# Uber told by investors to sell self-driving unit



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Investors have told Uber Technologies Inc [UBER.UL] it would be wise to sell off its self-driving car unit after it racked up losses of $125 million to $200 million each quarter for the past 18 months, tech news site The Information reported on Wednesday, citing an unnamed person familiar with the issue.

Uber did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.

Uber is due to release its second-quarter earnings to investors later on Wednesday.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...nformation-idUSKBN1L01JM?utm_source=applenews


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Sell it or shut it down!! Investors are right.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

goneubering said:


> Sell it or shut it down!! Investors are right.


The corporate BS is dissipating. When you burn huge amounts of money with no positive end in sight, you need the investors to smack your face and ask you to bury your delusions or face the consequences.

Dara had good instincts at the beginning but chose to go ahead and keep the BS alive. Now he needs a big diaper because he just pooed his pants.

Flying cars? Hahaha...

Let's get back to reality and take good care of the only driving force you have Dara - the drivers!

No matter how you turn this transportation disruption, drivers and their cars are the only forces Uber and Lyft have if they want to stay in business.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

It's a little sad that this is what passes for journalism these days. A respected news outfit (Reuters) quoting a website, quoting an unnamed source, with no verification of anything other than somebody put it up on the web. In real journalism, no legitimate news organization would ever have done that without confirmation from at least two sources.

If true, the idea makes perfect sense. I've been saying since Day 1 that there was absolutely zero benefit to Uber in being an *inventor* of autonomous driving. I've always said they should let others develop the technology -- and then, once it's well-established adopt it as it meets their needs.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

JimKE said:


> It's a little sad that this is what passes for journalism these days. A respected news outfit (Reuters) quoting a website, quoting an unnamed source, with no verification of anything other than somebody put it up on the web. In real journalism, no legitimate news organization would ever have done that without confirmation from at least two sources.
> 
> If true, the idea makes perfect sense. I've been saying since Day 1 that there was absolutely zero benefit to Uber in being an *inventor* of autonomous driving. I've always said they should let others develop the technology -- and then, once it's well-established adopt it as it meets their needs.


Why Uber Loses Money: Self-Driving Edition

https://news.crunchbase.com/news/why-uber-loses-money-self-driving-edition/


----------



## Wraiththe (Nov 26, 2017)

Why would they sell and create a potential competitor that could wipe them off the map?


----------



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

Wraiththe said:


> Why would they sell and create a potential competitor that could wipe them off the map?


Because the investors are starting to think it's all smoke and BS


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Wraiththe said:


> Why would they sell and create a potential competitor that could wipe them off the map?


All companies involved in self driving cars technology development are LOSING money on a large scale.

The only competition they could create by selling, is a competitor that could LOSE more money than they LOST investing in a BS delusion.


----------



## HotUberMess (Feb 25, 2018)

>Race to the bottom
>Be an innovator

Gotta choose one, the company can’t do both


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

Wraiththe said:


> Why would they sell and create a potential competitor that could wipe them off the map?


Also, what no one really thinks about: Uber operating autonomous vehicles is a completely different business than what they are currently in. Currently they are in a low asset, high cash flow business. They own no cars, maintain nothing but the apps, and a small number of employees. Suddenly they have to buy lots of car, maintain a fleet, have real estate holdings and tie up cash to do all of this. Totally new business. BUT before they even get there, they would have to get the tech right, be the leaders in this and successfully work out the operational rules. That's a lot of stuff they have to get right, the odds would be against them. 
Better to wait till the tech is right then lease cars/technology from someone else and plug into their existing app/customer base (as someone mentioned above).


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

jocker12 said:


> Why Uber Loses Money: Self-Driving Edition
> 
> https://news.crunchbase.com/news/why-uber-loses-money-self-driving-edition/


It's not the ONLY reason Uber loses money, but it's a big part of it.

Also, this guy's figures are off quite a bit from those in the CNBC story. Both the EBITDA loss and adjusted net loss were reportedly larger (worse) in the CNBC story...and by quite a bit.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

JimKE said:


> It's not the ONLY reason Uber loses money, but it's a big part of it.
> 
> Also, this guy's figures are off quite a bit from those in the CNBC story. Both the EBITDA loss and adjusted net loss were reportedly larger (worse) in the CNBC story...and by quite a bit.


