# Still trying to figure out what is REALLY behind the rate-cut "strategy".



## Worcester Sauce (Aug 20, 2014)

Looking at the rate cuts from Uber's perspective, I still can not figure out what the "end game" is. It has to be more that simply trying to bury Lyft. After all.....the last series of rate cuts will cost Uber's incremental gross annual revenue more than Lyft's entire market share is even worth.

Don't misunderstand me. What Uber's rate machinations have done to it's drivers is unconscionable on countless levels. But each rate cut is also costing Uber BILLIONS in revenue. No company is going to unilaterally engage in such a planned revenue de-escalation without it being part of a "grand strategy" or part of a much bigger "picture". I contend that there is something at the end of this that is much bigger than merely ending the life of Lyft. I am just not smart enough to figure it out.


----------



## UberBlackPr1nce (Dec 28, 2014)

Worcester Sauce said:


> Looking at the rate cuts from Uber's perspective, I still can not figure out what the "end game" is. It has to be more that simply trying to bury Lyft. After all.....the last series of rate cuts will cost Uber's incremental gross annual revenue more than Lyft's entire market share is even worth.
> 
> Don't misunderstand me. What Uber's rate machinations have done to it's drivers is unconscionable on countless levels. But each rate cut is also costing Uber BILLIONS in revenue. No company is going to unilaterally engage in such a planned revenue de-escalation without it being part of a "grand strategy" or part of a much bigger "picture". I contend that there is something at the end of this that is much bigger than merely ending the life of Lyft. I am just not smart enough to figure it out.


I believe they want to be the primary source of transportation in the world. How to do that? Be cheaper then any and everything even public transportation. People who catch buses are catching uber x. Uber x doomed themselves because by driving at that low of a rate uber probably see that they can compete with bus fare riders and tap into that market. So you know another rate cut is coming.


----------



## BlkGeep (Dec 7, 2014)

I believe they are making plenty of money still. It's an international company, cuts happened in 48 cities, that's not exactly a huge part of their business. As far as Uber is concerned we are their major expense, lower expenses, increase revenue, ever since investors got rich on Wal-Mart stock that is the goal of all business. There will be more rides as their share of existing markets increase and they expand into new markets. In either case the cost of running Uber is paid for by the drivers, if the rate cuts affect their overall income, which it isn't, its shouldered by us, their cut is still cost free. But they will continue to see larger revenue, from other markets. The places they made cuts either have limited rider ship where lower prices might generate more growth, or were where significant competition from traditional livery business was strongest. You just lowered their costs on their general ledger, and growing markets increase their revenue. I know a lot of you don't understand financial investments, they use lots of little idiots to fund loses on bad companies, venture capital goes to places where they will get their money back, plus a whole lot more. And they take instruction from their investors who say things like cut your prices to grow your business.


----------



## UberBlackPr1nce (Dec 28, 2014)

BlkGeep said:


> I believe they are making plenty of money still. It's an international company, cuts happened in 48 cities, that's not exactly a huge part of their business. As far as Uber is concerned we are their major expense, lower expenses, increase revenue, ever since investors got rich on Wal-Mart stock that is the goal of all business. There will be more rides as their share of existing markets increase and they expand into new markets. In either case the cost of running Uber is paid for by the drivers, if the rate cuts affect their overall income, which it isn't, its shouldered by us, their cut is still cost free. But they will continue to see larger revenue, from other markets. The places they made cuts either have limited rider ship where lower prices might generate more growth, or were where significant competition from traditional livery business was strongest. You just lowered their costs on their general ledger, and growing markets increase their revenue. I know a lot of you don't understand financial investments, they use lots of little idiots to fund loses on bad companies, venture capital goes to places where they will get their money back, plus a whole lot more. And they take instruction from their investors who say things like cut your prices to grow your business.


That makes since. They still get they're money from uber black we don't get guarantees and perks like that and uber took like 350 bucks from me last week in fees (!thats how much some uberX drivers get paid in a week) so they netting. Uber x is there bottom feeders and will do there dirty work for them to take out competition. It's sad that uberX drivers are playing the game against themselves.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Travis Kalanick intends to make using Uber cheaper than owning a car. That is the end game. If he achieves it, the amount of revenue for Uber is HUGE! Think about how many people own cars, and could SAVE MONEY by using Uber instead.

The flaw, which he blindly ignores, is that his software does NOTHING to make car ownership cheaper for the Uber driver. So the only way for him to accomplish his goal is to charge less than it costs the driver to provide the ride. 

And given the number of dumbasses continuing to drive at these rates, he WILL accomplish his goal. Not because he made a better mousetrap, but because he found away to exploit the poor and dumb.


----------



## josolo (Sep 27, 2014)

Typically, those with the most money\power create crashes then buy up the competition for pennies on the dollar as they go under. I've heard people say uber is bigger than all the car rental companies combined, bigger than united airlines, bigger than kraft foods. How is it that they've been able to thwart established rules, laws and regulations across the country? 41 billion last I heard. What blows me away is that they've successfully managed to thumb their nose at the insurance industry. Despite all this they've managed to attract even more mega investors and partner on things with GM, Toyota and now Amazon? Wat? I think they are in kahootz with a powerful elite and will fulfill some kind of role in the future.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Worcester Sauce said:


> Looking at the rate cuts from Uber's perspective, I still can not figure out what the "end game" is.


1) Try to find the bottom for the Rates at which enough drivers will still drive.
2) Increase Market Share.

Everything else is secondary to Uber at this juncture.


----------



## UberBlackPr1nce (Dec 28, 2014)

Imagine a world where everything is on demand... Your car service your packages. Your groceries. Everything I can see uber delivery. They already do silly thing like uber concert and uber ice cream. If uber x drivers don't get with the program we will be uber versed...... We have the power now while it's new to dictate the rates the direction to take etc etc. people have to stop a company worth 40 billion tell their assets ( that they don't own) what to do. Uber off and unite.


----------



## Actionjax (Oct 6, 2014)

Only logic I see is the following

1) Build a bigger user base. (Big groups of users scare politicians when it comes to policy)
2)Decimate the competition in an area
3) Hook people on the service then raise the rates after they sell the car. (Just like a drug dealer hooks new users) 
4) Again build a bigger user base. So many reasons this works for them if they go public.

In the end I don't see it being permanent. Just till they knock out everyone else and get their way.


