# Anyone else feel like this could all fall apart soon?



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

... quickly and spectacularly?

See poll above. State reasons why or why not below.


----------



## Gilby (Nov 7, 2017)

Too big to fail?


----------



## semi-retired (Nov 21, 2017)

Amazon or Google will buy them out before they fail...


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

Endless supply of idiots willing to drive for pennies a mile.


----------



## Trunkcorpse (Oct 27, 2017)

What is 'this'


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Endless supply of idiots willing to drive for pennies a mile.


Are there _really_ though? Demand is really about how many are "ready, willing and _*abl*_*e*" to purchase a product or service. Extrapolating that over to drivers, what happens when most of the "ready and willing" just aren't _able _to "buy" Uber's ever diminshing idea of a job? Like, the cost of running a vehicle is just too high? Or it makes zero financial sense?



Trunkcorpse said:


> What is 'this'


Why are we here?


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

UpoorPeople said:


> Are there _really_ though? Demand is really about how many are "ready, willing and _*abl*_*e*" to purchase a product or service. Extrapolating that over to drivers, what happens when most of the "ready and willing" just aren't _able _to "buy" Uber's idea of a job? Like, the cost of running a vehicle is just too high? Or it makes zero financial sense?


Ha! Every year in this country another 3.7 million become the legal age to drive for Uber. With the ignorance of today's youth, that is definitely an endless supply of idiots.


----------



## Trunkcorpse (Oct 27, 2017)

UpoorPeople said:


> Are there _really_ though? Demand is really about how many are "ready, willing and _*abl*_*e*" to purchase a product or service. Extrapolating that over to drivers, what happens when most of the "ready and willing" just aren't _able _to "buy" Uber's idea of a job? Like, the cost of running a vehicle is just too high? Or it makes zero financial sense?
> 
> Why are we here?


Ah
Existentially, I have no idea. I'm sorry. But it will all end relatively soon, so, option #1


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Endless supply of idiots willing to drive for pennies a mile.


HEY!!!
I resemble that remark!


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Every year in this country another 3.7 million become the legal age to drive for Uber.


I hear ya, but needing a half decent vehicle less than 10 years old, maintaining, repairing and fuelling it right there imposes barriers to entry. Right now, they'd literally need to be subsidized for months, by parents or otherwise, to break even by driving. What happens if the tide suddenly turns and it becomes common knowledge that Uber is a losing (and a loser's) proposition?


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

UpoorPeople said:


> I hear ya, but needing a half decent vehicle less than 10 years old, maintaining, repairing and fuelling it right there imposes barriers to entry. Right now, they'd literally need to be subsidized for months, by parents or otherwise, to break even by driving. What happens if the tide suddenly turns and it becomes common knowledge that Uber is a losing (and a loser's) proposition?


It used to be "join the military" for any 18 year old with no direction in life. Now, it's become an Uber driver for any 30 year old loser still living at home with mommy and daddy.


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

When did Uber launch? And to date there's no profit, but actually increasing losses? I'm no Warren Buffet, but that there seems like a flawed business model.

What if it turns out that early investors' only hopes of a return is to attract new investors? Isn't that called a Ponzi scheme? My impression is that when a critical mass of players start catching a whiff of the crap they've stepped into, Ponzi schemes go up in flames pretty quickly.

Or is it "different this time"?


----------



## MercDuke (Nov 18, 2017)

Too big to fail, and too many people that kind of think it's fun.
I do forsee them Uber/Lyft being subjected to the same regs as Taxis, and having to raise fees accordingly.


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

But it might be too late for that no? They've systematically trained riders to expect rock bottom prices. They raise prices, demand drops, still no profit. Flawed business model?

I think they may have fUbered it, "screwed the pooch".


----------



## whiskeyboat (Oct 14, 2017)

People like to drive, people like to ride, it will seek it's own level.


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

That _might_ be enough to keep the gears turning. But economics often doesn't care about what people "like".

For example, there's no "level" for me buying jellybeans and then selling them to you at half my cost, just because we both "like" the experience. It's a flawed business model and is unsustainable. Eventually I will _have_ to stop, whether I "like" it or not.


----------



## ntcindetroit (Mar 23, 2017)

Well, there is for-profit rideshare, and then, there is non-profit rideshare. When for profit one fails, the non-profit ones take over.


----------



## MercDuke (Nov 18, 2017)

Yep... myself, I look at it as Training for my future job as a Chauffeur, or not.... but whatever, everyone is different. Some of us really need the money and are grinding it out in the cheapest vehicle they can get away with, some of use are okay as long as we are making some money, some people probably just do it for fun... 
I wouldn't be surprised if Uber got that Softbank money and went public... maybe even buy Lyft. We will see. 16 Billion in sales is a lot of REVENUE. It's not profit, but its A LOT OF MONEY FLOWING INTO RAISER LLC's Bank Account,
$16,000,000,000.00


----------



## arcterus (Oct 31, 2014)

MercDuke said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if Uber got that Softbank money and went public...


Doubt it. That Softbank deal only directly provides Uber with around one billion dollars. Uber looks to end 2017 with about a five billion dollar annual loss. Softbank lets it operate for about 2 1/2 months longer.

You kids need to read the story of Enron...


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

Yeah, I'm thinking of an Enron type situation.


MercDuke said:


> its A LOT OF MONEY FLOWING INTO RAISER LLC's Bank Account,
> $16,000,000,000.00


But it's not flowing into their bank account. It's flowing _through _their bank account, and out. You're right that _is_ a lot of money - to have spent and had zero return on.


----------



## MercDuke (Nov 18, 2017)

Enron was a Ponzi Scheme and I actually worked for Enron, so don't call me a kid. Uber is more about wasting money than stealing it.


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

Did you work for Bear Stearns too? You might be on a roll. (joke)


----------



## MercDuke (Nov 18, 2017)

AND WHY ARE YOU HERE, POSTING IN A FORUM FOR PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR A COMPANY U BELIEVE IS ABOUT TO FAIL?

No I worked for Andersen ....


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

Why the caps dude?


----------



## NorCalPhil (Aug 19, 2016)

UpoorPeople said:


> Why the caps dude?


He wanted to make sure you could see the letters with those tiny, beady little eyes of yours.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

NorCalPhil said:


> He wanted to make sure you could see the letters with those tiny, beady little eyes of yours.


HAHAHAHAHA.

that was hilarious!


----------



## MadTownUberD (Mar 11, 2017)

Danny Bonaduce?


----------



## Kaiser Soze (Nov 16, 2017)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Ha! Every year in this country another 3.7 million become the legal age to drive for Uber. With the ignorance of today's youth, that is definitely an endless supply of idiots.


Lord help me if I see a 16 year old uber driver. I'm getting right out



arcterus said:


> Doubt it. That Softbank deal only directly provides Uber with around one billion dollars. Uber looks to end 2017 with about a five billion dollar annual loss. Softbank lets it operate for about 2 1/2 months longer.
> 
> You kids need to read the story of Enron...


Your dog looks just like mine. Chihuahua jack mix?


----------



## MercDuke (Nov 18, 2017)

UpoorPeople said:


> Why the caps dude?





NorCalPhil said:


> He wanted to make sure you could see the letters with those tiny, beady little eyes of yours.


Lmfao! In all actuality, I used the CAPS because I was on my phone, and my old ass eyes don't work so well anymore.



arcterus said:


> Doubt it. That Softbank deal only directly provides Uber with around one billion dollars. Uber looks to end 2017 with about a five billion dollar annual loss. Softbank lets it operate for about 2 1/2 months longer.


Your math has no accounting for Uber's current income stream.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

Kaiser Soze said:


> Lord help me if I see a 16 year old uber driver. I'm getting right out


Read my post again, "the legal age to drive for Uber". Although it really doesn't matter. I mean 3.7 million people turning 21 years old or 3.7 million people turning 16 years old. The 16 year olds will be Uber drivers in 2023.


