# Uber Bonds Term Sheet Reveals $470 Million in Operating Losses



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...sheet-reveals-470-million-in-operating-losses*


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*"These are substantially old numbers that do not reflect business activities today," Uber spokeswoman Nairi Hourdajian said in an e-mail. Hourdajian declined to say why the numbers are being used to promote a current funding round.*

Yeah sure, Nairi!
*(@NairiHourdaj): https://twitter.com/NairiHourdaj?s=09*


----------



## toi (Sep 8, 2014)

very interesting article.
thanks for sharing


----------



## UberComic (Apr 17, 2014)

They give away rides and reduce fares when they don't have to. If they had kept their old drivers happy, they wouldn't have to pay new driver bonuses. If someone doesn't put the Uber ship on course soon, it's going to hit an iceberg.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Report: Uber's huge growth comes with huge losses*
http://fortune.com/2015/06/29/report-ubers-huge-growth-comes-with-huge-losses/


----------



## UberRidiculous (May 19, 2015)

Kalanick is an expert at negotiating with investors. This isn't his first rodeo. There's an old saying that goes something like, "other people are on a 'need to know' basis and they don't need to know squat". He's only sharing what he wants to share. And regardless of what we think, whatever it is he is doing..... it's working for him, and Uber.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona (Mar 18, 2015)

UberRidiculous said:


> Besides those figures are not pure operating costs. I'm sure there are many Uber operational costs that will disappear if Uber is viable.
> *For Example:*
> 1. Lobbyists for Legislation
> 2. Bail for European Uber Execs
> ...


If they stopped bleeding money everywhere they are trying to operate illegally, they'd be a money-printing machine.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

UberRidiculous said:


> chi1cabby what am I missing?


I think you've covered it pretty much.


----------



## Nlanders01 (Jun 24, 2015)

If those kind of losses are true and investors are still investing tons of cash then it would seem evident that Uber and investors see the potential. Seems to me they are willing to operate at a loss because they are just perfecting the system and figuring out all the bugs by using people as their drivers, all the while looking to the future of unmanned vehicles. They know that once the system is in place and mastered that adding the unmanned vehicles will integrated relatively easily. Without paying drivers that company would be RIDICULOUSLY profitable. They have already announced this intention and are probably just counting the days.


----------



## UberRidiculous (May 19, 2015)

Nlanders01 said:


> If those kind of losses are true and investors are still investing tons of cash then it would seem evident that Uber and investors see the potential. Seems to me they are willing to operate at a loss because they are just perfecting the system and figuring out all the bugs by using people as their drivers, all the while looking to the future of unmanned vehicles. They know that once the system is in place and mastered that adding the unmanned vehicles will integrated relatively easily. Without paying drivers that company would be RIDICULOUSLY profitable. They have already announced this intention and are probably just counting the days.


Uh have you seen what they're doing to Uber in France lately?


----------



## Nlanders01 (Jun 24, 2015)

Yes i have. And that's kind of what I'm saying. They know they need to spend the money now to get the system in place and respected and properly governed in as many places as possible because when the unmanned vehicles do roll out it be that much more profitable depending on how many places have it.
seems to me they will do whatever it takes to invest for the future of the company, which i believe to be automated delivery of any thing you can think of.


----------



## UberRidiculous (May 19, 2015)

Nlanders01 said:


> Yes i have. And that's kind of what I'm saying. They know they need to spend the money now to get the system in place and respected and properly governed in as many places as possible because when the unmanned vehicles do roll out it be that much more profitable depending on how many places have it.
> seems to me they will do whatever it takes to invest for the future of the company, which i believe to be automated delivery of any thing you can think of.


Right but you mean when GUber rolls out after Google buys Uber!


----------



## Nlanders01 (Jun 24, 2015)

They wouldn't be very smart to sell to anyone with the potential that they have. They could easily be way bigger then Google in 5 years or so


----------



## Nlanders01 (Jun 24, 2015)

Think of the profits when you don't have to pay a driver. They could lower prices by 50% and still be making 150% more then they were. Those vehicles would pay themselves off crazy fast, and they would know exactly how many were working at a given moment thus reducing the need for "surge". Uber is definitely going somewhere with this.


----------



## UberRidiculous (May 19, 2015)

Nlanders01 said:


> They wouldn't be very smart to sell to anyone with the potential that they have. They could easily be way bigger then Google in 5 years or so


Ahhhh an optimist! 
*THERE'S NO PLACE FOR YOU HERE! *
*Just kidding! I shouldn't make fun of nice guys with cuddly puppy avatars. *


----------



## Nlanders01 (Jun 24, 2015)

Lol i mean i can understand the distaste for the company. They are seemingly just using people to get their system in place, not giving then any information on their intentions, and then just gonna do away with them at the end and they won't have to do anything more because we are all independent contractors. Not to mention completely up ending taxi and transport companies across the globe. I definitely get it. Thats capitalism for you.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

You guys have to remember one thing, Uber is an app that has a market to itself at the moment.

This market will not be theirs alone for long. Everyone and their grandmothers will jump in.

Barriers to entry will be low, the regulations set and people will be more comfortable with not owning their car.

Google, Apple, Tesla, Auto manufacturers, insurance companies, investors, taxi companies, cities and counties, even airlines will jump in and fracture this market into smaller pieces.

Uber could just build up a market that will be whittled away by others.


----------



## UberRidiculous (May 19, 2015)

observer said:


> You guys have to remember one thing, Uber is an app that has a market to itself at the moment.
> 
> This market will not be theirs alone for long. Everyone and their grandmothers will jump in.
> 
> ...


If it's worth doing, others will think it's worth copying!


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

UberRidiculous said:


> If it's worth doing, others will think it's worth copying!


Exactly.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

observer said:


> Uber could just build up a market that will be whittled away by others.


Not really.
Uber's network effect will continue to grow. Any new entrants will stay marginal players unless they have billions to throw at buying market share. 
In China Uber is spending $3 for every $1 in revenue to buy market share from Didi-Kuadi.

*Leaked letter from Uber's biggest competitor in China*


----------



## Nlanders01 (Jun 24, 2015)

Which I believe is somewhat true, cause we've already started to see that with all the apps like lyft, scoop, roadie, airbnb, foap, fieldagent. Everything is becoming more privatized particularly by apps but i think there will be a strong leader in each field. No doubt soon airlines with jump in too with buses, trains, pizza, medication, Pet services. The list is probably endless. But with a system inplace long ahead of others makes it hard to compete. Not to mention when uber comes to a city it comes hard and dominates really. So if they hold onto the market for the transport of people they will be plenty well off


----------



## Just_in (Jun 29, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> Not really.
> Uber's network effect will continue to grow. Any new entrants will stay marginal players unless they have billions to throw at buying market share.
> In China Uber is spending $3 for every $1 in revenue to buy market share from Didi-Kuadi.
> 
> *Leaked letter from Uber's biggest competitor in China*


Predatory Pricing or Price Dumping. Exactly.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> Not really.
> Uber's network effect will continue to grow. Any new entrants will stay marginal players unless they have billions to throw at buying market share.
> In China Uber is spending $3 for every $1 in revenue to buy market share from Didi-Kuadi.
> 
> *Leaked letter from Uber's biggest competitor in China*


Yepp but it will get harder for Uber to keep raising money. Investors have to be getting jittery.

Lots of companies have money, the right people and most of all the goodwill and trust of consumers.


----------



## Nlanders01 (Jun 24, 2015)

observer said:


> Yepp but it will get harder for Uber to keep raising money. Investors have to be getting jittery.
> 
> Lots of companies have money, the right people and most of all the goodwill and trust of consumers.


Yes but I'm sure investors know that Uber is profitable. If they pulled out of China alone they would be in profit im sure but that's not good for the future to leave such a huge market uncracked, not to mention can't let anyone else grow strong enough to compete lol


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Think of it this way, Uber is fighting a war to create one big entity. That is unnatural. There will come a tipping point where it will stop growing because it will be fighting a war on thousands of fronts.

We are already seeing a much weaker Uber strategically, than even a few months ago. It is being hit on many sides with arrests of its leaders, drivers, riots against its mere presence, politicians in many countries are against it, right now it has investors on its side.

But investors are fickle, as soon as they can cash out they will jump to the next big thing, they will want to recoup and protect their winnings.


----------



## Nlanders01 (Jun 24, 2015)

Hey. Mo money mo problems


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Nlanders01 said:


> Yes but I'm sure investors know that Uber is profitable. If they pulled out of China alone they would be in profit im sure but that's not good for the future to leave such a huge market uncracked, not to mention can't let anyone else grow strong enough to compete lol


Uber has a couple big competitors in China with deep pockets. They will defend their turf vigorously. If it gets too desperate for them, I think the chinese government will back them up over any american company.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

"Uber generated a $470 million operating loss on $415 million in revenue"

In other words, "every dollar I take in revenue costs me over two dollars to generate".

All Uber is doing at the moment is taking its investors' money and buying market share with it, as mentioned above. It does not take a genius business brain to simply disburse investors' money on free and subsidized rides.

At some point, Uber will have to become proftable or it will go to the wall. It'll be interesting to see how they pull it off. Given the above figures, even if they doubled their prices and trip volumes stayed the same, they'd _still_ be making a loss. But these are old numbers and Uber has lowered its prices since.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

observer said:


> Think of it this way, Uber is fighting a war to create one big entity. That is unnatural. There will come a tipping point where it will stop growing because it will be fighting a war on thousands of fronts.
> 
> We are already seeing a much weaker Uber strategically, than even a few months ago. It is being hit on many sides with arrests of its leaders, drivers, riots against its mere presence, politicians in many countries are against it, right now it has investors on its side.
> 
> But investors are fickle, as soon as they can cash out they will jump to the next big thing, they will want to recoup and protect their winnings.


