# Will Uber go out of business?



## SuperSunny (Nov 15, 2017)

Stop burning BILLIONS on AI tech, Fuber will start making profits immediately


----------



## 25rides7daysaweek (Nov 20, 2017)

Oscar Levant said:


> The IPO raised $9 billion for Uber.
> 
> Uber burned through $5 billion of that dough in one year following the IPO.
> 
> ...


And if Lyft gets away w dropping the rates to .30 a mile uber will follow...


----------



## Clothahump (Mar 31, 2018)

Fire at least half of the staff in San Francisco. That includes Dara. Get some management in there that actually knows how to run a business. Also, move out of California to a cheaper business environment, like Texas.

Quit burning money on driverless cars and other pipe dreams.

Raise the fares and throw a little bit of that to the drivers.

It ain't rocket science, folks.


----------



## Cold Fusion (Aug 28, 2019)

10 years from now a New Generation of drivers will be announcing
"Uber's Finished"
"Uber's Dead"

Guess who'll be laughing


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Oscar Levant said:


> The IPO raised $9 billion for Uber.
> 
> Uber burned through $5 billion of that dough in one year following the IPO.
> 
> ...


IS THAT WHY INSTANT PAY ISNT WORKING ?

THEY BROKE ALREADY !?!?

" LOWER RATES MEAN MORE MONEY " !

" NO NEED TO TIP" !



25rides7daysaweek said:


> And if Lyft gets away w dropping the rates to .30 a mile uber will follow...


LYFT IS DEAD.

SUICIDE BY RATE CUT.


----------



## 125928 (Oct 5, 2017)

Oscar Levant said:


> 2. Cut driver pay ( not an option, pay is too low already, drivers will just quit if it gets too low )


I am not to sure of this option. I was in the Las Vegas in 2019 when Lyft cut drivers pay. Per mile went from 62 cents to 44 cents per mile, and drivers still drove.


----------



## doyousensehumor (Apr 13, 2015)

I am assuming someday the bills will come due and Uber will have to turn a profit to survive... We'll see if they do that or what happens


----------



## Lyftuber100 (Nov 14, 2019)

SuperSunny said:


> Stop burning BILLIONS on AI tech, Fuber will start making profits immediately


This. I dont think they actually understand that ai tech is not the future for cars. Someone sold them a bill of goods on that idea.

Do they honestly see cars without humans driving them happening within the next 20 years? We still gave air line accidents and they have an autopilot for christ sake.



father of unicorns said:


> I am not to sure of this option. I was in the Las Vegas in 2019 when Lyft cut drivers pay. Per mile went from 62 cents to 44 cents per mile, and drivers still drove.


Heh, I'd just move to a different state with higher per mile and live at the airport until I collect enough money move back to my home state or just live in a car for a month in a high col place and see the money add up.



Cold Fusion said:


> 10 years from now a New Generation of drivers will be announcing
> "Uber's Finished"
> "Uber's Dead"
> 
> Guess who'll be laughing


Uber will never die. People will always need a ride to work at x because x hasn't been automated yet.

I mean think about it, most people we drop or pick up are usually workers at places that should have already been automated or online only but the technology isn't there or the techies are unwilling to do that do the pop.



Oscar Levant said:


> The IPO raised $9 billion for Uber.
> 
> Uber burned through $5 billion of that dough in one year following the IPO.
> 
> ...


Not true, I've seen people on lyft drive for .44 in a state where uber is .65.

I was even at a lyft green light and I was hearing people complaining to the staff that they have to drive more hours and they dont get paid that 1000 a week that they used to make.

I couldnt tell them that they were in a messed up lyft lease because I dont need more lyft ants going to uber even though they are probably driving lyft for a reason lol.


----------



## Austin383 (Mar 11, 2019)

Yes, I honestly see autonomous vehicles within 20 yrs and yes people will still die in auto accidents, especially at first. If 10,000 people die in the first year you would think AI is the dumbest idea ever yet with 10,000 dying AI saved over twice as many who currently die in auto accidents. Are you really smarter than the people currently working on it to know they have no idea?


----------



## Eddie Dingle (Sep 23, 2019)

It's all a crazy joke. The rideshare bit was meant to just be a stepping stone to the self driving cars thing. But now they find they'll have to run the cab company they built for an extra 10 or 20 years. Meanwhile they've got rideshare companies to compete with who haven't staked their future on future technology or spent mega bucks building a brand. I'm talking about Ola and Didi.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/uber/financials/cash-flow
The statement to focus on is cash flow, not the income statement. 2018 Uber burned 1.5b; not the eye popping amounts others have posted.


----------



## Crosbyandstarsky (Feb 4, 2018)

Oscar Levant said:


> The IPO raised $9 billion for Uber.
> 
> Uber burned through $5 billion of that dough in one year following the IPO.
> 
> ...


Lyft will buy uber or vise versa. Someone will always buy them


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

Lyftuber100 said:


> This. I dont think they actually understand that ai tech is not the future for cars. Someone sold them a bill of goods on that idea.
> 
> Do they honestly see cars without humans driving them happening within the next 20 years? We still gave air line accidents and they have an autopilot for christ sake


I guarantee that's what they sold investors on. From the beginning the whole Focus was on autonomous cars, using us in lieu of until autonomous cars came out. That didn't quite go as smooth as they thought and now, here we are. There was absolutely no plan B in place. Their arrogance would not allow it. All the pissed-off driver they were planning on dipping out on and laughing their way into the autonomous cars. Now they're stuck with us pissed off drivers LOL pissed off drivers, pissed off investors and pissed off passengers can still no plan B or C


Lyftuber100 said:


> Uber will never die. People will always need a ride tGetork at x because x


People may always NEED but they might not always GET


----------



## SirSyl (Apr 6, 2017)

I can give you the answer in just one word: NO.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Uber and Lyft could collapse Monday.

By Wednesday, there will be eight new TNCs that are signing up drivers.

By Friday, two of them will be putting out pings.

One of the failings is that they are not charging the customers enough money. If they ever do, the drivers will see little, if any, of the increase. Lyft did announce simultaneous pay cuts and fare increases in about eight markets. We have not herd much from Lyft on how it is going. It must not be going that well, as the simultaneous rate increases/pay cuts have not spread, at least not Y-E-T.


----------



## GreatOrchid (Apr 9, 2019)

wait maybe don trump will buy uber to keep all the drivers employed and his big income tax scam will keep it floating


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

GreatOrchid said:


> wait maybe don trump will buy uber to keep all the drivers employed and his big income tax scam will keep it floating


Brilliant.
How long did it take you to squeeze this one out?


----------



## ShibariLover (Mar 3, 2019)

I rarely drive lyft now because their rates are stupid low. It’s two hours easy from where I normally drive to get to jfk. Privately one would be paid about $250. Uber is about $160 and Lyft was on a scheduled ride $70 to $100 at freaking rush hour. I do not drive to Manhattan or to JFK or LaGuardia ever on either platform. It’s a constant battle to get them to pay the gosh darn tolls. Not to mention I have to deadhead out of New York and city because of NYC’s new TLC rules whic are only there to make taxi drivers get the better end of the deal, Having said all that it just isn’t worth my time to haul my car through potholes roads across Brooklyn. Money wise it isn’t worth it.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

ShibariLover said:


> It's two hours easy from where I normally drive to get to jfk. I do not drive to Manhattan or to JFK or LaGuardia ever on either platform. It's a constant battle to get them to pay the gosh darn tolls. Not to mention I have to deadhead out of New York and city


The only way that I would go anywhere in New York City is if the trip started there, I do not run long trips in the Uber/Lyft car, either. I only have had one trip where I had to tell the customer that I would not do it. I did offer to drive him to my home, transfer him and his suitcases to my cab and he could pay cab rates to go there. He was not going to pay cab rates. I was not going to make the trip for Uber's rates.


----------



## Cynergie (Apr 10, 2017)

SuperSunny said:


> Stop burning BILLIONS on AI tech, Fuber will start making profits immediately


Then how the hell are they going to make good on their claim to investors they're not a app driven taxi depo but an IT company? :roflmao:

I mean the promise of driverless vehicles in the near future have been the selling point that's keeping their waterlogged stock afloat to date.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Cynergie said:


> how are they going to make good on their claim to investors they're not a app driven taxi depo but an IT company?


They can pay the politicians to buy that nonsense, but, the only way in which they can pay investors to buy anything is dividends. If they are paying decent dividends, the investors will not care what the alleged "nature" of the business is.


----------



## Funky Monkey (Jul 11, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> The IPO raised $9 billion for Uber.
> 
> Uber burned through $5 billion of that dough in one year following the IPO.
> 
> ...