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

NorCalPhil said:


> He wanted to make sure you could see the letters with those tiny, beady little eyes of yours.


My eyes are regular size. They're just an inch apart and my face is two feet wide.


----------



## Saltyoldman (Oct 18, 2016)

UpoorPeople said:


> Yeah, I'm thinking of an Enron type situation.
> 
> But it's not flowing into their bank account. It's flowing _through _their bank account, and out. You're right that _is_ a lot of money - to have spent and had zero return on.


It kind of seems like we are the only ones spending money in this situation.


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

There will be some competition in the US very soon. There are 2 additional companies coming into Portland in the next 2-4 months that i know of, and we are only population 2.5 million. I think Luber is in for a big b!tch slapping in the USA. Both of U/L are going to find out how quickly drivers jump when you don't listen to pay issues.


----------



## Rakos (Sep 2, 2014)

Mista T said:


> There will be some competition in the US very soon. There are 2 additional companies coming into Portland in the next 2-4 months that i know of, and we are only population 2.5 million. I think Luber is in for a big b!tch slapping in the USA. Both of U/L are going to find out how quickly drivers jump when you don't listen to pay issues.


I agree with you...

Thinking the next 6 months...

Will be critical for Uber's survival...

If they don't see the light soon...

Their burial will be sealed...

Stay tuned folks...8>)

Rakos


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

Mista T said:


> There will be some competition in the US very soon.


And yet there's no where for Uber to go in terms of price. Maybe they're gonna give BADGES to PAX?

Hmmm... gives me an idea for a thread.


----------



## Rakos (Sep 2, 2014)

You know the sad part...

Is a couple of years ago...

We were actually considered...

A premier service...

A cut above a taxi...

With good prices..

In Tampa at least...

All we have now...

Is the inevitable...

Race to the bottom...

Rakos


----------



## MercDuke (Nov 18, 2017)

How come no one sees Uber charging more in the future? At least to match Lyft? Everyone tells me Lyft pays better, so they must charge more. I have only been Ubering for about about a month, so I dunno.....


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

MercDuke said:


> How come no one sees Uber charging more in the future? At least to match Lyft? Everyone tells me Lyft pays better, so they must charge more. I have only been Ubering for about about a month, so I dunno.....


Do your research, don't make assumptions.

They charge the same.

They pay the same.


----------



## UberCheese (Sep 3, 2017)

Car manufacturers and rental companies want in. 

They could after all, stage and service cars through their car lot networks. Uber has neither auto inventory nor prime retail real estate. They tried the dealer model and failed miserably and the only thing they make is broke drivers.


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

So there's Uber, Lyft, others coming down the pipe including the Chinese giant Didi. The thing I can't figure out is how they expect to compete. It can't be on price. So what else? Cost savings? Less stupid spending? Maybe not sinking billions into self-driving or flying car R&D? Lower paid executives?

If going forward there are three or more serious competitors, they may also be competing for drivers. Could it be, could it be?


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

The cost of maintain their new SDC fleet can be solved with a new product: Uber Mechanic!


----------



## Wrb06wrx (Sep 20, 2017)

I think uber will fail eventually all that needs to happen is something like juno or some other app to come along and pay drivers a little bit more and take less commision and uber is ****ed lyft will try to keep up with the new app and remain the bastard child of rideshare....

Lyft is smarter than uber they didnt try to go worldwide overnight they expanded slower and more steadily than uber..... (not saying better just smarter bussinesswise)

Too much marketshare and too quick of an expansion is going to hasten their demise look at ubereats, drivers complaining about rates lax background checks shits gonna hit the fan sooner than later..... 

But what do i know im.just an uber driver


----------



## MercDuke (Nov 18, 2017)

Mista T said:


> Do your research, don't make assumptions.
> 
> They charge the same.
> 
> They pay the same.


Not according to the Drivers I know, the Lyft Ambassador that recruited me, or the Passengers, OR Google, for that matter. But, whateva---- If you feel good about your post, then that's what is important. Not really what this thread is about, though, is it?



UpoorPeople said:


> So there's Uber, Lyft, others coming down the pipe including the Chinese giant Didi. The thing I can't figure out is how they expect to compete. It can't be on price. So what else? Cost savings? Less stupid spending? Maybe not sinking billions into self-driving or flying car R&D? Lower paid executives?
> 
> If going forward there are three or more serious competitors, they may also be competing for drivers. Could it be, could it be?


I agree, more competition and a changing business model, too.... In Denver we have Hovit and there is also JaneGo and Safr for the ladies... but I see the Driverless cars as my personal biggest threat. And, of course, Uber wastes a ton of money, like half my fares seem to have some sort of subsidy, so it's no wonder they are losing money.


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

Yeah l'm seriously wondering if driver retention could be the competitive battleground. One of them could just take less from drivers, with a requirement that drivers can't simultaneously drive for another rideshare.

You can advertise the lowest fares but if you don't have drivers you ain't in the game. It's Uber in particular that seems like it has no wiggle room.

This beast might bleed.


----------



## MercDuke (Nov 18, 2017)

A lot of the passengers here in Denver have this UberPass, I can't figure out how Uber makes any money on those rides.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

MercDuke said:


> Yep... myself, I look at it as Training for my future job as a Chauffeur, or not.... but whatever, everyone is different. Some of us really need the money and are grinding it out in the cheapest vehicle they can get away with, some of use are okay as long as we are making some money, some people probably just do it for fun...
> I wouldn't be surprised if Uber got that Softbank money and went public... maybe even buy Lyft. We will see. 16 Billion in sales is a lot of REVENUE. It's not profit, but its A LOT OF MONEY FLOWING INTO *RAISER LLC's* Bank Account,
> $16,000,000,000.00


----------



## MercDuke (Nov 18, 2017)

That's the California Registration, my bank account has a deposit from Raiser LLC....

https://uberpeople.net/threads/who-...r-do-that-uber-technologies-inc-doesnt.30128/


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

What are we looking at here?


----------



## Wrb06wrx (Sep 20, 2017)

Might bleed?

Its been bleeding i just wish i couldve been one of the leeches a little sooner than i started the reality is the passengers have to become disgusted with uber and start to use the competition.....

In my market ive seen an uptick in lyft rides uber still has the volume aspect here but lyft is steadily gaining market share and with more competition it will be a little better for drivers but the key will be converting the passengers to use other apps


----------



## MercDuke (Nov 18, 2017)

I don't know why the Mod posted that but I am skeeeeered of authority, I am out!


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

MercDuke said:


> That's the California Registration, my bank account has a deposit from Raiser LLC....
> 
> https://uberpeople.net/threads/who-...r-do-that-uber-technologies-inc-doesnt.30128/


There's no raiser llc in California though... and since Uber has a physical location in ca and therefore doing biz in ca, even if they register domestically in another state aka Delaware, they'd have to register as a foreign entity here and that would show up.

So raiser llc may be a third party Uber has hired to do the payments...but they're not physically doing biz in state of ca...

If raiser was under Uber as parent company..that should be in the paperwork...


----------



## Hail Macbeth (Feb 7, 2017)

It's not going away until the self-driving car replaces it. 

This is why: taking an Uber is still much cheaper than a cab. Cabs are like 2.50 a mile. Taking an Uber is less than half that. So the demand isn't going away. Right now Uber can charge less than a cab and still get a 40% cut. They could afford to pay drivers double and they'd still come out ahead... they just wouldn't be able to take 40%. And if you were driving at a permanent 2x surge, then, yes, this job is profitable. It would be better than retail or whatever service sector wasteland unskilled people go to these days. 

The market-making mechanism works. The labor market will clear with so many people easily able to get onto the platform. It won't 'collapse' because before it did, it would just surge a little harder and more people would come out.


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

Hail Macbeth said:


> They could afford to pay drivers double and they'd still come out ahead...


