# Uber is selling its China business to dominant local rival Didi.



## arto71 (Sep 20, 2014)

http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/1/12339950/uber-didi-chuxing-china-merge

Chinese ride-hailing service Didi Chuxing is taking over Uber's local business in a deal valuing the combined company at $35 billion, Bloomberg reports. Didi is also said to be investing $1 billion in Uber based on a $68 billion overall valuation. Specific terms of the deal aren't yet clear, though Didi Chuxing was recently valued at $25 billion.

"As an entrepreneur, I've learned that being successful is about listening to your head as well as following your heart," Uber CEO Travis Kalanick was reported as saying in a yet-to-be-published blog post obtained by Bloomberg. "Uber and Didi Chuxing are investing billions of dollars in China and both companies have yet to turn a profit there. Getting to profitability is the only way to build a sustainable business that can best serve Chinese riders, drivers and cities over the long term."

Uber has found it extremely hard to grow in China against Didi's dominance; the Chinese company recently gained worldwide attention after receiving $1 billion in investment from Apple, and later secured more than $7 billion in total. Today's deal could be seen as Uber giving up, but its investors will take a stake in the newly merged alliance with Didi, and Uber as a whole will be able to stem the massive losses it's been suffering in the region. Bloomberg reports the company has lost over $2 billion in China to date.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

I guess Uber can cry UNCLE. even though it is a rich uncle.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Maybe DIDI will buy LYFT ?


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

Well I guess it's good for the investors that they keep their stakes in Uber China... but now Uber the actual company might be a hard sell for future investors.


Talk about collusion... has anyone seen something like this THIS fast ever?


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Brooklyn said:


> Well I guess it's good for the investors that they keep their stakes in Uber China... but now Uber the actual company might be a hard sell for future investors.
> 
> Talk about collusion... has anyone seen something like this THIS fast ever?


Read between the lines.

What is the health of Uber after hemmorrhaging 2 BILLION DOLLARS.

THAT 2 BILLION WONT FALL OUT THE SKY FOR UBER AGAIN.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Wonder if they have a JUNK BOND INVESTOR ALGORITHM ?


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

tohunt4me said:


> Read between the lines.
> 
> What is the health of Uber after hemmorrhaging 2 BILLION DOLLARS.
> 
> THAT 2 BILLION WONT FALL OUT THE SKY FOR UBER AGAIN.


They've taken enough loans to hold off until they're able to recoup their losses

Up next.. price fixing... watch when the prices/surges shoot up and the cut the driver gets drops... I was always curious as is if the customer/driver see the same prices always or not but best believe if Didi has connects with Lyft, now Uber and Didi is connected with Uber... there's no other big market app... they've covered all their bases pretty much. I haven't been on here in awhile so I don't know what's going on in Austin but I commend them for saying screw that.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

We don't need a DRIVERS UNION.

WE NEED a DRIVERS INVESTMENT GROUP TO BUY LYFT !

GET THE CAB COMPANIES IN ON IT TOO !

We don't move now,the chance WILL NEVER COME AGAIN !


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

tohunt4me said:


> We don't need a DRIVERS UNION.
> 
> WE NEED a DRIVERS INVESTMENT GROUP TO BUY LYFT !
> 
> ...


You do realize that Didi and Lyft are connected right?

A very wise man once said "you played yourself"

All that going back and forth between apps and trying to "stick it" to certain ones meanwhile all along they screwed everyone and are merging together.


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

Hmm I wonder how this will affect the DiDi/Lyft partnership.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

Brooklyn said:


> Well I guess it's good for the investors that they keep their stakes in Uber China... but now Uber the actual company might be a hard sell for future investors.
> 
> Talk about collusion... has anyone seen something like this THIS fast ever?


China legalized ride sharing this week (starts Nov 1), but it isn't weak US inspired do-whatever-you-want bs and would have made it impossible for Uber to continue. China basically told Uber you can't bribe us, and you can't keep the unfair competition routine going. Amazing, huh.

*1*. 'But they also include a stern message to the sector that could make ride-hailing a lot less attractive in China. The Chinese authorities are apparently determined to root out the "unfair" competition these companies present. Article 21 of the new law states:

Online ride-booking companies must not have unfair or illegal pricing behavior that disrupts market orders, or damages state interests or other operators' legal rights. They must not set prices below cost to push out competitors or dominate the market.'

*
2*. 'In addition, Article 3 states that ride-hailing companies are allowed to adjust their ride prices in response to the market, but local authorities reserve the right to give out a "government guidance price" when necessary.

That could mean subsidized rides are on their way out, which could deal an especially devastating blow to Uber-unnaturally cheap rides are key to getting people to try the service for the first time.

...huge subsidies are paid directly to drivers in China, to keep them driving while offering riders super-cheap fares.These low prices helped ride-hailing become popular, even in towns that already have taxis and other public transport. (Uber rides in my hometown of Shanghai, for example, can be 30% cheaper than taxis on the same route.)'

*3*. 'The new law, which takes effect on Nov. 1, requires drivers to have three years of driving experience and no criminal record, and to be licensed by a local taxi authority.'


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

What if :

All the Uber drivers bought Lyft ,and worked for/ owned Lyft ?

Who makes the company ?

Algorithms?

Uber?

Us !

Think we could manage to treat ourselves and customers better than Uber has ?


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

tohunt4me said:


> What if :
> 
> All the Uber drivers bought Lyft ,and worked for/ owned Lyft ?
> 
> ...


https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/07/uber-drivers-app-ridesharing-taxis-sharing-economy/


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> China legalized ride sharing this week (starts Nov 1), but it isn't weak US inspired do-whatever-you-want bs and would have made it impossible for Uber to continue. China basically told Uber you can't bribe us, and you can't keep the unfair competition routine going. Amazing, huh.
> 
> *1*. 'But they also include a stern message to the sector that could make ride-hailing a lot less attractive in China. The Chinese authorities are apparently determined to root out the "unfair" competition these companies present. Article 21 of the new law states:
> 
> ...


Section 1.

Preserving Infrastructure.

Imagine Uber bankrupts rail,Busses,taxis.

Imagine Uber is as Unsustainable as it seems.

What then ?

People walk & ride bikes ?

Infrastructure must be preserved.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

tohunt4me said:


> Section 1.
> 
> Preserving Infrastructure.
> 
> ...


Yes, precisely. Uber doesn't care at all about bankrupting mass transit with artificially low prices. They're actively trying to do it in NYC, and the MTA is starting to grow tired of it. They've now asked the city why Uber doesn't pay the same .50 MTA surcharge per ride taxis pay.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> Yes, precisely. Uber doesn't care at all about bankrupting mass transit with artificially low prices. They're actively trying to do it in NYC, and the MTA is starting to grow tired of it. They've now asked the city why Uber doesn't pay the same .50 MTA surcharge per ride taxis pay.


The more taxis that end up off the road,the more TAX MONEY UBER WILL HAVE TO REPLACE.

Budget money is spent before it is received.

GOVERNMENT WILL BE PAID.


----------



## Argantes (Dec 12, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> We don't need a DRIVERS UNION.
> 
> WE NEED a DRIVERS INVESTMENT GROUP TO BUY LYFT !
> 
> ...


Good luck with that, people don't care these days, even after years and years of abuse by rich corporations and the 1% the people keep going on, they (ie. the media, owned by the 1%) has done a good job of keeping people zombified and created this "dog eat dog" mentality that if you don't work and try to protest that well find someone else to take your place.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

tohunt4me said:


> The more taxis that end up off the road,the more TAX MONEY UBER WILL HAVE TO REPLACE.
> 
> Budget money is spent before it is received.
> 
> GOVERNMENT WILL BE PAID.


The other day I was driving down Columbus Ave (yellow cab, NYC) and passed two women maybe 8 blocks apart looking at their phones, clearly waiting for a ride. I thought the second was trying to hail, but she waved me away with a clear look of annoyance/disgust. Then I saw the large black SUV stop. Realized it was probably the 'Via' express. Cheap multiple pickup carpooling rides in a $60,000 SUV. Acting like a city bus. It takes five seconds to realize that cannot exist in a fair marketplace if you want to maintain a mass transit system. China is wise to the immense damage the flood of unnatural subsidies are doing.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Argantes said:


> Good luck with that, people don't care these days, even after years and years of abuse by rich corporations and the 1% the people keep going on, they (ie. the media, owned by the 1%) has done a good job of keeping people zombified and created this "dog eat dog" mentality that if you don't work and try to protest that well find someone else to take your place.


