If you've been bicycling in the city for more than a decade, then you're definitely underestimating it. In that "over a decade", you've internalized the mountain of suck that bicycling is, sometimes, and have accepted that as "just how it is to bicycle in the city". Jump, in particular, doesn't have to contend with some of those.

In particular, you've had to lock up your bike and still had it/parts stolen - not your problem if it's not your bike. Not being your bike also takes care of the maintenance - not your bike means it's not your problem! (I mean, don't go around trashing their bikes for the sake of it, but it means you don't have to worry about the derailleur alignment or tire/rim sizes.) There's the logistics of biking - if you go out, but take a taxi home, then you have to come back to get your bike later. Jump means you don't have to, and if you don't bike back, you can take an Uber instead.

You've definitely had a car almost kill you - likely more than once. The new protected lanes that are popping up all over the city don't make that problem go away, but it's a big step forwards.

Imagine having never experienced being almost killed by a car.

Finally, there's that whole pedaling thing. Not to be (further) presumptuous, but I'm guessing somewhere in the 10+ years, there's a stop sign that's been run. If you stop, then you have to start again. That gets old pretty quickly on any street with stop signs every block. Jump bikes being electric makes that stop being such a workout.

None of these problems are truly insurmountable - as your experience proves! There are other problems w/ bicycling that Jump doesn't solve, but Uber's bet is the kind of friction that Jump does solve, will make this purchase profitable for them, $2 for 30 mins at a time.

Finally, since Uber knows where its riders have been dropped off, it's able to use that data to move Jump bikes around the city to optimize their placement.

If you wait until something's a "sure" thing, then it's too late - the price has gone up, so there's less money to be made. The time to buy BTC was 10 years ago, not now, but if you think it's this weird sketchy thing now, 10 years ago it was E-gold 2.0.

I live in a city with ubiquitous (non-E) shared bicycles (Shenzhen), and unfortunately maintenance does become your problem... You have to go from bike to bike performing basic maintenance tests (is the brake working? Is the chain non-rattly? Seat adjustable? Anything broken?) and still sometimes end up with a non-working bike that doesn't work quite right. For the bike sharing company it's an even bigger problem (the two/three remaining companies employ an army of staff to keep moving the bikes to where they are needed and attempt some basic maintenance, literally a team on every street corner).

Ah, the getting on a public bike ritual. But I imagine that this is a problem that could be solved by more money, however I have no idea where the bike sharing company would get it except if they hike the prices.

Mobike in China are on about their 10th version of their bikes. The very latest one seems to be a massive improvement on their earlier ones so far, so it seems they are getting there. Most of their money has been coming from VCs so far...

I've been using BikeShare and have friends with electric bikes, so again, I don't think I'm underestimating it as much as you expect.

But again, even if you are exactly right, it won't be too late for Uber. Either they'll be successful, and so have plenty of money, or they'll be troubled, and this business won't be nearly enough to save them. And in the meantime, it's at best a giant distraction, and at worst they smother it, as happens all the time with large-company acquisitions.

Compare with Apple. They were 3 years behind on smartwatches, 4 years behind on MP3 players, 6 on smartphones. It didn't matter, because they had skills, assets, and market power. It was better for them to wait and let others prove the market and then come in when the shape of consumer need and likely solution was clearer. I think the same would be true if Uber were a successful, stable company.

Also a cyclist, and I think one of the reasons share bikes haven't taken off as much in SF is the terrain. Bikes are a convenient way to get from place to place, but who wants to get sweaty and scared riding around SF hills?

And that’s precisely why Jump bikes are awesome in a city like SF. The electric assist is just enough of a boost that you feel the hills but not so much that you’re breaking out in a sweat going over them.

Ah, my bad. Sounds perfect.

Second Mover Advantage is as valuable as First Mover Advantage.

> it's cheaper and easier to let somebody else prove the market and then just come in and crush everybody.

before there is a dominant player

WRT to your Apple and MP3 market, Microsoft tried the same thing with it's Zune, and failed miserably.

The Zune was not just late but also very ugly.

Totally fair! They're taking off in Europe right now which will help set the tone for how cities can accommodate these bikes. I think incidents like shutting down the L line in New York will help propel e-bikes/scooters forward much faster than anticipated.

Of course, that may not translate to every city but I think it will move across the US much faster than pure dockless schemes.

For your question on why not? I bet being able to move a significant number of trips by volume from your competitors back onto your platform is well worth the cost and mind share that you could build. (e.g. no bikes available? How about you take this uber for x% off instead!)