I absolutely HATE these companies which means no, they probably won't go out of business. I keep hoping another Silicon(e) Valley masterpiece will come along and hire away all of us by offering better pay. Huge pool of workers ready to leap into a better opportunity. That would kill off Uber and Lyft for good. Integrity and honesty should be mandatory for an AMERICAN company to be worth billions


----------



## UberPuppetGirl (Jul 6, 2019)

They just was on the news yesterday saying they will be around for a while.
Saying that investors can have confidence in the long term out look of the corporation and its plans.
So I Guess Not.
🗽🌺🌎


----------



## Cynergie (Apr 10, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> They can pay the politicians to buy that nonsense, but, the only way in which they can pay investors to buy anything is dividends. If they are paying decent dividends, the investors will not care what the alleged "nature" of the business is.


Dividends require Equity. Which to date, is a quantity Uber doth possess on the left side of zero in the domain of real numbers.

Equity drives Earnings per Share (aka EPS aka stock price). Which to date, is a quantity Uber doth not possess on the right side of zero in the domain of real numbers.

As realized by the -$1.16 Billion in Net Income shown here, in Uber's latest, best doctored impartial 4Q 19 sin counter financial report to Wall Street to date









Source: Google Finance

Which is quite unsurprising, given the continuing negative trend of $1.11 Billion in operating cash flow, and $4.97 Billion in total expenditure. So Uber definitely has a steep uphill climb before they'll be able to gift any of its investors dividends to date

Then again, seeing Uber has some 900,000 US drivers (of its 4 million or so drivers globally)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...de-hailing-app-that-says-it-has-zero-drivers/
http://www.businessofapps.com/data/uber-statistics/#4
...and given Uber driver salaries are wrapped into that $2.36 Billion Cost of Revenue figure under Cost of Labor/Services, then yes. Uber could potentially gift their share holders dividends in the near future. Once DK simply gets around to:

Deactivating 100% of Uber's double helix DNA driver base.
+ Replacing those annoying union/AB5 obsessed organics with automated binary and driverless vehicle technology.
+ Issuing $0.00 driver paycheck payouts each week in the app.

Which = positive EPS every quarter moving forward. aka DK's ultimate wet dream. :roflmao:

And oh btw: wouldn't be too optimistic about that $12.6 Billion cash on hand (aka what's left of Sugar Daddy investors the likes of Softbank's aka Masayoshi Son and Saudi Public Fund from earlier investment rounds last year). Not when Uber's treasury continues to bleed money to the tune of -$1.16 Billion a quarter :laugh:

http://www.techspot.com/news/82635-uber-burning-cash-alarming-rate.html


UberPuppetGirl said:


> They just was on the news yesterday saying they will be around for a while.
> Saying that investors can have confidence in the long term out look of the corporation and its plans.
> So I Guess Not.
> &#128509;&#127802;&#127758;


Funny. Getting a really strange sense of Deja Vu with that tomf*ckery the media is trying to medicate the public with. Now where did I smell that aromatic bull$? Hmmmm......

Ah yes.....really hate to be that black fly in your vintage Chardonnay.

Memba these sociopath hustlers? 










Yeah. We 'memba. :roflmao:

edit: . Like the PC and now smartphone, ride share has become indispensable to daily living. And too much of a socioeconomic and industry disrupter. So yes, RS will definitely be around in the long run. Uber and Lyft however, may not be. And personally, I'd rather have 100+ smaller cockroach RS companies fiercely competing with each other for market share than 2 leviathan monopolies. The former encourages free market competition, fair competitive wages for drivers, a drive to improve business models/practices to offer better service to both driver and pax alike. The latter is corrupt (will lobby politicians & unions alike), non evolving, predatory (to both driver and pax alike), and growth stagnated by default of its "too big to fail" monomyth status quo.


----------



## UberPuppetGirl (Jul 6, 2019)

I did not really quantify your facts be for posting this. .
But I wanted to jump onboard based on sharing the❤&#128149;( love).
From what I know and although my gender as a chick (female) always puts a cloud over the facts I spew.

There are several industry facts with in investing, business development and the bigger right now social factors that I think RS and Share App based services in all it's forms are secretly a big part of in understanding these facts.

There are big hidden factors in the difference between income based profits and over all sustainable profits that share has brought to the table that include college and university type grant funding scenarios.
Something that for any industry is always out there weather offered by big corporations or government based funding.

An example might be in a fictional way, A car company like Ford or Nissan that needs data about it's vehicle usage in a given location or industry.
So a company can get a grant to share anonymous data about how many of these cars are on the road in their system and other small facts.
Any business can find these types of grant opps if it fits the profile that a grant maker is looking for at the time.
This is never seen as income but companies do often use this as a social common good move to share interesting facts for products and services for the future to build a better world.

AB 5 has a huge social definition that is not just an isolated social factor for ride share alone.
AB 5 can also represent a test on democracy and the control of a large group by a smaller group who are claiming their income needs as the push for change but also may have other motives.
Motives by the claimants that may be as frivolous as just a bad ego complex.
Seeing different life styles who may benefit from this open way to make a few extra dollars that share services offer.
Motives that also will never be an issue that can be targeted other then the stated motive that AB 5 claimants said was income disparity.

Judge Chen(*) hearing a recent case in the after fact of AB 5 in California, said this the best.
He highlighted many issues in his writ that should make many feel better about the real outcome of this new AB 5 rule.
Other states may not want to change anything based on the rational of the claimants in these types of cases now that AB 5 went through.

The fact that if there are other motives the actual complaints being brought to court are not well thought out.
Meaning, those taking legal action against share gig economy under grounds of income disparity or low wages, are missing other legal facts as Judge Chen(*) indirectly pointed out his recent ruling.

AB 5 got it's way but now there are many new loop holes as well as new types of claims in new issues over it.
More to the tune of a bigger motive that may have went over the head of the original claimants but not the legal teams that were so willing to act on their behalf.
Maybe seeing more types of legal actions in new problems that arise out of AB 5 later.
More actions mean more legal fees later.

Over all, share services seem to have a few good years left no matter what happens right now in most markets.

Actually from every thing said and done so far, it may actually get better for many who aim to just do a good job and don't bite the hand that feeds them as gig workers in a gig economy.

I liked your post alot and plan to review it in its intended context and may be back with comments or questions.

Overall, I would try not worry too much as many of us are out here and out of our intended industry's doing gig stuff to get a few extra dollars.
Maybe just dollars to invest in our own interests or dollars to buy more food and things we need.

Maybe both.

Including, things and service's that we are sure were for us but seem to be out of reach because its too expensive right now for so many and also not doing that well in their new markets.

I'm sure everyone misses us and does notice the difference in the current users and the intended users.

So stay strong, focused and don't let this difficult time for so many change the positive out look most are trained to have.
They still need us.
Thanks for the great post!&#128077;&#127939;&#128131;

(*)Source: https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-wont-force-uber-to-treat-california-drivers-as-employees/


----------



## Blatherskite (Nov 30, 2016)

My shill divining rod pointed straight at your hideously jumbled word salad.


----------



## UberPuppetGirl (Jul 6, 2019)

Blatherskite said:


> My shill divining rod pointed straight at your hideously jumbled word salad.


Its not a salad but a barbeque of South Korean nature.
Hows Thats for Compassionate?
And about last night:
52 lives but you will never win on that one 52. I won on first card in a stack oo1.
&#128660;&#128526;
With love me2u❤❤❤


----------



## Funky Monkey (Jul 11, 2016)

Cynergie said:


> Dividends require Equity. Which to date, is a quantity Uber doth possess on the left side of zero in the domain of real numbers.
> 
> Equity drives Earnings per Share (aka EPS aka stock price). Which to date, is a quantity Uber doth not possess on the right side of zero in the domain of real numbers.
> 
> ...


I thought there were 900,000 drivers in Dallas, Texas alone. / Yes, it's essentially a duopoly that pays it's drivers a fraction of what taxi companies used to pay but you have to join them or else there's no work for you. / That's also true, a company could be supplying Kim Jong Un w/ small arms but as long as they pay their shareholders dividends they're G2G


----------



## SoccerDad23 (May 2, 2016)

SuperSunny said:


> Stop burning BILLIONS on AI tech, Fuber will start making profits immediately


I'm amazed that people are still thinking their self-driving cars are right around the corner when their own map can't even keep track of which roads are valid to drive on, and pick up points still happen on the wrong side of the block or building (Constellation Blvd in Century City had been closed for 6 months, and the app was still trying to route me through it &#128514;.)

