? Softbank is a huge, successful megacorp. They bought ARM! I would think that if Softbank buys shares in Uber, it's because they see future profits -- which is different than Benchmark's games. Not to mention that Softbank may be a great addition to Uber's board. If Benchmark exits at even 60% of the current valuation, they're out waaaay ahead.
This really seems like a win-win-win for all parties involved.