Ahead of what, how? Uber's bleeding billions. If they pay drivers more they'll bleed more.

All it's gonna take is another rideshare that actually knows what "profit margin" means and figures it _could_ pay drivers more without raising pax rates. There wouldn't be any Uber surge. There wouldn' be any Uber.


----------



## Fubernuber (Jan 15, 2017)

When the economy falters the first people to stand outside the welfare offices will be uber drivers. Burger flippers will still have jobs. Its the stingy pool and x riders that will go back to public transport. Once the economy falls no more free money for uber. Their investors will carve them up like turkey.


----------



## Over/Uber (Jan 2, 2017)

Cableguynoe said:


> HEY!!!
> I resemble that remark!


IKR?

I don't know whether to take offense or kick him in the balls.


----------



## MercDuke (Nov 18, 2017)

No drivers will get WELFARE, WE ARE NOT EMPLOYEES! No Welfare for any of us Uber Drivers, we are Self Employed.


----------



## Wrb06wrx (Sep 20, 2017)

Hail Macbeth said:


> It's not going away until the self-driving car replaces it.
> 
> This is why: taking an Uber is still much cheaper than a cab. Cabs are like 2.50 a mile. Taking an Uber is less than half that. So the demand isn't going away. Right now Uber can charge less than a cab and still get a 40% cut. They could afford to pay drivers double and they'd still come out ahead... they just wouldn't be able to take 40%. And if you were driving at a permanent 2x surge, then, yes, this job is profitable. It would be better than retail or whatever service sector wasteland unskilled people go to these days


Thats why its good as supplemental income its low skill and work when you want....

Perfect for stoners...

Just sayin


----------



## freeFromUber (Mar 1, 2016)

MercDuke said:


> Yep... myself, I look at it as Training for my future job as a Chauffeur, or not.... but whatever, everyone is different. Some of us really need the money and are grinding it out in the cheapest vehicle they can get away with, some of use are okay as long as we are making some money, some people probably just do it for fun...
> I wouldn't be surprised if Uber got that Softbank money and went public... maybe even buy Lyft. We will see. 16 Billion in sales is a lot of REVENUE. It's not profit, but its A LOT OF MONEY FLOWING INTO RAISER LLC's Bank Account,
> $16,000,000,000.00


Yes....$16B is a LOT of money, but it really doesn't matter if you spend $18B, does it?


----------



## Wrb06wrx (Sep 20, 2017)

freeFromUber said:


> Yes....$16B is a LOT of money, but it really doesn't matter if you spend $18B, does it?


I mean if you already spent 16 whats another 2 billion


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

MercDuke said:


> No drivers will get WELFARE, WE ARE NOT EMPLOYEES! No Welfare for any of us Uber Drivers, we are Self Employed.


Incorrect in my state. I drove a welfare agent (for lack of a better title) and she informed me that in July the State of Oregon had ruled that Uber and Lyft drivers are eligible to file for unemployment benefits if they can demonstrate that they have worked long enough and enough hours weekly to qualify.


----------



## wingdog (Nov 6, 2017)

Mista T said:


> Incorrect in my state. I drove a welfare agent (for lack of a better title) and she informed me that in July the State of Oregon had ruled that Uber and Lyft drivers are eligible to file for unemployment benefits if they can demonstrate that they have worked long enough and enough hours weekly to qualify.


Oh snap, what if we live in washington but drive in oregon (with a Portland business registration), think we count to or do I need to be busting down the doors of L&I?


----------



## guber8827 (May 4, 2017)

Don't think its going to go away, its going to just find a stabilization point and become a new norm.


----------



## Bergie (Nov 22, 2017)

Once self driving tech is perfected, Uber and Lyft will be crushed by auto companies or Google or some other company that has huge cash reserves.


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

semi-retired said:


> Amazon or Google will buy them out before they fail...


No they won't. They'll develope their own app and start a new TNC.


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

guber8827 said:


> Don't think its going to go away, its going to just find a stabilization point and become a new norm.


"Going away" _*very often is*_ the stasis point for businesses with flaws models or that have no room between costs/liabilities and profitability.
Happens. Every. Day.


----------



## GT500KR (Jan 30, 2017)

Rakos said:


> I agree with you...
> 
> Thinking the next 6 months...
> 
> ...


3 years; maybe less Uber will be the new AOL.


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

... or SOL


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

all it will take is...

Uber to burn money faster than they can get new investors...

game over...

or they could lose enough lawsuits that they need investment capital to keep the lights on and not being able to get it, or having a service outage that lasted longer than a week.

Really any of those could sink uber.


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

And the competition must be watching for any of these to happen while they sharpen their knives...


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

UpoorPeople said:


> ... quickly and spectacularly?
> 
> See poll above. State reasons why or why not below.


Never gonna happen is the closest to how I view them. They have a huge base of loyal customers. I expect they will be around for at least another ten years and probably much longer.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

OP, you have made a wrong assumption. Currently, there is nothing to 'fall apart.' The question is, when will they stop the bleeding? Billion a year losses with a horrific reputation.


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

UberLaLa said:


> OP, you have made a wrong assumption. Currently, there is nothing to 'fall apart.'


Sorry, but your statement is devoid of logic. There's always something to fall apart. Basic law of nature.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

UpoorPeople said:


> Sorry, but your statement is devoid of logic. There's always something to fall apart. Basic law of nature.


My point is it has already fallen apart.


----------



## jgiun1 (Oct 16, 2017)

Off subject but that is one ugly avatar dude


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

UberLaLa said:


> My point is it has already fallen apart.


Oh, sorry. Missed that somehow.



jgiun1 said:


> Off subject but that is one ugly avatar dude


My folks went overboard with the youtube lemon thing.


----------



## ganerbangla (Mar 4, 2017)

Possibly anything can happen


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

Mista T said:


> Incorrect in my state. I drove a welfare agent (for lack of a better title) and she informed me that in July the State of Oregon had ruled that Uber and Lyft drivers are eligible to file for unemployment benefits if they can demonstrate that they have worked long enough and enough hours weekly to qualify.


They're full of BS if they told you that. If that were true, you'd find thousands of cab drivers file for unemployment. Uber is NOT paying for unemployment insurance. Not in Oregon. The State has the "opinion" that Uber drivers are employees and not independent contractors. But you'll have to sue Uber in order to collect a dime. Sort of like what you have to do when an Uber hits you with their car.....go hire a lawyer because that's the only way you'll have a chance to collect a dime.

FYI, welfare is not unemployment insurance. ;-)



wingdog said:


> Oh snap, what if we live in washington but drive in oregon (with a Portland business registration), think we count to or do I need to be busting down the doors of L&I?


You're not going to be collecting unemployment in Oregon OR Washington for driving taxi or TNC. Who's paying for the insurance? Uber isn't. Nor do you.


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

phillipzx3 said:


> They're full of BS if they told you that. If that were true, you'd find thousands of cab drivers file for unemployment. Uber is NOT paying for unemployment insurance. Not in Oregon. The State has the "opinion" that Uber drivers are employees and not independent contractors. But you'll have to sue Uber in order to collect a dime. Sort of like what you have to do when an Uber hits you with their car.....go hire a lawyer because that's the only way you'll have a chance to collect a dime.
> 
> FYI, welfare is not unemployment insurance. ;-)
> 
> You're not going to be collecting unemployment in Oregon OR Washington for driving taxi or TNC. Who's paying for the insurance? Uber isn't. Nor do you.


I suspect you are correct but she was very insistent that they were giving unemployment bennies out to ex Uber drivers.

Regardless, my plan is to NOT find out if it is true.


----------



## 22531 (Jul 29, 2015)

Not when politicians are invested in it. Not going to happen.


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

Well, I for one am planning for the future:
*
Things I'd be doing if I wasn't driving rideshare (in pictures)*


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

When the old _"How long have you been/How do you like driving for Uber?"_ comes up, I usually end up telling pax that Uber hasn't turned a profit and in fact is losing billions. Riders can't believe it. They're always shocked.