I only wanted to give you another source.

With 80% of the American public not liking self driving idea, crazy expensive hardware (last generation Lidar sensors tuning for 60 to 80 k each), non performant self driving software and immense fleet expenses, is no way Uber is looking to buy and implement the technology later.

The entire race between the corporations is to have it first to incorporate it into a rides share fleet and block the competitors from doing the same thing, otherwise is no value in it.

Lately, the companies involved in self driving cars development started shifting their PR, speaking about selling their software to different clients and make money out of it, but on the cars manufacturers market or on the rideshare market, you want to be the only client of your uniquely successful supplier.

If other competitors have the same software running their products (cars) the consumers could go there and buy that product (speaking about car manufacturers) or acces the same benefits in a different platform (speaking about car share).

They kept lying their investors about their self driving plans, and financially that monumental loss hurts.

Look at the major players. After 9 years they keep investing with no significant results (robots still have big problems detecting pedestrians and objects).

"A lie has short legs" and Uber needs to face the reality and do the right thing if they want to please the investors and get at least the initial investments back through an IPO next year.


----------



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

Disgusted Driver said:


> Also, what no one really thinks about: Uber operating autonomous vehicles is a completely different business than what they are currently in. Currently they are in a low asset, high cash flow business. They own no cars, maintain nothing but the apps, and a small number of employees. Suddenly they have to buy lots of car, maintain a fleet, have real estate holdings and tie up cash to do all of this. Totally new business. BUT before they even get there, they would have to get the tech right, be the leaders in this and successfully work out the operational rules. That's a lot of stuff they have to get right, the odds would be against them.
> Better to wait till the tech is right then lease cars/technology from someone else and plug into their existing app/customer base (as someone mentioned above).


Uber also can't sell a product that almost works. It has to be 100% functional in all weather conditions in all areas all of the time.

Tesla can have theirs switch off in bad weather, Uber can't.

Inevitably a car manufacturer is going to beat Uber to the punch and get an sdv launched first that only works 90% of the time.

90% of the time for Uber is... well not very useful.


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> Why Uber Loses Money: Self-Driving Edition
> 
> https://news.crunchbase.com/news/why-uber-loses-money-self-driving-edition/


but the can only lose a few hundred thousand until a human takes over and starts to lose millions lol unless they are watching the voice

The quarterly results were published somewhere else.

Uber lost 4 million last year, and on track to lose 2.5 billion this year which makes Dara Uber jesus lol



Disgusted Driver said:


> Also, what no one really thinks about: Uber operating autonomous vehicles is a completely different business than what they are currently in. Currently they are in a low asset, high cash flow business. They own no cars, maintain nothing but the apps, and a small number of employees. Suddenly they have to buy lots of car, maintain a fleet, have real estate holdings and tie up cash to do all of this. Totally new business. BUT before they even get there, they would have to get the tech right, be the leaders in this and successfully work out the operational rules. That's a lot of stuff they have to get right, the odds would be against them.
> Better to wait till the tech is right then lease cars/technology from someone else and plug into their existing app/customer base (as someone mentioned above).


I don't think uber was planning on owning any SDCs, they would franchise them out to idiots like us, who think wouldn't it be great if I didn't have to sit in this car all day, and mortgage the house and sell a kidney for a self driving volvo



jocker12 said:


> I only wanted to give you another source.
> 
> With 80% of the American public not liking self driving idea, crazy expensive hardware (last generation Lidar sensors tuning for 60 to 80 k each), non performant self driving software and immense fleet expenses, is no way Uber is looking to buy and implement the technology later.
> 
> ...


A lot of people were against planes, bottled water, smartphones and friggin emojis lol

SDCs is gonna happen



Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Uber also can't sell a product that almost works. It has to be 100% functional in all weather conditions in all areas all of the time.
> 
> Tesla can have theirs switch off in bad weather, Uber can't.
> 
> ...


