Slashdot Mirror
'Uber Is Doomed', Argues Transportation Reporter (jalopnik.com)
When an Uber self-driving car ran a red light last year, they blamed and suspended the car's driver, even though it was the car's software that malfunctioned, according to two former employees, ultimately causing Uber cars to run six different red lights. But technical issues may be only the beginning. An anonymous reader writes:
Jalopnik points out that in 2016 Uber "burned through more than $2 billion, amid findings that rider fares only cover roughly 40% of a ride, with the remainder subsidized by venture capitalists" (covering even less than the fares of government-subsidized mass transit systems). So despite Google's lawsuit and other recent bad publicity, "even when those factors are removed, it's becoming more evident that Uber will collapse on its own."
Their long analysis argues that the problems are already becoming apparent. "Uber, which didn't respond to questions from Jalopnik about its viability, recently paid $20 million to settle claims that it grossly misled how much drivers could earn on Craigslist ads. The company's explosive growth also fundamentally required it to begin offering subprime auto loans to prospective drivers without a vehicle."
Last month transportation industry analyst Hubert Horan calculated that Uber Global's losses have been "substantially greater than any venture capital-funded startup in history."
Their long analysis argues that the problems are already becoming apparent. "Uber, which didn't respond to questions from Jalopnik about its viability, recently paid $20 million to settle claims that it grossly misled how much drivers could earn on Craigslist ads. The company's explosive growth also fundamentally required it to begin offering subprime auto loans to prospective drivers without a vehicle."
Last month transportation industry analyst Hubert Horan calculated that Uber Global's losses have been "substantially greater than any venture capital-funded startup in history."
Uber is a taxi company, it made a name and got support by creating jobs and employing people. Their push to automatic cars destroys the very thing that made them popular to begin with. Uber isn't a car manufacturer, and not an automotive tech company. Any beating they get is well deserved at this point, because they put social engineering above society. The CEO should, but of course won't, be thrown out on their behind.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Who'd have thunk it?
Uber's not special. If you want to open a lemonade stand you're free to do so. The second you start feeding people en masse then society has a right to make sure your kitchen is clean and you aren't accidentally poisoning people. They're transporting people in bulk, that means some oversight from a public safety perspective is warranted and that means everything that goes along with the rest of the economy including not lying to people about income.
The sharing economy will change things, but only so far. Is the medallion system we've used up until now for taxies ripe for reform? Sure! Why not have a sanity check to bring it into the 21st century. However, pretending the rest of the world, including vehicle inspections, truth in advertising laws and the like do not exist is not the sharing economy, it's being a dumbass.
Like Napster, this may only evolve into a different set of problems.
We'll see if taxis survive self-driving cars.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
Good riddance!
It would be hard to find an example of a more despicable corporation (with a damn good product idea nonetheless).
Uber’s 10 Worst Actions—Threats, Lies, Sexism & Shady Business Deals
http://observer.com/2016/02/ub...
Anticompetitive and dishonest business practices against rivals.
Using their geolocation data to harassing and personally threaten journalists who didn't cover them favorably.
Exploiting workers, not only as contractors but by enticing them to enter into exploitative financial agreements.
Rampant corporate sexism and misogyn from the CEO on down.
incandescent bulbs=taxis. CFL=Uber. LED=autonomous.
Yes, I agree. I had no idea how Amazon would still be around today "back then."
The key difference is Amazon went public early, and the VCs cashed out. With Uber, the VCs still have real control over the operation, and are going to want to recover their money. Uber is in OK some markets, and loosing hand over fist in others. The VCs will likely force them to consolidate operations to viable markets.
The problem is Uber really wants self-driving cars. The math on that is still a number of years off. After taking out $1.10/mile of round-trip costs for the car, the $2/mile fare price point doesn't leave much room for profit. There is likely to be more pressure as local services kill trips less than 1.5 miles.
Uber is paying a huge cost to corner the market while it is till a new and opening market. But all of these costs are voluntary and could be given up in a day.
At the end the of the day, Uber is a very simple software company that could operate on a shoe string budget of half a dozen employees and a few servers.
But the investors are obviously willing to spend billions building an iron grip on a transportation monopoly.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Self driving cars are the future. Once there is self driving cars, the taxis will be as cheap as private cars on per mile basis when averaged over entire year. Most people would stop owning cars and large families may keep only one car. Also, this naturally leads to all electric cars as well. The taxis will take people to work in rush hour and then will charge themselves and will be ready in the evening.
Any business that depends on traditional car ownership is in peril. Gas stations, repair places, parts, dealers, car insurance, paid parking etc. Even auto makers are in big trouble because you will need far fewer taxis as they can service more people per vehicle.
Yeah, I still don't see how it applies to the original submission. Are you saying the submission is poorly written?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I wonder why you're so invested in that?
I have no vestment in Uber, but I am tired of witch-hunts being the only real feature of the entertainment industry these days.
You didn't see anything, but you're quick to judge anyway
Clever with the semantics.
As for judging, quite the opposite. I am not judging Uber like the court of public opinion has, nor am I judging the woman. I am saying " Lets see the other side of the story, here's a likely opposing scenario " as opposed to naively drinking the media koolaid.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
It's not the app that eliminates these "annoying things", it's imposing a set of universal business conditions. Uber is trying to establish onerous universal business conditions on the basis that it makes deals with individual contractors, These aren't "deals" since there's an asymmetry of power and no actual negotiation and they aren't "individual contractors" in any rational labour jurisdiction. Uber's financial model may be hollow, but it's business administration model is also unsustainable if it has to be a worldwide employer.
There are models (such as franchising to established taxi operators) that would deliver the consumer advantages (with the possible exception of the subsidised price). And if Uber were really "just an app", the comparatively low cost of operating the IT infrastructure could be lost in the increased efficiency established firms could get from adopting it. However, Uber is actually a fantasy that a de facto monopoly of personal transport can be established just in time for the drivers to be eliminated in favour of autonomous vehicles. Fortunately, the money will run out way before this could ever happen, but there's nothing so mad as a man on a mission...