The BEST protest we could create,would be to own LYFT ,and run it properly.

If we lose,Uber had the RIGHT business practice after all.

But I don't think so.

If Uber will not change to benefit the PARTNERS.

THE PARTNERS SHOULD COMPETE.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> The other day I was driving down Columbus Ave (yellow cab, NYC) and passed two women maybe 8 blocks apart looking at their phones, clearly waiting for a ride. I thought the second was trying to hail, but she waved me away with a clear look of annoyance/disgust. Then I saw the large black SUV stop. Realized it was probably the 'Via' express. Cheap multiple pickup carpooling rides in a $60,000 SUV. Acting like a city bus. It takes five seconds to realize that cannot exist in a fair marketplace if you want to maintain a mass transit system. China is wise to the immense damage the flood of unnatural subsidies are doing.


You kill the infrastructure how long would it take to rebuild ?

Could it ever be done ?

Imagine a city separated from work,school,food,shopping.

Imagine the tax revenue lost.

A paralyzed city.

Imagine the civil unrest from such a catastrophic !

Imagine the jobless Politicians !

I see FEDERAL GOVT. stepping in,SOON.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> Yes, precisely. Uber doesn't care at all about bankrupting mass transit with artificially low prices. They're actively trying to do it in NYC, and the MTA is starting to grow tired of it. They've now asked the city why Uber doesn't pay the same .50 MTA surcharge per ride taxis pay.


It's absurd that Uber will try to undercut public transportation since they are supposed to be in the business to make money. You can't price cut your way to profitability. They don't seem to get this concept. They could raise prices, make more profit, and not lose ANY business. They don't seem to understand how far below market equilibrium their prices are. All profit loss.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

And I like Uber.

Yet all possibilities must be considered.

We must view beyond the tips of our nose !


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> It's absurd that Uber will try to undercut public transportation since they are supposed to be in the business to make money. You can't price cut your way to profitability. They don't seem to get this concept. They could raise prices, make more profit, and not lose ANY business. They don't seem to understand how far below market equilibrium their prices are. All profit loss.


They just want to bankrupt/cripple everything in their path. You're dealing with the most vicious of Wall St types running the show, pumping in Billions.

But good luck taking on the MTA.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> It's absurd that Uber will try to undercut public transportation since they are supposed to be in the business to make money. You can't price cut your way to profitability. They don't seem to get this concept. They could raise prices, make more profit, and not lose ANY business. They don't seem to understand how far below market equilibrium their prices are. All profit loss.


Government will not allow Monopoly.

For Obvious Reasons.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> They just want to bankrupt/cripple everything in their path. You're dealing with the most vicious of Wall St types running the show, pumping in Billions.


The problem with that, as far as for Uber, is that investors are finally wising up to their unprofitability ways! They aren't able to keep raising the same money to subsidize their unprofitability ways!


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> The problem with that, as far as for Uber, is that investors are finally wising up to their unprofitability ways! They aren't able to keep raising the same money to subsidize their unprofitability ways!


...to subsidize the below market equilibrium rates!!


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> It's absurd that Uber will try to undercut public transportation since they are supposed to be in the business to make money. You can't price cut your way to profitability. They don't seem to get this concept. They could raise prices, make more profit, and not lose ANY business. They don't seem to understand how far below market equilibrium their prices are. All profit loss.


We the DRIVERS ARE being FORCED by Uber to SUBSIDISE this Squeezeplay with our own cars and our own Futures !

A future in which Uber wants to replace us with machines !


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> The problem with that, as far as for Uber, is that investors are finally wising up to their unprofitability ways! They aren't able to keep raising the same money to subsidize their unprofitability ways!


The China thing is quite interesting, since Uber claimed a few months ago they're 'profitable' in the US. Makes you wonder if there's even an ounce of truth in that if they need the Chinese market so badly. Make no mistake, China just basically forced them to sell to Didi.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> The China thing is quite interesting, since Uber claimed a few months ago they're 'profitable' in the US. Makes you wonder if there's even an ounce of truth in that if they need the Chinese market so badly. Make no mistake, China just basically forced them to sell to DIDI.


Reread what Uber said about their profitability, it was something along the lines of, profitable if you exclude certain costs. They were, in fact, still not profitable. That was classic Uber spin.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Functioning on paper,functioning on ALGORITHM and functioning in the Real World are 3 different stories.

All with VERY different endings!


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Reread what Uber said about their profitability, it was something along the lines of, profitable if you exclude certain costs. They were, in fact, still not profitable. That was classic Uber spin.


And there you have it.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> The China thing is quite interesting, since Uber claimed a few months ago they're 'profitable' in the US. Makes you wonder if there's even an ounce of truth in that if they need the Chinese market so badly. Make no mistake, China just basically forced them to sell to Didi.


Why are they advertising night and day on several t.V. networks for new drivers ?

When Uber is UNSUSTAINABLE for the drivers ( skilled Uber Drivers) already here !?!?


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

tohunt4me said:


> Functioning on paper,functioning on ALGORITHM and functioning in the Real World are 3 different stories.
> 
> All with VEEY different endings!


And a US tech company muscling it's way into China ain't happening. Facebook and Google are blocked in China for censorship reasons (they are still a Communist country in that aspect), and this move gives the impression that China is pretty much done with US tech co's period.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> And there you have it.


Don't just believe me. Here's the quote again.

http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/uber-finally-making-profit-sort/article/1391333

_Uber is now making a profit (at least on an EBITDA basis) on each ride it provides in the US. *After deducting marketing costs, transaction fees and web development costs* from the 25% cut it takes from each trip, Uber is left with a less-than-uber 19 cents per ride._


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Drivers MUST buy Lyft NOW.

Or be content with cleaning Uber robot cars as contract cleaners for $5.00 a car & star ratings !


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

tohunt4me said:


> Why are they advertising night and day on several t.V. networks for new drivers ?
> 
> When Uber is UNSUSTAINABLE for the drivers ( skilled Uber Drivers) already here !?!?


Because their 'business model' is based on preying on people who don't understand it. The upfront guarantees lure in new drivers and keep them on the road long enough for another rate cut. Repeat ad nauseum.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

tohunt4me said:


> Drivers MUST buy Lyft NOW.
> 
> Or be content with cleaning Uber robot cars as contract cleaners for $5.00 a car & star ratings !


Didi, which just bought Uber's China operations, is a major investor in Lyft. I can tell you they're spending an enormous amount of money in NYC on ad campaigns. Directed at customers, not drivers.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> Because their 'business model' is based on preying on people who don't understand it. The upfront guarantees lure in new drivers and keep them on the road long enough for another rate cut. Repeat ad nauseum.


Due to how much money they are throwing away from having below market equilibrium rides, it makes sense that they are looking to make money mostly from things other than the core business. Things such as their auto leasing program, the Enterprise rent a car program, among the other things.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Due to how much money they are throwing away from having below market equilibrium rides, it makes sense that they are looking to make money mostly from things other than the core business. Things such as their auto leasing program, the Enterprise rent a car program, among the other things.


Yes, absolutely.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Due to how much money they are throwing away from having below market equilibrium rides, it makes sense that they are looking to make money mostly from things other than the core business. Things such as their auto leasing program, the Enterprise rent a car program, among the other things.


This should read "below market equilibrium prices for rides".


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

If you can't beat them, join them!



> Getting to profitability is the only way to build a sustainable business


Genius, Travis, pure genius


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> This should read "below market equilibrium prices for rides".


UNSUSTAINABLE

SIMPLY
UNSUSTAINABLE !


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> Yes, absolutely.


Data mining.

FACEBOOKS ONLY BUSINESS.

UBER DATA MINES DRIVERS & CUSTOMERS.

24/7


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> Data mining.
> 
> FACEBOOKS ONLY BUSINESS.
> 
> ...


It monitors what Facebook can not.

Every move you make.

When why and how,when you are out the house.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

elelegido said:


> If you can't beat them, join them!
> 
> Genius, Travis, pure genius


The sad thing is that while he's saying one thing, his actions state that "we will price cut our way to profitability".


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> The sad thing is that while he's saying one thing, his actions state that "we will price cut our way to profitability".


The Govt. Will NOT ALLOW a transportation Monopoly.

He can quit wasting money now.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

tohunt4me said:


> The Govt. Will NOT ALLOW a transportation Monopoly.
> 
> He can quit wasting money now.


