# How Long Does the Uber/Lyft/Ridshare Model Have in the US



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

Given the legal, regulatory, and insurance issues, how long does the rideshare model have left in this country?


----------



## DjTim (Oct 18, 2014)

I answered 24 months. Right now from what I'm reading in the press, they will try and do their IPO in mid-2015. I think it will be at least 2017 before we really know.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

DjTim said:


> I answered 24 months. Right now from what I'm reading in the press, they will try and do their IPO in mid-2015. I think it will be at least 2017 before we really know.


I think an IPO is actually going to be difficult for UBER. There's a lot of problems. A lot of problems. The customer base is not loyal to the brand particularly. They will abandon UBER as soon as something better or even cheaper comes along. The drivers have no loyalty either. Drivers are dissatisfied and will go elsewhere as soon as the opportunity arises. Lastly, the regulatory and legal problems, potential tax problems, bad PR, etc, are massive. UBER has poor management and little in the way of good corporate governance.
UBER is a mess that could collapse very quickly. An IPO is very dicey


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

stuber said:


> I think an IPO is actually going to be difficult for UBER. There's a lot of problems. A lot of problems. The customer base is not loyal to the brand particularly. They will abandon UBER as soon as something better or even cheaper comes along. The drivers have no loyalty either. Drivers are dissatisfied and will go elsewhere as soon as the opportunity arises. Lastly, the regulatory and legal problems, potential tax problems, bad PR, etc, are massive. UBER has poor management and little in the way of good corporate governance.
> UBER is a mess that could collapse very quickly. An IPO is very dicey


You make an excellent point. Given the regulatory, liability, and legal uncertainties, Uber is no closer to IPO than it was in 1972. IPOs are developed almost exclusively for institutional investors. Can you think of even ONE institutional investor who'd give anything more than a passing glance at a company shrouded in so much uncertainty?


----------



## Long time Nyc cab driver (Dec 12, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> Given the legal, regulatory, and insurance issues, how long does the rideshare model have left in this country?


After the Uber IPO, after that, who knows.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

Long time Nyc cab driver said:


> After the Uber IPO, after that, who knows.


Ya gotta admit, it'd take a helluva shady fiduciary to take on the Uber IPO.


----------



## DjTim (Oct 18, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> Ya gotta admit, it'd take a helluva shady fiduciary to take on the Uber IPO.


It depends on how they IPO. They could potentially split out their tech from their operations side. It would be like Google splitting their search engine/advertising division from their data center / android /hardware stuff. A better example is IBM, but this is after they were incorporated by 100 years. IBM sold off all it's hardware stuff (Servers, desktops, laptops) and now just does software & consulting.

In this scenario, the operations side only has liability in regulations and whatever. The software side would have no limitations or regulations.

Just some food for thought...


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

DjTim said:


> It depends on how they IPO. They could potentially split out their tech from their operations side. It would be like Google splitting their search engine/advertising division from their data center / android /hardware stuff. A better example is IBM, but this is after they were incorporated by 100 years. IBM sold off all it's hardware stuff (Servers, desktops, laptops) and now just does software & consulting.
> 
> In this scenario, the operations side only has liability in regulations and whatever. The software side would have no limitations or regulations.
> 
> Just some food for thought...


That's an interesting POV, for sure. But institutional investors are a conservative lot by their very nature. Creative semantics and splitting of the business functions likely wouldn't fool them. But one never knows.


----------



## TeleSki (Dec 4, 2014)

Hopefully, as long as my car payment or until I get a nice raise.


----------



## centralFLFuber (Nov 21, 2014)

I think fluber needs to stop trying to play taxicab company too many issues with regulations, licensing, insurance Lack Of, etc....

they should just rent/sell their app software to other legal companies to use..

just imho


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

centralFLFuber said:


> I think fluber needs to stop trying to play taxicab company too many issues with regulations, licensing, insurance Lack Of, etc....
> 
> they should just rent/sell their app software to other legal companies to use..
> 
> just imho


That's actually an excellent idea, and at first blush it seems entirely feasible...maybe even likely.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> Ya gotta admit, it'd take a *helluva shady fiduciary* to take on the Uber IPO.


Uber has one lined up already, Goldman Sachs, just in case Uber does indeed opt to go public.

That said, Uber IPO is highly unlikely in 2015.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> Uber has one lined up already, Goldman Sachs, just in case Uber does indeed opt to go public.
> 
> That said, Uber IPO is highly unlikely in 2015.


Like I said, gotta be a helluva shady fiduciary. Personally, I trust GS about as far as I can throw a piano.


----------



## PT Go (Sep 23, 2014)

Keep in mind that with an IPO comes SEC jurisdiction, board of directors and shareholders. Could change the entire course of the company. Happened to a company my wife worked for during the dotcom craziness. Had a decent business model, but top heavy in Directors and VP's of this and that and lost their bearings. Stock was deactivated within 8 months. What my wife originally had as part of the core start up group in stock options was going to be worth millions. Cashed out with $25,000 when another company absorbed them. Waahh!


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

PT Go said:


> Keep in mind that with an IPO comes SEC jurisdiction, board of directors and shareholders. Could change the entire course of the company. Happened to a company my wife worked for during the dotcom craziness. Had a decent business model, but top heavy in Directors and VP's of this and that and lost their bearings. Stock was deactivated within 8 months. What my wife originally had as part of the core start up group in stock options was going to be worth millions. Cashed out with $25,000 when another company absorbed them. Waahh!


Exactly! Among people who understand and who've been through IPOs, Uber has the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of doing an IPO with its current model. Yes, it's a very socially-conscious model, for sure, but it's not IPO material. There's just far too much legal and regulatory uncertainty to support an IPO.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

A company that ignores any and all laws.

vs.

A government agency that takes no shit from law breakers.




I would like a front row seat please.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> A company that ignores any and all laws.
> 
> vs.
> 
> ...


Travis may be able to avoid the pokey in South Korea. US may be a different story.


----------



## No-tippers-suck (Oct 20, 2014)

stuber said:


> I think an IPO is actually going to be difficult for UBER. There's a lot of problems. A lot of problems. The customer base is not loyal to the brand particularly. They will abandon UBER as soon as something better or even cheaper comes along. The drivers have no loyalty either. Drivers are dissatisfied and will go elsewhere as soon as the opportunity arises. Lastly, the regulatory and legal problems, potential tax problems, bad PR, etc, are massive. UBER has poor management and little in the way of good corporate governance.
> UBER is a mess that could collapse very quickly. An IPO is very dicey


I would go with "stuber's" post as the most realistic. words like "until something cheaper comes along" just see Lyft and Sidecar
and that "the drivers have no loyalty" is also very true. But the key factor is their poor management. Would be a long story to explain all their big mistakes.

I however believe it will take longer than 24months. Uber still has a lot of capital and is still growing (with our help!)
Once all drivers have understood that with the current fares and continued onboarding for uberX there is not much money anymore.
Our "awakening" is unfortunately "long term" because the hidden costs of being an Uber driver are not visual immediately.
The depression of our equipment goes very silent and not everybody does the math.

My last week's Partner invoice was just $66 I am really trying to get out of it reducing my hours and the miles
Around June, July I still was making around $900 per week, that's after Uber's cut and still before expenses.

If our cars had a deposit slot such as ATM's and would have to pay the real exact costs including depreciation everybody would realize that there is still
a huge amount (between a 50% to 75% depending on miles and type of car) that goes out of my weekly paycheck.
But some expenses will soonest be visible when we try to sell the cars and that might be more than 24months from today.

I will work NYE and then decide if I still login to the Apps. But if I quit it will change nothing for Uber.. There are still so many drivers willing to work for less than minimum wages.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> Travis may be able to avoid the pokey in South Korea. US may be a different story.


The SEC is fire. And Uber is gasoline. Countdown to when they meet: 10, 9, 8.....


----------



## ATX (Dec 25, 2014)

I think it's impossible to fight successful evolution. The ride UBER/Lyft ride share model simply makes too much sense, and people would fight for it's return banned. I imagine over the next 5 years taxi companies will adopt the technologies and ideas of UBER, or slowly die off, and UBER will have to compete a little more fairly with taxi companies regarding legal/safety obligations that taxis deal with. I think the rates of uber will eventually have to go up to cover additional costs.

But it still ultimately comes down to one thing. Who is willing to drive for less money.. basic economics. 