----------



## UberBlackPr1nce (Dec 28, 2014)

Actionjax said:


> Only logic I see is the following
> 
> 1) Build a bigger user base. (Big groups of users scare politicians when it comes to policy)
> 2)Decimate the competition in an area
> ...


People have already told me that they take uber every weekend to bars. But never used a taxi....

Look at the savings:
Gas to and from bar 10'bucks (more or less depending on distance)
Sitting concentrating on your date more
No parking fees/valet service
Drop off and pick up at door no walking to and from parking lots.
No more need for designated drivers. Everyone get tipsy
No more boots on cars parking wrong place
No potential DUI tickets
In case of wreck their car insurance not at risk 
Lol endless
People are willing to pay good money for this service and drivers are doing it for 3 bucks. If I had a company I would use these references on a card and I bet I would make money more then some silly 3 dollars. People need to know their worth and don't allow uber to decide it for you. Uber is going to get rich and we are the ones who should get slices of the pie not travis. They are going revolutionize the transportation market like Apple did music and facebook did social media. We are the catalyst for this and we are compensated less then a mcdonald worker. This is the only time we will be able to stop them and make money before it's to late and they replace us with driverless cars then we will sit by fire talking to our grand kids about how we had the chance to make money with uber but we didn't act lol...


----------



## Jeremy Joe (Jan 16, 2015)

Worcester Sauce said:


> Looking at the rate cuts from Uber's perspective, I still can not figure out what the "end game" is. It has to be more that simply trying to bury Lyft. After all.....the last series of rate cuts will cost Uber's incremental gross annual revenue more than Lyft's entire market share is even worth.
> 
> Don't misunderstand me. What Uber's rate machinations have done to it's drivers is unconscionable on countless levels. But each rate cut is also costing Uber BILLIONS in revenue. No company is going to unilaterally engage in such a planned revenue de-escalation without it being part of a "grand strategy" or part of a much bigger "picture". I contend that there is something at the end of this that is much bigger than merely ending the life of Lyft. I am just not smart enough to figure it out.


Hi Sauce,

I've thought it over and have concluded Uber is doing this in order to make it politically difficult for any politician to eventually ban them.

I mean, look at it this way, Uber is decimating cab companies, the ones in big cities have collectively quite a bit of political clout. Their campaign contributions could encourage politicians to eventually find some excuse to ban Uber.

BUT, and this is an important BUT, if Uber lowers rates so drastically, even if it means running at a LOSS, they will succeed in one thing for sure: having a loyal and totally addicted customer (read voter) base.

If this happens, the voter backlash will outweigh the political influence of cab cartels. Thus politicians will avoid enforcing measures to curb Uber. Once the cab companies are well, shredded, then don't be surprised to watch Uber gradually raise rates back up.

Of course, they are simultaneously using cunning strategies to prevent Lyft / sidecar from gaining critical mass and mushrooming into potential competitors (read: offering hourly guarantees to drivers, while forcing a 90% acceptance requirement, thus preventing them from having two apps open).

Their strategy, in my view, is pretty much parallel to the book business side of Amazon. If you recall, in the past years, amazon would sell books at massive discounts, in fact, even slightly below their own cost price. Their end goal, of course wasn't to make losses. It was to drive out of business Borders and Barnes & Noble, their chief competitors.

Now with Borders gone, and B&N operating far fewer stores than before, you'll notice, that Amazon, though still offering discounts, their discounts are much smaller than before, much smaller. In fact, book prices on amazon for some titles are now even higher than store prices of B&N.

So in a nutshell, Uber wouldn't mind reducing rates even if it means operating at loss, for the reasons described above.


----------



## Eric K (Dec 28, 2014)

I can see them wanting to be like the Microsoft of Rideshare. Doesn't matter if you like them or not, they want to get to the point of if you need a ride it's waiting 2 minutes on an Uber ride or waiting 45 minutes on a taxi or other platform.
I definitely believe they want to either put Lyft out of business or end up buying them.
From their standpoint since we are not employees they may be able to get around things like being a monopoly since most cities will still have public transportation. Just my 2 cents of a guess


----------



## Worcester Sauce (Aug 20, 2014)

UberBlackPr1nce said:


> I believe they want to be the primary source of transportation in the world. How to do that? Be cheaper then any and everything even public transportation. People who catch buses are catching uber x. Uber x doomed themselves because by driving at that low of a rate uber probably see that they can compete with bus fare riders and tap into that market. So you know another rate cut is coming.


point taken...but Uber X is almost competing with bus fare now (assuming 2 riders).


----------



## UberBlackPr1nce (Dec 28, 2014)

Worcester Sauce said:


> point taken...but Uber X is almost competing with bus fare now (assuming 2 riders).


Yea.


----------



## Worcester Sauce (Aug 20, 2014)

BlkGeep said:


> I believe they are making plenty of money still. It's an international company, cuts happened in 48 cities, that's not exactly a huge part of their business. As far as Uber is concerned we are their major expense, lower expenses, increase revenue, ever since investors got rich on Wal-Mart stock that is the goal of all business. There will be more rides as their share of existing markets increase and they expand into new markets. In either case the cost of running Uber is paid for by the drivers, if the rate cuts affect their overall income, which it isn't, its shouldered by us, their cut is still cost free. But they will continue to see larger revenue, from other markets. The places they made cuts either have limited rider ship where lower prices might generate more growth, or were where significant competition from traditional livery business was strongest. You just lowered their costs on their general ledger, and growing markets increase their revenue. I know a lot of you don't understand financial investments, they use lots of little idiots to fund loses on bad companies, venture capital goes to places where they will get their money back, plus a whole lot more. And they take instruction from their investors who say things like cut your prices to grow your business.


...some of your points have some merit in fact. But, your contention that rate cuts are not affecting Uber's "overall income" is right up there with "the earth is flat".


----------



## Worcester Sauce (Aug 20, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> Travis Kalanick intends to make using Uber cheaper than owning a car. That is the end game. If he achieves it, the amount of revenue for Uber is HUGE! Think about how many people own cars, and could SAVE MONEY by using Uber instead.
> 
> The flaw, which he blindly ignores, is that his software does NOTHING to make car ownership cheaper for the Uber driver. So the only way for him to accomplish his goal is to charge less than it costs the driver to provide the ride.
> 
> And given the number of dumbasses continuing to drive at these rates, he WILL accomplish his goal. Not because he made a better mousetrap, but because he found away to exploit the poor and dumb.