Even if Uber was the only rideshare company in the US, it would not be a transportation monopoly. People can get the same service (transport from A to B) from many competitors - taxi, bus, train, subway etc


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

elelegido said:


> Even if Uber was the only rideshare company in the US, it would not be a transportation monopoly. People can get the same service (transport from A to B) from many competitors - taxi, bus, train, subway etc


The problem is the uneven regulations. Uber has for the most part has coerced city/state governments to bend the rules and allow them to sidestep significant costs their 'competitors' must shoulder. Uber is artificially undercutting their 'competition.' Look at what they did in Austin when they weren't allowed to operate without fingerprinting and proper background checks.


----------



## ubaguy (Jun 6, 2016)

tohunt4me said:


> Read between the lines.
> 
> What is the health of Uber after hemmorrhaging 2 BILLION DOLLARS.
> 
> THAT 2 BILLION WONT FALL OUT THE SKY FOR UBER AGAIN.


They got 1 billion back from and 20% of a company backed by Chinese government so think still net positive for Uber


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

elelegido said:


> Even if Uber was the only rideshare company in the US, it would not be a transportation monopoly. People can get the same service (transport from A to B) from many competitors - taxi, bus, train, subway etc


Not if Uber gives away rides for 50 cents !

The Busses are empty.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

What is the difference between a Diamond and a piece of gravel ?

Price,and availability.

Uber has turned their Diamond mine into gravel.

WE SIGNED UP TO BE DIAMOND MINERS !

Uber is telling us gravel is prettier.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

ubaguy said:


> They got 1 billion back from and 20% of a company backed by Chinese government so think still net positive for Uber


Yeah, maybe. The article says Didi was recently valued at $25bn and the new firm is valued at $35bn. With some assumptions, that means that Uber may have received $10bn plus the $1bn investment in exchange for their Chinese operations. They lost $2bn through operations in China, so their payout could be $9bn, less whatever capex they invested. They probably did extremely well out of the deal.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

We Came to Uber as high end escorts.

Uber wants to pimp us in the alley.

They think volume reigns over QUALITY.

This is why Uber has killed it's appeal.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

It's funny how Travis talks about being successful. I think he can't talk about Uber being successful until they atleast turn a profit, no matter how much the company is allegedly "valued" at.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> I don't read it as a buyout, I read it as a collaboration. Nothing in there says Uber sold their entire operations to Didi. It also says Didi is investing $1b in Uber's operations.
> 
> I think if they sold their entire China operations it would say so clearly and it would have a number.


Yeah, it's a buyout. The article says that Didi is "taking over Uber's business" in China. It also says that Uber investors will get a stake in the merged company, i.e. they will receive shares. It's common practice for the owners of the business which is being taken over to be paid in shares of the buying company. For example, it happened in Facebook's takeover of Whatsapp, whose owners received cash and shares (i.e. a stake) in Facebook.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> It's funny how Travis talks about being successful. I think he can't talk about Uber being successful until they atleast turn a profit, no matter how much the company is allegedly "valued" at.


Get Paper = success.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

A


uberdriverfornow said:


> Actually, looking at the title again it does specifically say it's selling it's China business but the article isn't as clear.


AS murky an article as Ubers business model.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Brooklyn said:


> You do realize that Didi and Lyft are connected right?
> 
> A very wise man once said "you played yourself"
> 
> All that going back and forth between apps and trying to "stick it" to certain ones meanwhile all along they screwed everyone and are merging together.


Time to get behind FARE and push


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

This acquisition makes me a little sad, got a fuzzy warm feeling knowing Travis got taken for a billion every year.

No one mentioned the paltry billion in cash that Didi forked over.
THATS beautiful.
Invest 3+ Billion, walk away with a third.
#UberHemmorage.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> This acquisition makes me a little sad, got a fuzzy warm feeling knowing Travis got @$$ [email protected] for a billion every year.
> 
> No one mentioned the paltry billion in cash that Didi forked over.
> THATS beautiful.
> ...


I used to love Uber.
You know that.
But Uber acts like a lying ,cheating *****.

What am I going to do with Uber Two Fiddy ? ?


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> I used to love Uber.
> You know that.
> But Uber acts like a lying ,cheating *****.
> 
> What am I going to do with Uber Two Fiddy ? ?


Dump the biotch, she's a bum.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Dump the biotch, she's a bum.


Might have to shut her playhouse down


----------



## BurgerTiime (Jun 22, 2015)

They were pissing investors money away at a rate of $1 billion a year. That in nobody's mind is substainable. It would take a century to recoup the market if they dominated it and they still had legal hurdles to overcome. They have to ipo and China would undervalue it by billions.


----------



## BurgerTiime (Jun 22, 2015)

elelegido said:


> Even if Uber was the only rideshare company in the US, it would not be a transportation monopoly. People can get the same service (transport from A to B) from many competitors - taxi, bus, train, subway etc


Uber is being copied. Meaning taxi and limo companies are getting thier own app. Some apps have a better interface now. No stupid pin placement anywhere. Loyalty will prevail and undermine Ubers business model. The thing that hurts Uber is branding and loyalty. Two things they can't seem to get right. When you hear of mistreating drivers you don't think GETT or Lyfy. You think UBER.


----------



## backstreets-trans (Aug 16, 2015)

It looks like investors are really pushing Travis to get to profitability. This is a big defeat and their value will never reach 68 billion without the Chinese market. I wouldn't be surprised if Travis gets the boot within a year. He has run this business into the brink of collapse with his poor decisions. The money has dried up and their financials are in poor shape. I would love to look at the books because you have to wonder where all the money went.


----------



## Flarpy (Apr 17, 2016)

backstreets-trans said:


> It looks like investors are really pushing Travis to get to profitability. This is a big defeat and their value will never reach 68 billion without the Chinese market. I wouldn't be surprised if Travis gets the boot within a year. He has run this business into the brink of collapse with his poor decisions. The money has dried up and there financials are in poor shape. I would love to look at the books because you have to wonder where all the money went.


This gives Uber a much-needed cash infusion. I have a feeling they've been pissing their cash away on expansion, advertising, guarantees, and driver promotions for people who (wisely) drive for a month to make themselves and their friend $500-$750 each and then delete the driver app and never come back.

That's really the only way for a person to "win," driving for Uber or Lyft. Cash in your new-driver incentive and then never come back. It's like if you win your first time in Vegas, just never come back. They'll get you in the end.

The Chinese were smart. They back their local Chinese company over an American one. They require country-wide regulations for their drivers. They don't bend over for Travis. In fact, they bent him over and that's why he's selling. You see, in China when you're a big baller like Travis, you don't deal with the little local municipalities which you can push around like in the US, you deal with the Chinese Communist Party directly. The Communist Party looks you in the eye and tells you what you're going to do. There's no negotiation, because they don't have to. You deal with China itself as a whole all at once. And Travis's supposed $50 billion is nothing to them.

Basically Travis got Ubered by China. What Travis does to drivers, China did to him.


----------



## Uberbrethren (Feb 25, 2016)

tohunt4me said:


> We the DRIVERS ARE being FORCED by Uber to SUBSIDISE this Squeezeplay with our own cars and our own Futures !
> 
> A future in which Uber wants to replace us with machines !


Correct, tohunt. Blunt and accurate. We all wish it wasn't true, but you are absolutely right.


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

BurgerTiime said:


> They were pissing investors money away at a rate of $1 billion a year. That in nobody's mind is substainable. It would take a century to recoup the market if they dominated it and they still had legal hurdles to overcome. They have to ipo and China would undervalue it by billions.


I think all the moves are becasue they are gearing up for the IPO they have to show a real effort that they are in it to win it and have a succesfull looking long term plan.. The VC is getting thirsty for a guaranteed return and if the public catches on to how flimsy Ubers position is for dominating the future of the industry which is true driverless cars they risk the round 1 and 2 investors return. THe IPO buyers are mosty going to get burned. Typical Tech stock pump and dump. VC gets rich shareholders get screwed. Zynga IPO'd at $10 a share and 6 months later it was $3. It never had a chance anyway but when King games CANDY CRUSHED them it was a dead horse.

Didn't matter for the VC they got paid well on the IPO or sell off at $14. Employees with RSU got screwed, a few employees who were in at the start did well if they sold everything ASAP. I bet a lot kept working there loyal to the corporate structure and held it thinking they were gonna double it. nope... it peaked at $14.69 and bottomed at $1.83 this year. All uber is is an app and an insurance company and millions of drivers. If we walk to a better option Uber is dead, if Uber can't secure driverless vehicles before the competition, Uber is dead. Great short sell stock once theres plenty to borrow.