And ultimately ultimately, that will be a driverless car.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

ATX said:


> I think it's impossible to fight successful evolution. The ride UBER/Lyft ride share model simply makes too much sense, and people would fight for it's return banned. I imagine over the next 5 years taxi companies will adopt the technologies and ideas of UBER, or slowly die off, and UBER will have to compete a little more fairly with taxi companies regarding legal/safety obligations that taxis deal with. I think the rates of uber will eventually have to go up to cover additional costs.
> 
> But it still ultimately comes down to one thing. Who is willing to drive for less money.. basic economics.
> 
> And ultimately ultimately, that will be a driverless car.


While what you say is theoretically valid, what is poised to kill the TNC model are regulatory issues and insurance gaps. And you do think insurance companies and regulatory agencies give a flying phuque what the public wants or desires?


----------



## ATX (Dec 25, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> While what you say is theoretically valid, what is poised to kill the TNC model are regulatory issues and insurance gaps. And you do think insurance companies and regulatory agencies give a flying phuque what the public wants or desires?


Is this referring to possible future price increases by UBER to cover regulatory laws to stay in business? or that driverless cars will eventually take over?


----------



## Lou W (Oct 26, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> The SEC is fire. And Uber is gasoline. Countdown to when they meet: 10, 9, 8.....


Yeah the SEC has some great track record bringing white collar criminals like Travis to justice.....NOT!


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

ATX said:


> Is this referring to future price increases by UBER to cover regulatory laws to stay in business? or that driverless cars will eventually take over?


Yes.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Lou W said:


> Yeah the SEC has some great track record bringing white collar criminals like Travis to justice.....NOT!


Unless Travis is in the "Too Big To Jail" banker CEO crowd, the SEC will be all over his IPO.


----------



## PT Go (Sep 23, 2014)

ATX said:


> Is this referring to possible future price increases by UBER to cover regulatory laws to stay in business? or that driverless cars will eventually take over?


I'm waiting for the other insurance shoe to drop. This is the big 'maybe' in the scheme of things. Safety has been the biggest topic for most of the cities that are trying to deal with this new concept of 'ridesharing' Yup, we is a taxi. like it or not. Uber will find (or use) someone like James River, that will offer....wait for this...a discount on commercial insurance. It would be offered as one of our rewards. Do you think Uber would get a kickback or offer a discounted rate paid out of our earnings just like they do with car payments. If you don't believe that, I have some timeshares to sell you in a canyon somewhere in Arizona. (OK, I'm done now.....)


----------



## PT Go (Sep 23, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> Unless Travis is in the "Too Big To Jail" banker CEO crowd, the SEC will be all over his IPO.


All I can say is ..."Goldman Sachs' Didn't they underwrite Facebook? Correct me if I'm wrong....but that was an initial disaster....


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

PT Go said:


> I'm waiting for the other insurance shoe to drop. This is the big 'maybe' in the scheme of things. Safety has been the biggest topic for most of the cities that are trying to deal with this new concept of 'ridesharing' Yup, we is a taxi. like it or not. Uber will find (or use) someone like James River, that will offer....wait for this...a discount on commercial insurance. It would be offered as one of our rewards. Do you think Uber would get a kickback or offer a discounted rate paid out of our earnings just like they do with car payments. If you don't believe that, I have some timeshares to sell you in a canyon somewhere in Arizona. (OK, I'm done now.....)


I was just at that canyon in AZ yesterday. You make an excellent point. Until or unless Uber and the insurance industry figure out this insurance problem, the TNC model will be gone in 18 to 24 months according to legal experts.


----------



## PT Go (Sep 23, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> A company that ignores any and all laws.
> 
> vs.
> 
> ...


I'll have some popcorn and a soda with that......and in HD.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

PT Go said:


> All I can say is ..."Goldman Sachs' Didn't they underwrite Facebook? Correct me if I'm wrong....but that was an initial disaster....


No correction necessary. Yes, the Facebook IPO was a total clusterphuque. You are correct.


----------



## ATX (Dec 25, 2014)

@PT Go

You are absolutely right. Uber is essentially a smarter taxi service that leveraged a quickly emerging and powerful technologies, smartphones, to more efficiently connect people who need rides, to people providing rides. This is the logical next evolution in taxi services, and it will take time to balance things out. Uber has only been around for a relatively short period of time. Eventually taxis will catch up to the innovations ride sharing companies have made. We all have access to the same powerful technologies. But, if Uber manages to legally find a way to operate at a much lower cost than taxis safely, then economics will take its course, and old taxi business structures will die, or become more like the successful model.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

ATX said:


> @PT Go
> 
> You are absolutely right. Uber is essentially a smarter taxi service that leveraged a quickly emerging and powerful technologies, smartphones, to more efficiently connect people who need rides, to people providing rides. This is the logical next evolution in taxi services, and it will take time to balance things out. Uber has only been around for a relatively short period of time. Eventually taxis will catch up to the innovations ride sharing companies have made. We all have access to the same powerful technologies. But, if Uber manages to legally find a way to operate at a much lower cost than taxis safely, then economics will take its course, and old taxi business structures will die, or become more like the successful model.


Excellent comment. But again, until or unless the TNC model successfully navigates the current regulatory and liability issues, the model will likely be short-lived, even though it is very socially responsible approach.


----------



## PT Go (Sep 23, 2014)

I'm going to use a strange analogy here...We have seen a tremendous drop in gas prices due to the increase of US production in oil shale. I worked in the oil industry for a number of years and so much of the problem is the decline in the quality of the infrastructure, especially in the Middle East . The oil refineries built years ago are suffering and now new tech in the US has given a new slant to production.
I think the taxi industry will take too long to come up to speed due to old school thinking and that Uber, Lyft, etc. will just go away. They won't, not without a fight and lots of money behind them. Do you think Travis lost in Las Vegas..No, it was just the loss of a battle that's not over yet. I don't want to sound condescending, but many of my paxs are unhappy with the multitude of taxi drivers that are not 'customer service' oriented (and other things). So the entire taxi cartel has to change face and present themselves in a much more positive manner. Not going to happen overnight and that's why Uber and et al are taking over.
Back to my analogy, OPEC is fighting with price and cannot withstand the competition without hurting themselves. Consumers win at this point. The taxi cartels are fighting with regulations that need to be changed and will try to keep their price up without stepping up to new standards. (OK, I'm done again.....)


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

Lou W said:


> Yeah the SEC has some great track record bringing white collar criminals like Travis to justice.....NOT!


Truth of the matter is, there is no justice for white collar criminals.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

PT Go said:


> I'm going to use a strange analogy here...We have seen a tremendous drop in gas prices due to the increase of US production in oil shale. I worked in the oil industry for a number of years and so much of the problem is the decline in the quality of the infrastructure, especially in the Middle East . The oil refineries built years ago are suffering and now new tech in the US has given a new slant to production.
> I think the taxi industry will take too long to come up to speed due to old school thinking and that Uber, Lyft, etc. will just go away. They won't, not without a fight and lots of money behind them. Do you think Travis lost in Las Vegas..No, it was just the loss of a battle that's not over yet. I don't want to sound condescending, but many of my paxs are unhappy with the multitude of taxi drivers that are not 'customer service' oriented (and other things). So the entire taxi cartel has to change face and present themselves in a much more positive manner. Not going to happen overnight and that's why Uber and et al are taking over.
> Back to my analogy, OPEC is fighting with price and cannot withstand the competition without hurting themselves. Consumers win at this point. The taxi cartels are fighting with regulations that need to be changed and will try to keep their price up without stepping up to new standards. (OK, I'm done again.....)


But sooner or later, regulatory agencies are going to conclude that TNCs are merely taxi companies. We all know that's what's going to happen.


----------



## JaxBeachDriver (Nov 27, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> That's actually an excellent idea, and at first blush it seems entirely feasible...maybe even likely.


Are all those taxis 2005 or newer? Are they clean and do they smell nice? Are they going to get fired if they get low ratings?


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

JaxBeachDriver said:


> Are all those taxis 2005 or newer? Are they clean and do they smell nice? Are they going to get fired if they get low ratings?


Interesting questions, all, but superfluous to the looming regulatory battle.


----------



## JaxBeachDriver (Nov 27, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> Interesting questions, all, but superfluous to the looming regulatory battle.


Franky, I think this shit will drag on far beyond 24 months. Too many big money investors pouring money into it.


----------



## PT Go (Sep 23, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> But sooner or later, regulatory agencies are going to conclude that TNCs are merely taxi companies. We all know that's what's going to happen.