The whole thing is like an illusion, like the "Emperor's New Clothes" or the "Wizard of Oz". Like if we all pretend it's _awesome_ (Uber, the media, pax and the general public) this farce of a company will stick around forever.


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

Mista T said:


> I suspect you are correct but she was very insistent that they were giving unemployment bennies out to ex Uber drivers.
> 
> Regardless, my plan is to NOT find out if it is true.


Good plan. Plus we all know Uber isn't paying for something they don't have to. And at the moment they don't have to pay workman's comp, unemployment, or anything else FICA related.

There hasn't been one single ex-Uber driver in Portland who's drawn unemployment via Uber.


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

phillipzx3 said:


> They're full of BS if they told you that. If that were true, you'd find thousands of cab drivers file for unemployment. Uber is NOT paying for unemployment insurance. Not in Oregon. The State has the "opinion" that Uber drivers are employees and not independent contractors. But you'll have to sue Uber in order to collect a dime. Sort of like what you have to do when an Uber hits you with their car.....go hire a lawyer because that's the only way you'll have a chance to collect a dime.
> 
> FYI, welfare is not unemployment insurance. ;-)
> 
> You're not going to be collecting unemployment in Oregon OR Washington for driving taxi or TNC. Who's paying for the insurance? Uber isn't. Nor do you.


I am not an expert on unemployment insurance in Oregon, but in California and many other states, unemployment insurance is awarded to workers who can demonstrate that their previous work was performed in a manner that would qualify them to be classified as an employee rather than an independent contractor. This expressly includes workers that performed their work tasks while their employer classified them as an independent contractor. The state can then decide whether or not to retroactively asses the employer for the costs of the coverage. The same is true for workers who are classified by their employer as employees but where the employer failed to pay taxes, fees or premiums for workers compensation or unemployment benefits.
Both unemployment insurance and workers compensation premiums are held in a pool and distributed independent of the source of the premiums. In California at least 3 Uber drivers have been awarded unemployment insurance after the State performed independent reviews of the work environment. This includes Barbara Berwick who won her miss-classification plea through the California Department of Industrial Relations and was awarded for mileage and minimum wage. A separate analysis of Barbara's work environment conducted by the California Employment Development Departs found on its own that she was entitled her to unemployment benefits and they were awarded last year.

This separation between worker eligibility and premium payment by the employer ensures that workers who have been miss-classified or worked for a company that cheated on fees and premiums can receive both unemployment benefits and workers compensation. Because of this there is an additional substantial risk to employers who miss-classify their workforce in a risky industry such as driving. Once the miss-classification is judged by the State agency or by civil litigation, State agencies can chose whether or not to retroactively assess premium for the periods of miss-classification.
As dire as this sounds for TNCs, political control of these state agencies have kept administrators from making adverse assessments but hearing officers remain independent and to date all that I am aware of have ruled in favor of the drivers.
The State Of Oregon has declared that they feel that Uber drivers are acting as employees but I am not aware of any claim brought to them by drivers.


----------



## UberMensch3000 (Jun 10, 2017)

Uber wouldn't be the first company to step into the ring and completely change X industry overnight, to then be swallowed whole BY that industry. Uber may go the way of the dinosaur ( or not ), but imo rideshare isn't going anywhere. Too convenient. Flawed ? In it's present iteration ? Certainly. But just look at places like San Antonio. Ban Uber and the citizenry say "WTF do you think you're you doing ?" Do rates need to come up ? Absolutely. Will pax eventually learn to deal with that ? Just as they have in any other thing in their lives. You can choose to yellow-cab it. Or you can choose to fairly-new, expertly maintained Lincoln it. Some will have no choice. Many will. Most would opt for the Lincoln. And THAT is why I say rideshare's not going anywhere


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

Travis is selling 30% of his shares.

And apparently he and other investors wanted to sell a lot more but were prevented from doing so. Are rats leaving the ship?


----------



## gofry (Oct 20, 2015)

KevinH said:


> I am not an expert on unemployment insurance in Oregon, but in California and many other states, unemployment insurance is awarded to workers who can demonstrate that their previous work was performed in a manner that would qualify them to be classified as an employee rather than an independent contractor. This expressly includes workers that performed their work tasks while their employer classified them as an independent contractor. The state can then decide whether or not to retroactively asses the employer for the costs of the coverage. The same is true for workers who are classified by their employer as employees but where the employer failed to pay taxes, fees or premiums for workers compensation or unemployment benefits.
> Both unemployment insurance and workers compensation premiums are held in a pool and distributed independent of the source of the premiums. In California at least 3 Uber drivers have been awarded unemployment insurance after the State performed independent reviews of the work environment. This includes Barbara Berwick who won her miss-classification plea through the California Department of Industrial Relations and was awarded for mileage and minimum wage. A separate analysis of Barbara's work environment conducted by the California Employment Development Departs found on its own that she was entitled her to unemployment benefits and they were awarded last year.
> 
> This separation between worker eligibility and premium payment by the employer ensures that workers who have been miss-classified or worked for a company that cheated on fees and premiums can receive both unemployment benefits and workers compensation. Because of this there is an additional substantial risk to employers who miss-classify their workforce in a risky industry such as driving. Once the miss-classification is judged by the State agency or by civil litigation, State agencies can chose whether or not to retroactively assess premium for the periods of miss-classification.
> ...


A well-written analysis but the bottom line is no one but a few very persistent drivers with the time and money to bring a case before the state has ever collected a nickel of unemployment benefits. There are way too many businesses that rely on independent contractors out there (besides Uber) for any kind of meaningful law to actually be passed.


----------



## 1974toyota (Jan 5, 2018)

Uber isn't going any where, IMO this tech firm SoftBank, is going to get controlling interest in Uber, They may do what the airlines did,get out of NON profitable areas, also maybe Uber leases Franchises, in low volume Markets,etc, Uber is still in a state of flux,haven't got the kinks out, they still have another 5 yrs to prove themselves,but again,watch SoftBank,they are the key to Ubers future< ! last thing, eventually Uber has to make $$, at 1st i see them raising rates say $1 a fare,& giving drivers a small or 0% of that,this way they pad the bottom line,& they'll wait to see how many drivers leave or stay, Its the old story, throw %#%#% against the wall, & see what sticks, these algo guys & other teckies who work Uber, are very smart,thats why they constantly try new things,upgrades & so forth, as far as PAX,all they see is they hit the app,wait for us,all this behind the scenes drama,they don't have a clue,or they don't care,JMO


----------



## gofry (Oct 20, 2015)

1974toyota said:


> Uber isn't going any where, IMO this tech firm SoftBank, is going to get controlling interest in Uber, They may do what the airlines did,get out of NON profitable areas, also maybe Uber leases Franchises, in low volume Markets,etc, Uber is still in a state of flux,haven't got the kinks out, they still have another 5 yrs to prove themselves,but again,watch SoftBank,they are the key to Ubers future< ! last thing, eventually Uber has to make $$, at 1st i see them raising rates say $1 a fare,& giving drivers a small or 0% of that,this way they pad the bottom line,& they'll wait to see how many drivers leave or stay, Its the old story, throw %#%#% against the wall, & see what sticks, these algo guys & other teckies who work Uber, are very smart,thats why they constantly try new things,upgrades & so forth, as far as PAX,all they see is they hit the app,wait for us,all this behind the scenes drama,they don't have a clue,or they don't care,JMO


Please take your meds before you post.


----------



## applesvt (Dec 14, 2017)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Ha! Every year in this country another 3.7 million become the legal age to drive for Uber. With the ignorance of today's youth, that is definitely an endless supply of idiots.


I believe that regulation will be the ultimate downfall.


----------



## Rakos (Sep 2, 2014)

What...driving at legal age...

Or that we let them drive at all...???