The interface still requires a human to use common sense and human-like interaction. Training aids that help drivers culturally adapt and satisfy people and voice-to-text recognition w better autocorrect (so drivers can handle pickup issues with less distraction) is money better spent than getting a car to be smarter than a human. Some company is going to become the next break-out hit when they realize the trends should be moving toward more humanity to satisfy the paying clients rather than the companies spending more for everyone else to earn less.

Talk to real people. If everyone earns more, they're willing to spend more. While more money is exchanging hands, more dopamine is released, the economic pump is primed, and the cycle increases with more people feeling better with life. Working to restrict the flow of income, restricts the flow of expenditures. Pretty soon everything is restricted, and everyone is miserable except the few who got rich on the optimization scheme. Eventually, their wealth will become meaningless, and they'll be as miserable as the rest of us (only they will have the essentials while the real misery will be experienced by the masses of homeless and the majority who feel themselves slipping in that direction.)

I say this having run the gamut of gigsploitation economy companies (rideshare, scooter charging, food delivery), and everyone trending the same. It's helping me write my screenplay, but it's miserable to watch.


----------



## Funky Monkey (Jul 11, 2016)

Pays back 80% to drivers?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephe...bers-nightmare-has-just-started/#796b1261b7e0
Cabbies could put kids through university. Experience in manipulating drivers. Drunk on hubris:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19880178


----------



## Eddie Dingle (Sep 23, 2019)

Funky Monkey said:


> Pays back 80% to drivers?


Promotions included I would guess.


----------



## 5☆OG (Jun 30, 2019)

Will they go out of business? Yes


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

Will not go out of business. Government will take it over because they feel the need to run everything in Americans lives now.


----------



## Funky Monkey (Jul 11, 2016)

Ssgcraig said:


> Will not go out of business. Government will take it over because they feel the need to run everything in Americans lives now.


Why I still vote Republican. Both parties (America) are owned by corporate and special interests at the end of the day. I feel like some Democrats don't believe that's the case. They're all crooks and get us to attack one another over second to third tier issues while glossing over the real problems


----------



## Cynergie (Apr 10, 2017)

Funky Monkey said:


> Pays back 80% to drivers?
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephe...bers-nightmare-has-just-started/#796b1261b7e0
> Cabbies could put kids through university. Experience in manipulating drivers. Drunk on hubris:
> ...


I don't know why this is even news. When

1. Uber has been hemorrhaging cash flow at an average $1 Billion PER QUARTER. Which means simple extrapolation of this burn rate indicates
2. Uber is hemorrhaging cash flow at some $4 BILLION PER YEAR since IPO made its financials public knowledge. And
3. From public media the likes of Google Finance, Uber has some $12B in reserve.
4. Do the math

Softbank and other major investors need to give Uber consistent cash infusions for it to stay afloat. Because if said burn rate trends continue, then Uber's valuation as a company is in a steep nose dive. And could be sinking. Faster than a chicken headed to the bottom of the Marianas Trench with the Titantic tied to its drumstick :roflmao:


----------



## Greenfox (Sep 12, 2019)

Oscar Levant said:


> The IPO raised $9 billion for Uber.
> 
> Uber burned through $5 billion of that dough in one year following the IPO.
> 
> ...


we as drivers are always ****ed. What else is new in this HORRIBLE world with HORRIBLE ceos etc.


----------



## Funky Monkey (Jul 11, 2016)

Greenfox said:


> we as drivers are always @@@@ed. What else is new in this HORRIBLE world with HORRIBLE ceos etc.


While the rest of the populace argues about transgender bathrooms or some other inane issue insert here . Maybe the politicians and CEOs really do know what's best because the rest of us look like dumbasses morons. I'm sure the media is ordered to distract the American public with these types of "issues" and not "why is the average CEO making 271x as much as their employees?" "How come politicians with no discernable skillset make so much $$$?" Effing disgrace


----------



## Cynergie (Apr 10, 2017)

Ssgcraig said:


> Will not go out of business. Government will take it over because they feel the need to run everything in Americans lives now.


Caveat Emptor.

This has already been tried with the #EpicFailureThatIsBART in the Bay Area.

Just ask any Bay Area commuter unfortunate enough to have to rely upon on that demonic mode of transport.

As history has proved time and time again in this country, any commercial venture the government takes over is doomed to fail. By default of corruption, nepotism, and sheer incompetence on the part of its senior leadership. The inherent purpose for the existence of Government is death by taxation. Government is NOT in the business of making money


----------



## 5☆OG (Jun 30, 2019)

https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/u...e-mistake-it-just-may-signal-end-of-uber.html


----------



## Wildgoose (Feb 11, 2019)

Oscar Levant said:


> The IPO raised $9 billion for Uber.
> 
> Uber burned through $5 billion of that dough in one year following the IPO.
> 
> ...


No , Uber will never out of business. They make big profit but they are loosing money on CEO's salaries and investing in Driverless car technology. That's where money gone. If Uber don't have enough money to survive, they will just throw away their investment on further Technology like driverless car. 
If driverless car plan succeed, all drivers will be simply deactivated. They will survive and we won't.


----------



## yogi bear (Dec 25, 2015)

maybe all the driver/partners will have to prove their loyalty and buy into the company by a certain date, or be cut off from the uber platform, like lets make it $1000 worth of non renounceable stock each to continue driving, this should raise enough to keep the company going for a few more weeks, well to keep the CEO and directors paid anyhow, which is the most important thing


----------



## Eddyles (Jan 5, 2020)

Oscar Levant said:


> The IPO raised $9 billion for Uber.
> 
> Uber burned through $5 billion of that dough in one year following the IPO.
> 
> ...


very sad sad dont get it???? why would they do this?


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

Eddyles said:


> very sad sad dont get it???? why would they do this?


I think it's all explained in his post &#129335;&#127996;


----------



## Cynergie (Apr 10, 2017)

Crosbyandstarsky said:


> Lyft will buy uber or vise versa. Someone will always buy them


...or, they could both go bankrupt and/or be broken into a hundred rideshare lemonaide stands. Which would fiercely compete with each other for market share. Thereby providing superior fares for pax and raising the working wage for drivers alike as a result.

Monopolies = cancer in the capitalist free market.

They create zero incentive to create competitive pricing, continuously innovate (because of lack of competition) to improve business practices. Uber and Lyft are what you get in the transportation industry when left to grow unchecked by the way they disrupted the industry with their low barrier for entry (i.e. driver acquisition vs taxi driver acquisition)


----------



## Escoman (Jun 28, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> The IPO raised $9 billion for Uber.
> 
> Uber burned through $5 billion of that dough in one year following the IPO.
> 
> ...


Start by ending pool rides they have punlucky admitted they increase not reduce congestion. Then raise fares to within 25 % of cabs


----------



## Sammy Harrington (Dec 14, 2019)

Nothing last forever bud


----------



## Side Hustle (Mar 2, 2017)

Clothahump said:


> Fire at least half of the staff in San Francisco. That includes Dara. Get some management in there that actually knows how to run a business. Also, move out of California to a cheaper business environment, like Texas.
> 
> Quit burning money on driverless cars and other pipe dreams.
> 
> ...


Move to Texas??? Perish the thought. All we need is more Californians. Sorry....


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

Aren't they moving their headquarters to Dallas this year anyways or did that fall through? I get the whole California thing . We don't need any more Californians here in Denver either🙅


----------



## Cold Fusion (Aug 28, 2019)

In 10 years the next generation of drivers will be posting:
Uber's Finished
Uber's Done
Uber going out of business

While Khosrowshahi laughs and continues to reduce driver earnings
potential while drivers continue to chauffeur his clients for pennies


----------



## Side Hustle (Mar 2, 2017)

Daisey77 said:


> Aren't they moving their headquarters to Dallas this year anyways or did that fall through? I get the whole California thing . We don't need any more Californians here in Denver either&#128581;


That HQ thing has been on and off for a while. Not sure about where we are right now.


----------



## Droosk (Sep 1, 2014)

Dunno how many times I have to say this.

The rides segment of Uber, of which all of us are part of, is already profitable, and has been for about 2 years. They could shed every other aspect of their business, including active and exploratory, and post a profitable quarter immediately.

No, Uber will not be going out of business.


----------



## 5☆OG (Jun 30, 2019)

Droosk said:


> Dunno how many times I have to say this.
> 
> The rides segment of Uber, of which all of us are part of, is already profitable, and has been for about 2 years. They could shed every other aspect of their business, including active and exploratory, and post a profitable quarter immediately.
> 
> No, Uber will not be going out of business.