Exactly.. investors aren't loyal to one company.. they play both sides of the field... if anyone thinks they have loyalty to Uber they have no idea what they're thinking. All that'll happen is the investors will cash out.. then dump their money into the next Uber and clip Uber so it's a win win for them.



observer said:


> Uber has a couple big competitors in China with deep pockets. They will defend their turf vigorously. If it gets too desperate for them, I think the chinese government will back them up over any american company.


Bingo.. China doesn't play that "we'll let an American company dominate out here".. they will just bootleg whatever is going on here and make their own.. look at Google.. isn't Google banned there? they have Baidu.. we have Amazon.. they have Alibaba.

I think the investors/Uber are fighting for China because that market is the market that will help them really profit for all the investors to cash out.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

elelegido said:


> "Uber generated a $470 million operating loss on $415 million in revenue"
> 
> In other words, "every dollar I take in revenue costs me over two dollars to generate".
> 
> ...


I don't think the numbers are as old as they're pretending it to be.. I think they're pretty new to be honest. Bloomberg is a pretty big media outlet and they wouldn't really start throwing out false/old news like that. It's not like it's some random blog.

And to the person who said they will cut their expenses.. they will also raise expenses also such as more employees(people who work there) and will still fight lawsuits. Even when they're done fighting these fights.. once they try to throw a driverless car out there.. they will be fighting lawsuits, accidents etc.. it's never ending really.


----------



## Nlanders01 (Jun 24, 2015)

elelegido said:


> "Uber generated a $470 million operating loss on $415 million in revenue"
> 
> In other words, "every dollar I take in revenue costs me over two dollars to generate".
> 
> ...


Actually that math is way off to me. 470 divided by 415 sends like "for every dollar i made i spent 1.13." Not really that terrible, but a loss nonetheless.


----------



## Just_in (Jun 29, 2014)

According to the Forbes article it's based on 2 billion gross. With 80% going to the Partner and 20% going to Uber. The 20% has turned into 415 million so Uber loss would be 55 million. I'm pretty sure the point is that Uber is making is 2 billion gross to the investors and potential growth not the loss.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

This is like the dot com boom. Except this time it's one company.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> This is like the dot com boom. Except this time it's one company.


A whole lot of apps are gonna come crashing down... last time I read how Spotify still isn't profitable... and they're even in hotter water now that Apple and etc.. has entered the game.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Brooklyn said:


> I don't think the numbers are as old as they're pretending it to be.. I think they're pretty new to be honest.


These are the latest financials that are being used by banks in prospectus they've put out for Uber's convertible bonds placement. 
These numbers aren't "old" in the sense that they are from say from 2013. Nairi used "old" to mean that they don't represent the current Quarter ie Q2 2015.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Nlanders01 said:


> Actually that math is way off to me. 470 divided by 415 sends like "for every dollar i made i spent 1.13." Not really that terrible, but a loss nonetheless.


An operating loss is revenue minus costs. So to produce an operating loss of $470 million on revenues of $415 million, their costs would be $885 million. So for every dollar they made, they spent $2.13.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Nlanders01 said:


> Actually that math is way off to me. 470 divided by 415 sends like "for every dollar i made i spent 1.13."


That's because you don't understand profit and loss statements.

I'll explain:

If Uber generates $415m in revenues, and each dollar of revenue cost it one dollar, operating costs would also be $415m, leaving it with a net profit of zero i.e. break even. If each dollar in revenue cost it two dollars, revenue would still be $415m and costs would be $830m, leaving it with a net loss of $415m. However, net losses are even higher than this, at $470m. Therefore, each dollar of revenue costs more than two dollars to generate. $2.13, to be exact.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> These are the latest financials that are being used by banks in prospectus they've put out for Uber's convertible bonds placement.
> These numbers aren't "old" in the sense that they are from say from 2013. Nairi used "old" to mean that they don't represent the current Quarter ie Q2 2015.


Who the hell do you think you are to correct me?

Lol jk.. thanks for clearing that up for me.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Just_in said:


> According to the Forbes article it's based on 2 billion gross. With 80% going to the Partner and 20% going to Uber. The 20% has turned into 415 million so Uber loss would be 55 million. I'm pretty sure the point is that Uber is making is 2 billion gross to the investors and potential growth not the loss.


No... Uber's loss was $470m. Turning a loss of $470m into a profit of $470m and then subtracting revenue of $415m to get $55m is totally meaningless.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Really this is all a reflection of Uber's easy access to capital.
And this is also a reflection of Uber's strategy being similar to that of Amazon: Plow all profits back into expansion.


----------



## Nlanders01 (Jun 24, 2015)

Touche, I can't really argue with that. I actually appreciate the insight as now i know something new lol


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> An operating loss is revenue minus costs. So to produce an operating loss of $470 million on revenues of $415 million, their costs would be $885 million. So for every dollar they made, they spent $2.13.


Actually, they didn't "make" any money, they had a thumping great loss. Rather, for every dollar they took in revenue they paid $2.13. Pedantic, maybe, but Uber itself freely substitutes "make", "earn" and "revenue" at will, and I don't like it.


----------



## Nlanders01 (Jun 24, 2015)

elelegido said:


> Actually, they didn't "make" any money, they had a thumping great loss. Rather, for every dollar they took in revenue they paid $2.13. Pedantic, maybe, but Uber itself freely substitutes "make", "earn" and "revenue" at will, and I don't like it.


Which explains their logic in advertising for drivers saying EARN 35 an hour iv revenue when it means GROSS 35 an hour at most.


----------



## GooberX (May 13, 2015)

Nlanders01 said:


> If those kind of losses are true and investors are still investing tons of cash then it would seem evident that Uber and investors see the potential. Seems to me they are willing to operate at a loss because they are just perfecting the system and figuring out all the bugs by using people as their drivers, all the while looking to the future of unmanned vehicles. They know that once the system is in place and mastered that adding the unmanned vehicles will integrated relatively easily. Without paying drivers that company would be RIDICULOUSLY profitable. They have already announced this intention and are probably just counting the days.


You sure seem to underestimate the cost of driverless vehicles.

Purchase, Insure (as an owner, since no longer IC drivers), clean, maintain, and most importantly adjustments of passenger errors.

It isn't happening anytime soon.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Nlanders01 said:


> Which explains their logic in advertising for drivers saying EARN 35 an hour iv revenue when it means GROSS 35 an hour at most.


Right, they are trying to make it seem like a job, where employees do indeed earn $x per hour. If you earn $10 an hour at McD's, you keep $10 an hour, less taxes and SS. The employee doesn't then have to pay for hamburger buns, french fries or electricity for the restaurant.

Uber is being deliberately deceitful when it substitutes "earn $x per hour" for "book $x per hour in fares", completely ignoring operating costs.


----------



## Nlanders01 (Jun 24, 2015)

elelegido said:


> Right, they are trying to make it seem like a job, where employees do indeed earn $x per hour. If you earn $10 an hour at McD's, you keep $10 an hour, less taxes and SS. The employee doesn't then have to pay for hamburger buns, french fries or electricity for the restaurant.
> 
> Uber is being deliberately deceitful when it substitutes "earn $x per hour" for "book $x per hour in fares", completely ignoring operating costs.


Lol why not, they do. Ignore operating costs that is


----------



## Just_in (Jun 29, 2014)

elelegido said:


> No... Uber's loss was $470m. Turning a loss of $470m into a profit of $470m and then subtracting revenue of $415m to get $55m is totally meaningless.


I was incorrect in my thinking. Another point is I read articles of the Uber CEO being a billionaire. How can that be if Uber is never profitable. Do the investors give him a big chunk cause they like him. His past venture failed. How can he be a billionaire does he keep all the money. I don't get it.


----------



## Nlanders01 (Jun 24, 2015)

GooberX said:


> You sure seem to underestimate the cost of driverless vehicles.
> 
> Purchase, Insure (as an owner, since no longer IC drivers), clean, maintain, and most importantly adjustments of passenger errors.
> 
> It isn't happening anytime soon.


Which i never said it was coming soon, just they could potentially be bigger then Google in 5 years, i never said a date for driverless cars. I just said future


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Just_in said:


> I was incorrect in my thinking. Another point is I read articles of the Uber CEO being billionaire.


TravisK is a billionaire. A *paper* billionaire, but a billionaire nonetheless. He could do a private placement of his stake for a quick $5 billion in cash tomorrow.


----------



## toi (Sep 8, 2014)

how could they be making better in 2015 with all the guarantee payouts man.
they gambled to run competition out of business by lowering the rates almost to nothing with guarantees in place but competition is still there.
so 2015 is probably even double or triple the loss of 2014 imo


----------



## GooberX (May 13, 2015)

Nlanders01 said:


> Which i never said it was coming soon, just they could potentially be bigger then Google in 5 years, i never said a date for driverless cars. I just said future


Well, fair enough, but it will be so far in the future, it'll be meaningless to us.

And, I have doubts whether they will make it.

Those numbers are atrocious, especially considering they have zero employee costs yet.

The clock is ticking.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

Also consider that they can't grow forever.. they're showing these numbers with so much grow.. eventually it's going to level off. 