Rakos


----------



## ShinyAndChrome (Aug 18, 2017)

i think the concept of rideshare stays. it just makes a ton of sense.

Uber in its current incarnation of course cannot continue. A company cannot lose money forever. And these 50% off rides and nonsense that lyft does will all have to go as well. You can't operate a business forever if you are losing money.

I still have no freaking idea how uber is losing money in the US. I don't understand it. If a pax pays $10 and I end up with $6 and uber pays its various state fees and whatever else and has $2-3. Where does that money go? I've heard "marketing", but I don't see it here.

If the only way for them to stop losing money is to raise rates, it will not go to drivers. Instead it will just squeeze out the low-end pax.


----------



## Rakos (Sep 2, 2014)

It's kind of like a boat....

A hole in the water...

that you pour money into...8>)

Rakos


----------



## 1974toyota (Jan 5, 2018)

ShinyAndChrome said:


> i think the concept of rideshare stays. it just makes a ton of sense.
> 
> Uber in its current incarnation of course cannot continue. A company cannot lose money forever. And these 50% off rides and nonsense that lyft does will all have to go as well. You can't operate a business forever if you are losing money.
> 
> ...


Because Uber is a Private Co, we can't see the Numbers, but just there Insurance alone has to cost big $$$, no one knows how many accidents Uber drivers get into, & ubers Ins pays out? all the Adv on TV,Radio,Promo\s, $$$ losing things like leasing cars that closed down,Ubers Programmers,Offices,Over priced big wigs,investing in self driving cars, promo's Uber rates do to incentives,they lose on most rides,yeah i can see how Uber loses $$$,But agin i'd say watch SoftBank,i see big changes after Uber's IPO in 2019, JMO


----------



## Ms.Doe (Apr 15, 2016)

UpoorPeople said:


> When did Uber launch? And to date there's no profit, but actually increasing losses? I'm no Warren Buffet, but that there seems like a flawed business model.
> 
> What if it turns out that early investors' only hopes of a return is to attract new investors? Isn't that called a Ponzi scheme? My impression is that when a critical mass of players start catching a whiff of the crap they've stepped into, Ponzi schemes go up in flames pretty quickly.
> 
> Or is it "different this time"?


You hit the nail on the head! Uuber is the biggest Ponzi scheme in history!

I believe Uber was designed to fail



1974toyota said:


> Because Uber is a Private Co, we can't see the Numbers, but just there Insurance alone has to cost big $$$, no one knows how many accidents Uber drivers get into, & ubers Ins pays out? all the Adv on TV,Radio,Promo\s, $$$ losing things like leasing cars that closed down,Ubers Programmers,Offices,Over priced big wigs,investing in self driving cars, promo's Uber rates do to incentives,they lose on most rides,yeah i can see how Uber loses $$$,But agin i'd say watch SoftBank,i see big changes after Uber's IPO in 2019, JMO


An IPO will never happen


----------



## ShinyAndChrome (Aug 18, 2017)

1974toyota said:


> Because Uber is a Private Co, we can't see the Numbers, but just there Insurance alone has to cost big $$$, no one knows how many accidents Uber drivers get into, & ubers Ins pays out? all the Adv on TV,Radio,Promo\s, $$$ losing things like leasing cars that closed down,Ubers Programmers,Offices,Over priced big wigs,investing in self driving cars, promo's Uber rates do to incentives,they lose on most rides,yeah i can see how Uber loses $$$,But agin i'd say watch SoftBank,i see big changes after Uber's IPO in 2019, JMO


I'd absolutely love to see their operating expenses.



Ms.Doe said:


> You hit the nail on the head! Uuber is the biggest Ponzi scheme in history!
> 
> I believe Uber was designed to fail
> 
> An IPO will never happen


That has to be reserved for cryptocurrency.


----------



## Ms.Doe (Apr 15, 2016)

1974toyota said:


> Uber isn't going any where, IMO this tech firm SoftBank, is going to get controlling interest in Uber, They may do what the airlines did,get out of NON profitable areas, also maybe Uber leases Franchises, in low volume Markets,etc, Uber is still in a state of flux,haven't got the kinks out, they still have another 5 yrs to prove themselves,but again,watch SoftBank,they are the key to Ubers future< ! last thing, eventually Uber has to make $$, at 1st i see them raising rates say $1 a fare,& giving drivers a small or 0% of that,this way they pad the bottom line,& they'll wait to see how many drivers leave or stay, Its the old story, throw %#%#% against the wall, & see what sticks, these algo guys & other teckies who work Uber, are very smart,thats why they constantly try new things,upgrades & so forth, as far as PAX,all they see is they hit the app,wait for us,all this behind the scenes drama,they don't have a clue,or they don't care,JMO


----------



## 1974toyota (Jan 5, 2018)

Ms.Doe said:


> You hit the nail on the head! Uuber is the biggest Ponzi scheme in history!
> 
> I believe Uber was designed to fail
> 
> An IPO will never happen


? Google SoftBank, its a Japanese Co, with 68K workers,it has it's hands In Sprint,Yahoo Japan, Alibaba, & Uber, among others, SoftBank invested $20M in Alibaba in 2000, that investment is now worth $60 Billions greenbacks??? I don't know how there investment in Uber will work out, But IMO they will do a IPO, & i don't see Uber going under in the next 5 yrs, Having said that, Uber will always be for Uber,Drivers? Uber will give us just enough........... rope to hang ourselves?????????????,as far as turn over rates, as long as people keep signing up,Uber will still be around,is what it is,JMO


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

All it takes is a few hard decisions and this company has massive profits overnight.

Imagine if they made the following changes, they would be insanely profitable:

* no more than $100 payment for new drivers, anywhere
* discontinue operations in their lowest performing 20% of markets
* charge drivers a fee who do less than X rides per week
* raise rates .50-1.00 and don't pay drivers any more
* give up on Air Taxi

You are welcome for the ideas Dara, that will be $10 million please...


----------



## ShinyAndChrome (Aug 18, 2017)

Mista T said:


> All it takes is a few hard decisions and this company has massive profits overnight.
> 
> Imagine if they made the following changes, they would be insanely profitable:
> 
> * no more than $100 payment for new drivers, anywhere


My city is only $30-50 for a new driver so probably that would work.


> * discontinue operations in their lowest performing 20% of markets


Good idea also.


> * charge drivers a fee who do less than X rides per week


Their driver pool would shrink down to only serious drivers.


> * raise rates .50-1.00 and don't pay drivers any more


Clientele would dry up.

It's very possible that at the end of the day although I believe rideshare can lower prices overall, and still be profitable, it may just not be realistic for people working minimum wage jobs to pay money to get a 20 minute drive to work. And I say that because I've driven many of those people. Maybe they do need to take the bus after all, they certainly never took cabs before.


----------



## Rakos (Sep 2, 2014)

It worked at the higher rates...

Or wasn't anyone paying attention...8>O

It started failing...for drivers...

When Uber started dumping rates..8>(

Very ill advised...

Rakos


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

ShinyAndChrome said:


> It's very possible that at the end of the day although I believe rideshare can lower prices overall, and still be profitable,


Can't see how that's possible, at least in terms of labor costs which can't get much lower. I believe it's already at a threshold level where lowering driver rates by even 10% could reduce driver supply by 50%. And no, there isn't a limitless supply of drivers who are ready, willing AND _ABLE _to keep a car on the road that most riders would want to ride in for any less revenue than we're seeing now.


----------



## 1974toyota (Jan 5, 2018)

Rakos said:


> It worked at the higher rates...
> 
> Or wasn't anyone paying attention...8>O
> 
> ...