I dont agree...as the government catches up with them they will tighten the noose around their scam,meanwhile drivers will be put out of business daily until the end. And like the investors someone or some group will be left without a chair when the music stops. The model is unsustainable without a vast financial conspiracy but even if that did exist which it could ,when it comes to big money anything is possible. Uber will eventually run out of even the most uneducated and dilapidated automobiles they can attract to their business. Its a mathematical certainty.


----------



## KK2929 (Feb 9, 2017)

Oscar Levant said:


> The IPO raised $9 billion for Uber.
> 
> Uber burned through $5 billion of that dough in one year following the IPO.
> 
> ...


-----------
You forgot several.
Operate more efficiently
And
Stop opening new businesses until what they have is showing a profit


----------



## Clothahump (Mar 31, 2018)

Side Hustle said:


> Move to Texas??? Perish the thought. All we need is more Californians. Sorry....


Move the business. The part where I said get people in there who know how to run a business: hire Texans. We know how to run a business.


----------



## hpdriver (Jan 24, 2015)

When people borrow billions to build self driving cars :


----------



## Clint Torres (Sep 10, 2019)

Ubers business model depends on deceiving the least intelligent members of society. That population has a finite count


----------



## Side Hustle (Mar 2, 2017)

Clint Torres said:


> Ubers business model depends on deceiving the least intelligent members of society. That population has a finite count


I think you meant IN-finite


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

Clothahump said:


> Fire at least half of the staff in San Francisco. That includes Dara. Get some management in there that actually knows how to run a business. Also, move out of California to a cheaper business environment, like Texas.
> 
> Quit burning money on driverless cars and other pipe dreams.
> 
> ...


What you said but, Iowa not Texas. 
There are entire towns you can buy for less than their lease in California.


----------



## fraqtl (Aug 27, 2016)

Uber is losing money (in my opinion) because it's throwing money at BS projects like driverless cars and Uber Air (or whatever it's called) because some bean counter decided that it's cheaper to get prime time advertising when you are a news story than actually paying for advertising.

There's no way they can be taking just over a quarter of my money and still be losing money if they were running things straight.

However, the phrase "too big to fail" comes to mind. If they fell over though, another would just take it's place, passengers like rideshare too much and definitely don't want to go back to taxis.


----------



## Side Hustle (Mar 2, 2017)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> What you said but, Iowa not Texas.
> There are entire towns you can buy for less than their lease in California.


Yes, Iowa. Not Texas. Please don't come to Texas.


----------



## Eddie Dingle (Sep 23, 2019)

fraqtl said:


> However, the phrase "too big to fail" comes to mind. If they fell over though, another would just take it's place, passengers like rideshare too much and definitely don't want to go back to taxis.


If uber goes under, there'll be 5 more rideshare companies ready to go. They don't own the car fleet or anything like that.
"too big to fail"? Na Too ****ed to carry on more like it.


----------



## Funky Monkey (Jul 11, 2016)

Funky Monkey said:


> While the rest of the populace argues about transgender bathrooms or some other inane issue insert here . Maybe the politicians and CEOs really do know what's best because the rest of us look like dumbasses morons. I'm sure the media is ordered to distract the American public with these types of "issues" and not "why is the average CEO making 271x as much as their employees?" "How come politicians with no discernable skillset make so much $$$?" Effing disgrace


This is a great article but takes a little while to read:

https://markmanson.net/why-you-should-quit-the-news


----------



## Hopindrew (Jan 30, 2019)

Oscar Levant said:


> The IPO raised $9 billion for Uber.
> 
> Uber burned through $5 billion of that dough in one year following the IPO.
> 
> ...


Number 1 alone won't do it. Number 4 won't do it. Number 2 is just about impossible drivers aren't making anything now plus regulations will be spreading making Uber pay drivers more. Number 3 could possibly work but then Uber will lose many riders who normally would take the bus and would make Uber cost just as much as a taxi which is what should have been the case from the beginning.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Hopindrew said:


> Number 1 alone won't do it. Number 4 won't do it. Number 2 is just about impossible drivers aren't making anything now plus regulations will be spreading making Uber pay drivers more. Number 3 could possibly work but then Uber will lose many riders who normally would take the bus and would make Uber cost just as much as a taxi which is what should have been the case from the beginning.


I would go with #3, given that, Ubers really are taxis, and should start using the taxi model insofar as pricing. 
A $25,000 vehicle with a professional driver on an exclusive ride, historically speaking, was never meant to be cheap. 
It was always the model of 'convenience for a higher price'. That's what the cab model is. There really is no way around what has been tried and true, price modelling -wise. This idea that Kalanick had "To make riding in an Uber cheaper than owning a car" was the primary insanity, a philosophy of which must be disposed of, or they will never achieve profitability.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Oscar Levant said:


> I would go with #3, given that, Ubers really are taxis, and should start using the taxi model insofar as pricing.
> A $25,000 vehicle with a professional driver on an exclusive ride, historically speaking, was never meant to be cheap.
> It was always the model of 'convenience for a higher price'. That's what the cab model is. There really is no way around what has been tried and true, price modelling -wise. This idea that Kalanick had "To make riding in an Uber cheaper than owning a car" was the primary insanity, a philosophy of which must be disposed of, or they will never achieve profitability.


Making ridesharing less than owning your own car can only work in areas where parking exceeds the cost of operating a vehicle.


----------



## ghrdrd (Jun 26, 2019)

Oscar Levant said:


> The IPO raised $9 billion for Uber.
> 
> Uber burned through $5 billion of that dough in one year following the IPO.
> 
> ...


Nah no way.
As long as there are cheap paxholes, and desperate drivers willing to service them, Uber will be fine.


----------



## ColumbusRides (Nov 10, 2018)

I hope not, I'm having fun driving college kids and doing bars and clubs


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

ghrdrd said:


> Nah no way.
> As long as there are cheap paxholes, and desperate drivers willing to service them, Uber will be fine.


Whether or not Uber is able to continue does not depend on those two items, it depends on whether Uber can pay it's debts and expenses and has the cash on hand to do it. The IPO gave them $9 billion, and the PL reveal a loss of $5 billion the year following. Doing the math, the future does not look bright. I'm wondering how they can withstand a diminishing stock value, that issuing more stock won't bring in more revenue to sustain operations. They will be forced to do a number of drastic actions.


----------



## 5☆OG (Jun 30, 2019)

Oscar Levant said:


> Whether or not Uber is able to continue does not depend on those two items, it depends on whether Uber can pay it's debts and expenses and has the cash on hand to do it. The IPO gave them $9 billion, and the PL reveal a loss of $5 billion the year following. Doing the math, the future does not look bright. I'm wondering how they can withstand a diminishing stock value, that issuing more stock won't bring in more revenue to sustain operations. They will be forced to do a number of drastic actions.


they will be out of business within a year..probably sooner. i recommend you cash out as soon as you have a few hundred. you may wake up and find the bank is closed. wishing or hoping doesent come into play it is strictly a matter of math. do you think travis cashed out at 12:01 because he believed this was a sound company? haha...wake up. and lets face it,although many of us like the instant gratification of what appears to be quick money ,its a complete sham run by an evil corporation. they know exactly what they are doing,just like bankers knew what they were doing in the 2008 economic meltdown,they took a page right out of the book of greed and disregard for anyone but themselves. in any event,its not gonna be pretty when the music stops.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

5☆OG said:


> they will be out of business within a year..probably sooner. i recommend you cash out as soon as you have a few hundred. you may wake up and find the bank is closed. wishing or hoping doesent come into play it is strictly a matter of math. do you think travis cashed out at 12:01 because he believed this was a sound company? haha...wake up. and lets face it,although many of us like the instant gratification of what appears to be quick money ,its a complete sham run by an evil corporation. they know exactly what they are doing,just like bankers knew what they were doing in the 2008 economic meltdown,they took a page right out of the book of greed and disregard for anyone but themselves. in any event,its not gonna be pretty when the music stops.


I don't see them ceasing operations. What they will do is shed unprofitable operations, file for bankruptcy, lay off a lot of non diamond and part time drivers ( I'm diamond and full time ) and non essential personnell ( they have a ton of those ) raise their retail rates.

No CEO want's to preside over a folding company, but a CEO who saves a company, that will look good on his resume. None of the major taxi companies who folded, actually ceased operations. I'ts hard to kill a giant company. But the vast majority of smaller taxi companies folded and disappeared. IN San Diego, Coast cab is gone. In L.A, Red & White is gone, Red Top is gone, City CAb is gone, A & W is gone, Eagle Rock is gone, and so on. But Yellow, American, and United, the big ones, they are still around. But, alas, it does happen. Whatever happened to ITT of the 70s? It's now ( I think ) some tech school, a shadow of it's former self.