Agreed..As I said earlier...Yup, we is taxis. The CPUC in their November meeting, more or less concluded that changes both ways have to come about. Uber will be more regulated or will not be allowed to operate. This has been my argument in airport regulations. Many drivers are not just bending the rules, but violating them which in turn, adds more fuel to the fire that Uber is just ignoring regs and just concluding that, as independent contractors, we need to know better.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

ATX said:


> @PT Go
> 
> You are absolutely right. Uber is essentially a smarter taxi service that leveraged a quickly emerging and powerful technologies, smartphones, to more efficiently connect people who need rides, to people providing rides. This is the logical next evolution in taxi services, and it will take time to balance things out. Uber has only been around for a relatively short period of time. Eventually taxis will catch up to the innovations ride sharing companies have made. We all have access to the same powerful technologies. But, if Uber manages to legally find a way to operate at a much lower cost than taxis safely, then economics will take its course, and old taxi business structures will die, or become more like the successful model.


There is nothing smart about breaking the law. It all boils down to one thing.

*Uber is JUST an app.
*
It can and is being replaced as we write.


----------



## PT Go (Sep 23, 2014)

JaxBeachDriver said:


> Franky, I think this shit will drag on far beyond 24 months. Too many big money investors pouring money into it.


This has ramped up quickly and could implode very easily. As I stated earlier, if this goes IPO or even before, with the SEC and a board of directors involved, investors will demand that changes be made to protect what they've put into this. The California PUC has already began proposing changes that will effect how TNC's will survive and that's coming sooner or later. I'm sure every jurisdiction has their ear to the ground on what is happening elsewhere to help determine what direction they want to take to either come up to speed on changing regulations to protect their own pocketbooks.


----------



## DjTim (Oct 18, 2014)

PT Go said:


> Keep in mind that with an IPO comes SEC jurisdiction, board of directors and shareholders. Could change the entire course of the company. Happened to a company my wife worked for during the dotcom craziness. Had a decent business model, but top heavy in Directors and VP's of this and that and lost their bearings. Stock was deactivated within 8 months. What my wife originally had as part of the core start up group in stock options was going to be worth millions. Cashed out with $25,000 when another company absorbed them. Waahh!


And this is why most people cash out right when a company goes IPO. Sometimes there are time limits on when you can sell, but if there isn't, as an employee I'm banking that cash asap.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

centralFLFuber said:


> I think fluber needs to stop trying to play taxicab company too many issues with regulations, licensing, insurance Lack Of, etc....
> 
> they should just rent/sell their app software to other legal companies to use..
> 
> just imho


DjTim and Central Flfuber have it right I think. They could and should drop the operations side. But that circles them back around to exactly where they started: as a booking service for commercial drivers.

They could run a nice multi-million dollar company by just offering the software system to licensed taxis and limousines. Problem is, the investors like the shifty billion dollar company they are now.

UBER should focus in being software only company. Make bullet proof, ubiquitous systems that can't be easily mimicked. Make their system and policies very attractive to drivers. Sell the network to drivers on a subscription basis. This would separate them from all the operation problems.

But at this point, it's all become too stupid and greedy. The investors don't want something smart and sensible. They want giant sized returns.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

JaxBeachDriver said:


> Franky, I think this shit will drag on far beyond 24 months. Too many big money investors pouring money into it.


Yeah, that's a POV, too.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

observer said:


> There is nothing smart about breaking the law. It all boils down to one thing.
> 
> *Uber is JUST an app.
> *
> It can and is being replaced as we write.


That argument is losing traction daily. Uber is a transportation company. Know that.


----------



## ATX (Dec 25, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> Excellent comment. But again, until or unless the TNC model successfully navigates the current regulatory and liability issues, the model will likely be short-lived, even though it is very socially responsible approach.


If Uber is left with the choice of shutting down, or making things work, I'm sure they will choose to keep things rolling. It will probably end in higher rates to riders to cover the additional expenses. The uber model will win over old taxi structure


----------



## PT Go (Sep 23, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> That argument is losing traction daily. Uber is a transportation company. Know that.


I would agree. Uber is a 'ride matching for hire' company that provides technology in dispatching drivers closest to them to pick up riders.


----------



## gman (Jul 28, 2014)

ATX said:


> If Uber is left with the choice of shutting down, or making things work, I'm sure they will choose to keep things rolling. It will probably end in higher rates to riders to cover the additional expenses. The uber model will win over old taxi structure


I agree. I don't understand why they just don't raise the rates by whatever percentage needed to cover full primary commercial insurance whenever the app is on. That would solve all their regulatory issues in these various cities. Customers would gladly pay more to use Uber, just raise the rates by 25% or whatever it takes.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

ATX said:


> If Uber is left with the choice of shutting down, or making things work, I'm sure they will choose to keep things rolling. It will probably end in higher rates to riders to cover the additional expenses. The uber model will win over old taxi structure


Yup.


----------



## PT Go (Sep 23, 2014)

ATX said:


> If Uber is left with the choice of shutting down, or making things work, I'm sure they will choose to keep things rolling. It will probably end in higher rates to riders to cover the additional expenses. The uber model will win over old taxi structure


This would be the ideal situation along with providing adequate insurance protection. I tend to believe rates were lowered initially to 'buy and build' customer loyalty. They could raise rates 25% and still be lower than taxis.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

PT Go said:


> I would agree. Uber is a 'ride matching for hire' company that provides technology in dispatching drivers closest to them to pick up riders.


Yeah. We all know Uber is a taxi company. Even Uber knows Uber is a taxi company.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

ATX said:


> If Uber is left with the choice of shutting down, or making things work, I'm sure they will choose to keep things rolling. It will probably end in higher rates to riders to cover the additional expenses. The uber model will win over old taxi structure


Never underestimate the economics of cheap. Customers say they want quality, but mostly they want cheap.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

gman said:


> I agree. I don't understand why they just don't raise the rates by whatever percentage needed to cover full primary commercial insurance whenever the app is on. That would solve all their regulatory issues in these various cities. Customers would gladly pay more to use Uber, just raise the rates by 25% or whatever it takes.


That doesn't solve ALL the regulatory issues, but it would be a great start, we will agree.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> That argument is losing traction daily. Uber is a transportation company. Know that.





PT Go said:


> I would agree. Uber is a 'ride matching for hire' company that provides technology in dispatching drivers closest to them to pick up riders.


I don't know if you've noticed, but technology is outdated and replaced very rapidly. You reinforce my point that it is JUST an app.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

stuber said:


> Never underestimate the economics of cheap. Customers say they want quality, but mostly they want cheap.


So true. Just ask the throngs of trash that shop at Wal-Mart.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

observer said:


> I don't know if you've noticed, but technology is outdated and replaced very rapidly. You reinforce my point that it is JUST an app.


Oh, but we're operating in the reality-based world.


----------



## pako garcia (Oct 30, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> But sooner or later, regulatory agencies are going to conclude that TNCs are merely taxi companies. We all know that's what's going to happen.


Exactly
At the end we are only simple cab drivers doing the same function and charging a lot less that the real taxis
This is like when you hire a old ***** for 80 dlls and sudently appears a beautiful young ***** doing the same service with a lot more enthusiasm but for 27 dlls a third than the old one


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

pako garcia said:


> Exactly
> At the end we are only simple cab drivers doing the same function and charging a lot less that the real taxis
> This is like when you hire a old ***** for 80 dlls and sudently appears a beautiful young ***** doing the same service with a lot more enthusiasm but for 27 dlls a third than the old one


Now we're curious, where are you finding prostitutes for those prices?


----------



## pako garcia (Oct 30, 2014)

gman said:


> I agree. I don't understand why they just don't raise the rates by whatever percentage needed to cover full primary commercial insurance whenever the app is on. That would solve all their regulatory issues in these various cities. Customers would gladly pay more to use Uber, just raise the rates by 25% or whatever it takes.





Desert Driver said:


> Now we're curious, where are you finding prostitutes for those prices?


in the same environment where you find uber drivers


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

pako garcia said:


> Exactly
> At the end we are only simple cab drivers doing the same function and charging a lot less that the real taxis
> This is like when you hire a old ***** for 80 dlls and sudently appears a beautiful young ***** doing the same service with a lot more enthusiasm but for 27 dlls a third than the old one


Yea but the young ***** in this case doesn't care about following rules gets venereal diseases, infects everyone, doesn't care and eventually rots away....