....Uber is already cheaper than owning a car in many markets (except for Uberx drivers).


----------



## UberBlackPr1nce (Dec 28, 2014)

Why speculate what they are up to here is the scoop right from the horses mouth.

Must read:
http://blog.uber.com/europe-partnership

Remember the cartoon pinky and the brain? It may before some of you guys time and after some oldies here.
Uber and Uberx drivers are the example of What that cartoon song was about.One is a genius the other insane.


----------



## BlkGeep (Dec 7, 2014)

They spend very little, they pay management in free Uber rides, the CSRs work from home, we have all the costs. Are they losing money on gas? Car washes? Water bottles? The only thing that changes for them is how large their cut is total. What your trying to say is they aren't making as much money? Okay we agree. Not making as much per ride, yes definitely. They aren't losing money though. While we might be interested in our per fare rate and hourly rate, the whole world is sending Uber little payments that add up like Scruge McDucks money pit. They employ accountants to find out how low, and in how many places they can cut. It was 48 cities, not 49, not 50. It was 20% not 50%. You sound foolish saying they are losing money, and I'm not even trying to be insulting.


----------



## Worcester Sauce (Aug 20, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> 1) Try to find the bottom for the Rates at which enough drivers will still drive.
> 2) Increase Market Share.
> 
> Everything else is secondary to Uber at this juncture.


...agreed. My guess is that we are very close to your "point 1" right now. However it is "point 2" that has me vexed. I am not so certain these rate cuts are now about market share or Lyft. Several rate cuts ago, I would have said yes. But here is what I can't get past..........The size of the whole revenue pie that Uber has given up since the first rate cuts "way back when", up to this lastest cut, is way out of proportion to the diminishing return that might be expected from any increase in market share from this pint forward.

I guess that where I am headed with this, is that it would not surprise me if there is the ultimate "bait & switch" at the end of all this....in the form of an escalating rate reversal (back up to the point of the first serious market price resistance).


----------



## Worcester Sauce (Aug 20, 2014)

Jeremy Joe said:


> Hi Sauce,
> 
> I've thought it over and have concluded Uber is doing this in order to make it politically difficult for any politician to eventually ban them.
> 
> ...


...a cogent, logical and well articulated case that you have just made, sir. I concur (especially as it relates to the ultimate re-escalation of rates). Good analogy with Amazon. Well said.


----------



## arto71 (Sep 20, 2014)

Worcester Sauce said:


> Looking at the rate cuts from Uber's perspective, I still can not figure out what the "end game" is. It has to be more that simply trying to bury Lyft. After all.....the last series of rate cuts will cost Uber's incremental gross annual revenue more than Lyft's entire market share is even worth.
> 
> Don't misunderstand me. What Uber's rate machinations have done to it's drivers is unconscionable on countless levels. But each rate cut is also costing Uber BILLIONS in revenue. No company is going to unilaterally engage in such a planned revenue de-escalation without it being part of a "grand strategy" or part of a much bigger "picture". I contend that there is something at the end of this that is much bigger than merely ending the life of Lyft. I am just not smart enough to figure it out.


The valuation of car-hailing service company Uber has always given skeptics apoplexy.

One of the most commonly invoked takedowns of the ever-increasing and mind-blowing valuation levels the company has achieved - $40 billion at last count - is this:

"Investors are valuing Uber as if it's bigger than the whole taxi market!"

The implication?

Investors are nuts.

Well, investors are indeed valuing Uber as if it's bigger than the whole taxi market.

But it turns out that that's not nuts.

In its most mature market, San Francisco, the 4-year old Uber is already bigger than the whole taxi market. Much bigger, in fact.

According to Uber CEO Travis Kalanick, who spoke at the DLD Conference in Munich yesterday, the whole taxi market in San Francisco is about $140 million per year.

Uber's revenues in San Francisco, meanwhile, are now running at $500 million per year.

That's more than 3-times the size of the taxi market.

And Uber's revenues in San Francisco are still growing at about 200% per year.

Kalanick dropped some other startling statistics about Uber yesterday:


Uber's rides in San Francisco are growing 3X per year
Uber's rides in New York are growing 4X per year
Ubers' rides in London are growing 5-6X per year
Uber has recently launched "Uber Pool" that will allow riders to share rides and, thus, reduce their costs. This ride-sharing, in which drivers will pick up other riders along the first rider's route, will also increase the utilization and productivity of Uber's cars. Pooling will continue to drive down the cost of using Uber vs. owning a car - thus, eventually, perhaps, removing some cars from the road.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Worcester Sauce said:


> The size of the whole pie that Uber has given up since the first rate cuts "way back when", up to this lastest cut, is way out of proportion to the diminishing return that might be expected from any increase in *market share* from this pint forward.


I've had this discussion with @elelegido about what's currently more important to TravisK:
*Revenue Enhancement* or *Market Share Gain?*
This exact question was asked of TravisK by NYT, he unequivocally answered *"Market Share"*. But I cannot find that article to link/cite here.



Worcester Sauce said:


> it would not surprise me if there is the ultimate "bait & switch" at the end of all this....in the form of an escalating rate reversal


But of course, unregulated oligopolistic or monopolistic market share power would yield unchallenged pricing power.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> I've had this discussion with @elelegido about what's currently more important to TravisK:
> *Revenue Enhancement* or *Market Share Gain?*
> This exact question was asked of TravisK by NYT, he unequivocally answered *"Market Share"*. But I cannot find that article to link/cite here.
> 
> But of course, unregulated oligopolistic or monopolistic market share power would yield unchallenged pricing power.


It looks like it is correct that Travis is going for market share with the latest cuts + driver bonus program.


----------



## arto71 (Sep 20, 2014)

arto71 said:


> The valuation of car-hailing service company Uber has always given skeptics apoplexy.
> 
> One of the most commonly invoked takedowns of the ever-increasing and mind-blowing valuation levels the company has achieved - $40 billion at last count - is this:
> 
> ...


I would have to say Market share Gain


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

arto71 said:


> the whole taxi market in San Francisco is about *$140 million* per year.
> 
> Uber's revenues in San Francisco, meanwhile, are now running at* $500 million* per year.