----------



## ghrdrd (Jun 26, 2019)

Oscar Levant said:


> Whether or not Uber is able to continue does not depend on those two items, it depends on whether Uber can pay it's debts and expenses and has the cash on hand to do it. The IPO gave them $9 billion, and the PL reveal a loss of $5 billion the year following. Doing the math, the future does not look bright. I'm wondering how they can withstand a diminishing stock value, that issuing more stock won't bring in more revenue to sustain operations. They will be forced to do a number of drastic actions.


If under, that's beautiful. Private bookings will soar through the roof. Considering I charge the same but keep all the 27.5% in my pocket, the sooner uber dies the better.


----------



## EM1 (Apr 28, 2019)

Uber will plea they are too essential to the economy and beg for govt bailout/subsidies. The AIG of transportation. How far if at all that will go, who knows.


----------



## veblenrules (Jul 14, 2014)

5☆OG said:


> https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/u...e-mistake-it-just-may-signal-end-of-uber.html


When did Uber get a heart and soul?


----------



## enom47 (Oct 18, 2017)

Uber will fail as we know it. They will break up the company and sell each profitable territory to pay back angry investors. Only the money making areas will be around. and that might be uber under a different brand name.

There will be NO driver less cars anytime soon. That was all Harry Potter "back to the future 2" pipe dreams.

Travis Kalanick was the only smart one. He got the **** out for 3bill. and decided to focus on the real money maker "cloud kitchens."


----------



## Wonderwall2 (Jan 30, 2020)

It's one big racket....they'll just keep creating new classes of stock and the public will be left holding the bag. Most of the early guys have been cashing out.


----------



## REX HAVOC (Jul 4, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> The IPO raised $9 billion for Uber.
> 
> Uber burned through $5 billion of that dough in one year following the IPO.
> 
> ...


Uber should have made this business a driver owned co-operative. That way all the drivers would have had a stake in the game. Everyone would have to buy to get shares in the business and then get profit sharing at the end of each year. But Uber and it's investors were too greedy and money hungry to do that so here we are.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

REX HAVOC said:


> Uber should have made this business a driver owned co-operative. That way all the drivers would have had a stake in the game. Everyone would have to buy to get shares in the business and then get profit sharing at the end of each year. But Uber and it's investors were too greedy and money hungry to do that so here we are.


Well, they do offer stock, but it's going down


----------



## Bulls23 (Sep 4, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Uber and Lyft could collapse Monday.
> 
> By Wednesday, there will be eight new TNCs that are signing up drivers.
> 
> ...


I agree. Ridesharing is not meant to be a global or even national business due to low margin nature of it. There is a reason there was no big taxi/cab in U.S. operating in multiple cities. Instead each city/region had medallion system with the requirements unique to this particular region. Thus, for Uber and Lyft I see the only way to get profitable - franchise.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Bulls23 said:


> There is a reason there was no big taxi/cab in U.S. operating in multiple cities. Instead each city/region had medallion system with the requirements unique to this particular region. Thus, for Uber and Lyft I see the only way to get profitable - franchise.


There were several attempts to get some form of nationwide call services for cabs.

There was 1-800-ALL-TAXI. Cab companies could subscribe. The company gave you rolls of stickers to put everywhere. The customer dialed a number. It connected him to a local subscribing cab company. When the cab company got the call, there was a brief message identifying it as a 1-800-ALL-TAXI call then it connected the customer.

We tried it and never got too many calls from it. Customers just were not using it.

In the early days of smart telephones, there was a firm called NaviCab. It worked similarly to Uber and even gave the option to the customer to put a card on file. It failed. Perhaps it was too early, as while smart telephones were out there early in the Capital of Your Nation, perhaps too few visitors had one to make it useful. Had Navicab waited until 2010, or so, it might have succeeded.


----------



## Cynergie (Apr 10, 2017)

I'm not gonna lie. The Nigerian boat service was a stroke of sheer genius. :laugh:



> Ridesharing revenues are likely to have been boosted by Uber's endeavors to expand its operations. In line with its expansion efforts, in October 2019, the company increased its market share in West Africa by virtue of a boat service in the Nigerian city of Lagos. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for revenues from rides for the fourth quarter is pegged at $2,978 million, higher than the $2,895 million, reported in third-quarter 2019. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for fourth-quarter 2019 Uber Eats revenues is pegged at $699 million, higher than the $645 million, reported in the September-end quarter....


But a creative/environmentally friendly solution like that still isn't enough to elicit investor confidence in their EPS. And their projected revenues are somewhat suspicious for 4Q 2019. How many veteran driver de-activations at the global level did it take them to boost those revenue numbers?? 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/uber-uber-report-q4-earnings-132201519.html


----------



## Vishnu643 (Aug 23, 2017)

Oscar Levant said:


> The IPO raised $9 billion for Uber.
> 
> Uber burned through $5 billion of that dough in one year following the IPO.
> 
> ...


I feel like the majority of this forum is from cali. Or I live in the highest paid state in the country.


----------



## Scary ride (Feb 1, 2020)

A I cars in Chicago will be hilarious! Those cars will be stripped the first time they go south of 47th st and East of the Dan Ryan expressway. Many of the electric scooters that were on trial last simmer just disappeared. I saw 2 in a tree, they also were found in the river.


----------



## Defensive Driver (Aug 27, 2019)

Vishnu643 said:


> I feel like the majority of this forum is from cali. Or I live in the highest paid state in the country.


California scums can't make a living in California. They're the lowest of low.


----------



## Ray_Zer09 (Aug 28, 2019)

I don't get the whole idea behind driverless cars, even if they succeed in the development and necessary approvals. Currently, drivers use their own cars or rentals, so Uber has zero investment in Operational Assets i.e. cars. If AI replaces driver then someone needs to spend $$$ to replace the cars.

Uber doesn't have deep enough pockets nor the infrastructure to put driverless cars on each corner of the world. They would have to allow local investors (some sort of fleet companies) to invest and maintain such cars locally and in return get a fee or profit from Uber. So effectively current drivers cut would go to such a fleet company. Uber will never be able to pocket 100% fare.

Did I miss something? I don't get it. Can someone explain what they're thinking and how driverless cars can be successful as a business case even if they become feasible technically/legally today?


----------



## Who is John Galt? (Sep 28, 2016)

Ray_Zer09 said:


> I don't get the whole idea behind driverless cars, even if they succeed in the development and necessary approvals. Currently, drivers use their own cars or rentals, so Uber has zero investment in Operational Assets i.e. cars. If AI replaces driver then someone needs to spend $$$ to replace the cars.
> 
> Uber doesn't have deep enough pockets nor the infrastructure to put driverless cars on each corner of the world. They would have to allow local investors (some sort of fleet companies) to invest and maintain such cars locally and in return get a fee or profit from Uber. So effectively current drivers cut would go to such a fleet company. Uber will never be able to pocket 100% fare.
> 
> Did I miss something? I don't get it. Can someone explain what they're thinking and how driverless cars can be successful as a business case even if they become feasible technically/legally today?


Totally laughable isn't it?

Über has no idea, they are 'spin central'. The whole thing is just a giant ponzi scheme and as long as Dara and his inner circle are capable and eligible to cream of sqillions from mug investors, they will spout any and every line of BS they can think of.

The profit predictions and future innovations are so improbable, I am truly surprised that the SEC hasn't brought a case against them for misleading the market.

.


----------



## 195045 (Feb 2, 2020)

Oscar Levant said:


> The IPO raised $9 billion for Uber.
> 
> Uber burned through $5 billion of that dough in one year following the IPO.
> 
> ...


Uber never lose .they just screw up investors they collect the money and share between them .you didn't heard Uber CEO gets 7 million year kalanick take with him out billions .. .. wat part you didn't understand .. their expenses are minimal all Uber customer support are pay 3$ day because are in India& Philippines .. this Uber are the biggest scammers corporation in human history ..


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Gby said:


> Uber never lose .they just screw up investors they collect the money and share between them .you didn't heard Uber CEO gets 7 million year kalanick take with him out billions .. .. wat part you didn't understand .. their expenses are minimal all Uber customer support are pay 3$ day because are in India& Philippines .. this Uber are the biggest scammers corporation in human history ..


I share your sentiments, but there is the math thing. IF you are spending more than you are taking in, something's got to give. Many large taxi companies went belly up, for that reason, and they reemerged as lean cooperatives. I'm not seeing how Uber is excluded from the future bankruptcy club, because it's already a cooperative ( well, not truly, but drivers own their cars ) and I can't see Uber management going for austere cab co. style management ( moving offices into cheaper cost per sq ft industrial locations, cutting back on extravagant furniture, fancy computers. layers of engineering staff, shit that now taxi company would ever spend money on , etc ). At their current rate of profit/loss, they are headed for bankruptcy. I don't see how they can avoid it. The question is, how are they going to stay afloat when the stock becomes a penny stock and they can't raise enough money to sustain operations via stock sales? That's when the house of cards comes tumbling down.



