This is just guesswork. May it be related to the VC funding that holds them afload, where at every turn they need to think about the future (and quick-as-possible) 10x return on investment that is in the fine-print of the VC contracts?
Or they may be so imbibed by startup-culture "Greed is good" mentality from the very start, that it is unthinkable to consider not squeezing it, and shaving off for every penny.
That may be, but are they equal or more profitable than the Uber, et al model? I'm willing to bet if it were that they would be doing that instead. These companies are in the U.S. where maxing profits/shareholder value vs. taking care of employee needs (or any other need) is generally the name of the game for a major majority of companies.
It’s just that Uber and co are overwrought beasts that never had a successful plan in mind.
> The rides are somehow cheaper, have no surge pricing, and from some insider reports, has profitable unit economics.
So a fleet of depreciating assets with a major infrastructure dependency, lower implied gross margins, and word from insiders of a positive bottom line without publicly disclosed financials to sanity check claims against. Curious to see what their balance sheet looks like.
The entire Asia Pacific geographic region, including India, accounted for 10.9% of Uber's FY22 revenue[1; p. 94]. It's likely more of an incidental snack than full lunch, but it would be funny if Uber lost out to what sounds like an upstart taxi company.
[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1543151/000154315123...
Tax deducting depreciating assets ;)
Turns out uber isn't magic and the market settled on taxi companies being a thing that exists for a reason.
[1]: https://www.livemint.com/companies/start-ups/blusmart-mobili...
The rides are somehow cheaper, have no surge pricing, and from some insider reports, has profitable unit economics.
Their app isn’t quite as snappy, but it works fine.
They’re eating Uber’s lunch in my city and makes me wonder how Uber is screwing this up so badly.