I discount any self congratulatory figures that are bandied about by TravisK.
To wit, Uber is refusing to submit the reports it's obligated to submit under it's license from CPUC. These reports would yield some hard data, that Uber rather not share. And Uber is refusing at the risk of suspension or revocation of it's operating license in California.

http://m.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisc...driver-rider-data-request/Content?oid=2914445


----------



## arto71 (Sep 20, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> I discount any self congratulatory figures that are bandied about by TravisK.
> To wit, Uber is refusing to submit the reports it's obligated to submit under it's license from CPUC. These reports would yield some hard data, that Uber rather not share. And Uber is refusing at the risk of suspension or revocation of it's operating license in California.
> 
> http://m.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisc...driver-rider-data-request/Content?oid=2914445


Not only that but it would disclose how many actual vehicles are out there which will triple JR's monthly premium


----------



## Worcester Sauce (Aug 20, 2014)

arto71 said:


> The valuation of car-hailing service company Uber has always given skeptics apoplexy.
> 
> One of the most commonly invoked takedowns of the ever-increasing and mind-blowing valuation levels the company has achieved - $40 billion at last count - is this:
> 
> ...


good read....thanks !!


----------



## Worcester Sauce (Aug 20, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> I've had this discussion with @elelegido about what's currently more important to TravisK:
> *Revenue Enhancement* or *Market Share Gain?*
> This exact question was asked of TravisK by NYT, he unequivocally answered *"Market Share"*. But I cannot find that article to link/cite here.
> 
> But of course, unregulated oligopolistic or monopolistic market share power would yield unchallenged pricing power.


....my restlessness on the subject is now quelled. Any idea what TK's latest published salary/net worth is?


----------



## arto71 (Sep 20, 2014)

Worcester Sauce said:


> ....my restlessness on the subject is now quelled. Any idea what TK's latest published salary/net worth is?


And one more thing on top of everything mentioned above.
Up until January 8th it's safe to say that 
We've had six unhappy uber 
Drivers out of ten, after this latest rate cut almost it's like nine out of ten ,
Now if uber manages to gain the market and bring it back to pre 
January 8th rates we are gonna have 
Lots of happy drivers like 8 out of 10.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Worcester Sauce said:


> Any idea what TK's latest published salary/net worth is?


*Travis owns 8-10% of Uber's equity*
http://www.quora.com/How-much-equity-of-Uber-does-Travis-Kalanick-still-own

*As a cofounder and CEO it's easy to imagine Kalanick owns at least 10% of Uber.*
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenb...y-a-billionaire-after-18-2-billion-valuation/

I couldn't find any published figures for TravisK's salary.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

josolo said:


> Typically, those with the most money\power create crashes then buy up the competition for pennies on the dollar as they go under. I've heard people say uber is bigger than all the car rental companies combined, bigger than united airlines, bigger than kraft foods. How is it that they've been able to thwart established rules, laws and regulations across the country? 41 billion last I heard. What blows me away is that they've successfully managed to thumb their nose at the insurance industry. Despite all this they've managed to attract even more mega investors and partner on things with GM, Toyota and now Amazon? Wat? I think they are in kahootz with a powerful elite and will fulfill some kind of role in the future.


The way I understand it, their valuation is $40B, that doesn't mean its necessarily worth that much. They have little in the way of physical assets.

Hertz, Dollar, Enterprise, other car rental companies have real physical assets, cars, passenger vans, land etc... Airlines same deal, most of them own their own planes and other equipment and facilities.

Uber has nothing but an app that has many competitors. Some investors think Uber will bring in a lot of revenue. With all the negative press and cities, states and countries starting to regulate Uber, it's going to be harder to meet their valuation.

Uber has pissed off a lot of people, and I think it's going to come back and bite them.


----------



## Worcester Sauce (Aug 20, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *Travis owns 8-10% of Uber's equity*
> http://www.quora.com/How-much-equity-of-Uber-does-Travis-Kalanick-still-own
> 
> *As a cofounder and CEO it's easy to imagine Kalanick owns at least 10% of Uber.*
> ...


......good info (as always). Wondering if he might be a future Bill Gates (jr)


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Worcester Sauce said:


> ......good info (as always). Wondering if he might be a future Bill Gates (jr)


As far as net worth goes, it's possible, but we will know within the next couple of years if UberHype is merited or it's just hype.
But there are other aspects of being a wholesome human that TravisK seems to be lacking in: 
*Uber CEO Travis Kalanick Told Jim Cramer He Will Be The Richest Most Powerful Person In The World*
*http://techinvestorsanonymous.blogspot.com/2014/05/uber-ceo-travis-kalanick-told-jim.html?m=1*


----------



## Worcester Sauce (Aug 20, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> As far as net worth goes, it's possible, but we will know within the next couple of years if UberHype is merited or it's just hype.
> But there are other aspects of being a wholesome human that TravisK seems to be lacking in:
> *Uber CEO Travis Kalanick Told Jim Cramer He Will Be The Richest Most Powerful Person In The World*
> *http://techinvestorsanonymous.blogspot.com/2014/05/uber-ceo-travis-kalanick-told-jim.html?m=1*


now we really know what is behind those rate cuts......a gallactically sized ego "driven" by a vision of world domination


----------



## DjTim (Oct 18, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> I've had this discussion with @elelegido about what's currently more important to TravisK:
> *Revenue Enhancement* or *Market Share Gain?*
> This exact question was asked of TravisK by NYT, he unequivocally answered *"Market Share"*. But I cannot find that article to link/cite here.


When growing a company - market share is the biggest obstacle to overcome. Revenue enhancement only comes after you have an established, semi-firm customer base. Revenue enhancement could be introduced by upping the safe rider fee, or increasing the percentage cut rather then increasing the mile/minute rate.

I was actually surprised that Uber slashed rates, because I really thought that upping their cut or safe rider fee would have benefited them more. Until Uber gets to a point of reporting how many riders/accounts they have or disclosing how many active rides per hour they have we won't really know how a rate cut really helps or hurts them.

I know in any scenario - at this point - drivers are screwed unless they raise minutes/miles or reduce the cut. The cat is out of the bag. Really only regulations and lawsuits can get that cat back in the bag.


----------



## DriverJ (Sep 1, 2014)

UberBlackPr1nce said:


> I believe they want to be the primary source of transportation in the world. How to do that? Be cheaper then any and everything even public transportation. People who catch buses are catching uber x. Uber x doomed themselves because by driving at that low of a rate uber probably see that they can compete with bus fare riders and tap into that market. So you know another rate cut is coming.