Ray_Zer09 said:


> I don't get the whole idea behind driverless cars, even if they succeed in the development and necessary approvals. Currently, drivers use their own cars or rentals, so Uber has zero investment in Operational Assets i.e. cars. If AI replaces driver then someone needs to spend $$$ to replace the cars.
> 
> Uber doesn't have deep enough pockets nor the infrastructure to put driverless cars on each corner of the world. They would have to allow local investors (some sort of fleet companies) to invest and maintain such cars locally and in return get a fee or profit from Uber. So effectively current drivers cut would go to such a fleet company. Uber will never be able to pocket 100% fare.
> 
> Did I miss something? I don't get it. Can someone explain what they're thinking and how driverless cars can be successful as a business case even if they become feasible technically/legally today?


I'm not seeing the math, either. There are some 400,000 cars on the road at any given time, and if Uber owned them, they'd have to have wharehouses, technicians, payroll and admin, and then the cars, which are what ,$50k each outfitted?

Multiply that times 400,000 for cars and how many cities for wharehousing and staff in each city? Okay, they keep more of the take, but the entire reason they want driverless cars is to lower the retail price, or what is the point? So, how much cheaper can they go? They are losing 50 cents for ever 50 cents they take in, so idn't even see how they can lower the price at all, and still profit. So, if they can't be cheaper, what is the point? I'm just not seeing the math.


----------



## Ray_Zer09 (Aug 28, 2019)

Oscar Levant said:


> I'm not seeing the math, either. There are some 400,000 cars on the road at any given time, and if Uber owned them, they'd have to have wharehouses, technicians, payroll and admin, and then the cars, which are what ,$50k each outfitted?


I agree although I'm not sure if 400,000 cars you mentioned are for US only. As per below-linked article number of uber drivers globally is estimated to be 4 million.

Driverless cars could do 24 hours instead of 12 hours a driver can so let's assume half i.e. 2 million car requirement. For simplicity of analysis, I'm assuming no downtime for maintenance, cleaning and refuelling. At $50k per vehicle, it will cost a whopping $100 billion dollars to replace those 4 million drivers and their cars with 2 million driverless cars. That's more or less the asset value of top airline companies. Uber will never be able to finance $100 billion for these cars as they raised $8 billion in last IPO.

The only feasible way going forward would be franchising the fleets of cars globally financed by local banks to such local companies. But that will lead to fare/profit sharing leading them to square one, although they might be able to charge a higher % say 35% instead of 27.5% currently. This hypothetical difference (even if possible) won't be enough to justify billions spent in R&D and payback period and IRR/NPV won't be justifiable from a return on investment point of view.

https://therideshareguy.com/how-many-uber-drivers-are-there/
I wonder if self-driving cars will be self-cleaning as well with a special scraper for vomits. Would they have ratings, would they be able to double park, stop at no stopping zones for pickups etc :roflmao:


----------



## uberNewbSD (Aug 3, 2015)

Anyone thinking that Uber will go out of business is really clueless. They are the dominate brand in ridesharing by a far margin. Anyone who travels has this app and uses it. 

In the dark ages, getting a cab was a pain and they rarely went outside downtown areas and significantly more expensive than it needed to be.

Autonomous taxis will be here eventually and be WAY more profitable than having a driver take 75% of the fare. There is a reason that Waymo, Tesla and a dozen companies and all devoting billions a year into figuring this problem out.

You assumption about needing 2 million cars is a bit extreme. You roll it out in waves...Start with a dozen major cities and 500 cars in each. That's about 300 million which would be easy for anyone to raise. The benefit is that even saying that each car generated $200 dollars a day (which is on the low side) the car would generate 73K in revenue. Take out half for operating expenses and the profit is 36K per car per year.


----------



## UberAdrian (May 26, 2018)

Is that a real question? They are losing billions per quarter despite a decade of practice, raping everybody, committing countless crimes and general rampant lying, cheating and thieving. If a magic unicorn takes over CEO and the board is replaced with leprechauns maybe they can combine rainbows and blow pots of gold directly into Uber’s bank account...maybe then yes.

SDCs are decades away and either way Elon is not an idiot. He will just build an app for a pittance and not give Uber his cars. What then?


----------



## 195045 (Feb 2, 2020)

Ray_Zer09 said:


> I don't get the whole idea behind driverless cars, even if they succeed in the development and necessary approvals. Currently, drivers use their own cars or rentals, so Uber has zero investment in Operational Assets i.e. cars. If AI replaces driver then someone needs to spend $$$ to replace the cars.
> 
> Uber doesn't have deep enough pockets nor the infrastructure to put driverless cars on each corner of the world. They would have to allow local investors (some sort of fleet companies) to invest and maintain such cars locally and in return get a fee or profit from Uber. So effectively current drivers cut would go to such a fleet company. Uber will never be able to pocket 100% fare.
> 
> Did I miss something? I don't get it. Can someone explain what they're thinking and how driverless cars can be successful as a business case even if they become feasible technically/legally today?


Uber will never success with driveles cars because auto factory are the firs who afford to do this .. auto factory build one luxury car with 6000$ Uber will had to pay 35000 or more for luxury one and about 20000for clusters ... maintenance not gonna be cheap for Uber to ...then when I will see the firs Uber car alone it will be destroyed by me because they had stolen. the investment from all drivers


----------



## Who is John Galt? (Sep 28, 2016)

uberNewbSD said:


> Anyone thinking that Uber will go out of business is really clueless. They are the dominate brand in ridesharing by a far margin. Anyone who travels has this app and uses it.


LOL yeah, totally clueless.

Have you ever heard of Pan Am? Read up a little on them and you will see a very familiar narrative.

Have you ever heard of Enron? Do yourself a favour and have a look at their magic pudding.

Last quarter, Über lost $12 million per day, every day for the quarter. This was more than for the corresponding period the previous year. I believe they will continue to grow their losses each and every corresponding period.

.


----------



## majxl (Jan 6, 2017)

Uber and Lyft have lost billions every year.
There is no rideshare apps in the all world who is making money....they are all loosing money.
New ridesharing ventures are rare and quickly gone.
Simply put: ridesharing business are poorly designed...and do not produce enough money to survive.

Btw: all Uber current ventures are money looser.


----------



## 195045 (Feb 2, 2020)

UBE


majxl said:


> Uber and Lyft have lost billions every year.
> There is no rideshare apps in the all world who is making money....they are all loosing money.
> New ridesharing ventures are rare and quickly gone.
> Simply put: ridesharing business are poorly designed...and do not produce enough money to survive.
> ...


UBER &LYFT lose &#128520;&#128128;&#127752; what kind of pathetic psycho can said something like this .are by the case SANTA CLOUSE had been give to them those billions. ..wat easy come easy it is God rules



majxl said:


> Uber and Lyft have lost billions every year.
> There is no rideshare apps in the all world who is making money....they are all loosing money.
> New ridesharing ventures are rare and quickly gone.
> Simply put: ridesharing business are poorly designed...and do not produce enough money to survive.
> ...


Uber Lyft losing money then more billions go to their personal accounts ..


----------



## uberNewbSD (Aug 3, 2015)

Who is John Galt? said:


> LOL yeah, totally clueless.
> 
> Have you ever heard of Pan Am? Read up a little on them and you will see a very familiar narrative.
> 
> ...


Amazon lost money for 14 years before turning a profit. Enron was a different boat.

My point is that even if Uber's stock gets cut in half, they aren't going out of business. They have a 11 billion in cash on the books.


----------



## Who is John Galt? (Sep 28, 2016)

uberNewbSD said:


> They *have* a 11 billion in cash on the books.


...had. And they are burning through it at a rate of $12 million, each and every day.

And the business plan to achieve profitability? You...you...you...don't you worry about that folks.

.


----------



## uberNewbSD (Aug 3, 2015)

So they have enough for 3 years? Maybe they figure it out by then or maybe not.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

uberNewbSD said:


> Anyone thinking that Uber will go out of business is really clueless. They are the dominate brand in ridesharing by a far margin. Anyone who travels has this app and uses it.
> 
> In the dark ages, getting a cab was a pain and they rarely went outside downtown areas and significantly more expensive than it needed to be.
> 
> ...


No way in hell will it be 36k per yea per car. I've owned taxis, and operating vehicles is far more expensive that you can possibly imagine. Operating expenses will gobble of most, if not all, and more, of that. To adequately cover a city, you have to have lots of cars, and that means dead time. What are DCs going to do when they don't have a ride, drive around aimlessly?