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

pako garcia said:


> in the same environment where you find uber drivers


Oh, well I live in Scottsdale, so I'm pretty far outside that wheelhouse.


----------



## pako garcia (Oct 30, 2014)

observer said:


> Yea but the young ***** in this case doesn't care about following rules gets venereal diseases, infects everyone, doesn't care and eventually rots away....


Exactly
You got the idea that i try to spress with my poor english


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

pako garcia said:


> Exactly
> You got the idea that i try to spress with my poor english


Something tells me you know how to spress your English very well...


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

pako garcia said:


> Exactly
> You got the idea that i try to spress with my poor english


"Luuuucy, you've got some splainin' to do."


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

pako garcia said:


> Exactly
> At the end we are only simple cab drivers doing the same function and charging a lot less that the real taxis
> This is like when you hire a old ***** for 80 dlls and sudently appears a beautiful young ***** doing the same service with a lot more enthusiasm but for 27 dlls a third than the old one


Very icky analogy.


----------



## pako garcia (Oct 30, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> "Luuuucy, you've got some splainin' to do."


Lol


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA (Aug 21, 2014)

The 800 lb. Gorilla is the employee vs. IC issue. 

I foresee all these other issues getting worked out and the laws changed.

However, I doubt the governemnt will add a third class of workers to make Uber viable.


----------



## pako garcia (Oct 30, 2014)

observer said:


> Something tells me you know how to spress your English very well...


Actually you complement my analogy
Lol


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Dream with me.

Let's say UBER has 100k drivers in 250 cities around the world. 400 drivers per city.

Each driver pays UBER $100/month for a subscription to their network. If a driver earns $500/mo from UBER, then the driver is paying out a 20% commission. Pretty reasonable. If a driver earns more from UBER work, then some alternative subscription pricing could apply. Maybe they cap commission at 20%. Maybe less. Leave that scenario aside for now. 100 thousand drivers x $100/mo = $120,000,000/year for UBER. Not bad for a start.

Now suppose UBER is committed to managing the number of drivers in each market such that each driver can average $10,000/mo in billing (we're dreaming remember) Actually, that would be possible in my market if there were only 400 drivers. Instead there's several thousand from what I can surmise. But anyway, UBER takes 20% or $2000.00. So my net is $8000/mo after commission. Less taxes and expenses.

Now further suppose, UBER lets me price my service according to local competition. There's no surge, unless I set my prices higher at any given time. This is similar to how SideCar works.

Now the customer picks the driver from nearby drivers. This customer may accept my price or not, according to their own wants and needs. Great.

UBER still manages the payment processing. I'm paying them a commission after all. They can provide that. That and the network and marketing.

100,000 drivers doing this would generate $200 million. Per month.

Seems like this would be a good business model, yet UBER wants more. With this approach they could avoid all the trouble, skip the IPO scrutiny, and have a good profitable business.

What's wrong here?


----------



## pako garcia (Oct 30, 2014)

stuber said:


> Dream with me.
> 
> Let's say UBER has 100k drivers in 250 cities around the world. 400 drivers per city.
> 
> ...


Nothing is wrong 
People is willing to do like that without being forced


----------



## Lou W (Oct 26, 2014)

stuber said:


> Dream with me.
> 
> Let's say UBER has 100k drivers in 250 cities around the world. 400 drivers per city.
> 
> ...


Sounds like medallions to me.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> You make an excellent point. Given the regulatory, liability, and legal uncertainties, Uber is no closer to IPO than it was in 1972. IPOs are developed almost exclusively for institutional investors. Can you think of even ONE institutional investor who'd give anything more than a passing glance at a company shrouded in so much uncertainty?


Google....


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> The SEC is fire. And Uber is gasoline. Countdown to when they meet: 10, 9, 8.....


The SEC doesn't do shit anymore unless they absolutely have to....


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> Exactly! Among people who understand and who've been through IPOs, Uber has the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of doing an IPO with its current model. Yes, it's a very socially-conscious model, for sure, but it's not IPO material. There's just far too much legal and regulatory uncertainty to support an IPO.


They are still raising a lot of money from VC companies and Google is kicking in its share. If they do an IPO, I'm guessing the current management will be replaced or at least be pushed into the background and a strong board of directors will be picked. Facebook had tons of problems when it went public and the IPO was successful but not at the price it wanted. I do agree that the huge legal/regulatory hurdles Uber faces are different and will likely need to be settled for it to be a viable investment. Lets hope they resolve them sooner rather than later for all of us.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

DjTim said:


> It depends on how they IPO. They could potentially split out their tech from their operations side. It would be like Google splitting their search engine/advertising division from their data center / android /hardware stuff. A better example is IBM, but this is after they were incorporated by 100 years. IBM sold off all it's hardware stuff (Servers, desktops, laptops) and now just does software & consulting.
> 
> In this scenario, the operations side only has liability in regulations and whatever. The software side would have no limitations or regulations.
> 
> Just some food for thought...


I'm not a technology guru but how much value of the overall company is attributed to the software side? Lyft and Sidecar have similar applications. I don't necessarily find Uber's software far superior to Lyft's (and allegedly Lyft is improving their's). The taxi companies are also starting to develop their own apps as well. I do think there is a lot of value in the Uber trademark (despite the negative press) and the operations side/infrastructure .


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> Uber has one lined up already, Goldman Sachs, just in case Uber does indeed opt to go public.
> 
> That said, Uber IPO is highly unlikely in 2015.


 It will be interesting. No doubt there will be a lot of activity and changes in 2015 to get ready for one....


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> Like I said, gotta be a helluva shady fiduciary. Personally, I trust GS about as far as I can throw a piano.


You got that right! They are likely the only party that benefited from the subprime debt disaster and helped orchestrate it.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> A company that ignores any and all laws.
> 
> vs.
> 
> ...


Which agency is that? Interesting statement since none of the Wall Street bankers who committed the fraud resulting in our subprime debt disaster and the recession/depression were prosecuted. Whether they prosecute anyone for anything really depends on who they are and the political landscape.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> That's actually an excellent idea, and at first blush it seems entirely feasible...maybe even likely.


I heard NYC cabs are using it. Any New York cabs/taxis want to way in as to whether this is true?


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> Given the legal, regulatory, and insurance issues, how long does the rideshare model have left in this country?


I wish I knew....


----------



## DJ8mup (Oct 16, 2014)

Might there be another 800 pound gorilla in the room? For those of you who finance your vehicles, have you read the fine print? Some contracts don't allow ride sharing. ie Toyota Motor Credit. For those who own your vehicles, no problem. As for those who finance, insurance might not be the only setback. An IPO offering now seems a bit premature.


----------



## Lou W (Oct 26, 2014)

*Coming in 2015: Uber and Airbnb IPOs?*

*http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/29/investing/ipo-outlook-2015-uber/*


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> While what you say is theoretically valid, what is poised to kill the TNC model are regulatory issues and insurance gaps. And you do think insurance companies and regulatory agencies give a flying phuque what the public wants or desires?


That's the most original spelling of the magic word yet! How would you spell the verb?


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

stuber said:


> DjTim and Central Flfuber have it right I think. They could and should drop the operations side. But that circles them back around to exactly where they started: as a booking service for commercial drivers.
> 
> They could run a nice multi-million dollar company by just offering the software system to licensed taxis and limousines. Problem is, the investors like the shifty billion dollar company they are now.
> 
> ...


As a dispatch App there is still a lot of development that we all know can improve its performance. This latent upside may be attractive to "real" Taxi operators who are still pushing antiquated two-way systems and wanting to leap into the new age of smartphones that offers hugely reduced equipment capital cost.

There are many Taxi associations that meet every year at a annual international conference. If each member group put in 10% of their capital they could buy Uber easily with leftover change. The cost would be clawed back with the eventual savings made on the handing back of costly radio frequency licenses and scrapping of all the old two-dispatch equipment and MDTs.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Gemgirlla said:


> Which agency is that? Interesting statement since none of the Wall Street bankers who committed the fraud resulting in our subprime debt disaster and the recession/depression were prosecuted. Whether they prosecute anyone for anything really depends on who they are and the political landscape.


It's ridiculous to compare the CEO of Uber to the CEO of Wall Street banks.

I'm not saying it's right that the CEOs of Wall Street banks get away with crimes, but if the government began putting executives of Wall Street banks in jail, those banks would start experiencing bank runs, and our country's entire economic system would collapse. As dumb as that it, it's the current situation. "Too big to fail" results in "too big to jail".