But isn't that the beauty? You always got software updates and the usual stuff like how car dealerships operate. they make money on service too


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Kodyhead said:


> A lot of people were against planes, bottled water, smartphones and friggin emojis lol
> 
> SDCs is gonna happen


Lol, how many Segways do you own?

Yup, self driving cars gonna happen like Santa, every year for Xmas. Only difference is now, people with the money don't wanna buy presents anymore, so you need to feed Santa and get no gifts for you to dream about from now on.


----------



## grayspinner (Sep 8, 2015)

The thing about wide-spread self-driving cars is the vehicle tech is only half of it, the other half is infrastructure - largely provided by the DOT. 

You need sensors all over the place so the cars can ID stuff, satellites in everything for navigation & position accuracy. I've actually talked to people in this side of the industry and there's a lot of work being done in this area, but it's slow & varies greatly depending upon local budgets. 

Basically, the vehicle technology will exist way before the infrastructure is ready for widespread use. 

But, this is coming. 

However, I think if self-driving cars are cheap enough for either uber to own a fleet OR for every day people to own them & let uber use them, then everyone will have them & you'll call your own SDC to come pick you up when you're drunk. 

Realistically, companies will own fleets and people will 'subscribe' to a fleet. You'll get access to certain cars based on your subscription. Like perhaps your home owners association will come with a neighborhood fleet or country club membership comes with self-driving towncar access. 

And then cheap people can subscribe to the city SDC service - this will be more like a bus


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

grayspinner said:


> I think


Hahahaha.... Seriously?


----------



## KD_LA (Aug 16, 2017)

HotUberMess said:


> >Race to the bottom
> >Be an innovator
> 
> Gotta choose one, the company can't do both


Sure you can do both: innovatively race to the bottom!


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

JimKE said:


> If true, the idea makes perfect sense. I've been saying since Day 1 that there was absolutely zero benefit to Uber in being an *inventor* of autonomous driving. I've always said they should let others develop the technology -- and then, once it's well-established adopt it as it meets their needs.


Yes, in a "make or buy" decision, and the "make" part involves advanced technology and you suck at technology then it's clear that the answer is "buy".

They should let Google finish its development of SDC and then go to them, apologize for stealing their shit, and ask nicely if they will sell them some cars.


----------



## here2der (Jul 2, 2018)

Any investor looking at ACTUAL PROFIT potential that has any clue about the inner workings of their actual business would have to realize that being first and owning the proprietary rights to anexclusive SDC technology is their only hope of meaningful long-term profitibility.

They already escape the normal employer-employee status, along with all the normal costs involved, while still having rates that barely exceed what the U.S. government considers the basic operational expenses of a vehicle for business purposes, in many markets. Where do they go from there?

They've already raised their overall rates to customers, mostly just adding in extra fees for themselves, and about 1 in 20 Uber pax of mine mentions the rate hike. Even another additional 50% rate hike with all of it being made up in service fees for the corporation would still unlikely allow them to be profitable. Jack prices up considerably again, and the current customer base will further erode from pursuing alternative forms of transportation.

SDC's are their only chance.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

here2der said:


> Any investor looking at ACTUAL PROFIT potential that has any clue about the inner workings of their actual business would have to realize that being first and owning the proprietary rights to anexclusive SDC technology is their only hope of meaningful long-term profitibility.
> 
> They already escape the normal employer-employee status, along with all the normal costs involved, while still having rates that barely exceed what the U.S. government considers the basic operational expenses of a vehicle for business purposes, in many markets. Where do they go from there?
> 
> ...


This's simply not true, from the beginning to the end.

Chasing the self driving cars dream it kept Uber from focusing on real issues and from making real changes for the better and the investors simply cannot allow Uber to continue lying, misleading and keep WASTING investors money with no results.

You're repeating a stupidity initially told by Kalanick, that estimated self driving cars as "existentialy important" for Uber, ignoring the technological limited capabilities, lack of regulations and public rejection.

From its inception in 2014, Uber self driving car unit continued to burn cash with NO returns. After their robot killed a pedestrian, showing clear software limitations s despite corporate hyping language, the general public, the regulators and the politicians understood the danger.

Google kept spending billions for the last 9 years on a impossible self driving car dream, and had no profits as well. The developers kept twisting and tweaking the software hoping for a miracle.