Agreed,when Uber started that, we'll lower rates,drivers will get more Pax, & make more $$$, never bought into that over educated BS,that's why Uber won't lower rates any more, more drivers will leave, & they'll leave quicker then Uber could replace them,no ifs ands or butts, Uber's next deal is quietly raise prices,cut out the cut to drivers, & see what happens, JMO



UpoorPeople said:


> Can't see how that's possible, at least in terms of labor costs which can't get much lower. I believe it's already at a threshold level where lowering driver rates by even 10% could reduce driver supply by 50%. And no, there isn't a limitless supply of drivers who are ready, willing AND _ABLE _to keep a car on the road that most riders would want to ride in for any less revenue than we're seeing now.


Uber isn't going to lower rates any more, they got to that we won't be able to replace drivers quick enough, but I see Uber raising prices to Pax, and kinda leave out the drivers cut, JMO


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

1974toyota said:


> Uber isn't going to lower rates any more, they got to that we won't be able to replace drivers quick enough, but I see Uber raising prices to Pax, and kinda leave out the drivers cut, JMO


So Uber raises rates but Lyft or any of the other bunch of competitors don't. Then what?


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

1974toyota said:


> Agreed,when Uber started that, we'll lower rates,drivers will get more Pax, & make more $$$, never bought into that over educated BS,that's why Uber won't lower rates any more, more drivers will leave, & they'll leave quicker then Uber could replace them,no ifs ands or butts, Uber's next deal is quietly raise prices,cut out the cut to drivers, & see what happens, JMO
> 
> Uber isn't going to lower rates any more, they got to that we won't be able to replace drivers quick enough, but I see Uber raising prices to Pax, and kinda leave out the drivers cut, JMO


Already been happening.

When I started there was no Booking Fee.

Then .90 Booking Fee.

Then $1.40. Now it's $1.90 In my market. Not a penny to drivers.

Every time Uber has bumped the booking fee, Lyft has followed within 48 hours an exact match.

Separate pricing for pax vs what drivers earn has allowed both companies to charge higher prices without passing on the earnings bump.

An now uber is testing a new variant of surge payments in Charlotte, will very likely roll it out nationwide within a few months.


----------



## Cynergie (Apr 10, 2017)

UpoorPeople said:


> When did Uber launch?


 Incorporated in 2009. Official birthday in 2010 after a $20 billion round in total fund raising from investors



> And to date there's no profit, but actually increasing losses?


Most likely because many Shark Tank/Vulture Capital investors wanted to be in at ground zero on the game changing ride share industry. Just like with Bitcoin. So looks like the majority of them rushed in eyes wide shut and have been propping up Uber's reverse pyramid scheme (i.e. Over saturating the market with drivers. Subsidizing pax fares with investor money & make rides cheaper to attract more riders to the platform). Particularly those early investors. If any of them aren't suffering from blue balls by this point, then they're probably dead....

After 8 years, Uber has matured as a start up company. So it's reasonable to assume Uber's pax base is maxed/constant world wide. Which means as Uber continuous to flood local markets with n00b drivers, their overhead due to driver cost will exponentially increase. Which also means Uber will have to keep offering cheap/cheaper fares to attract even more new riders. Repeat ad nauseum.......



> I'm no Warren Buffet, but that there seems like a flawed business model.


 Yes. Too bad its grandfathered (and recent n00b investors since this recent successful round) can't see that......



> What if it turns out that early investors' only hopes of a return is to attract new investors? Isn't that called a Ponzi scheme? My impression is that when a critical mass of players start catching a whiff of the crap they've stepped into, Ponzi schemes go up in flames pretty quickly.


 Reverse Ponzi scheme. Investors continue losing their money i.e. Investor money flows DOWNWARDS to the benefit of the pax/riders who constantly receive free investor subsidized rides at the expense of the drivers.



> Or is it "different this time"?


No. That Uber's global logistic footprint is a hot mess is a complete understatement. The fact NO Silicon Valley CEO voluntarily stepped up to take on its operational nightmare was an embarrasing indicator. Never mind Uber's dysfunctional corporate culture, non existent HR/CS support (which has created malcontent in its work environment ranging from disgruntled employees to driver contractors). Add the non existent risk management at every organizational level of the company which has been bleeding Uber's treasury by the billions to date.

Writing was on the wall when NO Silicon Valley CEO voluntarily jumped ship when Uber went CEO shopping --- while Travis was obediently playing outside on the beach. Despite the fact Uber has been aggressively testing its autobot prototypes in San Francisco to date, time is NOT on its side. Particularly given its maturation as an 8 year start up, and the very finite limits to its investor patience.

They're [email protected] IMO. Given the growing negative trend in their profitability, I'm willing to bet Khosrowshahi will need to offer up even MORE of the company in the near future in order to go IPO.......


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

Wow, excellent analysis!


----------



## cakoo10 (Dec 30, 2016)

Some cities, towns are so co dependent on uber , I just don’t see it failing. The government will probably incentivize or bail out whatever help they need.


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

Federal, municipal or state/province? That seems like bit of a stretch to me. I'm trying to imagine what kind of argument governments could actually float for this.


----------



## touberornottouber (Aug 12, 2016)

I think it will happen when they switch to driverless vehicles. The barrier to entry will be so low that the market will be flooded with competitors. Ironically the human drivers are what is keeping Uber at the top right now. It creates a significant barrier to entry in the market.

Separately for us drivers I think things only get worse for us sadly. Soon we will not hardly be needed. But also in most market there is a glut of drivers so they could lower rates or incentives and still have enough. Of course quality will suffer but given the economy there will always be someone willing to drive even if the pay is only 25 cents a mile.


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

touberornottouber said:


> Ironically the human drivers are what is keeping Uber at the top right now. It creates a significant barrier to entry in the market.


Help me understand. Right now a company can enter several markets simultaneously with only an app, some insurance costs and get going. How does needing to own fleets of vehicles for each market, whose technology is still in beta, requiring clearing a whole new set of regulatory hurdles in each jurisdiction, _lower_ the barrier to entry? I'm not arguing that the driverless car model won't ultimately be more profitable for the mega giants who can finance that move, but barrier to entry? Looks bigger than Three Gorges Dam to me...


----------



## ShinyAndChrome (Aug 18, 2017)

UpoorPeople said:


> Can't see how that's possible, at least in terms of labor costs which can't get much lower. I believe it's already at a threshold level where lowering driver rates by even 10% could reduce driver supply by 50%. And no, there isn't a limitless supply of drivers who are ready, willing AND _ABLE _to keep a car on the road that most riders would want to ride in for any less revenue than we're seeing now.


I agree broadly and I think uber has done a fine job of figuring out how low they can go. My city pays $.69/mile. I think orlando pays in the 50's, though, and that's why I believe all orlando uber drivers should be given mandatory drug testing. But in any case, they are very close to a break even point where they are essentially doing unpaid volunteer work for uber, so uber can't get much lower.

Therefore, for uber to become profitable it needs to either increase the cost of a ride (without giving more to the driver), or lowering its costs. I think its costs could be lowered, though I haven't seen them. They must be able to lower them.


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

ShinyAndChrome said:


> I think its costs could be lowered, though I haven't seen them. They must be able to lower them.


Yeah, I've always assumed the driverless play to be a huge part of their costs (plus legal of course). But I'm not sure they're going to make it past the finish line.


----------



## ShinyAndChrome (Aug 18, 2017)

cakoo10 said:


> Some cities, towns are so co dependent on uber , I just don't see it failing. The government will probably incentivize or bail out whatever help they need.


Weren't these towns fine before Uber?



UpoorPeople said:


> Help me understand. Right now a company can enter several markets simultaneously with only an app, some insurance costs and get going. How does needing to own fleets of vehicles for each market, whose technology is still in beta, requiring clearing a whole new set of regulatory hurdles in each jurisdiction, _lower_ the barrier to entry? I'm not arguing that the driverless car model won't ultimately be more profitable for the mega giants who can finance that move, but barrier to entry? Looks bigger than Three Gorges Dam to me...


Agree, the capital required to launch a meaningful fleet of driverless cars is insane.