How are they going to be cleaned? They are going to get filthy very fast. Uber benefits from high turnover, that means constant feeding new cars into the system, but wait until those cars get 100k miles on them, they are going to be just like any shabby cab you've ever seen.

I'm not convinced that DCs are way more profitable. First off, Uber takes close to 50% of the fair, already. You can't go by what they tell you they are paying you, you have to look at what you are actually paid versus what they are charging riders, and compare those two figures, and it's close to 50/50, that has been my experience.

So, the whole point of DCs is to offer trips cheaper. So, the retail rate is going to drop. That fair has to compensate for a car that depreciates rapidly. There will be a warehouse, with technicians, auto mechanics, engineers, administrative staff, for each region Uber operates in, and the cost will be astronomical. I think the only way it can be done profitably is with electric cars, maybe.


----------



## majxl (Jan 6, 2017)

uberNewbSD said:


> So they have enough for 3 years? Maybe they figure it out by then or maybe not.


Uber has 6 quarters of cash left

https://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/sectors/sp500-hopefuls-when-will-uber-and-lyft-run-out-cash


----------



## uberNewbSD (Aug 3, 2015)

Oscar Levant said:


> No way in hell will it be 36k per yea per car. I've owned taxis, and operating vehicles is far more expensive that you can possibly imagine. Operating expenses will gobble of most, if not all, and more, of that. To adequately cover a city, you have to have lots of cars, and that means dead time. What are DCs going to do when they don't have a ride, drive around aimlessly?
> 
> How are they going to be cleaned? They are going to get filthy very fast. Uber benefits from high turnover, that means constant feeding new cars into the system, but wait until those cars get 100k miles on them, they are going to be just like any shabby cab you've ever seen.
> 
> ...


Electric is a given and given they have significantly lower depreciation and maintenance they will add to the margin ... DC can offer cheaper trips or they can charge the current rate and take the increased revenue.

The cars will need to be charged... During that time a cleaner can spend 10 minutes going through the car and giving it a quick clean. Once every few days it goes through a wash.

I understand that running a taxi can be expensive. Auto driving means that no one cares about dead time. They can go to prearranged points around town and wait. Since there is no one driving, you won't have to balance driver's needs. The cars could be actually put into the most ideal locations to ensure that there is always a car around. No longer are 6 cars going to be in the same spot. When EV cars get over 150 eMPG the fuel cost is insignificant.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

uberNewbSD said:


> Electric is a given and given they have significantly lower depreciation and maintenance they will add to the margin ... DC can offer cheaper trips or they can charge the current rate and take the increased revenue.
> 
> The cars will need to be charged... During that time a cleaner can spend 10 minutes going through the car and giving it a quick clean. Once every few days it goes through a wash.
> 
> I understand that running a taxi can be expensive. Auto driving means that no one cares about dead time. They can go to prearranged points around town and wait. Since there is no one driving, you won't have to balance driver's needs. The cars could be actually put into the most ideal locations to ensure that there is always a car around. No longer are 6 cars going to be in the same spot. When EV cars get over 150 eMPG the fuel cost is insignificant.


I drive downtown San Diego. 80% the time, I must pick up illegally, there are no legal places to park in a downtown area that is busy. Cops understand this and don't bother us about it. We pick up in red and yellow zones, or double park, all the time. How does a DC deal with that? Often, the rider is standing somewhere different than the pin indicates, so I almost always text riders for their precise location ( this is more of a problem downtown than in the burbs ), so how does a DC deal with it?

How about this; Rider is at the NE corner of 5th and broadway, and 5th is a one way street southbound, and the DC is approaching the corner from the west, and it cannot turn left, but if it wants to pick them up at that precise spot, it will have to go all the way to 9th ave. ( that's the closest street with a legal left turn ) then go up to A street ( four city blocks due to logistics ) then back down 5th, and due to traffic, this could literaly take 15 minutes, and then the rider sees his Car pass him right by? What I did, the last time that happened was, I turned right on 5th, and parked at the SE corner, and asked the rider to cross the street, explaining to him why I couldnt pick him up with deliberate speed, given where he was standing and where I was positioned, and they happily agreed.

What's a DC going to do? See, there are a million situations just like this one, that no programmer can possibly imagine, that no machine can deal with simply because in many situations, it takes a human to deal with it in order to deliver good service.

When I pull up to a major hotel, facing a barrage of cars, and bellman telling me to "go over there", i.e, there is no standard pickup spot, due to the chaos of cars coming and going, how does a DC deal with it? And if it's blocking traffic and a bellman wants it to move, what does the DC do, then?

And, all of this I came up with on a cursory examination of the real world. Imagine what I might think of if I put my mind to it.

Oh, and I just thought of military bases. Oh yeah, it gets hairy.....

OH, what about gated communities that require. 1. punch codes. 2. ID cards, destination given, etc ?

Hey, I'm just getting started.

Going down hill, on the 5 through La Jolla, it was raining hard, ( yes, it does rain n CA ) and I had cruise control on, and the car hit a puddle of water on the road side, briefly, and I briefly hydro planed, and the cruise control went haywire. I hit the kill button, of course. There is no human to hit a kill button in a DC.

And I'm just getting started.....

Oh yeah, I got a pick up and I went to the spot, there will people standing their looking for the restaurant, but it was accross a ravine, and the app gave the wrong pin point. So, to get to the very ensconced-in-Balboa-park restaurant, so I drive around to the alternate path the app selected that takes me there, and believe it or not, the road is so narrow only one car can access it. It was the wrong road, designed for Park personnel only, who don't anticipate cross traffic. Well, the alt route I selected on the app took me down this road. I encounter an oncoming car, and had to back up a few blocks to find a spot where the other driver could pass me. He didn't realize it was a park personal access road. This venue only opens for charter parties, it's not a public restaurant, and it's really hidden. I'd like to see a DC care deal with that one. Shit happens in the analog real world, not a good place for a machine without a human brain.

Now multiply lil ol' me times 4 million rides per day, and how many stories on social media are there going to be about the difficulties DCs will encounter in the real world?

I can't wait. Sheesh. It's going to be hilarious.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Blatherskite said:


> My shill divining rod pointed straight at your hideously jumbled word salad.


I managed to make it past "weather" but the apostrophes littered about randomly were just too much.


----------



## uberNewbSD (Aug 3, 2015)

Oscar Levant said:


> I drive downtown San Diego. 80% the time, I must pick up illegally, there are no legal places to park in a downtown area that is busy. Cops understand this and don't bother us about it. We pick up in red and yellow zones, or double park, all the time. How does a DC deal with that? Often, the rider is standing somewhere different than the pin indicates, so I almost always text riders for their precise location ( this is more of a problem downtown than in the burbs ), so how does a DC deal with it?
> 
> How about this; Rider is at the NE corner of 5th and broadway, and 5th is a one way street southbound, and the DC is approaching the corner from the west, and it cannot turn left, but if it wants to pick them up at that precise spot, it will have to go all the way to 9th ave. ( that's the closest street with a legal left turn ) then go up to A street ( four city blocks due to logistics ) then back down 5th, and due to traffic, this could literaly take 15 minutes, and then the rider sees his Car pass him right by? What I did, the last time that happened was, I turned right on 5th, and parked at the SE corner, and asked the rider to cross the street, explaining to him why I couldnt pick him up with deliberate speed, given where he was standing and where I was positioned, and they happily agreed.
> 
> ...


You just outlined very narrow circumstances. While you have significantly more experience than me. I've yet to deal with any of that as I mostly drive north county.

You could easily outline certain areas and times where autonomous wouldn't be a solution. No pickup on military bases, No gated communities. La Jolla to the Airport..... Pretty straight forward. Airport to anywhere in north of the 8... No Problem.

Yes there are situations (most in downtown) that are a disaster and require a real driver to figure out but overall machines are already better at driving than people. What if there were predetermined pick up locations every other block?

Every analyst who looks at this field has autonomous driving worth well over 5 TRILLION dollars. In the US alone, we drive over 3.2 Trillion miles per year. I'd bet that at least 70% of those could be driven by current technology. And

The most expensive part of all of any taxi/uber/Semi truck ride is the driver. There is a reason that Tesla, Uber, Google (via Waymo) and a dozen other companies are dropping billions a year to try to solve this. They know the payoff is massive.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/tech...t-oddity-semi-trucks-with-nobody-inside-them/


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

uberNewbSD said:


> You just outlined very narrow circumstances. While you have significantly more experience than me. I've yet to deal with any of that as I mostly drive north county.
> 
> You could easily outline certain areas and times where autonomous wouldn't be a solution. No pickup on military bases, No gated communities. La Jolla to the Airport..... Pretty straight forward. Airport to anywhere in north of the 8... No Problem.
> 
> ...