In 2017 when Dara took over Uber, the company was moving in the right direction, building healthy business around the drivers and those steps show Uber knows what needs to be done in order to stop losing money. Unfortunately, Dara chose to spread corporate propaganda and hallucinating future projects for the sake of the magic word meant to open peoples pockets - POTENTIAL.

Sadly, you have the investors decision in front of your eyes and keep dreaming Kalanick was right. In other words, the investors say Santa is not real, Jesus never walked on water and pigs don't fly, but you choose to believe otherwise.

If you really believe self driving cars technology is vital, go put your saving into Waymo stock and your children or your relatives children inside a primitive self driving robot and prey God exists and is hearing you, because God, the imaginary friend, is all you can rely on from there on.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

HotUberMess said:


> >Race to the bottom
> >Be an innovator
> 
> Gotta choose one, the company can't do both


You under estimate corporate ingenuity...

The company I last worked for has been "innovating" their way to the bottom in terms of margin on certain bread and butter services, trying to automate, and hoping to bank on data storage and hosting. In the process, they are ruining their reputation because their "innovative" automatic process is a dismal approximation of what a skilled tech can produce. But, now that they commoditized that service, they take a loss on the support of a skilled tech's salary.

Snakes sometimes eat their own tail.


----------



## Tnasty (Mar 23, 2016)

Fuber and lyft have petitioned the gov to ban private owbership of sdcs so they can monopolize.


----------



## SatMan (Mar 20, 2017)

Uber is #5 with all the data they have collected. They BIG 3 car makers snatched all the data up years ago and uber is still collecting it themselves. Uber is so far behind they have to baffle the investors with BS instead of dazzling them with brilliance. The investors are finally doing their own due diligences. IT'S ABOUT TIME.


----------



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

jocker12 said:


> This's simply not true, from the beginning to the end.
> 
> Chasing the self driving cars dream it kept Uber from focusing on real issues and from making real changes for the better and the investors simply cannot allow Uber to continue lying, misleading and keep WASTING investors money with no results.
> 
> ...


I agree except on two points,

Jesus did walk on water...

Leave religion out of your arguments please.

Or you shall get smited down by his grace the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

And i've seen a pig fly... all it takes is a LOT of explosives


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> And i've seen a pig fly... all it takes is a LOT of explosives


----------



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

Fully autonomous taxis are at least a decade away from being a reality, if it ever happens. Uber is burning through their investor's money too quickly to last that long.

Uber is no longer a "technology" company, rather, they've become a Ponzi scheme and the IPO will be the blow off top.


----------



## jaywaynedubya (Feb 17, 2015)

Wraiththe said:


> Why would they sell and create a potential competitor that could wipe them off the map?


They know Google will win the self driving race


----------



## Rakos (Sep 2, 2014)

HotUberMess said:


> >Race to the bottom
> >Be an innovator
> 
> Gotta choose one, the company can't do both


Well...they sure as he$$...

Seem to be giving it...

A good old college try...8>)

Rakos


----------



## HotUberMess (Feb 25, 2018)

I bet Uber’s next move will be to go legit. As in, become an actual taxi company and quit messing around with the whole “Uber is a tech company” noise. 

Without derpy investors to throw SDC cash at them, they have to build a profitable business model and that means charging riders realistic rates. They’ll probably blame it on the government and their pesky regulations, LOL. They’ll never come out and say “We misled riders and investors about the true operating costs of running a taxi service”.


----------



## Rakos (Sep 2, 2014)

HotUberMess said:


> I bet Uber's next move will be to go legit. As in, become an actual taxi company and quit messing around with the whole "Uber is a tech company" noise.
> 
> Without derpy investors to throw SDC cash at them, they have to build a profitable business model and that means charging riders realistic rates. They'll probably blame it on the government and their pesky regulations, LOL. They'll never come out and say "We misled riders and investors about the true operating costs of running a taxi service".


What *taxi* service...???

Uber is a multi-level pyramidal...

Self aggrandizement builder application...

That will put money in your pocket.. 8>)

And will *SURELY* keep you off...