----------



## LA Cabbie (Nov 4, 2014)

tohunt4me said:


> What if :
> Think we could manage to treat ourselves and customers better than Uber has ?


No, if you could at least manage yourselves, you wouldn't be driving cab to begin with. I spoke with the president of United Taxi in Los Angeles and he told us that we have apps floated by drivers who know the business but have no idea how technology works.

A rock star programmer makes easily $100,00 a year. An Uber driver hardly makes 100 cents a mile.


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

Flarpy said:


> This gives Uber a much-needed cash infusion. I have a feeling they've been pissing their cash away on expansion, advertising, guarantees, and driver promotions for people who (wisely) drive for a month to make themselves and their friend $500-$750 each and then delete the driver app and never come back.
> 
> That's really the only way for a person to "win," driving for Uber or Lyft. Cash in your new-driver incentive and then never come back. It's like if you win your first time in Vegas, just never come back. They'll get you in the end.
> 
> ...


Yep, they allowed him to save face and have a stake at the table. but I think that's about it for him having any real input on the business over there. CHina's a hive, you can't competing services in the hive becasue it means there more for the MCP to monitor. The MCP demands efficiency. China has asserted just who the MCP was going to be over there and it ain't Travis it's the Party.


----------



## LA Cabbie (Nov 4, 2014)

Hackenstein said:


> The other day I was driving down Columbus Ave (yellow cab, NYC) and passed two women maybe 8 blocks apart looking at their phones, clearly waiting for a ride. I thought the second was trying to hail, but she waved me away with a clear look of annoyance/disgust. Then I saw the large black SUV stop. Realized it was probably the 'Via' express. Cheap multiple pickup carpooling rides in a $60,000 SUV. Acting like a city bus. It takes five seconds to realize that cannot exist in a fair marketplace if you want to maintain a mass transit system. China is wise to the immense damage the flood of unnatural subsidies are doing.


Just read about more price dropping from VIA here:
http://observer.com/2016/08/you-need-to-try-via-an-ulta-cheap-uber-competitor-now-offering-2-rides/

$2.15 fares in DC yet paying drivers net $20 an hour. All these ride share companies are unbelievably losing money.


----------



## Slavic Riga (Jan 12, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> It's absurd that Uber will try to undercut public transportation since they are supposed to be in the business to make money. You can't price cut your way to profitability. They don't seem to get this concept. They could raise prices, make more profit, and not lose ANY business. They don't seem to understand how far below market equilibrium their prices are. All profit loss.


Uber profits are more on the Booking fee. The booking fee nets them more $$ then the commission, especially on short trips. Hence the push for UberPool in many markets.


----------



## Slavic Riga (Jan 12, 2016)

tohunt4me said:


> The Govt. Will NOT ALLOW a transportation Monopoly.
> He can quit wasting money now.


Yes & No. Show Politicians money & they are easily swayed. Some jurisdictions in USA have signed contracts with Uber to provide public transportation to the people. District of Columbia is one of the State.


----------



## Slavic Riga (Jan 12, 2016)

backstreets-trans said:


> It looks like investors are really pushing Travis to get to profitability. This is a big defeat and their value will never reach 68 billion without the Chinese market. I wouldn't be surprised if Travis gets the boot within a year. He has run this business into the brink of collapse with his poor decisions. The money has dried up and there financials are in poor shape. I would love to look at the books because you have to wonder where all the money went.


He won't get Booted, he will be in the inner circle but will be banned from making decisions. *Its worse than getting Booted.* 
With so many Investors, VC's & DIDI now on board, will have to wait & watch who calls the shots. So, lets not forget all these groups need a person to do the dirty work & that person is Travis K. After everything is said & done, he is History. The founder & partner Garrett Camp is rarely heard about in public.


----------



## MoneyUber4 (Dec 9, 2014)

Well, bleeding Uber can't afford to keep losing billions in China and asking Arabs to lend them more billions.

Cash is drying out as drivers are refusing to work for cents per mile. Uber cheap rides are already collapsed in USA. Uber has tried everything now from billboard to cold calls to drivers. Pleading: "Please drive more so we can make more money from you sucker drivers". 

Next option, let go China, as they are not making enough yuans to pay for their overseas operation. Didi (dicki) works better than Uber application there. 

Chinese are nationalist and they don't care about using a foreign company. So no Uber in China.


----------



## Just Another Uber Drive (Jul 15, 2015)

MoneyUber4 said:


> Well, bleeding Uber can't afford to keep losing billions in China and asking Arabs to lend them more billions.
> 
> Cash is drying out as drivers are refusing to work for cents per mile. Uber cheap rides are already collapsed in USA. Uber has tried everything now from billboard to cold calls to drivers. Pleading: "Please drive more so we can make more money from you sucker drivers".
> 
> ...


I wonder when Saudi Arabia will realize that as an oil-based economy rideshare isn't compatible with the kingdom's long-term interests. I know they have a goal of transforming their economy in to something that isn't oil-based (Vision 2030) but this is like shooting themselves in the foot.

Makes me wonder if this isn't just an expensive way to keep woman from driving. Seriously.


----------



## NoCommission (May 23, 2016)

I guess he couldn't lower UberX fare cheaper than the chinese company. Chinese do not import they export only.


----------



## NoCommission (May 23, 2016)

"Uber entered this uncharted territory in February 2014, two years after Didi was founded"
Wow Chinese are too fast copying everything. Uber started in 2009 and in 3 years only Didi was founded.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

tohunt4me said:


> You kill the infrastructure how long would it take to rebuild ?
> 
> Could it ever be done ?
> 
> ...


I think there SHOULD be federal "for hire" regulations. Similar to FAA. I wouldn't rule it out.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

tohunt4me said:


> It monitors what Facebook can not.
> 
> Every move you make.
> 
> When why and how,when you are out the house.


Better than Pokemon Go.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Slavic Riga said:


> Uber profits are more on the Booking fee. The booking fee nets them more $$ then the commission, especially on short trips. Hence the push for UberPool in many markets.


Yes, I know why Uber is pushing Pool, it's cause they only care about making a larger percentage of fare vs drivers on the short trips, that's why they are pushing Pool so hard.

For example, two people going from San Jose to San Francisco taking separate drivers costs $40 each which is $80, however when those same people do a Pool it comes out to about $50, so which one does Uber make a greater amount of money on ? Obviously the $80 two trips considering they pay absolutely no expenses whatsoever to drivers. If they were paying out expenses and wages then they would be saving by not paying the extra driver but that's not the case. Which one should Uber be pushing ?

So on most longer rides Uber is losing money by pushing Pool but the only thing they seem to focus on is looking at making a greater percentage vs drivers on short trips(normally around $5 for us and $5 for Uber). It's a money losing transaction overall though but they just don't get it.

I'll give you another example. I normally get three types of riders doing pool in the morning, those that want to do Pool and want to pick up people, those that got tricked into doing Pool by Uber by Uber automatically defaulting the newly signed up rider to Pool due to the slider being defaulted to Pool, and those that want to do Pool because it's cheaper but get mad when you pick up other riders.

The first bunch are fine, but the second group get mad at me when I go to pick up another rider cause Uber tricked them into doing a Pool and now I gotta worry about getting a bad rating even though I did nothing wrong. The third group practically throw a temper tantrum when you wind up picking up other riders because they are cheap asses that only want the cheaper Pool rates but now are going to give me a bad rating because I had the audacity to do my job. I can have a perfect ride and they will give me a bad rating because they were hoping I didn't pick someone up. Now they are late for work and it's somehow my fault.

If Uber was smart they would have the Pool prices more than UberX because it would force people to only do Pool if they actually wanted to pick up other people to save money. This would weed out the people in groups 2 and 3 and only group 1 would request pool.

However, the people running Uber have no common sense. They aren't in it to make a profit and only idiots are running the things at the top. If you're a smart person it's likely you're at a different company getting paid properly and getting treated properly.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

NoCommission said:


> I guess he couldn't lower UberX fare cheaper than the chinese company. Chinese do not import they export only.


They import and stockpile raw materials.

A few years back they stockpiled enough base and semi precious metals to have a nice long war somewhere.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Slavic Riga said:


> He won't get Booted, he will be in the inner circle but will be banned from making decisions. *Its worse than getting Booted.*
> With so many Investors, VC's & DIDI now on board, will have to wait & watch who calls the shots. So, lets not forget all these groups need a person to do the dirty work & that person is Travis K. After everything is said & done, he is History. The founder & partner Garrett Camp is rarely heard about in public.