And even if they get costs low enough to be competitive with the peanuts they pay a person to use their own car, then they will have competition. Tesla has floated the idea of Tesla owners using their own self-driving cars as part of a rideshare. So let's fast forward to 2030 and Uber has a fleet of vehicles it has bought and maintains. It will never find value in having a fleet any bigger than it's minimum demand rate; it won't be able to afford to keep cars sitting around waiting two hours for a ping. So it will still need to pay self-driving car owners a rental fee to tap their vehicles when demand is high.


----------



## TheAntMiami (Oct 10, 2016)

MercDuke said:


> A lot of the passengers here in Denver have this UberPass, I can't figure out how Uber makes any money on those rides.


My Monthly Uber Pass
$10/monthly fee
All X rides$5.99
All Pool Rides $2.99
I know for a fact based on miles alone, Uber is losing $4-$6 on average per trip. Times when I go 25/30 miles and still pay $5.99 they are losing $15-$25 per trip 
And I take as many long trips as possible!!!


----------



## ShinyAndChrome (Aug 18, 2017)

TheAntMiami said:


> My Monthly Uber Pass
> $10/monthly fee
> All X rides$5.99
> All Pool Rides $2.99
> ...


Good for you. I mean it. Those rates are idiotic. At that price I'd consider getting rid of a vehicle. You could get a ride to work and back for $290/month. No car note, insurance, gas, maintenance, etc. It won't last, though, it can't. If you did pool you could get to work and back in a car for $130/month. Even if you're dirt poor that would beat the bus any way you look at it. Crazy.


----------



## touberornottouber (Aug 12, 2016)

UpoorPeople said:


> Help me understand. Right now a company can enter several markets simultaneously with only an app, some insurance costs and get going. How does needing to own fleets of vehicles for each market, whose technology is still in beta, requiring clearing a whole new set of regulatory hurdles in each jurisdiction, _lower_ the barrier to entry? I'm not arguing that the driverless car model won't ultimately be more profitable for the mega giants who can finance that move, but barrier to entry? Looks bigger than Three Gorges Dam to me...


Because it is actually harder to get thousands of drivers all over the country to sign on than to just get some funding and throw out some self driving cars in a area. Of course it would be really hard to put driverless vehicles out on the road now. But in the future it is going to be easy because that will be normal. In fact a company could just toss a bunch of self driving cars out there at one location and let them eventually work their way all over the place. To service them you simply enter in to various contracts nationwide with towing companies and service centers, etc.

Once driverless vehicles for hire become common it will be very easy for new companies to enter the market unless Uber succeeds in setting up artificial barriers to entry using the government. In fact absent this we will probably eventually see entire networks of driverless vehicles for hire. Instead of one company it will be a network where the network gets a percentage and the owner gets another. You might be able to put your own self driving vehicle out there yourself and join the network.


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

touberornottouber said:


> You might be able to put your own self driving vehicle out there yourself and join the network.


But that just brings us back full circle to what we have now, just driverless. Doesn' seem to change the barrier to entry. Plus driverless car owners will still have an acceptable commission threshold beyond which they won't participate.


----------



## touberornottouber (Aug 12, 2016)

UpoorPeople said:


> But that just brings us back full circle to what we have now, just driverless. Doesn' seem to change the barrier to entry. Plus driverless car owners will still have an acceptable commission threshold beyond which they won't participate.


Well I thought this was about Uber crashing and burning?

That is what I am saying. I think it will be easy for other companies (and networks) to compete. Uber will lose their monopoly (or duopoly) and will "crash and burn" relative to what they have now.


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

touberornottouber said:


> Well I thought this was about Uber crashing and burning?


Yeah, it is. But I don't see it happening due to any reduced barriers to entry because of driverless vehicles. I question whether Uber (in its current regime) will even be standing at that point.

In the driverless "fleet" model, there will be huge competition, but it will be between gigantic players, including Chinese ones, with much _greater_ barriers to entry. In the "network" model it would be between other startups, with much the same barriers to entry as exist today. But agreed, Uber will struggle to compete in either scenario.

The fact that, at this point, Uber has only ever posted losses makes me question whether it will survive to be the giant it assumes it will be when driverless becomes a viable reality. Maybe it's a combination of both Uber's timing and its interim business model being off.


----------



## ShinyAndChrome (Aug 18, 2017)

touberornottouber said:


> Because it is actually harder to get thousands of drivers all over the country to sign on than to just get some funding and throw out some self driving cars in a area. Of course it would be really hard to put driverless vehicles out on the road now. But in the future it is going to be easy because that will be normal. In fact a company could just toss a bunch of self driving cars out there at one location and let them eventually work their way all over the place. To service them you simply enter in to various contracts nationwide with towing companies and service centers, etc.
> 
> Once driverless vehicles for hire become common it will be very easy for new companies to enter the market unless Uber succeeds in setting up artificial barriers to entry using the government. In fact absent this we will probably eventually see entire networks of driverless vehicles for hire. Instead of one company it will be a network where the network gets a percentage and the owner gets another. You might be able to put your own self driving vehicle out there yourself and join the network.


A key problem is that uber has already pushed rates down so low and proven humans are willing to use their own cars, that it could be difficult for uber to make money putting a new car on the road for $35k and then depreciating it over, say, 150k miles, and having to pay for everything along the way, all the repairs, fuel, etc. It could honestly end up being it's cheaper for them to just keep paying people, at least when it comes to the cheaper X service.


----------



## Cynergie (Apr 10, 2017)

ShinyAndChrome said:


> Weren't these towns fine before Uber?
> 
> Agree, the capital required to launch a meaningful fleet of driverless cars is insane.
> 
> And even if they get costs low enough to be competitive with the peanuts they pay a person to use their own car, then they will have competition. Tesla has floated the idea of Tesla owners using their own self-driving cars as part of a rideshare. So let's fast forward to 2030 and Uber has a fleet of vehicles it has bought and maintains. It will never find value in having a fleet any bigger than it's minimum demand rate; it won't be able to afford to keep cars sitting around waiting two hours for a ping. So it will still need to pay self-driving car owners a rental fee to tap their vehicles when demand is high.


 Despite crappy cabbie and/or public service, yes, they were. But rideshare is here to stay--regardless of whether it's run/owned by the government, private sector or both.

But I honestly don't see how the unit manufacturing costs -- to make this novel autobot technology a reality-- will be cheaper v. an organic driver.

Uber lacks the POV manufacturing capacity Ford, GM, Chrysler and the foreign automakers have. If the driverless tech cannot be separated from the vehicle, then Uber may have to shoulder the burden of all manufacturing/production costs.

But if the driverless tech is modular: then to simplify things, assume Uber owns the driverless/navigation tech and automakers own the vehicle design patent. In order to get to the break even point, they need to consider at minimum:

1. Cost of vehicle manufacturing/production still has to be considered regardless of whether the proprietary driverless IT is used or not. If the auto makers bear the upfront vehicle manufacturing/production costs, then Uber will sustain a significant upfront licensing/utilization cost. So they have access rights to use the auto manufacturers product and integrate their patent tech.

2. Economy of scale so investors can get an idea of their ROI. Basically the amount of time it takes to produce a batch of driverless vehicles (vs the rideshare industry demand both nationwide and globally). Particularly given requirements consumer safety constraints for the production vehicle (which is higher than the prototype stage). It takes the auto makers an average 60 man hours in the industry to assemble a vehicle. Add extra man hours to manufacture and install the proprietary driverless tech. Add time for DOT/NHTSA etc government regulation hurdles. Factor in depreciation costs the moment the first assembly unit rolls off the production line etc. The longer the time to fielding a unit, the longer it will take to reach that critical production mass Uber needs to achieve at the break even point.

3. Ownership of Uber's new driverless fleet --- so Uber can remain "asset light" to keep attracting investors. This will be the ongoing variable cost that will replace Uber's current driver payroll cost. As of now, the driver shoulders 100% of the O&M cost. Not much difference for renters and former lease drivers.