Travis being sent to jail wouldn't cause anything in our economy to crash. In fact, if Uber collapsed, most drivers would go out an get a job that's actually earning them wealth, instead of just converting the value of their car into dollars for them to live off of, like Uber is doing to them at these ridiculously low rates without them realizing it. That would actually improve the economy.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Sydney Uber said:


> As a dispatch App there is still a lot of development that we all know can improve its performance. This latent upside may be attractive to "real" Taxi operators who are still pushing antiquated two-way systems and wanting to leap into the new age of smartphones that offers hugely reduced equipment capital cost.
> 
> There are many Taxi associations that meet every year at a annual international conference. If each member group put in 10% of their capital they could buy Uber easily with leftover change. The cost would be clawed back with the eventual savings made on the handing back of costly radio frequency licenses and scrapping of all the old two-dispatch equipment and MDTs.


Uber is just an app. They have been able to attract money. There are other apps now (always have been). New companies will certainly develop better apps and atract money.

Those radio frequency licenses are valuable. Twelve years ago, the company I worked for sold theirs for 1 million dollars.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Gemgirlla said:


> I'm not a technology guru but how much value of the overall company is attributed to the software side? Lyft and Sidecar have similar applications. I don't necessarily find Uber's software far superior to Lyft's (and allegedly Lyft is improving their's). The taxi companies are also starting to develop their own apps as well. I do think there is a lot of value in the Uber trademark (despite the negative press) and the operations side/infrastructure .


Very little of the value of the company is attributed to the software. It's the number of users that gives Uber it's financial value. There's more technology in dating services than there is in matching a rider with a driver.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

observer said:


> Uber is just an app. They have been able to attract money. There are other apps now (always have been). New companies will certainly develop better apps and atract money.
> 
> Those radio frequency licenses are valuable. Twelve years ago, the company I worked for sold theirs for 1 million dollars.


You keep saying Uber is just an app. You're deeply buying into the propaganda.Uber appreciates your POV.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

DJ8mup said:


> Might there be another 800 pound gorilla in the room? For those of you who finance your vehicles, have you read the fine print? Some contracts don't allow ride sharing. ie Toyota Motor Credit. For those who own your vehicles, no problem. As for those who finance, insurance might not be the only setback. An IPO offering now seems a bit premature.


Uber is no closer to an IPO than it was in 1972. There far too many legal, regulatory, and liability issues to even consider an IPO. See, IPOs are developed for institutional investors, who are a very conservative group that won't touch Uber with a ten foot dick.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

Lou W said:


> *Coming in 2015: Uber and Airbnb IPOs?*
> 
> *http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/29/investing/ipo-outlook-2015-uber/*


But truthfully, an Uber IPO in 2015 will make the Facebook cluster**** look like a success in comparison.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

Gemgirlla said:


> I wish I knew....


Legal experts are saying 12 to 24 minths.


----------



## rjenkins (Nov 30, 2014)

stuber said:


> I think an IPO is actually going to be difficult for UBER. There's a lot of problems. A lot of problems. The customer base is not loyal to the brand particularly. They will abandon UBER as soon as something better or even cheaper comes along. The drivers have no loyalty either. Drivers are dissatisfied and will go elsewhere as soon as the opportunity arises. Lastly, the regulatory and legal problems, potential tax problems, bad PR, etc, are massive. UBER has poor management and little in the way of good corporate governance.
> UBER is a mess that could collapse very quickly. An IPO is very dicey


Maybe Uber will offer shares in lieu of invoice dollars as an option to drivers to instill loyalty? 

Uber's "loyalty" from customers is based largely on their killer app (which, despite glitches, continues to amaze me), and being cheap and available. Also, don't discount the value of a name. "UBER" is well on its way to being entrenched in vernacular through common usage. I don't see people using "Lyft" or "Sidecar" as verbs, much. The cheap prices are at the expense of the drivers, where Uber has completely disregarded the value of loyalty. I believe this is a mistake, as the churning process (continually recruiting new drivers as veterans become dissatisfied and drop out) keeps the service from getting better. No matter what they do to make the app better, it is still not going to do the driving or engage with the customers.

Will Uber last in the long run? I think the name will, but the back end could change dramatically. It could merge with competitors. It could be absorbed by a player yet to appear (perhaps keeping the name). It will be interesting to watch. It's hard for the first company to be the last one standing in any new technology. Just look at the evolution of web searching. Google didn't exist in the early days. They came along after the likes of Webcrawler, Lycos, Alta Vista, et al had paved a way, and then they did it all way better. They created a word, too, as "google" is thoroughly entrenched in the English language (and probably many other languages) now.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

Sydney Uber said:


> That's the most original spelling of the magic word yet! How would you spell the verb?


phuque


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Lou W said:


> Sounds like medallions to me.


Quotas, medallions,whatever you want to call it. Simple supply and demand. There's a finite number of customers. If you want a system that works for full-time, professional drivers, then you have to control the supply of drivers. If you want a system that works for part-timers, then sure, flood the markets with as many cars as possible. It's one or the other really.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

stuber said:


> Quotas, medallions,whatever you want to call it. Simple supply and demand. There's a finite number of customers. If you want a system that works for full-time, professional drivers, then you have to control the supply of drivers. If you want a system that works for part-timers, then sure, flood the markets with as many cars as possible. It's one or the other really.


Correct. The only way the current model works is if a driver is looking for a little extra cash AND drives an econobox that costs far less that 56 cents per mile to operate. My whip runs just a little over 26 cents per mile to operate, so I make money before I ever begin a trip.


----------



## Lou W (Oct 26, 2014)

stuber said:


> Quotas, medallions,whatever you want to call it. Simple supply and demand. There's a finite number of customers. If you want a system that works for full-time, professional drivers, then you have to control the supply of drivers. If you want a system that works for part-timers, then sure, flood the markets with as many cars as possible. It's one or the other really.


Well once they limit the number of drivers some smart guy or gal in each market will figure out a way buy up all the permits and place themselves between the uber and the drivers. Which means the present bad situation will get worse for the lowly driver, professional or otherwise.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> Correct. The only way the current model works is if a driver is looking for a little extra cash AND drives an econobox that costs far less that 56 cents per mile to operate. My whip runs just a little over 26 cents per mile to operate, so I make money before I ever begin a trip.


...and this why most full-time pro drivers have dropped out of the system. We can't run at 26 cents.


----------



## UberXtraordinary (Dec 13, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> Given the legal, regulatory, and insurance issues, how long does the rideshare model have left in this country?


"$1.00 Drew" My vote would have been "indefinitely". Über is a tech company. Whether or not they continue with ride-share remains to be seen, but über will continue. They will eventually do much more than ride-share, and they already are. One day we drivers will be replaced by drones.

The most important innovation of über is not "ride-share", but rather the "Internet of things" marketplace they are creating, as I see things.


----------



## TeleSki (Dec 4, 2014)

I think their biggest problem is the insurance issue (well, that and the decreasing profit margin for drivers). There is one company already underwriting hybrid commercial/individual policies in 2 states for TNC drivers. The public seems to like the TNCs and most of the drivers like it, too. I think after a year or two, we will reach some sort of equilibrium where supply and demand will even out. Whether it will be at a point to make it a legitimate full-time job, I don't know. I think those that want it full-time will have to work more under the Black model, and X drivers will be more part-time/second job type drivers.


----------



## ElectroFuzz (Jun 10, 2014)

observer said:


> Uber is just an app. They have been able to attract money. There are other apps now (always have been). New companies will certainly develop better apps and atract money.


Uber is a little more then "just another app"
There are some very powerful people who put
billions behind the Uber idea and they don't want to loose those billions.
They want to multiply them.
To achieve this they will do whatever it takes, politicians are no obstacle for them.
They can "bend them" at least temporarily until they achieve their goal.

Once they cash in(IPO) the huge changes will come.
Could be the end of Uber or a completely different Uber.
Whatever it is... these powerful people could care less, by then those billions will be cashed in
and invested in something else....


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> Legal experts are saying 12 to 24 minths.


Did you see this is an article? If so can you please post the link? I would love to read it.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

ElectroFuzz said:


> Uber is a little more then "just another app"
> There are some very powerful people who put
> billions behind the Uber idea and they don't want to loose those billions.
> They want to multiply them.
> ...


Totally agree!