Let's play this matching game:

If Travis = Himmler, and Ashton=Goering, and Plouff = Goebels, then who gets to play the Fuhrer? Garrett? I see Garrett as more like Speer.

There's so many villains, it's hard to choose.

Who's Dr. Mengele?


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> We don't need a DRIVERS UNION.
> 
> WE NEED a DRIVERS INVESTMENT GROUP TO BUY LYFT !
> 
> ...


Why would a cab company want to invest in Lyft? Lyft has nothing to offer a (modern) cab business....except lower pay for the drivers.


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> Drivers MUST buy Lyft NOW.
> 
> Or be content with cleaning Uber robot cars as contract cleaners for $5.00 a car & star ratings !


As it is, the drivers claim they can't afford commercial insurance. Just how can they afford to buy a business like Lyft?

And if they did, they'd be a Co-op cab business, which already exist all across the U.S. So now all you become what you claim to have replaced.


----------



## KMANDERSON (Jul 19, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> What if :
> 
> All the Uber drivers bought Lyft ,and worked for/ owned Lyft ?
> 
> ...


You think all the drivers could afford to buy lyft at these low rates?


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> We Came to Uber as high end escorts.
> 
> Uber wants to pimp us in the alley.
> 
> ...


No, you weren't hired as a "high end" anything. Uber "hired" you as a cheap throw away worker where there's always someone who'll work for less than you.


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

BurgerTiime said:


> Uber is being copied. Meaning taxi and limo companies are getting thier own app. Some apps have a better interface now. No stupid pin placement anywhere. Loyalty will prevail and undermine Ubers business model. The thing that hurts Uber is branding and loyalty. Two things they can't seem to get right. When you hear of mistreating drivers you don't think GETT or Lyfy. You think UBER.


FYI....many taxi companies (like ours) had our own app two years before Uber was a twinkle in your eye.

This isn't anything new. What's new is Uber finding idiots to operate their personal car as a cab.


----------



## LA Cabbie (Nov 4, 2014)

phillipzx3 said:


> FYI....many taxi companies (like ours) had our own app two years before Uber was a twinkle in your eye.
> 
> This isn't anything new. What's new is Uber finding idiots to operate their personal car as a cab.


Very true. United Taxi had an app before some people in LA knew that Uber existed. I think Yellow along with Taxi Magic have been longer around with apps before Uber came along.


----------



## Mountainsoloist (Nov 16, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> We Came to Uber as high end escorts. Uber wants to pimp us in the alley. They think volume reigns over QUALITY. This is why Uber has killed it's appeal.


Very true. It was originally viewed as a significant improvement over traditional taxis. We made enough money to keep our cars really clean and properly maintained. We had enough discretionary income to wear nice clothes. The clientele consisted primarily of early technology adopters and most of them were either wealthy or high income earners. It was like Travis' old mantra of riding around like ballers.

Once they changed their plan to volume based competition they entered into territory which the taxis have run for a century. People no longer rave about how Uber is better or cleaner than a taxi. Instead, they simply consider it a taxi.



LA Cabbie said:


> No, if you could at least manage yourselves, you wouldn't be driving cab to begin with... A rock star programmer makes easily $100,000 a year. An Uber driver hardly makes 100 cents a mile.


All of us should be looking actively for income opportunities other than driving. Even those among us who don't believe that autonomous cars are coming soon can see that there is tremendous volatility in the for hire driving market. Uber has shaken the business of many taxi companies and drivers. Uber drivers went from earning $5000/month to less than minimum wage within a year in many markets. Driving is still a great way to get to work, but it's days as a way to make money are limited.

Great point with programming! IT will have strong growth for a while.



phillipzx3 said:


> FYI....many taxi companies (like ours) had our own app two years before Uber was a twinkle in your eye. This isn't anything new. What's new is Uber finding idiots to operate their personal car as a cab.


I used those taxi apps before Uber and they were an improvement to the process. The main accelerant to Uber's growth wasn't simply the fact that riders could hail with an app as much as it was the ability for non taxi drivers to be cab drivers without any training, certification, or investment. Ultimately we all lose as a result. Uber drivers frequently drive at a financial loss, riders get the same quality they had from taxis, taxis get less business, and Uber may or may not even be profitable.


----------



## rembrandt (Jul 3, 2016)

stuber said:


> Let's play this matching game:
> 
> If Travis = Himmler, and Ashton=Goering, and Plouff = Goebels, then who gets to play the Fuhrer? Garrett? I see Garrett as more like Speer.
> 
> ...


The main villain is the cheering crowd fascinated by cheap slaves. They are the one who create and sustain Fuhrer. A fascist virus gets it's survival fitness from the hosts aka general public.


----------



## NoCommission (May 23, 2016)

phillipzx3 said:


> FYI....many taxi companies (like ours) had our own app two years before Uber was a twinkle in your eye.
> 
> This isn't anything new. What's new is Uber finding idiots to operate their personal car as a cab.


Oh boy.. I never know that uber wasn't the first rideshare app.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

arto71 said:


> http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/1/12339950/uber-didi-chuxing-china-merge
> 
> Chinese ride-hailing service Didi Chuxing is taking over Uber's local business in a deal valuing the combined company at $35 billion, Bloomberg reports. Didi is also said to be investing $1 billion in Uber based on a $68 billion overall valuation. Specific terms of the deal aren't yet clear, though Didi Chuxing was recently valued at $25 billion.
> 
> ...


Travis Jalanick doesn't have a heart.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> Yes, precisely. Uber doesn't care at all about bankrupting mass transit with artificially low prices. They're actively trying to do it in NYC, and the MTA is starting to grow tired of it. They've now asked the city why Uber doesn't pay the same .50 MTA surcharge per ride taxis pay.


Are you saying taxis have to pay MTA for pax MTA doesn't carry? Do pedestrians have to pay MTA for walking instead of riding with MTA?


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

Rat said:


> Are you saying taxis have to pay MTA for pax MTA doesn't carry?


Yes, that's right. The question isn't whether the MTA tax is fair (I don't think it is, and in fact the politician who passed it went to prison for another charge), the issue is unequal regulatory treatment. Ie: the Uber 'model.'


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

It's time to hear what insight Donald has to say on this development.


----------



## MoneyUber4 (Dec 9, 2014)

Apple + Didi + Uber = New bigger Service.

http://fortune.com/2016/08/04/apple-invest-didi-chuxing-china-uber-merger/

http://fortune.com/2016/08/01/uber-didi-merger/


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> Read between the lines.
> 
> What is the health of Uber after hemmorrhaging 2 BILLION DOLLARS.
> 
> THAT 2 BILLION WONT FALL OUT THE SKY FOR UBER AGAIN.


Or read the lines, they just spent $1B for a $5B stake in a company. Do you math?


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> The problem with that, as far as for Uber, is that investors are finally wising up to their unprofitability ways! They aren't able to keep raising the same money to subsidize their unprofitability ways!


So the fact that they received the largest investment in the history of mankind last month went right past you?


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> We the DRIVERS ARE being FORCED by Uber to SUBSIDISE this Squeezeplay with our own cars and our own Futures !
> 
> A future in which Uber wants to replace us with machines !


So quit. Why all the bellyaching? ALL commercial drivers will be replaced in the next ten years whether Uber wants it or not.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> The China thing is quite interesting, since Uber claimed a few months ago they're 'profitable' in the US. Makes you wonder if there's even an ounce of truth in that if they need the Chinese market so badly. Make no mistake, China just basically forced them to sell to Didi.


What does market share acquisition have to do with profitability in the US?


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> So quit. Why all the bellyaching? ALL commercial drivers will be replaced in the next ten years whether Uber wants it or not.


Lobbyist for transportation workers rights may be a more rewarding line of work.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> What does market share acquisition have to do with profitability in the US?


Obviously, because if they're so profitable in the US, it makes one wonder why they needed China so badly.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> Obviously, because if they're so profitable in the US, it makes one wonder why they needed China so badly.


Because it's a new business model and now is the time to grab market share? Or are you suggesting companies ignore the largest markets because they make a profit elsewhere?


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> Lobbyist for transportation workers rights may be a more rewarding line of work.


Ah, the leaches. No thanks. I'll take the massive drop in the cost of living.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> Obviously, because if they're so profitable in the US, it makes one wonder why they needed China so badly.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Ah, the leaches. No thanks. I'll take the massive drop in the cost of living.


You mean the massive drop in the STANDARD of living.

25% plus rider fees is the leach bleeding me ,while saturating market and lowering rates.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> You mean the massive drop in the STANDARD of living.
> 
> 25% plus rider fees is the leach bleeding me ,while saturating market and lowering rates.