Example.. Uber has put a ton of cars on the road in NYC.. now NYC is in talks on passing a rule to slow the amount of drivers Uber can throw onto the road. 

Like someone said before.. China's government would probably back a Chinese company..

They're being barred from other countries.. eventually that VC money.. whether it be Venture Capital or Virtual Currency(the way these people burn right through fake money)... will dry up.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

GooberX said:


> Those numbers are atrocious, especially considering they have zero employee costs yet.
> 
> The clock is ticking.


I don't know - how much funding have they raised so far, $2.5bn? If they're burning through $500m per year, that would still be five years before they run out of cash. And there's no sign that funding sources are drying up. They've got time yet.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

elelegido said:


> I don't know - how much funding have they raised so far, $2.5bn? If they're burning through $500m per year, that would still be five years before they run out of cash. An there's no sign yet that finding sources are drying up. They've got time yet.


More than that... I think over $4 billion now.. but there's a lot of unaccounted for money that went into a lot of peoples pockets.


----------



## GooberX (May 13, 2015)

elelegido said:


> I don't know - how much funding have they raised so far, $2.5bn? If they're burning through $500m per year, that would still be five years before they run out of cash. And there's no sign that finding sources are drying up. They've got time yet.


If the backdraft keeps intensifying, and drivers start joining lawsuits, and labor Commission's rule holds up, that $500 per year will become $1.5 billion per year.

The clock is ticking because the battles are intensifying.

The cost of driver ill will is not measured.

They wanted to kill Taxis and Lyft.....both are surviving.

Their brand is nosediving, and they have enemies everywhere, including within.

It'll be interesting.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Brooklyn said:


> More than that... I think over $4 billion now.. but there's a lot of unaccounted for money that went into a lot of peoples pockets.


I think it was 5.9 Billion.

Here's a very interesting article chi1cabby posted in another thread.

http://fortune.com/2015/06/26/china-uber-didi-kuaidi/?xid=soc_socialflow_twitter_FORTUNE


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Didi Kuaidi may be valued at only 15B and Uber at 40B but Didis full value is based only in China while Ubers is spread out over the whole world.

Didi is also raising up to 2B just to spend in China.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

observer said:


> I think it was 5.9 Billion.
> 
> Here's a very interesting article chi1cabby posted in another thread.
> 
> http://fortune.com/2015/06/26/china-uber-didi-kuaidi/?xid=soc_socialflow_twitter_FORTUNE


Thanks for the number..

Another thing I found interesting is that Uber is still looking for a CFO since the previous one Brent Callicnos or whatever stepped down. They supposedly have approached atleast 2 other guys to take the position which have turned it down.. so figure if 2 made the news and Uber isn't looking for external help and trying to keep it I guess on the hush hush... they've probably approached 5-10 people about the position without anyone actually taking it yet and using the same "I'm busy" excuses Is that a sign? what do you numbers guys think?


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

I just think Kalanick's just hopelessly wrong about the UberX business model. He says,

*"On Uber as a service: 'Uber is efficiency with elegance on top. That's why I buy an iPhone instead of an average cell phone, why I go to a nice restaurant and pay a little bit more. It's for the experience."*

All well and good, but if you want an iPhone, you pay more for it, not less. If you go to a nice restaurant, you pay a premium. What Kalanick is trying to do is get his drivers to provide a premium experience, with new cars, water, snacks, Spotify, opening doors and all the other BS in exchange for a pittance.

He's contradicting himself. He expects to pay more for his iPhone and his good meal, yet he wants his passengers to pay less for more with UberX.

There is a reason Apple and good restaurants charge a premium. It's basic Business Strategy 101 as taught by any business school; providing a premium product at an economy price is not sustainable. No company has been able to pull it off, ever.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Didis 3M daily "rideshare" vs Ubers 1M does not include Didis 3M daily taxi rides. 

Ubers 1M daily rides may also be overexaggerated numbers because of high level of fraudulent rides that Uber includes in its numbers.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Here is Chi1cabbys thread on China and Uber.

https://uberpeople.net/threads/leak...iggest-competitor-in-china.24595/#post-337044


----------



## ubtight (Nov 19, 2014)

observer said:


> Didis 3M daily "rideshare" vs Ubers 1M does not include Didis 3M daily taxi rides.
> 
> Ubers 1M daily rides may also be overexaggerated numbers because of high level of fraudulent rides that Uber includes in its numbers.


All this really is moot. More diversified businesses with stronger balance sheets like Google and Apple, plus carmakers who have a more vested interest will be the ones to finish the race toward driverless vehicles. Uber will fade away into a footnote that says, "This company made the idea of "not driving" desirable and accessible to the masses. But because of their better brand images, Apple/Volvo's transPods and Google/Toyota's all-electric DriveBots eventually put Uber's arrogrant brand out of business."


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

I told you guys
The Warriors will keep uber at bay

Uber is spending billions in growing the transportation market in general

Please take your slice
To any outside of uber
The slice is practically free

The drivers "in " UBERS network are handicapped
The drivers "out" of UBERS network are running rampant

This news made my day thanks


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

observer said:


> Yepp but it will get harder for Uber to keep raising money. Investors have to be getting jittery


clearly the single only reason Uber is still hanging around is due to all of this investor money pouring in from the outside . . it has created an artificial product that people are getting addicted to (cheap-ass taxi rides!) once the investors pull the plug shit gonna get real


----------



## GooberX (May 13, 2015)

20yearsdriving said:


> I told you guys
> The Warriors will keep uber at bay
> 
> Uber is spending billions in growing the transportation market in general
> ...


Shhhhhhhhh.....don't spill da beans.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

It's hard to know what Uber will become, because Uber today is nothing like it was in the past.

Uber was built on customers preferring the quality of Uber to taxis at similar rates. The quality was coming from the fact that Ubers didn't have the costs of insurance and regulations that taxis suffer under. The app hailing was also preferable to phone hailing in cities where there aren't taxis trolling up and down your street. But now that taxis have app hailing apps too, Uber doesn't have a technology advantage there anymore other than the number of users of their app hailing technology compared to others. And honestly, the code of that technology is about as complex as writing Frogger in the 80's, so let's not go all hyperbole about how cutting edge sophistication Uber is with it's technology. It's value as a company is the number of customers who use it everyday. Nothing more.

But now, with rates slashed to rock bottom prices, Uber is turning it's back on the customer base that built it. If Ruth Chris decided to slash it's product and service quality in order to attract Walmart customers, it's not a given that it will achieve growth by doing so. If it were just that easy, they would do it. Travis is an idiot for thinking it is just that easy. But investors are bigger idiots for believing it too.

The problems of this approach Uber is taking won't grow to their potential for some years. It's when drivers have been driving their cars into the ground for years, can't afford to replace it, and worse yet can't afford to keep it properly maintained, that the shit will hit the fan. Brakes are going to give out, and tires are going to fail, at higher and higher frequencies as drivers desperate to feed their families and keep the bills paid try to squeeze too much out of their cars. Eventually city, state, and possibly even the federal government will have to step up to defend the public from Uber and others profiting from this kind of business model.


----------



## GooberX (May 13, 2015)

UberHammer said:


> It's hard to know what Uber will become, because Uber today is nothing like it was in the past.
> 
> Uber was built on customers preferring the quality of Uber to taxis at similar rates. The quality was coming from the fact that Ubers didn't have the costs of insurance and regulations that taxis suffer under. The app hailing was also preferable to phone hailing in cities where there aren't taxis trolling up and down your street. But now that taxis have app hailing apps too, Uber doesn't have a technology advantage there anymore other than the number of users of their app hailing technology compared to others. And honestly, the code of that technology is about as complex as writing Frogger in the 80's, so let's not go all hyperbole about how cutting edge sophistication Uber is with it's technology. It's value as a company is the number of customers who use it everyday. Nothing more.
> 
> ...


My long lost twin.

Well said.

Tick.....tick....tick......


----------



## UberRidiculous (May 19, 2015)

Osmg95 said:


> Expert negotiator? Based on what? Have you actually witnesses the give and take process of such negotiations with Travis. I'm not trying to be argumentative as i understand your point. Still, the reason why Uber [Travis] are getting much of what they want comes down to economy of scale, their powerful leverage due to sheer size of their global markets, and extremely high company valuation. Oh! Did i mention greed? The 'hey I need in on the action' effect. Everyone has their hand out and to get your hand slapped by Uber is scary. They know where you live, eat, sleep, and with who. Wouldn't want that private info to slip into the wrong hands, right?
> 
> The truth is Uber scares a lot people/industries. Ubers size and legal/political power allows then to flex their muscles in the mirror and intimidate or bully. Look at all the markets they enter and have the slightest intension to "negotiate" any city/county requests Unless it's in their best financial interest. Rider safely is only worth $1 as we known...Nothing more. Take it or leave it. Uber is outta here..
> 
> ...


And to think your avatar made me think you may be a shill... AHA HAHAHA
You're alright!


----------



## Nlanders01 (Jun 24, 2015)

I


----------



## UberRidiculous (May 19, 2015)

UberHammer said:


> It's hard to know what Uber will become, because Uber today is nothing like it was in the past.
> 
> Uber was built on customers preferring the quality of Uber to taxis at similar rates. The quality was coming from the fact that Ubers didn't have the costs of insurance and regulations that taxis suffer under. The app hailing was also preferable to phone hailing in cities where there aren't taxis trolling up and down your street. But now that taxis have app hailing apps too, Uber doesn't have a technology advantage there anymore other than the number of users of their app hailing technology compared to others. And honestly, the code of that technology is about as complex as writing Frogger in the 80's, so let's not go all hyperbole about how cutting edge sophistication Uber is with it's technology. It's value as a company is the number of customers who use it everyday. Nothing more.
> 
> ...