Exactly - they want to make Uber so cheap that it won't be cost effective to own a car, according to Kalanick. I believe he thinks Uber will be pretty much the only form of ground transportation in cities. He doesn't care what it cost to achieve that end. No one will drive their personal vehicles. No one will use mass transit. Everyone will come to Big Brother and he'll rule the world. Personally, I believe the guy is delusional. If it's this bad now, I can't even imagine what nightmares await if he gets his way.

Uber - Al Qaeda in America


----------



## Luberon (Nov 24, 2014)

UberX is now less than 50% of daily parking in most cities... soon a few city workers will begin to commute in UberX. Plus you can stop at the grocery for some fresh milk and eggs on your way home. That is the end game, make a few (tens of millions) ditch their cars. Already millenials are delaying getting their license and many living in cities choose not to even get a license. Travis want not just to replace taxis but also replace all those cars in cities and suburbia


----------



## DriverJ (Sep 1, 2014)

Luberon said:


> UberX is now less than 50% of daily parking in most cities... soon a few city workers will begin to commute in UberX. Plus you can stop at the grocery for some fresh milk and eggs on your way home. That is the end game, make a few (tens of millions) ditch their cars. Already millenials are delaying getting their license and many living in cities choose not to even get a license. Travis want not just to replace taxis but also replace all those cars in cities and suburbia


I believe eventually there will be UberToilet, where the 'drivers' respond to the lazy asses that will have become to worthless to get up to relieve themselves properly. Put in a request, and seconds later an UberSlave will show up with an Uber Port-A-Can. I envision black Uber toilet paper with a 'U' on every square. I believe a picture on Kalanick would be nice too.


----------



## BlkGeep (Dec 7, 2014)

Wall-E


----------



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

josolo said:


> Typically, those with the most money\power create crashes then buy up the competition for pennies on the dollar as they go under. I've heard people say uber is bigger than all the car rental companies combined, bigger than united airlines, bigger than kraft foods. How is it that they've been able to thwart established rules, laws and regulations across the country? 41 billion last I heard. What blows me away is that they've successfully managed to thumb their nose at the insurance industry. Despite all this they've managed to attract even more mega investors and partner on things with GM, Toyota and now Amazon? Wat? I think they are in kahootz with a powerful elite and will fulfill some kind of role in the future.


I think you've been listening to Alex Jones


----------



## Eric K (Dec 28, 2014)

Worcester Sauce said:


> ...agreed. My guess is that we are very close to your "point 1" right now. However it is "point 2" that has me vexed. I am not so certain these rate cuts are now about market share or Lyft. Several rate cuts ago, I would have said yes. But here is what I can't get past..........The size of the whole revenue pie that Uber has given up since the first rate cuts "way back when", up to this lastest cut, is way out of proportion to the diminishing return that might be expected from any increase in market share from this pint forward.
> 
> I guess that where I am headed with this, is that it would not surprise me if there is the ultimate "bait & switch" at the end of all this....in the form of an escalating rate reversal (back up to the point of the first serious market price resistance).


Exactly. Put your competitors out of biz, then when there is no alternative raise prices. Plus since there will always be public transportation they can say they aren't a monopoly because there are still alternatives to their service.


----------



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

Worcester Sauce said:


> ...a cogent, logical and well articulated case that you have just made, sir. I concur (especially as it relates to the ultimate re-escalation of rates). Good analogy with Amazon. Well said.


Unfortunately Amazon makes no money, so there goes that theory .

http://m.ibtimes.com/amazon-nearly-...t-make-money-investors-dont-seem-care-1513368


----------



## BlkGeep (Dec 7, 2014)

Uber isn't interested in being a cab company. That isn't, nor was it ever their goal, if it was they would have used investor money to buy a cab company and use their app with them.


----------



## JaxBeachDriver (Nov 27, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> The flaw, which he blindly ignores, is that his software does NOTHING to make car ownership cheaper for the Uber driver.


If you mention this to partner support, they tell you about the 15% discount on car maintenance through momentum rewards (which almost every mechanic's shop will give you if you ask them).


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

JaxBeachDriver said:


> If you mention this to partner support, they tell you about the 15% discount on car maintenance through momentum rewards (which almost every mechanic's shop will give you if you ask them).


Discussing anything with Uber is like trying to have a conversation with Penn and Teller.


----------



## JaxBeachDriver (Nov 27, 2014)

Eric K said:


> Exactly. Put your competitors out of biz, then when there is no alternative raise prices. Plus since there will always be public transportation they can say they aren't a monopoly because there are still alternatives to their service.


Except that they've told me in an email that they want to lure bus riders with these new lower fares


----------



## Seaghost (Aug 26, 2014)

Here's some perspective, when uber cuts uberx rates by 25% they take a 25% income cut, the same as us drivers. But that is only for the uberx brand, all the other brands are still churning out $$ left and right. Black has not lowered their price, and since all I do is airport duty now I see them there every day doing about the same amount of work that we are. But for way more $$. And the 20% that uber gets from that is equal to approx 4 uberx rides on average, that's based upon standard statistical models, and that is conservative, it could actually be more like 6 uberx rides.
Now they have introduced a new service that has rates set at what they were at the beginning of the 2014 summer. Uberx will come back up but not by much, it will never match the new service. Figure uber is likely to set that rate this summer at 50 to 60% of the new class rate.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Seaghost said:


> Here's some perspective, when uber cuts uberx rates by 25% they take a 25% income cut, the same as us drivers.


This is not true!

Rate reductions do not reduce the $1 safe ride fee.

$5 minimum fare drops 20% to $4. The result of this is an 11% drop in income for Uber, but a 25% drop of income for drivers.

Do the math.

On a $5 fare, Uber's income was $1.80. On the new $4 fare, Uber's income is $1.60. That's a $0.20 drop. $0.20/$1.80 = 11%

On a $5 fare, driver's income was $3.20. On the new $4 dare, driver's income is $2.40. That's a $0.80 drop. $0.80/$3.20 = 25%

Drivers income drops MORE THAN TWICE AS MUCH AS UBER'S!!!!


----------



## SoCalBrit (Jan 21, 2015)

The long term strategy for Uber involves eliminating their greatest (and most vocal) expense. The driver.

They also want complete world domination as a transportation platform, so I think that explains most about the current rate cut. Drive the competition out of the market at any cost.