So what party will assume responsibility and oversight for the O&M for physically managing this global auto bot fleet? The auto manufacturer? A customized dealer? Uber? Some other 3rd party like Google? At least on this end, Uber is already compiling a global data base by tracking the driving stats for all it's drivers. Their analysts are diligently data mining and studying the crap out of whatever trip stats your app reports back daily. The fact the app tracks your speeding, braking etc. stats based on your geodesic coordinates is a passive aggressive reminder of that. The frequency drivers perform oil changes etc. etc. All those driver stats gives them a clear idea of what to estimate by means of O&M for the auto bot.

The capital cost for fielding the first batch of driverless cars off the production assembly line will be steep. Uber needs to find a way to make this new fleet ownership and O&M costs for each autobot vehicle LESS than what they're currently paying its drivers. They won't break even otherwise.

But if they do succeed, they'll be creating another problem: driving up global unemployment in the transportation industry by making the Taxi/Limo and private transportation operators 100% obsolete. Hell, this might even give public transportation a run for its money.


----------



## DelaJoe (Aug 11, 2015)

Uber isn't going anywhere. It had a rough couple of years but any startup goes thru growing pains. Uber is part of the culture now. The word Ubering is used in our vocabulary. It is a low cost and effective way to get from point A to point B. It is more faster and quicker than taking the bus. It is cheaper than taking a cab. It gives people that drink and drive an effective way to get home from the bar. It is a great way to get to events without worrying about paying for or finding parking. It provides part and fulltime employment to thousands of people daily.

Now the future could very well be driverless cars and people deciding not to own cars anymore. You will either take public transportation or rideshare or lease/rent a car when on vacation.


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

DelaJoe said:


> Uber is part of the culture now. The word Ubering is used in our vocabulary. It is a low cost and effective way to get from point A to point B. It is more faster and quicker than taking the bus. It is cheaper than taking a cab. It gives people that drink and drive an effective way to get home from the bar. It is a great way to get to events without worrying about paying for or finding parking. It provides part and fulltime employment to thousands of people daily.


These are all beautiful things. But not one of them is a measure of business viability. There's really just one measure; _profit_, and Uber ain't got it.

I can believe some form of rideshare is probably here to stay. But Uber? Why? Just because it's Uber? Sorry, that alone isn't good enough for capitalism (or isn't suppose to be anyways. There is however another economic system where we all pretend that something is working even though it's nowhere near productive. )


----------



## TheAntMiami (Oct 10, 2016)

Cynergie said:


> Despite crappy cabbie and/or public service, yes, they were. But rideshare is here to stay--regardless of whether it's run/owned by the government, private sector or both.
> 
> But I honestly don't see how the unit manufacturing costs -- to make this novel autobot technology a reality-- will be cheaper v. an organic driver.
> 
> ...


Really simple question. In a drivers car, the Pax pukes all over the backseat, who cleans it. Who washes the windows, fuels the car, etc.
Think about this the human interaction of asking a driver to stop, recommend something, ask to smoke, roll down a window etc.....technology is great, but who cleans the puke and pumps the gas???


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

Cleanerless cleaners...


----------



## njn (Jan 23, 2016)

There are already app based cleaners that will happily come to your car or house to clean it.


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

Are they bots yet?


----------



## Cynergie (Apr 10, 2017)

TheAntMiami said:


> Really simple question. In a drivers car, the Pax pukes all over the backseat, who cleans it. Who washes the windows, fuels the car, etc.
> Think about this the human interaction of






> asking a driver to stop


Thankfully, this pax trollfest will end with the debut of the bot. Pax will no longer be able to abuse the driver with their multiple stop con game. Bot will most likely take them from point A to destination point B -- with zero stops in between. Unless Uber caves in to the potential bad PR backlash they could get from doing this. I could see them feeling cornered into adding a 1-2 stop max option to the app which pax could exercise between their pickup/destination points.





> recommend something


 No need to add this to the app. That's what Alexa is for. Why do you suppose Amazon went bat sh#te crazy giving her and her split personality Echo away this past Christmas?  Don't believe me? Just ask the drivers in the Flex forum. 





> ask to smoke, roll down a window etc.....


 all in-flight trip drama --particularly the ones that result from requests to smoke Mary Jane and/or other questionable pharmaceuticals--will be hereby obsoleted.  Because once a pax gets in an autobot's car, their overly self entitled @$$ will be entitled---to absolutely nothing. Because the bot will make sure the rear doors and window locks are activated at all times. Safety is going to be an even BIGGER regulatory concern you know. And all faux concierge pax requests for amenities other than music & generic google web info (to likely include restroom emergency stops) will fall on non existent ears.  Unless Uber has a Lyftesque relapse and adds a chute. Through a front pax seat that was designed to never seat pax. Because it needs to seat a very big container. Connected to the chute. Which dispenses a single mint to pax in the rear seat --- should the autobot driver feels the pax is worthy of a 5 star rating for the trip.....





> technology is great, but who cleans the puke and pumps the gas??


 That 3rd party Uber suckers into taking the fall for their failed billion dollar O&M business model....

But seriously, there is no shortage of cheap labor cleaning services. Nothing about a cleaning service is remotely proprietary, so very low barrier for entry. All a cleaning company would need is a 3rd party app that can get quick notifications from Uber on an hourly basis. The only catch here is the autobot driver needs to be smart enough--BEFORE trying to pickup the next pax--to detect if

1) their pax puked,
2) left a #1 puddle,
3)left a #2 scat pile special tip, or
4) had a pet who did some or all of the above during their ride

Because let's be really discriminatory here: it's not likely the autobot drivers will genetically possess a sense of smell TBH. Or an ironic sense of humor for that matter. Split personality Alexa/Echo DOES have her limitations....

edit: and on that note, Uber will likely discover the amazing benefits of equipping all its drivers with front & rear dashcams......


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

Hmmm... a lot more moving parts to the driverless idea than people generally talk about.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

UpoorPeople said:


> ... quickly and spectacularly?
> 
> See poll above. State reasons why or why not below.


Still waiting for GIANT ASTEROID IMPACT . . .


----------



## Rakos (Sep 2, 2014)

tohunt4me said:


> Still waiting for GIANT ASTEROID IMPACT . . .


Just remember...

You won't see the one that gets you...

Butt...it may singe a bit...8>)

Rakos


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

It wouldn't be the end of the world or anything... A few _"dinosaurs_" might go extinct is all.


----------



## Tracy L Williams (Jan 12, 2018)

UpoorPeople said:


> I hear ya, but needing a half decent vehicle less than 10 years old, maintaining, repairing and fuelling it right there imposes barriers to entry. Right now, they'd literally need to be subsidized for months, by parents or otherwise, to break even by driving. What happens if the tide suddenly turns and it becomes common knowledge that Uber is a losing (and a loser's) proposition?


Vehicle can be 15 years old not ten. They are allowing 2003 and up.


----------



## ShinyAndChrome (Aug 18, 2017)

Cleaning the driverless car they can just have plastic lined floors and seats and when a pax leaves give it a quick spray down like a public bathroom I saw in boston. Some pax stank so bad they could even sell as an upcharge the ability to stay in the car while it hoses itself down.


----------



## UpoorPeople (Apr 13, 2017)

Tracy L Williams said:


> Vehicle can be 15 years old not ten. They are allowing 2003 and up.


Maybe in Cali, but not in Ontario. 10 years old max.


----------



## 404NofFound (Jun 13, 2018)

UpoorPeople said:


> Yeah, I'm thinking of an Enron type situation.
> 
> But it's not flowing into their bank account. It's flowing _through _their bank account, and out. You're right that _is_ a lot of money - to have spent and had zero return on.


Enron was loved by its employees and shareholders.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

404NofFound said:


> Enron was loved by its employees and shareholders.


Loved so much by their employees that some of them gave a little back. You can get a sneak peak from


----------