I agree with everything you say except the time frame for change. Uber is already pivoting and diversifying it's revenue strategy by adding Big Data as an income stream. The investors Tricky Nicky is able to shakedown, are those willing to place large bets on an Uber IPO which is THE brass ring.  Is there any other company like Uber right now that can make investors 'drool' over a possible IPO? I can't name any.


----------



## UberRidiculous (May 19, 2015)

Osmg95 said:


> Expert negotiator? Based on what? Have you actually witnesses the give and take process of such negotiations with Travis.


A little google search on some TravisK history will show you that he has had a few of what he calls 'failures' that left him with millions. And he couldn't have failed so successfully without his ability to negotiate (shakedown) investors (like Mark Cuban) until he could cash out by selling. My prediction is something similar will now happen with Uber, just on a MUCH larger scale. I see an Uber IPO in the future, but I have doubts it can happen under Travis.


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

UberRidiculous said:


> A little google search on some TravisK history will show you that he has had a few of what he calls 'failures' that left him with millions. And he couldn't have failed so successfully without his ability to negotiate (shakedown) investors (like Mark Cuban) until he could cash out by selling. My prediction is something similar will now happen with Uber, just on a MUCH larger scale. I see an Uber IPO in the future, but I have doubts it can happen under Travis.


i had an early theory that what this is all about is Kalanick scraping $tens$ of $millions$ off each fundraiser and stashing the cash around the world .. then intelligently collapse the company .. plus he paid himself a hefty legit salary along the way


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> Not really.
> Uber's network effect will continue to grow. Any new entrants will stay marginal players unless they have billions to throw at buying market share.
> In China Uber is spending $3 for every $1 in revenue to buy market share from Didi-Kuadi.
> 
> *Leaked letter from Uber's biggest competitor in China*


Investors will get real jittery if Uber loses the lawsuit classifying Drivers as employees.


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

elelegido said:


> "Uber generated a $470 million operating loss on $415 million in revenue"
> 
> In other words, "every dollar I take in revenue costs me over two dollars to generate".
> 
> ...


Uber not making up profits with their rate cuts in Jan. Of 2015. It would be interesting to see their numbers after rate cuts.


----------



## UberRidiculous (May 19, 2015)

Osmg95 said:


> I might might not be the sharpest tool in the shed (probably the reason I excel with Uber) but, if Uber offers up an IPO, wouldn't that mean that now TravisK sole purpose is to satisfy his new owners...the shareholders?
> 
> Do you still think Uber will be able to barge into a city without complying to that cities regulations and just pull out because they don't want to comply to let's say fingerprinting drivers because it just sets a bad precedence or image of giving in? Seems to me when you have to answer to the shareholders who are only interested in increasing the value of their shares and can fire you are going to get pissed with all the strong headed, ego driven shenanigans. (See Steve Jobs)
> 
> ...


YOU are a lot of fun! LMAO
And you are exactly right. It took a Kalanick to steamroll Uber this far globally but THAT is where I think the buck stops bcuz good luck steamrolling the SEC on an IPO. That's kinda what I was trying to say.

Disclaimer edit: I really don't know much about this kinda stuff... just enuf to talk $h*t.


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

chi1cabby said:


> *Report: Uber's huge growth comes with huge losses*
> http://fortune.com/2015/06/29/report-ubers-huge-growth-comes-with-huge-losses/


Thanks for sharing per usual.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Txchick said:


> Investors will get real jittery if Uber loses the lawsuit classifying Drivers as employees.


The Uber Drivers as Employee/ICs lawsuits will be drawn out affairs. I doubt current investors are too concerned about em.


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> The Uber Drivers as Employee/ICs lawsuits will be drawn out affairs. I doubt current investors are too concerned about em.


Yes it will be drawn out but if they lose the lawsuit that will looming money payouts for the future & how will Uber restructure their business to account for drivers being employees?


----------



## john djjjoe (Feb 20, 2015)

Txchick said:


> Uber not making up profits with their rate cuts in Jan. Of 2015. It would be interesting to see their numbers after rate cuts.


Numbers are good, the article (as it discloses) doesn't refer to a timeframe. Numbers were very positive as of 3Q14.



Osmg95 said:


> Expert negotiator? Based on what? Have you actually witnesses the give and take process of such negotiations with Travis. I'm not trying to be argumentative as i understand your point. Still, the reason why Uber [Travis] are getting much of what they want comes down to economy of scale, their powerful leverage due to sheer size of their global markets, and extremely high company valuation. Oh! Did i mention greed? The 'hey I need in on the action' effect. Everyone has their hand out and to get your hand slapped by Uber is scary. They know where you live, eat, sleep, and with who. Wouldn't want that private info to slip into the wrong hands, right?
> 
> The truth is Uber scares a lot people/industries. Ubers size and legal/political power allows then to flex their muscles in the mirror and intimidate or bully. Look at all the markets they enter and have the slightest intension to "negotiate" any city/county requests Unless it's in their best financial interest. Rider safely is only worth $1 as we known...Nothing more. Take it or leave it. Uber is outta here..
> 
> ...


You need your tinfoil hat back.



Txchick said:


> Investors will get real jittery if Uber loses the lawsuit classifying Drivers as employees.





chi1cabby said:


> The Uber Drivers as Employee/ICs lawsuits will be drawn out affairs. I doubt current investors are too concerned about em.





Txchick said:


> Yes it will be drawn out but if they lose the lawsuit that will looming money payouts for the future & how will Uber restructure their business to account for drivers being employees?


Nobody is worried about a local court ruling in California that won't be upheld. Even so there are (and have always been) contingencies in place. Will never happen due to influence of traditional taxi/black car lobbying (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). At worst it will just cost you money if Uber is ever forced to temporarily treat you like employees.


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

john djjjoe said:


> Numbers are good, the article (as it discloses) doesn't refer to a timeframe. Numbers were very positive as of 3Q14.
> 
> You need your tinfoil hat back.
> 
> Nobody is worried about a local court ruling in California that won't be upheld. Even so there are (and have always been) contingencies in place. Will never happen due to influence of traditional taxi/black car lobbying (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). At worst it will just cost you money if Uber is ever forced to temporarily treat you like employees.


Tic , tic , tic , tic .........


----------



## john djjjoe (Feb 20, 2015)

20yearsdriving said:


> Tic , tic , tic , tic .........


Unclear what you mean by that


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

john djjjoe said:


> Unclear what you mean by that


Relax 
You sound a bit worried 
Nice day


----------



## UberRidiculous (May 19, 2015)

john djjjoe said:


> Numbers are good, the article (as it discloses) doesn't refer to a timeframe. Numbers were very positive as of 3Q14.
> 
> You need your tinfoil hat back.
> 
> Nobody is worried about a local court ruling in California that won't be upheld. Even so there are (and have always been) contingencies in place. Will never happen due to influence of traditional taxi/black car lobbying (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). At worst it will just cost you money if Uber is ever forced to temporarily treat you like employees.


LMAO! 
Anyone else think this guy is funny?


----------



## john djjjoe (Feb 20, 2015)

UberRidiculous said:


> LMAO!
> Anyone else think this guy is funny?


I do standup in my free time.


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

Disruption gets more & more interesting


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

20yearsdriving said:


> Disruption gets more & more interesting


LOL, these two will certainly be disrupted in the clink.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Hey john djjjoe, allow me to reintroduce you to the forum:


john djjjoe said:


> 1) I started as a CSR (among other jobs) when we first moved from SFO to start the LIC office years ago, I didn't get into details and am not going to re: my last position there but spending an hour of my day as a top-two level CSR manager was nothing like being a CSR as most people do
> 2) I have material equity in the firm due to how early I signed in (and how fast investors are blowing up our valuation)


So your last post was exactly 2 months ago
https://uberpeople.net/threads/new-driver-4-weeks-under-my-belt.20545/page-5#post-297622


john djjjoe said:


> I suppose that you are not incorrect in a technical sense as *good* is a relative term . Hope you didn't pay too much for the piece of paper. Look through my post history, I'm well past undergrad. Love your sense of superiority and entitlement. Please keep it up.


And now you pop back in this thread, out of the blue... That kinda seems like someone Is Worried.


john djjjoe said:


> Nobody is worried about a local court ruling in California that won't be upheld.


And btw, O'Connor vs Uber is in Federal Court.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> That kinda seems like someone Is Worried.


Uber should be worried. It wants the best of both worlds - all of the cost benefits of falsey claiming IC status for its drivers, while trying to maintain control over the Uber brand by controlling the drivers as they'd be entitled to do with genuine employee drivers.

Best of both worlds, having ones's cake and eating it; I'm sure there are other cliches that could be applied, but I don't think it will fly in the long term.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Nlanders01 said:


> Think of the profits when you don't have to pay a driver. They could lower prices by 50% and still be making 150% more then they were. Those vehicles would pay themselves off crazy fast, and they would know exactly how many were working at a given moment thus reducing the need for "surge". Uber is definitely going somewhere with this.


Just because a vehicle is paid for doesn't mean there's no cost. If most drivers can't make a profit (without guarantees or surges) getting 80% of the fare how is Uber going to make a profit when they have to maintain the vehicles themselves?

And taxi drivers may feel guilty about setting a human driver's car on fire which is likely the ONLY thing stopping sabotage in many places but that goes away once Uber is the only driver.