If the cost of everything drops, and it's about to, you need less income to maintain the same standard of living.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

My costs have gone up.
Gas has gone up.
Tires have gone up.
Taxes have gone up.
The hours I have to work to earn less have gone up
Uber commission has gone up.
The number of onboarded drivers has gone up.

Uber rates( not the amount Uber takes) have gone down.

Income has gone down.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Because it's a new business model and now is the time to grab market share? Or are you suggesting companies ignore the largest markets because they make a profit elsewhere?


When a company is sinking Billions into a country and is still not profitable, it makes one wonder why they wouldn't just stop, if they are so 'proifitable' in the US. This isn't rocket science.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> Obviously, because if they're so profitable in the US, it makes one wonder why they needed China so badly.


The China market is much bigger than the US or Europe


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> If the cost of everything drops, and it's about to, you need less income to maintain the same standard of living.


Why do you think the cost of everything is going to drop?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> So the fact that they received the largest investment in the history of mankind last month went right past you?


Which was the country that invested ?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> When a company is sinking Billions into a country and is still not profitable, it makes one wonder why they wouldn't just stop, if they are so 'proifitable' in the US. This isn't rocket science.


It's not rocket science. It really isn't. But some people will defend Uber tooth and nail. They have to prove you wrong when you criticize their Uber.

Something like $10 billion dollars invested in Uber and still haven't turned a profit. All we ever hear is how much Uber blows through money.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> When a company is sinking Billions into a country and is still not profitable, it makes one wonder why they wouldn't just stop, if they are so 'proifitable' in the US. This isn't rocket science.


I...you...what? You do realise they had to invest in the US and be unprofitable here for some time too, no? Why wouldn't they stop acquiring market share? Dude, they did stop...that's what we are discussing. They profited 6 billion dollars in cash and equity and are moving on owning 20% of all future profits of their largest rival in the world in the largest market in the world. Stop me when we get to the part that doesn't make sense.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> It's not rocket science. It really isn't. But some people will defend Uber tooth and nail. They have to prove you wrong when you criticize their Uber.
> 
> Something like $10 billion dollars invested in Uber and still haven't turned a profit. All we ever hear is how much Uber blows through money.


Yes, that's all many ever hear. That's not what is always said by any means, but that's all many drivers want to hear. I'm not defending or promoting Uber. I wouldn't invest in them at this point. But pretending they are just losing money for no valid reason and getting nothing for their investment is disingenuous.

So, they have spent $10B you say? They are profitable in the US, turned a $2B investment into $8B and 20% of all future profits in China, are the highest valued start up in history at $68B , just garnered the largest single investment in history, and can now IPO in a very favorable financial environment. Have you ever heard the term _it takes money to make money_? This is what they are talking about.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Which was the country that invested ?


An investment group from Saudi Arabia, why? Well, along with many of the largest investors and companies in the world, of course.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rat said:


> Why do you think the cost of everything is going to drop?


Because the cost of almost every product and many services in the world are heavily impacted by transportation costs and most of that cost is human drivers.

Raw materials to the part manufacturer, parts to manufacturer, manufacturer to distributor, distributor to retail warehouse, retail warehouse to store or customer's location.

The costs of just about everything will plummet. In time, when most labor is automated, humans will spend their hours pursuing their wants and not their needs, because costs will be so low. It's the next step of human existence.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Yes, that's all many ever hear. That's not what is always said by any means, but that's all many drivers want to hear. I'm not defending or promoting Uber. I wouldn't invest in them at this point. But pretending they are just losing money for no valid reason and getting nothing for their investment is disingenuous.
> 
> So, they have spent $10B you say? They are profitable in the US, turned a $2B investment into $8B and 20% of all future profits in China, are the highest valued start up in history at $68B , just garnered the largest single investment in history, and can now IPO in a very favorable financial environment. Have you ever heard the term _it takes money to make money_? This is what they are talking about.


Uber said they were profitable IF AND ONLY IF you exclude certain costs. That means they aren't profitable.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> An investment group from Saudi Arabia


Exactly my point.

People in the US among other countries have finally started to wise up to Uber low price, UberPool money losing, unprofitability, business model.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> I...you...what? You do realise they had to invest in the US and be unprofitable here for some time too, no? Why wouldn't they stop acquiring market share? Dude, they did stop...that's what we are discussing. They profited 6 billion dollars in cash and equity and are moving on owning 20% of all future profits of their largest rival in the world in the largest market in the world. Stop me when we get to the part that doesn't make sense.


They profited 6 Billion? I read they got a Billion for selling out to DiDi and a cut of the action. Regardless, they were tossing Billions at China and not making any money.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Uber said they were profitable IF AND ONLY IF you exclude certain costs. That means they aren't profitable.


Uber is profitable in mature markets. It's proof of concept. Profitability isn't important at this point, market share is.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Exactly my point.
> 
> People in the US among other countries have finally started to wise up to Uber low price, UberPool money losing, unprofitability, business model.


Oh, I see, so people drop $3.5B on companies, the largest single investment in a private company in the history of mankind, without investigating them. They probably didn't even bother reading the investor financial portfolio. Today I learned something new, thanks.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> They profited 6 Billion? I read they got a Billion for selling out to DiDi and a cut of the action. Regardless, they were tossing Billions at China and not making any money.


Companies like Uber spend a massive amount of money to gain market share, showing a profit is irrelevant at this point.

They were also tossing a lot less at market share than Didi.

They spent $2B, received $1B in cash and $6B in Didi ownership. In addition, they now own 20% Didi going forward. Anyone who calls that anything other than fantastic for Uber is being disingenuous.

When Uber signed this partnership deal, Didi's valuation jumped $10B. Sounds like the experts liked the deal.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> They profited 6 Billion? I read they got a Billion for selling out to DiDi and a cut of the action. Regardless, they were tossing Billions at China and not making any money.


No, he's just pulling numbers out of his ass.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Oh, I see, so people drop $3.5B on companies, the largest single investment in a private company in the history of mankind, without investigating them. They probably didn't even bother reading the investor financial portfolio. Today I learned something new, thanks.


It's ok. You're learning. You'll get there.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Companies like Uber spend a massive amount of money to gain market share, showing a profit is irrelevant at this point.
> 
> They were also tossing a lot less at market share than Didi.
> 
> ...


Showing a profit certainly was relevant, their investors were done with Uber sinking Billions into China. Market share isn't exactly a golden rainbow when all of those drivers have to be constantly subsidized by Billions in VC and you're not making any money. DiDi is doing the same thing, so the '6 Billion in DiDi ownership' spiel is fairly nonsensical. Valuations are merely a guessing game for companies like these.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Because the cost of almost every product and many services in the world are heavily impacted by transportation costs and most of that cost is human drivers.
> 
> Raw materials to the part manufacturer, parts to manufacturer, manufacturer to distributor, distributor to retail warehouse, retail warehouse to store or customer's location.
> 
> The costs of just about everything will plummet. In time, when most labor is automated, humans will spend their hours pursuing their wants and not their needs, because costs will be so low. It's the next step of human existence.


Won't most of those unemployed humans be pursuing their next meal?


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> Showing a profit certainly was relevant, their investors were done with Uber sinking Billions into China. Market share isn't exactly a golden rainbow when all of those drivers have to be constantly subsidized by Billions in VC and you're not making any money. DiDi is doing the same thing, so the '6 Billion in DiDi ownership' spiel is fairly nonsensical. Valuations are merely a guessing game for companies like these.


Largest investment in a private company in history last month and _their investors were done with Uber sinking Billions into China_? Where are you getting this information that their investors were not onboard with going after China?

Valuations are indeed a guessing game. This also means Uber may have a piece that is far more valuable.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rat said:


> Won't most of those unemployed humans be pursuing their next meal?


You assume long term unemployment where I don't. The US has recovered from every major job loss through new job creation and new industries. People who want employment retrain. If people ignore the naysayers, they have plenty of time to adjust. If they buy in and don't, that's on them. It's not like the entire world isn't warning them.

What I'm pointing out is that we won't need full time employment at the same wages to maintain our current standard of living. There will be a painful shift for a lot of people but the net result will be a positive for society economically.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> You assume long term unemployment where I don't. The US has recovered from every major job loss through new job creation and new industries. People who want employment retrain. If people ignore the naysayers, they have plenty of time to adjust. If they buy in and don't, that's on them. It's not like the entire world isn't warning them.
> 
> What I'm pointing out is that we won't need full time employment at the same wages to maintain our current standard of living. There will be a painful shift for a lot of people but the net result will be a positive for society economically.