Let's look at your reasoning. You say in the cab and truck biz, the driver is most of the expense.

YOu are not factoring in that cabs CHARGE WAY MORE than Uber.

If you removed the 50% expense of the driver in the cab biz, what you would be left with is what UBer charges retail. And uber is paying drivers out of that, which is why it's losing $5 billion in one year, that's far worse than what a cab company would do.

See, remove the driver, and you are breaking even, still, at uber's rates. Ad warehousing throughout the world, $50k per vehicle on what, some 500,000 cars ( maybe a lot more than that ) admin staff, technicians, etc, ? and you are losing a ton of money.

And, it gets worse, because, in UBer's logic, getting rid of the driver , they think, will allow them to charge even less. I sincerely doubt that that is true. And, if they can't charge less, what is the point of DCs?

I'm not seeing profit here. Really, what anyone in this business doesn't realize that owning a fleet of vehicles is far more expensive that what your neat excel spread sheet nerdy projections will imagine they are. There's thing inconvenient thing called "the real world". It ain't never what you think it is, when it comes to expense projections for start ups.

And you can take that to the bank, if you have any money left to take to the bank when all is said and done.

Also, you said that because there are no drivers, dead time is not an issue.

Ah, but there is a thing called "cost per mile" ( you divide all the company's expenses by the total number of miles driven, [or whatever the formula is, i have to think about it ] since Uber will now own the fleet ) and I'll bet that that number is about what UBer charges retail, if not more.

Dead time is the same is paid time, a mile is a mile, when it comes to cost per mile, so without being paid, you are paying out. So, if a DC has no rider, you want it to park somewhere ASAP.

However, with electric vehicles that can be purchased at fleet discounts, they might be able to pull it off, I don't know.


----------



## uberNewbSD (Aug 3, 2015)

When I said "cab" I was including ride sharing.

The market's price is dictated by what consumers are willing to pay based on the value provided. Given that there are about 500 million rides on Uber in the US last year, I'd say that passengers are willing to pay current prices for it. Using the IRS rate of 59 cents per mile for cost would be basically arbitrage for the company even driving dead miles. 

Electric cars would be a given due to their lower cost per mile to run. They equate to around 125-150 miles per gallon when comparing to gas car not to mention significantly lower maintenance costs.

I'm not suggesting that this will happen anytime in the next 5 years but 15 years from now I expect that it would be feasible.


----------



## Yam Digger (Sep 12, 2016)

UberPuppetGirl said:


> They just was on the news yesterday saying they will be around for a while.
> Saying that investors can have confidence in the long term out look of the corporation and its plans.
> So I Guess Not.
> &#128509;&#127802;&#127758;


Adolf Hitler said his Third Reich would last 1000 years. It ended 988 years early.


----------



## 2Cents (Jul 18, 2016)

25rides7daysaweek said:


> And if Lyft gets away w dropping the rates to .30 a mile uber will follow...


.30 per mile ?


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

uberNewbSD said:


> When I said "cab" I was including ride sharing.
> 
> The market's price is dictated by what consumers are willing to pay based on the value provided.
> [...]


That is NOT how Uber bases it's retail rates. I know, because I sent an email to someone way up the food chain, who had a linked in page, and she called me on the phone, we talked for about 20 minutes.

See, technically speaking, Uber pays drivers 75% of the retail ( actually, it's a lot less because they don't pay a portion of the booking fee, or the didn't at the time I talked to her, which is not factored in, but that is besides the point).

So, I asked her, complaining that the retail rates were too low, how they arrive at the rates?

Since they are paying drivers 75%, they charge the retail rate based on _how little drivers will accept_, then calculate the retail rate from there.

What the market will bear has NOTHING to do with how Uber charges it's customers.

I drove a cab for 10 years and the cab rate ( adjusting for inflation ) is roughly or almost TWICE what Uber charges, so what the market will bear is definitely higher than what Uber charges.

It's like this, Uber's philosophy was handed down from Travis Kalanick, whose objective, with Uber, was to riding in Ubers cheaper than owning a car. Travis said this, on TV. Now think about that, hey --- who owns this car? WE DO. It just doesn't compute.

But, that philosophy still prevails with Uber, which is why they DO NOT charge what the customer will bear, they charge as little as drivers will accept for pay.


----------



## 25rides7daysaweek (Nov 20, 2017)

2Cents said:


> .30 per mile ?


Yea lyft's been cutting rates nationwide maybe its .35 but I'm getting .61 now from both. 
If people dont quit driving and start *****in about it on social media
we're all gonna be screwed....


----------



## 2Cents (Jul 18, 2016)




----------



## 195045 (Feb 2, 2020)

25rides7daysaweek said:


> Yea lyft's been cutting rates nationwide maybe its .35 but I'm getting .61 now from both.
> If people dont quit driving and start @@@@@in about it on social media
> we're all gonna be screwed....


Good nice to hear about let them cut up to when you are giving up.. because drivers are so stupids jumping fast for few peanut .I take about 100 rides on Lyft in 5 years then I give up ..


----------



## 25rides7daysaweek (Nov 20, 2017)

Gby said:


> Good nice to hear about let them cut up to when you are giving up.. because drivers are so stupids jumping fast for few peanut .I take about 100 rides on Lyft in 5 years then I give up ..


I didnt give up on anything
Next week I'll hit 25k rides and 
last week my pay was over $2k
Lyft is dropping driver pay rates by 25%
I wont drve Lyft if they drop rates here


----------



## 2Cents (Jul 18, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> That is NOT how Uber bases it's retail rates. I know, because I sent an email to someone way up the food chain, who had a linked in page, and she called me on the phone, we talked for about 20 minutes.
> 
> See, technically speaking, Uber pays drivers 75% of the retail ( actually, it's a lot less because they don't pay a portion of the booking fee, or the didn't at the time I talked to her, which is not factored in, but that is besides the point).
> 
> ...


I disagree. They pay drivers what ever they choose to (based on a pre agreed to per mile/per minute fare) how ever they choose to.
Ball is in their hands.


----------



## Lowestformofwit (Sep 2, 2016)

In regard to cutting rates (discounting), I'm not sure whether Uber Management has ever seen, or considered this:


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Oscar Levant said:


> I drive downtown San Diego. 80% the time, I must pick up illegally, there are no legal places to park in a downtown area that is busy. Cops understand this and don't bother us about it. We pick up in red and yellow zones, or double park, all the time. How does a DC deal with that? Often, the rider is standing somewhere different than the pin indicates, so I almost always text riders for their precise location ( this is more of a problem downtown than in the burbs ), so how does a DC deal with it?
> 
> How about this; Rider is at the NE corner of 5th and broadway, and 5th is a one way street southbound, and the DC is approaching the corner from the west, and it cannot turn left, but if it wants to pick them up at that precise spot, it will have to go all the way to 9th ave. ( that's the closest street with a legal left turn ) then go up to A street ( four city blocks due to logistics ) then back down 5th, and due to traffic, this could literaly take 15 minutes, and then the rider sees his Car pass him right by? What I did, the last time that happened was, I turned right on 5th, and parked at the SE corner, and asked the rider to cross the street, explaining to him why I couldnt pick him up with deliberate speed, given where he was standing and where I was positioned, and they happily agreed.
> 
> ...


Just an FYI for everyone:. You should never use cruise control in the rain (or ice, snow).



Lowestformofwit said:


> In regard to cutting rates (discounting), I'm not sure whether Uber Management has ever seen, or considered this:
> View attachment 420723


But that doesn't even apply because you can only drive so many miles in an hour. So while cutting the cost of widgets in half while selling 10 times as many may work, a driver can't drive 10 times as many miles. And even if he could, it will take more time.


----------



## Lowestformofwit (Sep 2, 2016)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> But that doesn't even apply because you can only drive so many miles in an hour. So while cutting the cost of widgets in half while selling 10 times as many may work, a driver can't drive 10 times as many miles. And even if he could, it will take more time.


To clarify, it was intended to refer to Uber's (and Lyft's)
attempted "buying" of jobs by discounting fares and hoping to increase THEIR revenue/gain profit from same by hugely increasing volume, and NOT about drivers' financial welfare resulting from U/L's pricing policies.
Having enough drivers to service any increased volume is not going to be a problem, barring legislative changes. But more drivers cost them more money.
So, the question is whether U/L are in any better retained revenue position as as a result of their low price/high volume strategies? Have they increased ride volume enough?


----------