Once Lyft, Sidecar and the others are assimilated or bankrupted, Uber has their rideshare monopoly. Once self-driving cars are legal and cost-effective, Uber buys into or develops their own and gives a UberX drivers the boot. No more irritating, complaining drivers that want to earn money. UberX rates lowered, still profit margin shoots through the roof. 

Drivers get the option of staying on as keepers of the new driver-less vehicles. You will get to charge them with your electricity, keep them safe and dry in your garage, clean and maintain them. You will get paid a few cents about cost, or lower depending on what Uber thinks they can get away with. This saves Uber all kinds of premises and staffing costs.

Car ownership no longer is cost effective, as UberX becomes so cheap. As old cars leave the market, they are not replaced. Uber's market share increases, as people with no cars use Uber exclusively.

Once Uber is the only transportation option, catching people with warrants, unpaid bills and such, becomes a booming business for Uber. Software cross references partner databases with Uber data, and perps are driven straight to the cops by the Uber car they requested.

Sounds like a far away distopic nightmare? Well, the driver-less are at this point are cresting the horizon. They will be here before we know it. Anyone with their head above ground for the last decade can see how the rich just get richer, and seemingly more maligned. While the rest of us see our quality of life decrease, as the cost of living increases. Whether Uber is a happy accident or a nefarious plan from the start, Wall Street certainly loves it. Uber has big-money behind them. You don't get a $40Bn valuation, with just an app and the back-end infrastructure to run it, without that big-money seeing a profitable return on that cash in the future.


----------



## Oh My (Dec 26, 2014)

Get as many riders on board in the shortest time possible. The client base will plateau because at least 50% will realize this door to door service just isn't for them as they didn't get their feet massaged on their 1 mile trip to the laundromat for $2.98. Go public, run it properly (with some rules for the other remaining riders), raise the rates back up and take 30% from the drivers and add some more "fees".


----------



## Jeremy Joe (Jan 16, 2015)

Worcester Sauce said:


> ......good info (as always). Wondering if he might be a future Bill Gates (jr)


nah, that will never happen. Uber's app is easy to replicate - of course, insurance and regulatory hurdles are the real bottlenecks - once ridesharing gets more popular and organized, the insurance aspect of it will be formalized and regulations put in place - once that happens, I don't see any really major barriers to competition.

After all, Uber is nothing more than an app, it s not even a website like facebook. I personally hope Uber gets squashed like a bug someday!


----------



## Jeremy Joe (Jan 16, 2015)

Luberon said:


> UberX is now less than 50% of daily parking in most cities... soon a few city workers will begin to commute in UberX. Plus you can stop at the grocery for some fresh milk and eggs on your way home. That is the end game, make a few (tens of millions) ditch their cars. Already millenials are delaying getting their license and many living in cities choose not to even get a license. Travis want not just to replace taxis but also replace all those cars in cities and suburbia


People with kids definitely need cars, unless they live in NYC. Except in NY city, i can't imagine anywhere else, people with kids foregoing cars.

Perhaps some day in the future when truly driverless cars become commonplace, but that day is many many decades away.


----------



## Jeremy Joe (Jan 16, 2015)

SoCalBrit said:


> The long term strategy for Uber involves eliminating their greatest (and most vocal) expense. The driver.
> 
> They also want complete world domination as a transportation platform, so I think that explains most about the current rate cut. Drive the competition out of the market at any cost.
> 
> ...


LOL, someday in the distant future, I CAN IMAGINE, a self-driving Uber car, equipped with Artificial Intelligence, figures out it's rider has an outstanding warrant, locks doors and drives him straight to the cops!!


----------



## Jeremy Joe (Jan 16, 2015)

SoCalBrit said:


> Sounds like a far away distopic nightmare? Well, the driver-less are at this point are cresting the horizon. They will be here before we know it.


True true true self-driving cars, meaning cars that are smart enough to cruise busy highways while the driver takes a nap, are at least 40 years away.

Too many technical challenges.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Jeremy Joe said:


> True true true self-driving cars, meaning cars that are smart enough to cruise busy highways while the driver takes a nap, are at least 40 years away.
> 
> Too many technical challenges.


How do you figure 40 years away? Two weeks ago a driverless car left Palo Alto and drove to the CES show in Las Vegas.


----------



## John Anderson (Jan 12, 2015)

Worcester Sauce said:


> Looking at the rate cuts from Uber's perspective, I still can not figure out what the "end game" is. It has to be more that simply trying to bury Lyft. After all.....the last series of rate cuts will cost Uber's incremental gross annual revenue more than Lyft's entire market share is even worth.
> 
> Don't misunderstand me. What Uber's rate machinations have done to it's drivers is unconscionable on countless levels. But each rate cut is also costing Uber BILLIONS in revenue. No company is going to unilaterally engage in such a planned revenue de-escalation without it being part of a "grand strategy" or part of a much bigger "picture". I contend that there is something at the end of this that is much bigger than merely ending the life of Lyft. I am just not smart enough to figure it out.


You're providing them free capacity. They don't have to buy it, so they can lower their rates to whatever they want. The problem is that by not allowing us to set our own rates, we are their employees. We are scripted as far as tipping goes.

And as long as they can find a bullshit line and people are willing to buy it and work free, they'll sell it. If the success continues, it'll become Wall Street standard. The big banks invested in slavery before, they'll do it again.


----------



## Actionjax (Oct 6, 2014)

observer said:


> How do you figure 40 years away? Two weeks ago a driverless car left Palo Alto and drove to the CES show in Las Vegas.


Technology is not the issue...it's lawmakers and policymakers that are.

Planes can fly them selves 100% and do it better than a Human pilot. This has been the case since the 80's But you don't see Pilots not leaving the plane seat's any time soon. Yet the plane fly's itself for most of the way. Pilot's take over at the end of the landing sequence when the plane is a few hundred feet off the ground. And the only reason why they do it is they need to complete a set number of take off's and landings to keep their license. If it wasn't for that airlines would trust the computer 100% of the entire flight.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> On a $5 fare, *driver's income was $3.20.* On the new $4 dare, *driver's income is $2.40.* That's a $0.80 drop. $0.80/$3.20 = 25%
> 
> Drivers income drops MORE THAN TWICE AS MUCH AS UBER'S!!!!


$3.20 Was Drivers Net Revenue.
$2.40 Is Drivers New Net Revenue.