93 million Americans are out of work. That's more than half the workforce. This your idea of a recovery, doubling the national debt in 7.5 years to provide food stamps and mandatory health insurance that covers birth control but not cancer treatments? You give us nothing but opinion disguised as fact.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Largest investment in a private company in history last month and _their investors were done with Uber sinking Billions into China_? Where are you getting this information that their investors were not onboard with going after China?
> 
> Valuations are indeed a guessing game. This also means Uber may have a piece that is far more valuable.


Yes, their investors were done with it. The Saudis are a seperate issue, they want Uber because they don't want women driving.

There was a news item very recently don't remember where, that investors were putting pressue on Uber to stop pouring billions into China. Right before Uber made their deal with Didi.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> Yes, their investors were done with it. The Saudis are a seperate issue, they want Uber because they don't want women driving.
> 
> There was a news item very recently don't remember where, that investors were putting pressue on Uber to stop pouring billions into China. Right before Uber made their deal with Didi.


I've read several articles that make that claim in their headlines but none that support it in the article. It's all opinion. The same as your claims about the Saudis are out of thin air.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> I've read several articles that make that claim in their headlines but none that support it in the article. It's all opinion. The same as your claims about the Saudis are out of thin air.


According to this article, Uber investors were sick of Uber tossing away Billions in China. The Saudi speculation is an educated guess.

http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2016/jul/25/uber-s-investors-push-deal-with-china-r/


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rat said:


> 93 million Americans are out of work. That's more than half the workforce. This your idea of a recovery, doubling the national debt in 7.5 years to provide food stamps and mandatory health insurance that covers birth control but not cancer treatments? You give us nothing but opinion disguised as fact.


When did I say the US was fully recovered from the housing market crash?? We ARE recovering. Jobs ARE coming back. Besides, we aren't talking about government incentivised corruption, we are talking about technology disrupting human jobs which is always less impactful than the Chicken Littles' claim.

SDCs, once road ready, will take a long time to oust the human driver based on manufacturing and logistical limitations alone, but oust them they will. It will be a slow transition that everyone will eventually acknowledge and we'll adjust as we go, IMO. When the transition is completed, the lower cost of living will be a boon for the entire world.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> According to this article, Uber investors were sick of Uber tossing away Billions in China. The Saudi speculation is an educated guess.
> 
> http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2016/jul/25/uber-s-investors-push-deal-with-china-r/


Anonymous sources. OK, so let's say investors wanted a deal and to end the battle...what's the point? Uber came out with a billion in cash, 6 billion in valuation, and 20% of the market. So, as of now, the money spent in China to grab market share turned out to be a pretty wise decision, yes?

The Saudis DO want women to travel without strange men driving them, but their investment strategy is to diversify away from oil and that cultural benefit is coincidental.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Anonymous sources. OK, so let's say investors wanted a deal and to end the battle...what's the point? Uber came out with a billion in cash, 6 billion in valuation, and 20% of the market. So, as of now, the money spent in China to grab market share turned out to be a pretty wise decision, yes?
> 
> The Saudis DO want women to travel without strange men driving them, but their investment strategy is to diversify away from oil and that cultural benefit is coincidental.


Uber wanted domination of the Chinese market. They didn't get it, their investors were done with it, so they took a small cut of the action, and left. Didi punted them a Billion of their VC money, big deal. I don't frankly give the slightest crap about the Saudis or their motivation.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> When did I say the US was fully recovered from the housing market crash?? We ARE recovering. Jobs ARE coming back. Besides, we aren't talking about government incentivised corruption, we are talking about technology disrupting human jobs which is always less impactful than the Chicken Littles' claim.
> 
> SDCs, once road ready, will take a long time to oust the human driver based on manufacturing and logistical limitations alone, but oust them they will. It will be a slow transition that everyone will eventually acknowledge and we'll adjust as we go, IMO. When the transition is completed, the lower cost of living will be a boon for the entire world.


Sure, we'll just replace all the transportation jobs with Walmart jobs. Oh wait, those will be kiosks. I mean.. robotics jobs. Oh wait, those will basically maintain themselves and few people are needed to program them. Say hello to technological genocide.

P.S. I wouldn't be so sure about the lower cost of living. Have you bought an appliance lately? A toaster for example. They're not especially cheap, they're just cheaply made. Thin metal etc. Made in China for peanuts. Who really benefits? Corporations.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> When did I say the US was fully recovered from the housing market crash?? We ARE recovering. Jobs ARE coming back. Besides, we aren't talking about government incentivised corruption, we are talking about technology disrupting human jobs which is always less impactful than the Chicken Littles' claim.
> 
> SDCs, once road ready, will take a long time to oust the human driver based on manufacturing and logistical limitations alone, but oust them they will. It will be a slow transition that everyone will eventually acknowledge and we'll adjust as we go, IMO. When the transition is completed, the lower cost of living will be a boon for the entire world.


Those full time jobs are being largely replaced by part time jobs at lower pay and no benefits. Why do you think average wages are dropping while inflation continues unabated? Your assumption that prices will drop because a whole trade is destroyed and the future is full of unicorns and rainbows in wishfull thinking.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> Sure, we'll just replace all the transportation jobs with Walmart jobs. Oh wait, those will be kiosks. I mean.. robotics jobs. Oh wait, those will basically maintain themselves and few people are needed to program them. Say hello to technological genocide.
> 
> P.S. I wouldn't be so sure about the lower cost of living. Have you bought an appliance lately? A toaster for example. They're not especially cheap, they're just cheaply made. Thin metal etc. Made in China for peanuts. Who really benefits? Corporations.


Toasters are way way cheaper than they used to be adjusting for inflation. Regardless, one of their biggest costs is not parts or assembly, it's transportation costs.

Yes, we will replace the transportation jobs with other jobs and Walmart jobs will be much more worthwhile than today because of the lower cost of living. With the eventual advent of true automation, perhaps almost end to end in the raw materials through manufacturing process, the US could easily become manufacturing leaders again. That will still create jobs, just different jobs.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Toasters are way way cheaper than they used to be adjusting for inflation. Regardless, one of their biggest costs is not parts or assembly, it's transportation costs.
> 
> Yes, we will replace the transportation jobs with other jobs and Walmart jobs will be much more worthwhile than today because of the lower cost of living. With the eventual advent of true automation, perhaps almost end to end in the raw materials through manufacturing process, the US could easily become manufacturing leaders again. That will still create jobs, just different jobs.


No, toasters are not way cheaper adjusting for inflation. [email protected] different jobs if everything is automated. Yeah, a handfull of robot polishers.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> Uber wanted domination of the Chinese market. They didn't get it, their investors were done with it, so they took a small cut of the action, and left. Didi punted them a Billion of their VC money, big deal. I don't frankly give the slightest crap about the Saudis or their motivation.


Their cut is the equivalent of the population of the US, forever, and $6B in valuation with $1B in cash so, no, not small.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> No, toasters are not way cheaper adjusting for inflation. [email protected] different jobs if everything is automated. Yeah, a handfull of robot polishers.












Seriously dude, at least have the slightest idea. You can buy a toaster on eBay right now for less than the 1958 Sears Model, 58 years ago. So, no, you don't actually have to adjust for inflation, but it helps demonstrate how horribly off you are.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Seriously dude, at least have the slightest idea. You can buy a toaster on eBay right now for less than the 1958 Sears Model, 58 years ago. So, no, you don't actually have to adjust for inflation, but it helps demonstrate how horribly off you are.


Was referring more to toaster ovens, but regardless, I've been to the stores, appliances aren't cheap, and metal parts have been replaced by thin metal and/or cheap plastic.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Their cut is the equivalent of the population of the US, forever, and $6B in valuation with $1B in cash so, no, not small.


20% is pretty small. Anyway, you keep waving those pom poms. These psychotic companies want robots to take over asap. There is no possible way we will replace all of the transportation jobs with something which pays as well. The numbers are staggering.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rat said:


> Those full time jobs are being largely replaced by part time jobs at lower pay and no benefits. Why do you think average wages are dropping while inflation continues unabated? Your assumption that prices will drop because a whole trade is destroyed and the future is full of unicorns and rainbows in wishfull thinking.


Again, we're discussing technology disruptions, not housing market crashes.

There are 5,000,000 job openings in the US right now. Unemployment is near 5%. All one would have to do is train to take one.

In 2007 when the economy was "good", 83% of all employees were full time. Today we are at 82%. So, no, the sky is not falling.

