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."

13 of 334 comments (clear)

  1. Sounds good to me by dugancent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Few companies rival the dishonesty, misogyny and downright shadiness of Uber. The quicker they are gone and a better company can fill their shoe (Lyft perhaps?), the better.

    Nothing of value will be lost.

    --
    SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    1. Re:Sounds good to me by monkeyzoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Sounds good to me by penguinstorm7261 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's a bit of a ridiculous response: tipping is far from universal and, frankly, is often used as an excuse to pay less than minimum wage--wait staff in Canada generally gets less than the minimum wage on the *legal* basis that their tips make up for it. For the employer it's a win, but for consumers and staff it's not always. I've pointed this out to coffee shop employees: by putting a tip jar out they create an environment where tipping is expected and the norm. This puts their employer in the position to argue that they should be paid less than minimum wage...because, tipping. So here's a radical idea: charge me the value of your service and I'll pay the value of your service--whether it's a ride in a car, a good bolognese or a latte.

    3. Re:Sounds good to me by gordo3000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      you mean switch to the system they use in most of the world?

    4. Re:Sounds good to me by mrvan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This comment does have merit. One of the really annoying things about traditional taxis is the uncertainty cost.
      - You almost never know beforehand because the cost is calculated en route
      - in some countries (thailand, vietnam, probably more) they try to avoid using the meter if you don't know what you're doing
      - After the journey seemingly random extras can get added for luggage, toll roads, airport fees etc. In civilized countries most are probably legit, but as a visitor how do you know?
      - Tips add to the uncertainty. If you travel a lot, you need to learn tipping customs for each country you visit.

      With uber, you see the total price on the app, including service and all extras, before you book the ride. I hate their business model and their disrespect for local laws and practice, but in Europe I almost totally avoid cabs because of the reasons above, and a decent app would go a long way towards making me use taxis more often.

    5. Re:Sounds good to me by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

      For the employer it's a win, but for consumers and staff it's not always

      It actually isn't. There was a Freakonomics episode about this a few months ago. The problem is that front-of-house staff in the USA are now getting a significant proportion of their income from tips, which are a percentage of the total cost. This means that their income has gone up a lot more over the past couple of decades than that of kitchen staff, to the point where someone with a cooking qualification can still make more money waiting tables than being a chef. Even worse, it means that the income varies hugely between days, so it's trivial to find someone to work on a Friday or Saturday night, because they'll make loads of money, but restaurants often can't find people to work on Wednesday or Thursdays, because they'll make a lot less (for regular slots, you can establish a rota, but if you need cover for a sick employee then it's much harder).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Sounds good to me by cardpuncher · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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...

  2. Uber is pursuing the wrong thing by s.petry · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Uber is pursuing the wrong thing by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 5, Informative

      Uber is a taxi company, it made a name and got support by creating jobs and employing people

      Don't try telling them that. According to Uber, they're creating "ride sharing opportunities" and they're "independently contracting" people.

      --
      "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
  3. A case study in overexpansion by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I were running Uber, I would have had it concentrate on an assortment of US cities that are friendly to open-market taxi service, rather than blowing its budget fighting City Hall in every monopoly city in the world. By being profitable and having the capital to treat its drivers well in the short term while getting ready for self-driving cars in the long term, it would eventually expand into monopoly cities because the customers would demand it.

  4. Re:Maybe, but maybe not by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Problem is that, unlike Amazon, which has huge barriers to entry (those warehouses cost money, and so do the schmoes who schlep the stock around inside), anyone can create a web app and let people post that they're looking to "share a ride from point A to point B". The drivers bear all the capital and running costs, as well as the legal risk.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  5. Re:Maybe, but maybe not by Hadlock · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sure but my Uber account works in 20+ countries worldwide, I don't have to sign up for the local transit whatever. That's a huge plus. Not only that but sales people use uber religiously as they don't even need to expense their uber travel, they just charge it to the company card, that's a massive, massive boost. Uber and AirBnB are the largest business expenses in total number of line items for many companies these days. You can't auto-expense every single local transit app automatically, with uber comes that convenience. As someone traveling in Hawaii, California, Texas, London and Hungary it's really nice to be able to just open the app, plug in the location, and have someone drive you there without having to worry about the local currency, working out how to sign up for the service in Hungarian or Maltese or whatever. Step off the plane and GO. I don't care if it's 5% more, for the three days I'm going to be there, the cost difference just doesn't matter.

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
  6. Re: Bloggers by DrXym · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Their product idea is to be a taxi operator but without abiding by the safeguards, and regulations that protect passengers or even the drivers themselves - police background checks, vehicle safety checks, adequate insurance, employee rights etc. Unsurprisingly this has lead to all kinds of adverse consequences for the company.

    If they're still burning through money after all that then there is something seriously fucked up with their product idea and their business model. I won't miss them if they go under. More likely they'll try to do an IPO and pass the buck onto some other saps. The founds and 1st round of investors will take the money and run.