----------



## DjTim (Oct 18, 2014)

Gemgirlla said:


> I'm not a technology guru but how much value of the overall company is attributed to the software side? Lyft and Sidecar have similar applications. I don't necessarily find Uber's software far superior to Lyft's (and allegedly Lyft is improving their's). The taxi companies are also starting to develop their own apps as well. I do think there is a lot of value in the Uber trademark (despite the negative press) and the operations side/infrastructure .


For software, the value is normally derived from the IP value. If you can patent that software, that's worth x dollars. The IP is generally what you don't see. You can really deliver a user interface, but it's what runs under that UI that's worth the money.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> But truthfully, an Uber IPO in 2015 will make the Facebook cluster**** look like a success in comparison.


Lol. I think you may be right.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

DjTim said:


> For software, the value is normally derived from the IP value. If you can patent that software, that's worth x dollars. The IP is generally what you don't see. You can really deliver a user interface, but it's what runs under that UI that's worth the money.


Do they have a patent now? Again they already have competing companies with similar apps aa good as theirs. I don't see the value in the app as a stand alone. I think the value is in the soft IP, the trademark/tradename.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

Gemgirlla said:


> Lol. I think you may be right.


Oh yeah. With all the regulatory and liability uncertainty...you kiddin' me? An IPO in this environment would be a total clusterphuque.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

DjTim said:


> For software, the value is normally derived from the IP value. If you can patent that software, that's worth x dollars. The IP is generally what you don't see. You can really deliver a user interface, *but it's what runs under that UI that's worth the money*.


A lot of what is under Uber's UI is Google's IP. It's the Googlemaps SDK that allowed Uber to get the location services their IP needs to function. Lyft just did the same, showing Uber's IP is not so far advanced that another company can't duplicate it relatively quickly. Google could decide to "pick a winner" so to speak, by making it easy for one TNC to use the SDK and harder for others, and given it's an Uber investor, we know it would pick Uber. But doing so would put Google in an antitrust situation that would make what Microsoft went through look like childs play. Google is going to continue to be switzerland, which means the value of Uber is NOT it's IP, but instead the amount of users it currently has.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

Gemgirlla said:


> Did you see this is an article? If so can you please post the link? I would love to read it.


Yeah, just google it. You'll find the refs.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> Oh yeah. With all the regulatory and liability uncertainty...you kiddin' me? An IPO in this environment would be a total clusterphuque.


I certainly wouldn't invest. Ok well maybe I would invest a small amount that I don't care about losing. Like playing craps in Vegas


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> A lot of what is under Uber's UI is Google's IP. It's the Googlemaps SDK that allowed Uber to get the location services their IP needs to function. Lyft just did the same, showing Uber's IP is not so far advanced that another company can't duplicate it relatively quickly. Google could decide to "pick a winner" so to speak, by making it easy for one TNC to use the SDK and harder for others, and given it's an Uber investor, we know it would pick Uber. But doing so would put Google in an antitrust situation that would make what Microsoft went through look like childs play. Google is going to continue to be switzerland, which means the value of Uber is NOT it's IP, but instead the amount of users it currently has.


Totally agree. But what about Apple maps, Waze and other navigation apps that are developed ? Driver Apps don't have to use google maps. How do you think this fugues into the equation?


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

Gemgirlla said:


> I certainly wouldn't invest. Ok well maybe I would invest a small amount that I don't care about losing. Like playing craps in Vegas


But see, IPOs are not developed for individual investors like Gemgirlla and Desert Driver. IPOs are developed for institutional investors who buy shares in huge blocks. And institutional investors are a very conservative lot. As such, given the vast legal and regulatory uncertainty that Uber currently faces, virtually no institutional investors would take a serious look at Uber. That's just basic info from any 300-level undergrad Finance class.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> phuque


Lol.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Gemgirlla said:


> Totally agree. But what about Apple maps, Waze and other navigation apps that are developed ? Driver Apps don't have to use google maps. How do you think this fugues into the equation?


I think Uber couldn't care less what navigation software the driver uses. Uber isn't in the navigation software business. Navigating is the driver's job, not Uber's.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> I think Uber couldn't care less what navigation software the driver uses. Uber isn't in the navigation software business. Navigating is the driver's job, not Uber's.


True, to the extent that the Uber app must API to some sort of nav sw.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> True, to the extent that the Uber app must API to some sort of nav sw.


On my Android this is already seamless. In the Uber driver app settings I set it to either use Google Maps and Waze. When I hit navigate to the pickup or destination in the Uber driver app, it seamlessly sends that info to Google Maps or Waze, and I'm off.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> On my Android this is already seamless. In the Uber driver app settings I set it to either use Google Maps and Waze. When I hit navigate to the pickup or destination in the Uber driver app, it seamlessly sends that info to Google Maps or Waze, and I'm off.


Understood, but the Uber app has the API for Google Maps and Waze. If I decide to build my own nav web app, it won't work with Uber until Uber decides to implement the API for Desert Driver's Super Groovy Nav System.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Gemgirlla said:


> Totally agree. But what about Apple maps, Waze and other navigation apps that are developed ? Driver Apps don't have to use google maps. How do you think this fugues into the equation?


 glad to know the android phones can use Waze. Personally I hate the navigation used by the IPhone. I was under the impression it is Apple maps.


----------



## rjenkins (Nov 30, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> On my Android this is already seamless. In the Uber driver app settings I set it to either use Google Maps and Waze. When I hit navigate to the pickup or destination in the Uber driver app, it seamlessly sends that info to Google Maps or Waze, and I'm off.


Holy crap..you can do that with Android?? That's cool. That's exactly the sort of functionality I was hoping existed. I prefer other apps to the built-in Uber nav, if only because I'm more in tune with their cadence, but also because I think they're smarter about the routing.

Hopefully, they can enhance the iPhone app to include this. Basically, with the iPhone app, we HAVE NO settings that I've been able to find.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> Understood, but the Uber app has the API for Google Maps and Waze. If I decide to build my own nav web app, it won't work with Uber until Uber decides to implement the API for Desert Driver's Super Groovy Nav System.


The driver could just type the address manually into Desert Driver's Super Groovy Nav System.

Until it becomes popular, Uber would be wasting coding resources creating API's for little used navigation tools. This is true for Lyft, Sidecar, and other competitors too. None of them make money being in the navigation business.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> The driver could just type the address manually into Desert Driver's Super Groovy Nav System.
> 
> Until it becomes popular, Uber would be wasting coding resources creating API's for little used navigation tools. This is true for Lyft, Sidecar, and other competitors too. None of them make money being in the navigation business.


You made my point perfectly. Thank you.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

rjenkins said:


> Holy crap..you can do that with Android?? That's cool. That's exactly the sort of functionality I was hoping existed. I prefer other apps to the built-in Uber nav, if only because I'm more in tune with their cadence, but also because I think they're smarter about the routing.
> 
> Hopefully, they can enhance the iPhone app to include this. Basically, with the iPhone app, we HAVE NO settings that I've been able to find.


But keep in mind that the beauty and elegance of the iPhone platform is limited choices.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> You made my point perfectly. Thank you.


I understand. My point being how little Uber cares about driver navigation. The two APIs on Android and ZERO APIs on iOS is the entire extent of how much Uber cares about driver navigation. If you make the next great navigation app, how long it takes them to make an API for it is reflection of how much they care (or how little depending on your point of view).

What they DO care about is billing the route you take, and their code that does that is based on Googlemaps SDK. So is Lyft's, and the other competitors.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> I understand. My point being how little Uber cares about driver navigation. The two APIs on Android and ZERO APIs on iOS is the entire extent of how much Uber cares about driver navigation. If you make the next great navigation app, how long it takes them to make an API for it is reflection of how much they care (or how little depending on your point of view).
> 
> What they DO care about is billing the route you take, and their code that does that is based on Googlemaps SDK. So is Lyft's, and the other competitors.


That's a very salient point.


----------



## Worcester Sauce (Aug 20, 2014)

PT Go said:


> I'm waiting for the other insurance shoe to drop. This is the big 'maybe' in the scheme of things. Safety has been the biggest topic for most of the cities that are trying to deal with this new concept of 'ridesharing' Yup, we is a taxi. like it or not. Uber will find (or use) someone like James River, that will offer....wait for this...a discount on commercial insurance. It would be offered as one of our rewards. Do you think Uber would get a kickback or offer a discounted rate paid out of our earnings just like they do with car payments. If you don't believe that, I have some timeshares to sell you in a canyon somewhere in Arizona. (OK, I'm done now.....)