My assumption that businesses are price competitive and will lower prices to their normal margins is 100% accurate. There's a reason you can buy a toaster today for less than in 1958. Lower manufacturing costs. We live better because of lower costs and those costs are about to plummet.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> Was referring more to toaster ovens, but regardless, I've been to the stores, appliances aren't cheap, and metal parts have been replaced by thin metal and/or cheap plastic.


Appliances, adjusted for inflation, are way way cheaper than they used to be.










That graph line is about to take a nosedive.










*Data reveal that the average working American is better off today than in the 1950s, and 'wage stagnation' is a myth*

Yes, they are cheaply made, which is my entire point. China removed human costs from manufacturing and prices have plummeted. When the world removes most of the transportation costs of almost everything, prices _will_ plummet. Shipping will probably almost never have a separate charge anymore because it will be so cheap.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Again, we're discussing technology disruptions, not housing market crashes.
> 
> There are 5,000,000 job openings in the US right now. Unemployment is near 5%. All one would have to do is train to take one.
> 
> ...


Sorry to break it to you, but appliances are not particularly cheap in the stores. Especially considering they are the result of destroying our manufacturing base and paying Chinese workers garbage wages to produce them.

As far as how many supposed job openings there are in the US, I've seen what's out there. You can't simply automate the transportation industries, there will be massive unemployment.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Appliances, adjusted for inflation, are way way cheaper than they used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You live in a weird fantasyland, perhaps you're an Ayn Rand adherent. Bored. Bye.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> Sorry to break it to you, but appliances are not particularly cheap in the stores. Especially considering they are the result of destroying our manufacturing base and paying Chinese workers garbage wages to produce them.
> 
> As far as how many supposed job openings there are in the US, I've seen what's out there. You can't simply automate the transportation industries, there will be massive unemployment.


*Data reveal that the average working American is better off today than in the 1950s, and 'wage stagnation' is a myth*

Study is good for your brain _and _opinions.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> You live in a weird fantasyland, perhaps you're an Ayn Rand adherent. Bored. Bye.


Ah yes, the quick dash for the door. Adios.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> *Data reveal that the average working American is better off today than in the 1950s, and 'wage stagnation' is a myth*
> 
> Study is good for your brain _and _opinions.


http://www.businessinsider.com/50-percent-unemployment-robot-economy-2013-1


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> http://www.businessinsider.com/50-percent-unemployment-robot-economy-2013-1


Yes, 50% or more unemployed,_ many many years down the road _and_ from traditional manual labor jobs_. And that's a good thing because all people will be able to live better off less. We're going back to a one worker household. Full time work might be 20 hours instead of 40. The human experience is evolving away from spending most of your life doing manual work, and you get to watch it. I tell my kids, they better be training for the arts, entertainment, technology, medicine, small business ownership or some other field that won't be affected (for now). _Their_ kids may never have to work.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Yes, 50% or more unemployed,_ many many years down the road _and_ from traditional manual labor jobs_. And that's a good thing because all people will be able to live better off less. We're going back to a one worker household. Full time work might be 20 hours instead of 40. The human experience is evolving away from spending most of your life doing manual work, and you get to watch it. I tell my kids, they better be training for the arts, entertainment, technology, medicine, small business ownership or some other field that won't be affected (for now). _Their_ kids may never have to work.


Lol. Bizarre fantasyland.


----------



## Bolympia (Jan 8, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Appliances, adjusted for inflation, are way way cheaper than they used to be.


Hey Hackenstein and everyone else;

Do you you see the "AEI" in the bottom right-hand corner of the line graph? It stands for American Enterprise Institute, you know, the right-wing think tank? Being right-wing, AEI is pro business (management) and anti-workers rights, which is probably the reason Ramzfan is sucking on Uber Corporates nut's so bad in this thread.

Basically, Ramz is a troll. Maybe Koch Brothers, maybe Uber, maybe AEI.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Again, we're discussing technology disruptions, not housing market crashes.
> 
> There are 5,000,000 job openings in the US right now. Unemployment is near 5%. All one would have to do is train to take one.
> 
> ...


So your original contention that transportation costs were the cause of higher prices even though those costs have fallen dramatically is out the window and now you're blathering about MANUFACTURING costs? You seem to be inconsistatant on your focus.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Appliances, adjusted for inflation, are way way cheaper than they used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


China didn't remove human costs. They just use near slave labor pay rates. The average wage in China is like $1,700 a year


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rat said:


> So your original contention that transportation costs were the cause of higher prices even though those costs have fallen dramatically is out the window and now you're blathering about MANUFACTURING costs? You seem to be inconsistatant on your focus.


Uhhhh, no. One is materials and labor, the other is transportation. One went way down and the other is about to.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Uhhhh, no. One is materials and labor, the other is transportation. One went way down and the other is about to.


Labor costs going down mean improving conditions for labor? Yeah, I guess unemployment is always a good thing.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rat said:


> China didn't remove human costs. They just use near slave labor pay rates. The average wage in China is like $1,700 a year


Yes, that was my point. We pay less because they earn less.

your $1,700 is actually $9,360. Income means nothing out of the context of cost of living.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Yes, that was my point. We pay less because they earn less.


You seem to dismiss that we will be earning less, also.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rat said:


> Labor costs going down mean improving conditions for labor? Yeah, I guess unemployment is always a good thing.


It depends on cost of living. You really aren't grasping that one means nothing without the other.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rat said:


> You seem to dismiss that we will be earning less, also.


Nope. This entire discussion is about how earning less is irrelevant if you're paying even less than that. Did you not read the thread?


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Nope. This entire discussion is about how earning less is irrelevant if you're paying even less than that. Did you not read the thread?


Earning nothing means you can afford nothing. Do you not read anything but your own posts?


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Oh, yeah, you're THAT guy


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rat said:


> Earning nothing means you can afford nothing. Do you not read anything but your own posts?


I do read my own posts. You obviously don't. People will need to retrain and, fortunately for them, they have plenty of time to do it.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rat said:


> Oh, yeah, you're THAT guy


You're the guy who jumps into a thread with no idea what has been said and just trolls people. Your name is fitting.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> I do read my own posts. You obviously don't. People will need to retrain and. fortunately for them, they have plenty of time to do it.


My point exactly, you read your own posts. I'm 60. How much time do you think I have?


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rat said:


> My point exactly, you read your own posts. I'm 60. How much time do you think I have?


60 is the new 45.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> 60 is the new 45.


Tell that to my arthritis


----------



## Paula Provencher (Aug 12, 2016)

Hi, I don't have anything to say. Hmmmmmm


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Paula Provencher said:


> Hi, I don't have anything to say. Hmmmmmm


My kind of woman!


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Paula Provencher said:


> Hi, I don't have anything to say. Hmmmmmm


Where have you been all my life?


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> They spent $2B, received $1B in cash and $6B in Didi ownership. In addition, they now own 20% Didi going forward. Anyone who calls that anything other than fantastic for Uber is being disingenuous.


As you say, with this deal, Uber did end up making a lot of money in China. But all that money is still the runner-up prize. The real winner was Didi, and they soundly beat Uber.

Is this fantastic as you say? Depends on one's point of view. For example, being runner up at an olympic game means getting the silver medal. This would be fantastic for a lot of people, but some athletes will replay the event over and over in their minds with "what if?" and "if only..." scenarios. Only Travis knows if second place is good enough for him. Somehow, I think he's going to be ill at peace with this result for a good few years to come.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rat said:


> Tell that to my arthritis


Blue pill, you'll forget about the arthritis.

By the way, I hear the Keto diet is great for arthritis.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

elelegido said:


> As you say, with this deal, Uber did end up making a lot of money in China. But all that money is still the runner-up prize. The real winner was Didi, and they soundly beat Uber.
> 
> Is this fantastic as you say? Depends on one's point of view. For example, being runner up at an olympic game means getting the silver medal. This would be fantastic for a lot of people, but some athletes will replay the event over and over in their minds with "what if?" and "if only..." scenarios. Only Travis knows if second place is good enough for him. Somehow, I think he's going to be ill at peace with this result for a good few years to come.


Yes, there were better outcomes. That in no way means they didn't kill it. They walked away with a massive win if Didi survives and prospers.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> It's not rocket science. It really isn't. But some people will defend Uber tooth and nail. They have to prove you wrong when you criticize their Uber.
> 
> Something like $10 billion dollars invested in Uber and still haven't turned a profit. All we ever hear is how much Uber blows through money.


Uber Rocket Science . . .


----------