Now Deduct Drivers' Operational Cost from Net Revenue to Derive Net Income.

To put it plainly, a *20% Rate Cut means a cut of 40-50% in Drivers Operational Profit Margin, and a similar reduction in Drivers Net Income.*


----------



## Worcester Sauce (Aug 20, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> $3.20 Was Drivers Net Revenue.
> $2.40 Is Drivers New Net Revenue.
> 
> Now Deduct Drivers' Operational Cost from Net Revenue to Derive Net Income.
> ...


....drivers incur more costs chasing reduced revenue. Conversely, Uber bears no appreciable additional costs on it's decline in revenue.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Worcester Sauce said:


> Uber bears no appreciable additional costs on it's decline in revenue.


Uber will see initial decline in revenue when rates are cut. Lower per mile & per minute rate, with a much lower (or zero) base fare, and a lower minimum fare leads to disproportionate increase in minimum fare rides.
But thanx to the $1SRF/Ride, *Uber's profit margin is actually higher* on this revenue stream.


----------



## Worcester Sauce (Aug 20, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> Uber will see initial decline in revenue when rates are cut. Lower per mile & per minute rate, with a much lower (or zero) base fare, and a lower minimum fare leads to disproportionate increase in minimum fare rides.
> But thanx to the $1SRF/Ride, *Uber's profit margin is actually higher* on this revenue stream.


ah yes....that pesky little innocuous $1 per ride fee. The smaller the fare the bigger the impact.


----------



## ShortBusDriver (Jan 6, 2015)

I gave up trying to figure out Ubers "end game" - it is an exercise of futility. But I can certainly understand why others may try to do so. Interesting times in the transportation industry!


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

ShortBusDriver said:


> Ubers "end game"


*Uber's* *"end game" is Uber Domination of On-Demand Economy. 
And Uber would like everyone to believe that they are well on their way to make it happen.
*
*Google Ventures Head Says Uber Market Value Could Exceed $200 Billion*
*http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20...s-head-says-uber-value-could-exceed-200b.html*

_"Google Ventures re-invested in the San Francisco-based company this year when it raised $1.2 billion at a $17 billion valuation, after it led last year's funding of $258 million at a valuation of $3.5 billion."_


----------



## JaxBeachDriver (Nov 27, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *Uber's* *"end game" is Uber Domination of On-Demand Economy.
> And Uber would like everyone to believe that they are well on their way to make it happen.
> *
> *Google Ventures Head Says Uber Market Value Could Exceed $200 Billion*
> ...


I read all of that in Dr. Evil's voice.

"Two hundred billion dollars." (Puts pinky to lip. Pets cat.)


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

JaxBeachDriver said:


> I read all of that in Dr. Evil's voice.
> 
> "Two hundred billion dollars." (Puts pinky to lip. Pets cat.)


It's interesting to see that this article was written in July. Most of the comments were anti Uber even then.

Google has a huge vested interest in pumping up Ubers valuation. Not only the money they invested but the data they are getting from Ubers customers.

Googles reach into our personal lives is getting to be a little frightening.

Am I getting paranoid?


----------



## ShortBusDriver (Jan 6, 2015)

chi1cabby said:


> *Uber's* *"end game" is Uber Domination of On-Demand Economy.
> And Uber would like everyone to believe that they are well on their way to make it happen.
> *
> *Google Ventures Head Says Uber Market Value Could Exceed $200 Billion*
> ...


That makes as much sense as anything - Domination of the on-demand economy. I don't fault them for trying - someone was/is trying to do it - why not Uber and Google?


----------



## Mean_Judge (Jan 14, 2015)

Winter is tough not only for Europe cuz I can cut the gas pipe
but for Uber as well, most people will not go out. Lot of drivers will quit because no business.
So how will you attract both ? Thats what Uber did - Cut the fare and give driver guarantees. Smart. 
Uber On !


----------



## Uberdawg (Oct 23, 2014)

Worcester Sauce said:


> ....drivers incur more costs chasing reduced revenue. Conversely, Uber bears no appreciable additional costs on it's decline in revenue.


But, But Uber says my income is going to go UP with lower fares and my expenses won't because I will get more fares, closer together, fewer dead miles, less global warming.........

Maybe the dude that says gas is his only Uber expense will buy into this shit too.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Uberdawg said:


> But, But Uber says my income is going to go UP with lower fares and my expenses won't because I will get more fares, closer together, fewer dead miles, less global warming.........
> 
> *Maybe the dude that says gas is his only Uber expense will buy into this shit too.*


Well, given how full of gas he is, that could be pretty expensive for him.


----------



## Seinfeld (Apr 11, 2014)

Exposing the ancient political and economic system of this country.


----------



## Actionjax (Oct 6, 2014)

Uberdawg said:


> But, But Uber says my income is going to go UP with lower fares and my expenses won't because I will get more fares, closer together, fewer dead miles, less global warming.........
> 
> Maybe the dude that says gas is his only Uber expense will buy into this shit too.


I think Uber said their income will go up. For you your fares will go up. And in time your middle finger will go up. But no way you are going to have your standard of living go up.


----------



## Raquel (Jan 9, 2015)

Worcester Sauce said:


> Looking at the rate cuts from Uber's perspective, I still can not figure out what the "end game" is. It has to be more that simply trying to bury Lyft. After all.....the last series of rate cuts will cost Uber's incremental gross annual revenue more than Lyft's entire market share is even worth.
> 
> Don't misunderstand me. What Uber's rate machinations have done to it's drivers is unconscionable on countless levels. But each rate cut is also costing Uber BILLIONS in revenue. No company is going to unilaterally engage in such a planned revenue de-escalation without it being part of a "grand strategy" or part of a much bigger "picture". I contend that there is something at the end of this that is much bigger than merely ending the life of Lyft. I am just not smart enough to figure it out.


It's as simple as growing market share.. Each Pax is worth money for their valuation...The more "active" Pax they can claim the more money they can squeeze..from investors, etc..

Uber is not trying to make money right now..they are trying to grow their "passenger base" ... then they can get an inflated evaluation and more money from investors.and then they can cash out...before the indictments hit.. (Enron style)..


----------



## grams777 (Jun 13, 2014)

Worcester Sauce said:


> ah yes....that pesky little innocuous $1 per ride fee. The smaller the fare the bigger the impact.