I am with you. The insurance "SHOE" is big. It will also be interesting to see if more states & municipalities (like Nevada & Broward County) really start to "snowball" insofar as enjoining Uber from operating within their jurisdiction in defiance of local laws and regulations.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

Gemgirlla said:


> Totally agree!


Ashton Kutcher put a pile of dough into Uber. And although he's kind of a pantywaist, there gotta be some heavy hitters in the investor pool.


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

Worcester Sauce said:


> I am with you. The insurance "SHOE" is big. It will also be interesting to see if more states & municipalities (like Nevada & Broward County) really start to "snowball" insofar as enjoining Uber from operating within their jurisdiction in defiance of local laws and regulations.


The other realisation that Government authorities will come to is how their revenue streams dry up as you head towards a possible Uber end game.

You have UBER offices around the world setting up in direct competition to Government business units who used to have the monopoly on license and permit revenue. Now drivers can avoid slow and costly legal processes and go to UBER.

As UBERx grows then the Medallion/ Plate value of taxis has to diminish. Plate releases by City jurisdictions won't attract the fierce bidding witnessed in the 20 years prior to UBER. Here in Sydney every transfer of a $380,000 Taxi plate generates a lazy $13,000 for the State. UBER's stated goal is to destroy the Taxi industry and its Government sponsored restricted access/ value retention. Treasury departments around the globe will be arguing with its Populist Politicians masters, pointing out the losses in future revenues. For non-American cities that also means that any State revenue loss that becomes Uber profit goes offshore without paying any Federal corporate or resident tax.

Then you have the UBERPOOL and the LYFT equivalent. These bring travel costs to Bus Ticket rates with point to point convenience. Will City Bus operators be happy watching patronage and revenue dropping to UBER? How will City planners deal with an INCREASE in car traffic on transit/pool lanes to the point where they become ineffective?

The Insurance mess that frames Rideshare would be also taking a toll on the public purse as premiums rise, and drivers who get hurt and cant afford to fix their X car fall back on Federal support.

In UBER's perfect world all the monetary benefits flow one way. Governments will have to decide how long and how full that public income flow will continue to go UBER'S way.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Desert Driver said:


> Ashton Kutcher put a pile of dough into Uber. And although he's kind of a pantywaist, there gotta be some heavy hitters in the investor pool.


He is loaded from his own business investments! He's a smart guy or has excellent business managers.


----------



## Worcester Sauce (Aug 20, 2014)

Sydney Uber said:


> The other realisation that Government authorities will come to is how their revenue streams dry up as you head towards a possible Uber end game.
> 
> You have UBER offices around the world setting up in direct competition to Government business units who used to have the monopoly on license and permit revenue. Now drivers can avoid slow and costly legal processes and go to UBER.
> 
> ...


I had not thought of that. A whole new perspective on the insidious effects of "Uber" on everyone (except Uber). Under your illustrations, Uber even negatively impacts those folks who neither drive for or ride with Uber.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Worcester Sauce said:


> I had not thought of that. A whole new perspective on the insidious effects of "Uber" on everyone (except Uber). Under your illustrations, Uber even negatively impacts those folks who neither drive for or ride with Uber.


I guess if you are worried about the government and insurance industry who already extort way too much money from the citizens without benefit flowing back to the citizens. Honestly I'm not. There is so much corruption in licensing and permitting as well as the insurance industry. And I doubt very much any insurance policy that may be developed for the ride share industry will have any impact on private insurance premiums. This is pure speculation. We may see less pure commercial policies if the taxi business continues to decline however.


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

Gemgirlla said:


> I guess if you are worried about the government and insurance industry who already extort way too much money from the citizens without benefit flowing back to the citizens. Honestly I'm not. There is so much corruption in licensing and permitting as well as the insurance industry. And I doubt very much any insurance policy that may be developed for the ride share industry will have any impact on private insurance premiums. This is pure speculation. We may see less pure commercial policies if the taxi business continues to decline however.


There is a lot of "feather bedding" when it comes to Public Service/Government jobs. But those employed shuffling papers, processing permits and licences will not be easily sustained in the numbers that they are employed if the UBER model grows.

The public service is a important power base for Left Wing politics. Do these parties want to be seen supporting an anarchist capitalist enterprise at the cost of voters jobs?


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Sydney Uber said:


> There is a lot of "feather bedding" when it comes to Public Service/Government jobs. But those employed shuffling papers, processing permits and licences will not be easily sustained in the numbers that they are employed if the UBER model grows.
> 
> The public service is a important power base for Left Wing politics. Do these parties want to be seen supporting an anarchist capitalist enterprise at the cost of voters jobs?


I don't know if it can be concluded that "jobs" have actually been lost in total. Uber states that they are in fact a job creator. I would be very interested to see an unbiased, independent study conducted that shows the overall impact on the job market of ride share, based on the assumption that ride share driving is "job" just like a cab driver. I would also like to see an analysis of the revenue generated by ride share and taxi companies compared to 4 years ago and the increase in the overall number of customers using ride share and taxis for the same period. Everyone likes to throw out assertions about the impact of The TNC industry, including you, without any basis for those statements. Such analysis would tell the real story.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Sydney Uber said:


> There is a lot of "feather bedding" when it comes to Public Service/Government jobs. But those employed shuffling papers, processing permits and licences will not be easily sustained in the numbers that they are employed if the UBER model grows.
> 
> The public service is a important power base for Left Wing politics. Do these parties want to be seen supporting an anarchist capitalist enterprise at the cost of voters jobs?


So Aussie is Uber causing taxi drivers in Australia to lose their jobs?


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

Gemgirlla said:


> So Aussie is Uber causing taxi drivers in Australia to lose their jobs?


I wouldn't say lose their jobs, but certainly seeing their takings thin out as the market is diluted somewhat by UberX riders who normally would've caught cabs.

What's your estimation as to the effect in your city?


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Sydney Uber said:


> I wouldn't say lose their jobs, but certainly seeing their takings thin out as the market is diluted somewhat by UberX riders who normally would've caught cabs.
> 
> What's your estimation as to the effect in your city?


I have no idea other than what I hear the cab drivers say on here. I do notice a lot of cabs sitting around but that may be usual. I have never really paid attention before. I haven't seen any analysis that gives this data, which I think is strange because everyone seems to make representations (including Uber/Lyft) as if there are true.

Believe me I'm not unsympathetic towards the taxi drivers. I don't want to see anyone lose their jobs or means of survive. But when I hear cab drivers threaten uber drivers and say nasty things, I get a little less sympathetic. I hope this is all resolved soon for everyone's sake and I am glad the cab companies are making changes that will make them more desirable so they can compete better w/ the TNC companies. Uber/Lyft will need to raise their rates on the lower platforms eventually which will take out some of the price differential that exists now. It's hard to say whether TNC's meet passengers needs when the prices are so much lower than taxis. It could simply be that people want a cheaper alternative. We'll see when the TNC fares start going up (and they will have to keep drivers and deal w/ regulatory, legal and insurance issues) how that will impact Uber/Lyft's market share.

What's is the legal/regulatory environment in Sydney for TNC companies?


----------



## TeleSki (Dec 4, 2014)

I would say in the LA/OC basin, Uber has created jobs. A lot of my riders say they usually would have used a designated driver before. I know I rarely took cabs, but if I was going out now, like when I was younger, I would probably be using Uber, too.


----------



## Berliner (Oct 29, 2014)

Worcester Sauce said:


> The insurance "SHOE" is big.


Yes. The insurance companies calculate by the risks.

For a cab with professionell drivers the bill is i.e. $ 5.000 per year.

How much would it be for an untrained 22 y old rookie? Half or double?

Happy New Year


----------



## nuhuxi (Dec 21, 2014)

I just dont see an IPO for UBER. I am with the comments about refulatory and other hurdles. A few bad court decisions and this could fold up like a cheap puptent.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Berliner said:


> Yes. The insurance companies calculate by the risks.
> 
> For a cab with professionell drivers the bill is i.e. $ 5.000 per year.
> 
> ...


Who pays the insurance the company or the cab driver? Do cab drivers own the car or rent it from the cab company? Are cab drivers treated as employees? If the cab driver rents it, what's the daily rate? Also, how is the take home for a driver calculated? I would appreciate anyone who actually knows to answer these questions. Thanks.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

TeleSki said:


> I would say in the LA/OC basin, Uber has created jobs. A lot of my riders say they usually would have used a designated driver before. I know I rarely took cabs, but if I was going out now, like when I was younger, I would probably be using Uber, too.