The dreaded public welfare dole...8>)

Now you *do know* that Uber is...

Providing this as a *public service*....

So you will forever be loyal *servants*....

Err...I mean *riders*....and clients...8>)

One day soon we will make the *drivers*...

Independently wealthy *ICs*....8>)

Now who wouldn't buy that...???

Sounds kinda *Trumpian*....don't it?!

Rakos


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Trying to recreate the "Innovator" image


----------



## itsablackmarket (May 12, 2015)

They deserve it.


----------



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

HotUberMess said:


> I bet Uber's next move will be to go legit. As in, become an actual taxi company and quit messing around with the whole "Uber is a tech company" noise.
> 
> Without derpy investors to throw SDC cash at them, they have to build a profitable business model and that means charging riders realistic rates. They'll probably blame it on the government and their pesky regulations, LOL. They'll never come out and say "We misled riders and investors about the true operating costs of running a taxi service".


Nahh i bet uber will fall apart, they need like 20 billion to go legit for NYC for permits, probably another 10 billion for the rest of the cities with medallions.

The cost of the cars and setting up facilities will be in the billions of dollars nation wide. Forcing an employee relationship on Scruber/gryft is a literal death sentence.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> Investors have told Uber Technologies Inc [UBER.UL] it would be wise to sell off its self-driving car unit after it racked up losses of $125 million to $200 million each quarter for the past 18 months, tech news site The Information reported on Wednesday, citing an unnamed person familiar with the issue.
> 
> Uber did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.
> 
> ...


Sell what it's worthless. They are not a car company they should never have gotten into self driving navigation. Real car makers and bigger fish are working on it and Uber still wants to put all their eggs in that basket.

Self driving cars are not even being specifically designed as taxi's I don't think, not at first anyway because that requires constant use making the format more vulnerable to failure instead of just having a personal car and using it to get to work and back and for errands. Plus you would need special things like self closing doors that will never catch a drunk person's legs and that self open if not closed properly. You need self fueling gas stations, and a way to remove any garbage a pax leaves, etc many real world variables. Even getting to the correct entrance of a gated community can be a challenge as will a car talking to a gate guard.


----------



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

Lee239 said:


> Sell what it's worthless. They are not a car company they should never have gotten into self driving navigation. Real car makers and bigger fish are working on it and Uber still wants to put all their eggs in that basket.
> 
> Self driving cars are not even being specifically designed as taxi's I don't think, not at first anyway because that requires constant use making the format more vulnerable to failure instead of just having a personal car and using it to get to work and back and for errands. Plus you would need special things like self closing doors that will never catch a drunk person's legs and that self open if not closed properly. You need self fueling gas stations, and a way to remove any garbage a pax leaves, etc many real world variables. Even getting to the correct entrance of a gated community can be a challenge as will a car talking to a gate guard.


That's my feeling as well.

Even if they get it working (something i am skeptical about) It still has to VASTLY outperform the uber GPS in terms of finding the passenger, something that needs much more human intilgence to figure out then just following the GPS. (which is all self driving cars can really do)

Keeping them clean will be a whole different animal, given how passengers treat our vehicles now?


----------



## 123dragon (Sep 14, 2016)

jocker12 said:


> Lol, how many Segways do you own?
> 
> Yup, self driving cars gonna happen like Santa, every year for Xmas. Only difference is now, people with the money don't wanna buy presents anymore, so you need to feed Santa and get no gifts for you to dream about from now on.


The segway was a 5,000 dollar transport that didn't have an easy way to store it. Bird, Lime, and Skip amongst 10 other companies have brought to market what segway was supposed to be. Go into any major city and you will see a ton of people on 2 wheel vehicles flying around. The promise of segway type technology is now a billion dollar market in cities.


----------



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

123dragon said:


> The segway was a 5,000 dollar transport that didn't have an easy way to store it. Bird, Lime, and Skip amongst 10 other companies have brought to market what segway was supposed to be. Go into any major city and you will see a ton of people on 2 wheel vehicles flying around. The promise of segway type technology is now a billion dollar market in cities.


And not a single one of those companies will ever turn a profit.

What you see in every major city is VC money littering the streets.


----------