Personally I think driverless cars for hire are many years away and uber will have to raise prices or lose out to someone else long before they're up and running.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

john djjjoe said:


> I do standup in my free time.


There's a reason you do it for free.


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

john djjjoe said:


> Numbers are good, the article (as it discloses) doesn't refer to a timeframe. Numbers were very positive as of 3Q14.
> 
> You need your tinfoil hat back.
> 
> Nobody is worried about a local court ruling in California that won't be upheld. Even so there are (and have always been) contingencies in place. Will never happen due to influence of traditional taxi/black car lobbying (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). At worst it will just cost you money if Uber is ever forced to temporarily treat you like employees.





john djjjoe said:


> Numbers are good, the article (as it discloses) doesn't refer to a timeframe. Numbers were very positive as of 3Q14.
> 
> You need your tinfoil hat back.
> 
> Nobody is worried about a local court ruling in California that won't be upheld. Even so there are (and have always been) contingencies in place. Will never happen due to influence of traditional taxi/black car lobbying (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). At worst it will just cost you money if Uber is ever forced to temporarily treat you like employees.


I am not referring to the local court ruling but the class action lawsuit against Lyft & Uber by drivers http://uberlawsuit.com. Their is no influence of traditional taxi/black car lobbying in either one of these cases, they are going to be heard by jury's. What specific contingency plan does either one of them have? If they lose that case you can't just temporarily treat contractors as employees. Uber & Lyft will have to either treat drivers as true contractors (drivers setting rates...etc.) or they will be employees.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

john djjjoe said:


> Numbers are good, the article (as it discloses) doesn't refer to a timeframe. Numbers were very positive as of 3Q14.
> 
> You need your tinfoil hat back.
> 
> Nobody is worried about a local court ruling in California that won't be upheld. Even so there are (and have always been) contingencies in place. Will never happen due to influence of traditional taxi/black car lobbying (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). At worst it will just cost you money if Uber is ever forced to temporarily treat you like employees.


"Influence of traditional taxi/black car lobbying"

Do you mean like this type of influence??

http://sfist.com/2015/06/29/another_worry_for_uber_suit_finds_y.php


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

elelegido said:


> LOL, these two will certainly be disrupted in the clink.


Ah!! I'm drunk in disruption 
Seriously I LOVE disruption
I'm seeing things i would have never even dreamed of

It's history in the making Man!!!!


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

20yearsdriving said:


> Ah!! I'm drunk in disruption
> Seriously I LOVE disruption
> I'm seeing things i would have never even dreamed of
> 
> It's history in the making Man!!!!


The good thing about it is that while they're in jail repaying their debt to Uber drivers worldwide I mean to society, they'll surely be able to collect their salaries, given that they're inside on, or because of, official Uber business. Stamping out license plates for probably 200k a year can't be bad. They'll have nothing to spend the money on inside, except for Ramen and toilet paper so they'll save up quite a lot of dough. Everyone's a winner!


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

I see it like this 

Uber arrived to my neck of the woods 18 months ago ( in full force)

If we call those 18 months a "battle " ..... We kicked ass with change to spare
Our troops are fresh and ready

With God's blessing we move forward to round two

God bless America !!!!!!


----------



## Optimus Uber (Oct 7, 2014)

I said it, June 13th

https://uberpeople.net/threads/uber-bubble-bursting.22880/



atomix said:


> Anyone see Wolf of Wall Street last year? Uber is doing something similar, "pump-and-dump," except legally. In other words, Travis and crew are obsessesed with short-term growth at all costs. They will roll out every form of Uber varient possible, from Pool (fool ), Eats, Chopper, moving service, blah blah blah, to squeeze out every last possible dollar. While good for boosting up short-term sales and valuation, something has to give. Know what that is--yep, quality. Pretty soon Uber will be offering trips to the moon at UberX rates; shit, for that price, I'd go.


I agree, it has the making of a pump and dump. How much do you really think they make on each UberEats meal? And there are only 10 in each car. It's allot of work for little money.

I even think on the gas card they could be making a cut because of the volume. They are going to use every trick to make uber look like more than just a car service to better the iPo.

They talk about how many cars they have but they don't talk about how busy those cars are. When I first started it was $45 an hour being advertised. Now they are advertising $16 an hour.

Doesn't look like a pick up in business as much as it looks like a pick up of drivers.

Fact is, if they had the business, there's no reason the $45 can still ring true today

I don't see the current valuation as being correct. How does a company get that valuation without making the books public?

That's right, a good PR department. Unless they are actually going to open the books, my current valuation of uber is $0

The valuation is based on assumptions. Would you invest in an assumption?

This has the making of an AOL. Another tech company ;-)

I forget, did aol actually have the servers or did they just send that out to contractors/partners?

Hhhhmmmm, sound familiar??? Any other tech company sound similar.

Uber bubble will burst 8 months after iPo


----------



## UberRidiculous (May 19, 2015)

Optimus Uber said:


> I said it, June 13th
> 
> https://uberpeople.net/threads/uber-bubble-bursting.22880/
> 
> ...


Don't underestimate the value of Uber's new (not so private) privacy policy in a couple weeks. Mining Big Data is VERY lucrative. Google: Big Data Market. In the near future on boarding drivers & riders & gamers will become more valuable than actually having everyone drive. Facebook IPO was HUGE before anyone was paying for Facebook ads.


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

Optimus Uber said:


> I said it, June 13th
> 
> https://uberpeople.net/threads/uber-bubble-bursting.22880/
> 
> ...


My view is a bit more simple

On a single dollar payed by the rider
In how many parts do you split it
To cover all the logistics of delivering
The service?

In appearance !! uber is cutting cost
Compared to the old ways bussines
Was done ....right?

I think we may find that uber is pretty
Overhead heavy

Meanwhile old transportation systems
Are becoming leaner in order to survive

It may be the opposite in the future
Were a bunch of segmented leaner small operations can combine forces
To punch at ubers wheight

The last part is already happening
In my hood


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *Report: Uber's huge growth comes with huge losses*
> http://fortune.com/2015/06/29/report-ubers-huge-growth-comes-with-huge-losses/


If our company was given millions to lose, we'd own this town (For a while!!!) Just sayin


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

observer said:


> You guys have to remember one thing, Uber is an app that has a market to itself at the moment.
> 
> This market will not be theirs alone for long. Everyone and their grandmothers will jump in.
> 
> ...


The truth is, the app technology has been available to car services for a long time. It just is not regularly profitable to keep cars and drivers available on call 24x7 for companies which actually pay their employees to be on call, as required by laws (and as required by good management standards!!)

Uber shifted the burden of dead head and wait time, along with vehicle maintenance, to all these "independent contractors ", and STILL had major overhead costs in the firm of marketing and legal.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Tx rides said:


> The truth is, the app technology has been available to car services for a long time. It just is not regularly profitable to keep cars and drivers available on call 24x7 for companies which actually pay their employees to be on call, as required by laws (and as required by good management standards!!)
> 
> Uber shifted the burden of dead head and wait time, along with vehicle maintenance, to all these "independent contractors ", and STILL had major overhead costs in the firm of marketing and legal.


True, apps have been around for awhile, its not just the app, I was being simplistic.

Honestly, the people transportation industry did need a good shake up. Uber provided that shake up. However, I don't agree with the way Uber went about doing so, there's a right way to do things and there's a wrong way.

Uber has not completely taken over the taxi business. From what I've read only 30-40% in some cities. Which means they have actually grown the market.

Have you been down the cereal isle at the supermarket lately? It's kind of like the Kellogs of the cereal business. They built up a business that really wasn't there, and others have now come in and started to chip away at that business.


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

10 years from now

UBER hey they don't have :

Huge buildings
Full of CSRs
That drink a lot of water
And demand to be kept cool
By huge air conditioners
That are powered by huge
Power plants
That sell electricity
Very expensive
Specially in the summer time
Because the heat from the thousands of
Computers they use run very hot
Because of the huge demand by riders
Which increases our wifi usage
Therefore overloading our huge server
That needs to be baby-ed by a huge team of
Techno-geeks
For which we spent a lot of money on reading glasses
Prescription
Not to overlook the immense expense on antacid
Only to be outdone by the
Need to consume massive amounts
Of air freshener for our hiring centers
That smell like sweaty cab driver
& data entry lackey
which justifies the millions were spending in those
6 robots in the big big undergound bunker
in San Francisco that no one knows of
For now
You know keeping secrets also cost a lot of mula
Thank good for those investors
Let's just hope they don't want us to repay them all at once
as we saw in that Maydoff saga
Which reminds me we are overdue on the 300 law firms we keep on
Retainer
Those magical little green men sure know how to get a conffession
Out of a horse
Or can sell ice in the North Pole
Or maybe we should just focuse
On the millions we lose to credit card fraud & fees
Millions on guarantee's
Millions on free rides
Millions on referral fees
Millions on advertising
Millions on software
Millions more on executive perks .

Oh ! And those pesky drivers
Or what ever those gray boxes in my map screen are
They seem to be moving and standing everywhere
Even the middle of a lake .


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

UberRidiculous said:


> Freaking hilarious!
> (and a lot of truth) lmao


And all this for

Mr. Joe B.low back door

To enjoy a ice cold one at his local bar 3 blocks away from home


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

observer said:


> True, apps have been around for awhile, its not just the app, I was being simplistic.
> 
> Honestly, the people transportation industry did need a good shake up. Uber provided that shake up. However, I don't agree with the way Uber went about doing so, there's a right way to do things and there's a wrong way.
> 
> ...