. With the rates as low as they are now it's a better option when going out. Cheaper than parking in many areas (unless there is a high surge and/or for longer distances) and of course cheaper than a DUI. But I wonder what will happen if they raise the rates. Drivers can't make sufficient money at these rates, at least on the base platforms.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Gemgirlla said:


> . With the rates as low as they are now it's a better option when going out. Cheaper than parking in many areas (unless there is a high surge and/or for longer distances) and of course cheaper than a DUI. But I wonder what will happen if they raise the rates. Drivers can't make sufficient money at these rates, at least on the base platforms.


I was just thinking same thing. I might have used Uber a few years back if they could pick up from airport. I only lived 3 miles away, parking was 15 dllrs per day. Might have made sense to use Uber.


----------



## TeleSki (Dec 4, 2014)

I think they could easily raise rates here in LA/OC to 1.75-2.00/mile. Still a lot cheaper than a cab, and drivers would be a lot happier and be willing to provide service.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

TeleSki said:


> I think they could easily raise rates here in LA/OC to 1.75-2.00/mile. Still a lot cheaper than a cab, and drivers would be a lot happier and be willing to provide service.


Yea, but it would come out of Kalanicks pocket. No way that is happening.


----------



## TeleSki (Dec 4, 2014)

observer said:


> Yea, but it would come out of Kalanicks pocket. No way that is happening.


I don't think anything would come out of his pocket. I think he'd make more. I think the drop in ridership would be negligible, and he'd make more off the 20% of the increase in fares.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

TeleSki said:


> I don't think anything would come out of his pocket. I think he'd make more. I think the drop in ridership would be negligible, and he'd make more off the 20% of the increase in fares.


Good point.


----------



## Berliner (Oct 29, 2014)

Gemgirlla said:


> Who pays the insurance the company or the cab driver? Do cab drivers own the car or rent it from the cab company? Are cab drivers treated as employees? If the cab driver rents it, what's the daily rate? Also, how is the take home for a driver calculated? I would appreciate anyone who actually knows to answer these questions. Thanks.


Make a call to your agent. You´re welcome.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Gemgirlla said:


> Who pays the insurance the company or the cab driver? Do cab drivers own the car or rent it from the cab company? Are cab drivers treated as employees? If the cab driver rents it, what's the daily rate? Also, how is the take home for a driver calculated? I would appreciate anyone who actually knows to answer these questions. Thanks.


In my market, cabbies generally lease by the week from taxi companies. This lease amounts to about $1000.00/wk. Insurance and vehicle permits are included. Drivers pay for fuel. Maintenance, if any, is paid by the taxi companies. Other costs like car washes and driver permits are paid by drivers.

So a typical cabbie (here) is paying out about $5000-6000/month to operate.

I guess that's why they work 80 hours per week.

Taxi drivers are almost always classified as independent contractors, not employees. There are some driver-owned companies. But that's rare. Notably, there's a prominent driver/owner company in Portland, Oregon. That's right. That city who has fought off UBER rather successfully.

All in all, a pretty shifty deal I think. But there's exceptions and some people do like the lifestyle.


----------



## Berliner (Oct 29, 2014)

stuber said:


> In my market, cabbies generally lease by the week from taxi companies. This lease amounts to about $1000.00/wk. Insurance and vehicle permits are included. Drivers pay for fuel. Maintenance, if any, is paid by the taxi companies. Other costs like car washes and driver permits are paid by drivers.
> 
> So a typical cabbie (here) is paying out about $5000-6000/month to operate.
> 
> ...


Other markets, other rules.

Here do you work as an employee, 40h/wk. The owner pays for fuel, tear and wear and whatever BS like tax and so on. Half on the clock is yours, gross.


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

Gemgirlla said:


> I have no idea other than what I hear the cab drivers say on here. I do notice a lot of cabs sitting around but that may be usual. I have never really paid attention before. I haven't seen any analysis that gives this data, which I think is strange because everyone seems to make representations (including Uber/Lyft) as if there are true.
> 
> Believe me I'm not unsympathetic towards the taxi drivers. I don't want to see anyone lose their jobs or means of survive. But when I hear cab drivers threaten uber drivers and say nasty things, I get a little less sympathetic. I hope this is all resolved soon for everyone's sake and I am glad the cab companies are making changes that will make them more desirable so they can compete better w/ the TNC companies. Uber/Lyft will need to raise their rates on the lower platforms eventually which will take out some of the price differential that exists now. It's hard to say whether TNC's meet passengers needs when the prices are so much lower than taxis. It could simply be that people want a cheaper alternative. We'll see when the TNC fares start going up (and they will have to keep drivers and deal w/ regulatory, legal and insurance issues) how that will impact Uber/Lyft's market share.
> 
> What's is the legal/regulatory environment in Sydney for TNC companies?


TNC's still operate. If the driver is not Authorised & Accredited and the car not licensed then they can be breached. Some have been fined $1100 each which Uber covers, but their record's are blemished if ever they do apply for operator Accreditation.

Uber is being given every opportunity to be part of new policy development but simply ignore all invitations to attend meetings. Uber finds that dropping their pants and baring their arses at regulators fits their need for growth NOW much better.


----------



## Berliner (Oct 29, 2014)

Sydney Uber said:


> TNC's still operate. If the driver is not Authorised & Accredited and the car not licensed then they can be breached.


The question is not "if" but "when".

Happy New Year


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

Berliner said:


> The question is not "if" but "when".
> 
> Happy New Year


I agree, its so short sighted. But i guess they are only hoping that a select few finally cash out big


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

Not prostitutes, sex workers. Get with the program everyone.


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

Hong Kong cabs are using it. It was great to call a Hong Kong taxi knowing that it's passengers were rating the driver. As good as most drivers are there, the awful ones are really awful.


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

Use the driver app to zoom all The way out and shift your pin over Hong Kong to see how it works.


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

I mean passenger app.


----------



## uberdriver (Aug 4, 2014)

Sydney Uber said:


> The other realisation that Government authorities will come to is how their revenue streams dry up as you head towards a possible Uber end game.
> 
> You have UBER offices around the world setting up in direct competition to Government business units who used to have the monopoly on license and permit revenue. Now drivers can avoid slow and costly legal processes and go to UBER.
> 
> ...


Different countries and different cities, different, if not totally opposite, realities. In the capital of the biggest economy of the world, there are no medallions. You want to become a taxi, you pass the driver and car requirements and you are one more taxi in the city. Revenues for the government ? Almost nilch, some small processing fees.

Revenues for the government coffers from the taxi operations compared to revenues from Uber operations ? Much more from Uber. Taxi drivers try (and mostly succeed) to have passengers pay them in cash. When it is time to pay income tax, they have no taxable income. Uber drivers have every penny of their revenues, except the very ubiquitous tip, paid via a bank account and registered in Uber books with their Social Security numbers. And finally, and probably the most important factor as it will become a growing trend, DC has decided to impose a 1% city tax on Uber's gross fares. All charged to credit cards and sent automatically from Uber's account to the city coffers. Today 1%, tomorrow 2%, 3% and so on. The trend will catch on with other jurisdictions, it will become the pot of gold for local governments. Uber will be as addictive to local politicians as it has already become to many drivers.


----------



## uberdriver (Aug 4, 2014)

Sydney Uber said:


> Then you have the UBERPOOL and the LYFT equivalent. These bring travel costs to Bus Ticket rates with point to point convenience. Will City Bus operators be happy watching patronage and revenue dropping to UBER? How will City planners deal with an INCREASE in car traffic on transit/pool lanes to the point where they become ineffective?


Again, different countries/cities, different realities. In most US cities, bus services are operated by the local governments, AND operate at a loss. It is a service that is provided with a permanent subsidy to help low income people. So if, and that is a big if, Uberpool and the equivalent services take off and really manage to substantially decrease the need for bus services, the local jurisdictions will be SAVING money.

As to Uberpool and similar rideshare options increasing or decreasing street congestion, it seems rather obvious that it would be the latter. Would you rather have the streets with 2 or 3 cars with one passenger in each of them, or only one car with 2 or 3 passengers inside ?


----------



## timmyolo (Sep 5, 2014)

not sure how long, but there was a model in the SF office, and I think TravisK broke it one nite playing with it. sorry folks...


----------