Not only that, but uber also pays the James River insurance policy by the mile. Which means Ubers profit on larger fares also incurs a variable cost per mile. So from various standpoints, they seem to get the biggest profit bang from the min fare rides. That also is probably why all the contest incentives revolve around giving the most rides rather than highest fares.


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

Worcester Sauce said:


> ah yes....that pesky little innocuous $1 per ride fee. The smaller the fare the bigger the impact.


I still believe Travis is hoping to "cut & run" some day with an IPO. That was his modus operandi in his prior ventures. His first, Scour, filed for bankruptcy when the courts got too close. He learned from that and made 19million selling Red Swoosh without developing it to its fullest potential.

With UBER he is purposely driving down consumer cost to build market share and blast competition (he has confirmed that).

That does effect UBER revenues in the shorterm but paints a VERY Rosy picture to investors looking to buy into an IPO.

Travis wants to hit the jackpot. He wants to make IPO history, nothing else will make him happy.

So all his strategies are designed to show ALL the investor groups (Institutions, IPO Underwiters, Small investors) *How Bad *Uber is at transportation but how great they've been in getting everyone (market share) on a platform making some money.

Like Facebook, it ran at a huge loss before IPO, then real business heads came in and monetised a huge subscriber base ripe for the plucking.

Uber needs to show a transportation conglomerate that if UBER are making money at 90cents a mile, then come along buy us out you'll do heaps better because of all the upside left in the deal. Investors will do their sums on $1.50 - $2.00 and fall over themselves to get to an established client base that Uber has


----------



## Eric T (Dec 9, 2014)

*****Uber is the modern day version of slave owners*****
that's the massage we need to pass arond


----------



## SoCalBrit (Jan 21, 2015)

Jeremy Joe said:


> True true true self-driving cars, meaning cars that are smart enough to cruise busy highways while the driver takes a nap, are at least 40 years away.
> 
> Too many technical challenges.


Way off on that one buddy. Self-driving cars are here NOW!

This from the Google Driverless Car page on Wikipedia: "In 2012 Google founder Sergey Brin stated that Google Self-Driving car will be available for the general public in 2017. In 2014 this schedule has been confirmed by project director Chris Urmson indicating a possible release from 2017 to 2020"

A Google news search for "self-driving cars" spits out more than a dozen articles from this week alone.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

SoCalBrit said:


> Way off on that one buddy. Self-driving cars are here NOW!
> 
> This from the Google Driverless Car page on Wikipedia: "In 2012 Google founder Sergey Brin stated that Google Self-Driving car will be available for the general public in 2017. In 2014 this schedule has been confirmed by project director Chris Urmson indicating a possible release from 2017 to 2020"
> 
> A Google news search for "self-driving cars" spits out more than a dozen articles from this week alone.


Last week Google's own Navigation app tried to direct me to go the wrong way up a one way street. No way is this anywhere near ready for prime time.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

I imagine there are some people who will pay for what they can easily do themselves i.e. drive.

If Uber thinks that they'll be the sole lock on driverless cars, I very much doubt that will be case. Their tech won't mean shit when that happens.


----------



## SoCalBrit (Jan 21, 2015)

elelegido said:


> Last week Google's own Navigation app tried to direct me to go the wrong way up a one way street. No way is this anywhere near ready for prime time.


I agree. However. Ready or not, this technology will be shoved down our throats whether you like it or not. And before any of us are anywhere near comfortable with the concept.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Worcester Sauce said:


> Looking at the rate cuts from Uber's perspective, I still can not figure out what the "end game" is. It has to be more that simply trying to bury Lyft. After all.....the last series of rate cuts will cost Uber's incremental gross annual revenue more than Lyft's entire market share is even worth.
> 
> Don't misunderstand me. What Uber's rate machinations have done to it's drivers is unconscionable on countless levels. But each rate cut is also costing Uber BILLIONS in revenue. No company is going to unilaterally engage in such a planned revenue de-escalation without it being part of a "grand strategy" or part of a much bigger "picture". I contend that there is something at the end of this that is much bigger than merely ending the life of Lyft. I am just not smart enough to figure it out.


The end game is an attempt to squeeze Lyft, and other competitors, out of business.


----------



## Actionjax (Oct 6, 2014)

SoCalBrit said:


> I agree. However. Ready or not, this technology will be shoved down our throats whether you like it or not. And before any of us are anywhere near comfortable with the concept.


I would say most tech concepts die with people who don't adopt them. In the end no one shoves tech in anyone's throat. That has never worked with the general public.


----------



## Beep_Beep (Feb 2, 2015)

Worcester Sauce said:


> Looking at the rate cuts from Uber's perspective, I still can not figure out what the "end game" is. It has to be more that simply trying to bury Lyft. After all.....the last series of rate cuts will cost Uber's incremental gross annual revenue more than Lyft's entire market share is even worth.
> 
> Don't misunderstand me. What Uber's rate machinations have done to it's drivers is unconscionable on countless levels. But each rate cut is also costing Uber BILLIONS in revenue. No company is going to unilaterally engage in such a planned revenue de-escalation without it being part of a "grand strategy" or part of a much bigger "picture". I contend that there is something at the end of this that is much bigger than merely ending the life of Lyft. I am just not smart enough to figure it out.


I see two ways to look at it.

UberX driver point of view - you are investing time to reduce your monthly car payment. Anything extra goes to paying for maintenance, fuel, and taxes in trying to do so. So if you do it enough, you have traded your time for a vehicle. There is really no way to earn income with UberX. It is a wash.

Uber's point of view - only the folks that really need some cash and have somewhat of a jalopy will drive UberX. If the populace is fine with that then so be it. If they want something more they can upgrade to Black. Uber makes money either way.


----------



## Jeremy Joe (Jan 16, 2015)

SoCalBrit said:


> Way off on that one buddy. Self-driving cars are here NOW!
> 
> This from the Google Driverless Car page on Wikipedia: "In 2012 Google founder Sergey Brin stated that Google Self-Driving car will be available for the general public in 2017. In 2014 this schedule has been confirmed by project director Chris Urmson indicating a possible release from 2017 to 2020"
> 
> A Google news search for "self-driving cars" spits out more than a dozen articles from this week alone.


OK, so you think by 2017, cars will be driving themselves all over Manhattan?!?

OH BOY, gosh, the more time I spend reading this forum, the more I understand the IQ level of the average Uber driver.


----------