I agree, mostly, but disagree somewhat as for shaking it up....did they, really? Long term, that is? They created an unattainable service expectation for the price, and have added congestion to every hot spot on the planet, primarily on the backs of inexperienced drivers, many of which soon learn why cars were NOT available upon a minute's notice for a few bucks when cabs ruled


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...sheet-reveals-470-million-in-operating-losses*


POST # 1/chi1cabby: Bostonian Bison
Thanks You for this
Hyperlinked Article of Importance to
#[F]Uber Watchers.

I noticed that @JohnnySelfImportance
is back with Hubristic Honking and
Odious Officiousness. Maybe his
"New Job" didn't Adapt to the Acreage
his Bloated Ego needed.

Like Pepperidge Farm,
Bison Remembers.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Tx rides said:


> I agree, mostly, but disagree somewhat as for shaking it up....did they, really? Long term, that is? They created an unattainable service expectation for the price, and have added congestion to every hot spot on the planet, primarily on the backs of inexperienced drivers, many of which soon learn why cars were NOT available upon a minute's notice for a few bucks when cabs ruled


Sorry, i generalized again.

Limo companies live and die on good customer service. They need to maintain a happy client base to keep customers coming back again and again.

Where Uber shook things up was in the taxi industry. Since taxis were not as reliant on repeat customers they let their quality deteriorate. (Generalizing again, taxis and drivers in my area have always been in good shape). Taxi cab company owners did not reinvest in their vehicles or drivers. They thought they didn't have to, since they thought their markets were closed.

Competition is good. It makes everyone better. Ubers fault is in its refusal to abide by any rules.

Competition is good, unfair competition is not.[/QUOTE]


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Tx rides said:


> I agree, mostly, but disagree somewhat as for shaking it up....did they, really? Long term, that is? They created an unattainable service expectation for the price, and have added congestion to every hot spot on the planet, primarily on the backs of inexperienced drivers, many of which soon learn why cars were NOT available upon a minute's notice for a few bucks when cabs ruled


In my experience, black car service as an on demand, roaming the streets for fares setup is not at all viable full time. Street roaming / waiting for the ping only works during the narrow time bands of weekend evenings and possibly early morning airport runs for 2 or 3 hours each day. The only people I know of who are successful with Uber Black are the ones who use Uber for the acquisition of regular clients. Which essentially makes them a regular, traditional limo company, albeit with a little bit of extra marketing support.


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

Just_in said:


> It all depends on what Taxi Service you work for. There are still big accounts which require big insurance. Like 24/7 commercial. Speaking from experience the cash part is *slowly* dying out. Now it's dependent on there will always be those that don't know about Lyft/Uber,. The trouble is finding them. There's a saying now it's not how hard you work it's how lucky you get.


Shhhhhh!!!!!
That is our secret


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

^^^^^^very true ^^^^^^

Somr BIG business 
Can't afford the uncertainties uber brings to the table

Clamps are going around these accts


----------



## Scenicruiser (Oct 17, 2014)

observer said:


> Sorry, i generalized again.
> 
> Limo companies live and die on good customer service. They need to maintain a happy client base to keep customers coming back again and again.
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]
This is where I think uber shed some light on some of the rediculous regulations. 20 yrs ago. It was easier to start an air taxi, (unscheduled air service) than to start a ground based taxi company. Regulations had exeeded the level required to ensure the public safety and had morphed into a artificial barrier of entry to protect those already in place


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

^^^^absolutly^^^^^


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

Just_in said:


> It all depends on what Taxi Service you work for. There are still big accounts which require big insurance. Like 24/7 commercial. Speaking from experience the cash part is *slowly* dying out. Now it's dependent on there will always be those that don't know about Lyft/Uber,. The trouble is finding them. There's a saying now it's not how hard you work it's how lucky you get.


True is who you know


----------



## Just_in (Jun 29, 2014)

20yearsdriving said:


> Shhhhhh!!!!!
> That is our secret


Yup. Your right. I should have thought before I spoke. That's one of my objectives on here is not reveal to much information. Bad on my part. Bad Bad me..


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

Just_in said:


> Yup. Your right. I should have thought before I spoke. That's one of my objectives on here is not reveal to much information. Bad on my part. Bad Bad me..


LOL !!!!


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

Nlanders01 said:


> Seems to me they are willing to operate at a loss because they are just perfecting the system


bear in mind, Amazon operated at a loss for 8 years ... now it is the 2nd largest ecommerce site world-wide (recently surpassed by Alibaba.com)


----------



## Just_in (Jun 29, 2014)

20yearsdriving said:


> LOL !!!!


It's gone now. Don't tell anyone.


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

Just_in said:


> It's gone now. Don't tell anyone.


I've reaveled plenty my self


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

UberRidiculous said:


> Don't underestimate the value of Uber's new (not so private) privacy policy in a couple weeks. Mining Big Data is VERY lucrative. Google: Big Data Market. In the near future on boarding drivers & riders & gamers will become more valuable than actually having everyone drive. Facebook IPO was HUGE before anyone was paying for Facebook ads.


So their big pay will be from tracking locations? All apps do that. If you have google or Apple maps it does that. Location is tracked by everyone. Shit I had a card game on my phone asking me to turn on my location services.... I don't think the tracking is that big of a deal anymore. Can they do a lot with it? Maybe... Probably... But it's not like they're the only ones.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA (Aug 21, 2014)

What is being overlooked is the debt that Uber is incurring with it ongoing operations. Sure the lawsuits may take years to settle, but they are going to lose. 

IT HAS NOT BEEN RULED OR INDICATED ANYWHERE THAT UBERX DRIVERS ARE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. While it is very clear that UberX drivers are employees.

For every mile that any current UberX driver is currently driving, Uber is accruing money that Uber will have to pay out. This will amount in the billions in California alone. And wait until the IRS comes after them for employer share taxes.

While I agree that Uber may be successful in adding a third employment category at some point, but that will not save them from the debt they are rolling up now.


----------



## Ayad (Jan 1, 2015)

observer said:


> You guys have to remember one thing, Uber is an app that has a market to itself at the moment.
> 
> This market will not be theirs alone for long. Everyone and their grandmothers will jump in.
> 
> ...


And car rental companies. New ad campaign: Rideshare Hertz. Our Success Hertz TNC's.


----------



## Just_in (Jun 29, 2014)

Brooklyn said:


> So their big pay will be from tracking locations? All apps do that. If you have google or Apple maps it does that. Location is tracked by everyone. Shit I had a card game on my phone asking me to turn on my location services.... I don't think the tracking is that big of a deal anymore. Can they do a lot with it? Maybe... Probably... But it's not like they're the only ones.


UberR can't spell. Might have been referring to the selling of information. Bomb the rider and driver with adds they already know about unwanted texts. You never know in the long run what Uber is capable of.. Sign something update new terms the fear of the unknown..


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

Just_in said:


> UberR can't spell. Might have been referring to the selling of information. Bomb the rider and driver with adds they already know about unwanted texts. You never know in the long run what Uber is capable of.. Sign something update new terms the fear of the unknown..


Well they would be in hot water for bombing ads on drivers.. Customers maybe but anyone could do that. I can't see that being the reason it would value them over $50 billion.


----------



## Just_in (Jun 29, 2014)

Brooklyn said:


> Well they would be in hot water for bombing ads on drivers.. Customers maybe but anyone could do that. I can't see that being the reason it would value them over $50 billion.


Point taken. Just last week I was going to sign up for Uber as rider. I open the app. It was like lookie here. They want something like Wi-Fi access and all this other stuff I closed it cause I, We, really didn't need a ride that bad yet. They want to know everything about you it seems. My question was why. Google and Apple Facebook I guess are O.K. The point is to be able to summons a ride should be more discreet. Should be more private. I guess some are O.K. It's not like I got anything to hide anyways. I guess if I need to use the service in the future I got no choice but to accept to the terms.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

Just_in said:


> Point taken. Just last week I was going to sign up for Uber as rider. I open the app. It was like lookie here. They want something like Wi-Fi access and all this other stuff I closed it cause I, We, really didn't need a ride that bad yet. They want to know everything about you it seems. My question was why. Google and Apple Facebook I guess are O.K. The point is to be able to summons a ride should be more discreet. Should be more private. I guess some are O.K. It's not like I got anything to hide anyways. I guess if I need to use the service in the future I got no choice but to accept to the terms.


Just like every other app... Data mining may be a big business but it's not a business no other app can't get into. It seems pretty stale and flat. Yea they can advertise to customers but all that will happen is another app will pop up with no ads. Like I've said for a long time... Apps are replaceable. It takes literally 2 mins to delete Uber, download a competitor, and plug in my credit info.

Plus in a world of ad blocking and everyone getting sick of ads it won't piss anyone off to replace an app. Even YouTube is dealing with people sticking around for ads... They got those 5 second buttons.. But YouTube is a network.. Uber can be replaced by Lyft or the other 75+ apps in a matter of seconds.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

elelegido said:


> In my experience, black car service as an on demand, roaming the streets for fares setup is not at all viable full time. Street roaming / waiting for the ping only works during the narrow time bands of weekend evenings and possibly early morning airport runs for 2 or 3 hours each day. The only people I know of who are successful with Uber Black are the ones who use Uber for the acquisition of regular clients. Which essentially makes them a regular, traditional limo company, albeit with a little bit of extra marketing support.


Bingo !!!

I am quite sure that is why they have been phasing out the UberBlack after using them to enter the market in the first place.

We've picked up numerous disgruntled
X paxs as well, they figured they knew when they were going , when they planned to return, so they went with us for guaranteed price and availability, something Uber cannot provide.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

This is where I think uber shed some light on some of the rediculous regulations. 20 yrs ago. It was easier to start an air taxi, (unscheduled air service) than to start a ground based taxi company. Regulations had exeeded the level required to ensure the public safety and had morphed into a artificial barrier of entry to protect those already in place[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, by reclassifying themselves as something "different"(RIDESHARE!!! Albeit a bogus term for this use) most of us black car companies are left with same old CRAPPY, STUPID regulations. I don't know if anything has improved for cabs, not much here anyway.


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

Tx rides said:


> Bingo !!!
> 
> I am quite sure that is why they have been phasing out the UberBlack after using them to enter the market in the first place.
> 
> ...


Bingo!!!!


----------



## UberX.illegal? (Nov 12, 2014)

Tx rides said:


> This is where I think uber shed some light on some of the rediculous regulations. 20 yrs ago. It was easier to start an air taxi, (unscheduled air service) than to start a ground based taxi company. Regulations had exeeded the level required to ensure the public safety and had morphed into a artificial barrier of entry to protect those already in place


Unfortunately, by reclassifying themselves as something "different"(RIDESHARE!!! Albeit a bogus term for this use) most of us black car companies are left with same old CRAPPY, STUPID regulations. I don't know if anything has improved for cabs, not much here anyway.[/QUOTE]

The use of term RIDESHARING is quite on purpose actually. Uber wants all the regulations in place to remain applicable on competition, while having none placed on itself.

Uneven level playing field is the biggest if not the only advantage over traditional taxis and limos that uber has. If the same regulations applied on taxis and uber , taxis will leave uberx for dead for the most part.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

UberX.illegal? said:


> Unfortunately, by reclassifying themselves as something "different"(RIDESHARE!!! Albeit a bogus term for this use) most of us black car companies are left with same old CRAPPY, STUPID regulations. I don't know if anything has improved for cabs, not much here anyway.


The use of term RIDESHARING is quite on purpose actually. Uber wants all the regulations in place to remain applicable on competition, while having none placed on itself.

Uneven level playing field is the biggest if not the only advantage over traditional taxis and limos that uber has. If the same regulations applied on taxis and uber , taxis will leave uberx for dead for the most part.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely ! They confused many ignorant politicians (who in their right mind could POSSIBLY try to place regulations or rules in "car pooling", right?)


----------



## Scenicruiser (Oct 17, 2014)

Tx rides said:


> This is where I think uber shed some light on some of the rediculous regulations. 20 yrs ago. It was easier to start an air taxi, (unscheduled air service) than to start a ground based taxi company. Regulations had exeeded the level required to ensure the public safety and had morphed into a artificial barrier of entry to protect those already in place


Unfortunately, by reclassifying themselves as something "different"(RIDESHARE!!! Albeit a bogus term for this use) most of us black car companies are left with same old CRAPPY, STUPID regulations. I don't know if anything has improved for cabs, not much here anyway.[/QUOTE]



UberX.illegal? said:


> Unfortunately, by reclassifying themselves as something "different"(RIDESHARE!!! Albeit a bogus term for this use) most of us black car companies are left with same old CRAPPY, STUPID regulations. I don't know if anything has improved for cabs, not much here anyway.


The use of term RIDESHARING is quite on purpose actually. Uber wants all the regulations in place to remain applicable on competition, while having none placed on itself.

Uneven level playing field is the biggest if not the only advantage over traditional taxis and limos that uber has. If the same regulations applied on taxis and uber , taxis will leave uberx for dead for the most part.[/QUOTE]

Your preaching to the choir...in time new regs will come into place. This time to protect uber instead of medallion owners. But right now... it's cowboy town. a small window to slide in without medallion owners or uber. It came at just the right time for me. I'm coming into livery and I Will be bringing my own customers.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

[QUOTE="Scenicruiser, post: 342187,

Your preaching to the choir...in time new regs will come into place. This time to protect uber instead of medallion owners. But right now it's cowboy town. a small window to slide in without medallion owners or uber. It came at just the right time and I'm coming in andI'm bringing my own customers.[/QUOTE]

If we had it to do all over....
http://atxgroundtransportation.com/hot-news/13-ignoreatxtransportationcode

Apologies to chi1cabby I rolled OFF Topic on a news thread. I'm quite certain I am ADHD


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

Your preaching to the choir...in time new regs will come into place. This time to protect uber instead of medallion owners. But right now... it's cowboy town. a small window to slide in without medallion owners or uber. It came at just the right time for me. I'm coming into livery and I Will be bringing my own customers.[/QUOTE]

One of the best hings to come from this forum


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

Scenicruiser brings his client list

Aaaaaaaammmmmmeeeeeeeennnnnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## haji (Jul 17, 2014)

I hope they will have enough fund to settle the class action law suits


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Uber's Business Model: A Rare Look at the Numbers*
*http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-06-30/uber-s-business-model-a-rare-look-at-the-numbers*


----------



## UberRidiculous (May 19, 2015)

chi1cabby said:


> *Uber's Business Model: A Rare Look at the Numbers*
> *http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-06-30/uber-s-business-model-a-rare-look-at-the-numbers*


I watched the whole video. The most interesting part was at the very end. He said Google is considering an app called Free Ride for rideshare. Free meaning no Uberlike fee. But basically Google is toying with this as pre-marketing stage until their Google cars are ready.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

UberRidiculous said:


> I watched the whole video. The most interesting part was at the very end. He said Google is considering an app called Free Ride for rideshare.


It was pure speculation by Steve Jurvetson. I've posted an article on it here:
*(Updated) Uber Is Building a Robotics Factory for Self-Driving Cars*


----------



## McGillicutty (Jan 12, 2015)

chi1cabby said:


> It was pure speculation by Steve Jurvetson. I've posted an article on it here:
> *(Updated) Uber Is Building a Robotics Factory for Self-Driving Cars*


All this talk of self-driving cars on this forum is hilarious.


----------



## UberRidiculous (May 19, 2015)

McGillicutty said:


> All this talk of self-driving cars on this forum is hilarious.


You have to cut UPFNers some slack bcuz it's even funnier how much money is being spent to build them!


----------



## McGillicutty (Jan 12, 2015)

Robots have been used in factories all over the world for decades and people still get killed by them like at this VW plant HERE. There is no working, regulation-approved self-driving car anywhere in the world, and people talk about them like a fleet is going to suddenly appear tomorrow.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*UBER CEO TRAVIS KALANICK: SILICON VALLEY'S LATEST UNPROSECUTED FELON*
*http://www.killingmycareer.com/the-...ck-silicon-valleys-latest-unprosecuted-felon/*

*







*


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

elelegido said:


> Actually, they didn't "make" any money, they had a thumping great loss. Rather, for every dollar they took in revenue they paid $2.13. Pedantic, maybe, but Uber itself freely substitutes "make", "earn" and "revenue" at will, and I don't like it.


I wonder if some of the clever wording in our Partner's agreement exposes owner-drivers to financial losses that UBER makes.

This section of the Partner's agreement has me wondering:

"_6.3 Partner/ Driver indemnifications
6.3.1 The Partner agrees and undertakes and procures that the Driver will indemnify, defend and 
hold Uber (and its Affiliated Companies and employees and, at the request of Uber, Uber's licensors, suppliers, officers, directors and subcontractors) harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, expenses (including legal fees), damages, penalties, fines, social contributions and taxes by a third party (including Customers, regulators and governmental authorities) directly or indirectly related to this Agreement, except where such claims relate to a culpable breach of Uber's obligations under this Agreement._"

Does UBER have a lien on our cars?


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

McGillicutty said:


> Robots have been used in factories all over the world for decades and people still get killed by them like at this VW plant HERE. There is no working, regulation-approved self-driving car anywhere in the world, and people talk about them like a fleet is going to suddenly appear tomorrow.


The big difference is that it can easily be proven when accidents occur with Robots that there was no intent, or negligence on the Robot's part.

I have a State Transport Minister as a client. He told me Google has been around to his office and visited All Australian Transport ministers. Shown them what driverless cars can do, what they need to improve on and the regulatory support they need for their development.

Governments AROUND THE WORLD are jumping over each other to have robot cars trialled and deployed in their jurisdictions.

The article you link to says how the unfortunate worker was inside the safety cage and was probably at fault.

Apart from in the movies, Robots cannot intentionally harm humans. They will upload dangerous scenarios they experience to the rest of the fleet and teach / program others to avoid a problem. Humans DONT learn from other human mistakes and keep running into each in avoidable accidents.

Governments are looking forward to saving billions in car accident and road trauma costs. The panel repair Industry are not


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

Optimus Uber said:


> I said it, June 13th
> 
> https://uberpeople.net/threads/uber-bubble-bursting.22880/
> 
> ...


We are Partners, UBER provides the App and IP which has X Value, we bring our labour and cars to the partnership. EVERY Partners car is part of UBER's valuation.


----------



## ber fine print (May 22, 2015)

sec 6.3 and 6.31 of the partnership agreement . This alone should scare the hell out of anyone associated with this company


----------



## UberRidiculous (May 19, 2015)

ber fine print said:


> sec 6.3 and 6.31 of the partnership agreement . This alone should scare the hell out of anyone associated with this company


Apparently Uber isn't adhering to its own agreement. Accordingly Uber drivers should be on the hook to pay for their own tickets, fines, and legal counsel when busted for unlawful UberX-ing. The mere act of Uber covering those expenses is an acknowledgement of partial responsibility... ie an employer type relationship.


----------



## humandriver (Sep 16, 2014)

Sydney Uber said:


> The big difference is that it can easily be proven when accidents occur with Robots that there was no intent, or negligence on the Robot's part.
> 
> I have a State Transport Minister as a client. He told me Google has been around to his office and visited All Australian Transport ministers. Shown them what driverless cars can do, what they need to improve on and the regulatory support they need for their development.
> 
> ...


Someone should remind the government that drivers participating in the work force helps local economies. Where as google keeps their profits in tax havens over seas.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

20yearsdriving said:


> 10 years from now
> 
> UBER hey they don't have :
> 
> ...


POST # 109/20yearsdriving: Please
submit the above
Stream of Consciousness Poem to the
L.A. Times/Washington Post/N.Y. Times
as "Guest Submission" from a O/O trying
to deal with the #[F]Uber Pandemic, so
that the Holier-than-Thou-Technocrats-
with-their-shoulda-woulda-coulda-Limo-
sine-Liberal-DENSEibilities underF*ING
stand what's REALLY happening at the
KalaCathedral at 1455 Market Street.

"GodView" Services NEVER on Sunday.

PLEASE ADD the following :

☆ ☆ THE TRUTH ABOUT #[F]UBER ☆ ☆
Avarice+Deceit+Hubris+Schadenfreude

Tu Compadre en UPNF: El Bison de Boston


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona (Mar 18, 2015)

So if Uber is spending $2 to make $1, it's easy to understand that they expect their drivers to operate at a loss too.

Maybe you Uber driverss should find some venture capital firms to invest in your losing proposition.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Here Are the Internal Documents that Prove Uber Is a Money Loser*








This unaudited revenue and expense breakdown for 2013 and 2014 shows that, though Uber's net revenue has grown substantially, the company lost more than $56 million in 2013. By the first half of 2014 alone, that number had leapt to more than $160 million.
















We can also reexamine Kalanick's headline-grabbing claim last year that Uber is "at least doubling" its revenue "every six months." That seems doubtful when you look at the numbers. As shown in the second image above, Uber brought in roughly $32 million in Q1 and Q2 of 2013. The first image shows that Uber's total 2013 revenue was $104 million, meaning it brought in $72 million in the second half of that year. That's an impressive jump, but take a look at Q1 and Q2 for 2014: They add up to about $102 million for the first half of that year, meaning Uber's revenues were more than $40 million short of doubling at that time-as it happened, almost the exact same time Kalanick made his "doubling" remark to the _Wall Street Journal_.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*More Evidence That Uber Is A Money Loser (And A Unicorn Bubble Bellwether)
http://m.seekingalpha.com/article/3...a-money-loser-and-a-unicorn-bubble-bellwether*

Summary


Uber is burning hundreds of millions of dollars per year with losses likely to accelerate.
The cash burn will accelerate as Uber increases their driver subsidies to compete with other ride-sharing services.
The subsidies war between competitors extends overseas where in 2015 alone Uber plans to spend a billion dollars on their China expansion against aggressive Chinese competitors like Didi Kauidi.
We are skeptical that Uber can use this growth strategy to gain an insurmountable advantage in the ride-sharing industry like their valuation predicts.
When Gawker posted internal documents that prove Uber (Pending:UBER) is losing substantial amounts of money, this was Uber's officially provided response (in a statement to Business Insider):

"Shock, horror, Uber makes a loss. This is hardly news and old news at that&#8230; It's the case of business 101: you raise money, you invest money, you grow (hopefully), you make a profit and that generates a return for investors."

Yes it's old news that startups burn capital. The playbook is to grow like crazy, and figure out how to monetize later.

But still: A private market startup valued at $51 billion&#8230; and still burning hundreds of millions per year&#8230; with losses likely to accelerate? We say the case for a 90% valuation decline is still well intact.

This was from June:

Uber is spending money at a breakneck rate to crack the China market - even paying its drivers more than the fares they collect.

Fat with almost $6 billion in venture capital, Uber, based in San Francisco, is doling out bonuses up to three times the amount of its fares, in a bet that its exceptional rise in the United States can be matched in China.

So far, its strategy is working, shattering prevailing assumptions that young American tech companies cannot compete against local rivals.

~ NYT, Uber spends heavily to establish itself in China

Shattering prevailing assumptions, really? It's a surprise when the core strategy is "give away tons of free money?" If you opened a donut shop in China and gave away $50 with every donut, you would probably see record sales too&#8230;

Uber reportedly plans to spend a billion dollars in China in 2015. Meanwhile its biggest home grown China competitor, Didi Kauidi, is also spending in the hundreds-of-millions range on driver subsidies. There is a giant subsidies war going on, fueled by an ocean of venture capital money.

Uber is fascinating because it's such a bellwether for the Unicorn bubble, and thus the entire Silicon Valley bubble. Nobody knows how profitable this company will actually be. From the given reports, it sounds like Uber's cash burn is actually accelerating. They are literally "losing money on every ride&#8230; and making it up on volume." And for what?

The ride-share market is tough. There are multiple competitors, both internationally and within the United States. In big markets like China, those competitors are entrenched, well-funded, and ruthless.

The theory is that, if Uber expands rapidly enough, it can gain an insurmountable advantage from network effects. Get huge, then benefit from a combination of scale and lock-in, like Google (NASDAQ:GOOG) (NASDAQ:GOOGL) or Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN) or Facebook (NASDAQ:FB).

But does this idea even work for a ride-sharing app?

Amazon has network effects because it first established a presence back when credit cards were a dicey proposition on the web. People came to trust Amazon as a one-stop-shop for purchases, and then a huge logistics operation got layered on top of that, turning Amazon into "the everything store" (which is still barely profitable, apart from Amazon Web Services).

Google, meanwhile, has developed a permanent advantage in search engine quality, with all kinds of useful free services attached, as such that there is no reason for the world to switch, and a technology moat in that their results will continue to improve faster than anyone can keep up. And Facebook has lock-in because, when all your friends and family are on Facebook&#8230; and you have dozens of contacts on Facebook&#8230; you stick with Facebook.

But where is the lock-in for a ride-sharing app? In San Francisco, most drivers work for Lyft and Uber simultaneously. Does anybody really care what ride-sharing app they use, as long as the car is clean and the app works?

And what happens when the driver subsidies stop? Trying to compete on price is notoriously low on loyalty. Why shouldn't all those drivers getting subsidies switch to someone else when the gravy stops?

Will they hope to pull an Amazon, and stay break-even for the next fifteen years? Will the market tolerate that, with so many ride-sharing wannabes running around? And won't the type of logistical problems Uber solves get cheaper and easier to figure out as the cost of computing power drops?

Uber's $51 valuation seems an entirely made-up number, almost randomly pulled from a hat. It wasn't randomly pulled from a hat, of course, but represents the marginal extreme of what investors are willing to pay.

And that's why it's such a great bellwether. At some point investors may say "This business is nowhere near as profitable as we hoped and dreamed it would be - and what's that say for all these other cash burning companies?"

Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.


----------



## Optimus Uber (Oct 7, 2014)

Why does it always take you guys a few months to catch up with me??

https://uberpeople.net/threads/uber-bubble-bursting.22880/


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Optimus Uber said:


> Why does it always take you guys a few months to catch up with me??


We're just Slow that way! 
When are you gonna learn to be patient with us, huh?


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Benchmarking Uber's Financials*


----------



## Optimus Uber (Oct 7, 2014)

Looks like they were chasing the fall. Kept lowering rates to try and get the graph to change direction upward.

Now they're in a predicament. Because if they raise rates, it's going to get worse and people are going to stop using it.

It also doesn't help killing the morale of drivers. Just add to the issue when what you use to have you no longer have.

Remember the days when drivers carries water and snacks. They lowered the price and the all changed. Uber ****ed their drivers and intern the drivers ****ed back. And in turn the passengers paid the price. Uber doesn't care for the drivers, drivers don't care about uber or their passengers. It's just money to try and pay off the messes up lease uber got them into. 

Much of that fall from the graph is when people quit getting free rides. Even the upward trend isn't truthful. Back in the day, uber was giving everyone free rides.

There's more to the charts than just up and down, it's also the condition of the device during the time periods

Passengers make the comment of how different and better uber use to be. Well when you lie to your drivers and tell them they'll make more by lowering the rates, it's insulting.

Now uber has a mess. They have drivers that can't stand them because they suck at management and have no understanding how a business is suppose to run.

Yep, uber is 5 years old. Not sure they have another 5 years in them. But at those numbers an IPO would be terrible. That really is the reason they won't IPO. They will have to release numbers. With numbers like those it's going to be ugly

Those numbers show they don't know how to run a business.


----------



## naplestom75 (May 3, 2015)

chi1cabby said:


> *More Evidence That Uber Is A Money Loser (And A Unicorn Bubble Bellwether)
> http://m.seekingalpha.com/article/3...a-money-loser-and-a-unicorn-bubble-bellwether*
> 
> Summary
> ...


Start-ups burn too much capital and are never able to climb out of it after they finally make an effort to operate in a profitable manner, since now their product has had time to allow competitors to enter the marketplace and they must now operate on a slim margin. It's the classic ass-backwards mentality that used to work before the tech age, but doesn't work now and is why we are constantly seeing big bubbles form and then burst.


----------

