Slashdot Mirror
Lyft Says Its Revenue Is Growing Nearly 3x Faster Than Uber's (techcrunch.com)
U.S. ride-sharing company Lyft says it passed $1 billion in revenue last year and that its revenue grew 168 percent year over year in the fourth quarter of 2017, almost three times faster than Uber's reported 61 percent growth. "Uber, of course, is still much larger than Lyft -- it generated a reported $7.5 billion in revenue last year and operates in many more cities and countries," notes Recode. "While its fourth-quarter growth may have been smaller than Lyft's percentage-wise, it was still almost certainly many times larger dollar-wise. Both companies are still unprofitable." From the report: But the big-picture reality is that despite Uber's head start, its early dominance, ability to raise massive amounts of financing, aggressive (often allegedly illegal) growth tactics, faster move into self-driving cars and everything else in its favor, it has not been able to destroy Lyft. Instead, Lyft capitalized somewhat on Uber's missteps and unsavory reputation, raised another $2 billion last year, gained market share, launched its first international market last year (Toronto) and seems poised to exist for the foreseeable future.
I guess metrics matter.
You canâ(TM)t compare companies by growth rate. If I start an uber/lyft competitor today, and Iâ(TM)ll have one customer tomorrow, my growth rate would be higher then both combined.
As fast, not faster.
That's the proper way to compare. Three times faster is ambiguous at best. Three times as fast is clear and unambiguous.
I'm starting to think these two companies are "frenemies" engaged in cooperative branding campaign to make sure the public knows about BOTH companies and their supposed rivalry. The fake conflict creates an emotion in the reader of the "news," and the emotion causes the reader to remember the brand, which creates a false sense of recognition later, and it's that split second of false recognition that actually gets the sale.
tl;dr: This is an advertisement. The best way to deal with these illegal taxi services is to just ignore them.
Have a great...
.k. H KK. .k. C KK. .k. .. L KK k .. I KK k .. .. A KK k .. T KK k .. .k. Y KK. .k. N KK. .k.
KK.
KK. k . I KK. k . L KK. k .
KK k
KKk u . L Kkl ux. N Kk lan.
KK k
KK. k . R KK. k . O KK. k .
KK.
Hillary for KKK President!
So to digest your post, we've got a Hillary-enthusiast and a KKK proponent in the same person? Gee.
3 x 0 = 0
Isn't it easy to have more growth when you have much more room for growth?
I wonder if Lyft uses illegal tactics like Uber. The latest I heard about UBER, in Greece they provide fake private contracts to their drivers, since they operate there under the guise of renting vehicles (which has a 6-hour minimum), so the driver has to give a contract to the customer which says they hire the car for 6 hours and have to pay a substantially larger amount than the fare, and if they are stopped by police show that and say the driver & customer are friends/family who rented a car. Quite smart, basically it makes the driver and the customer accomplices to fraud and UBER is whistling at the sidelines, reaping the rewards...
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
They have the exact same basic model at the core. Lyft just virtue signals about feminism and social justice more often to keep millennials and hipster reporters from buzzfeed off their case.
not disruptive, is illegal and unethical
just more corporate exploitation and disregard for law and fairness
As if daily negative texts about Uber weren't enough, now time to enter stage the "solution": Lyft :)
I think it's sad how little commentary focuses on how both Uber and Lyft are so unprofitable. I mean they are wildly popular, but until they can make serious money off their business model I don't see why they aren't seen a mild failure by non-investors. They will likely only do so after completely eliminating all competition, after most licensed taxi drivers have lost their jobs (that aren't subsidized by investor capital) and many transit systems are gutted. Similar case to Amazon. Which investors effectively subsidized over the past decade, and will continue to do so until they have run all competition into the ground and start turning significant profits.
I get it...get through insane amounts of cash running after revenue and market share...VCs keep it coming in anticipation of cashing-out when you list. But...are people really that dumb, after being burned by a bunch of other dud Unicorns?
Who the hell would buy Uber today? They're destroying billions of dollars a year, with no signs of how to make a profit...neither have Lyft
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2...
How the hell those 2 companies can be unprofitable???
All they do is provide an apps to driver and take money from passengers??
How can this make millions and billions in revenue, and not make a single profit?!?!
It's a serious question! Anyone got an idea????
I don't mean to sound critical, but have you ever ran a business? Income is more important than profit because it's harder to generate income than profit. When a new business is starting up ppl tend to operate at a loss and invest all profit into development (think buying a better bagel making machine if you make bagels). I would guess these guys do the same thing only at a bigger scale both temporally and financially. Dunno what you mean about taxis but where I live in Europe there are still plenty of taxis going arround. I was talking to a ridesharing driver (not Uber's, but some local competitor here) and he was saying that the market is pretty much stable for both ridesharing and taxis, yes anecdotal but still...
I don't mean to sound critical, but have you ever ran a business? Income is more important than profit because it's harder to generate income than profit.
No it isn't and I can prove it. Start a business selling $2 bills for $1. I guarantee you that you will have a HUGE amount of revenue but you'll also be losing money faster than you can say "chapter 7 bankruptcy". It's easy to generate revenue when you are giving selling something that people want for less than it actually costs to provide. What is hard is generating profitable revenue. Growing the top line is difficult only when you have to generate sales that ALSO make a profit.
Itâ(TM)s her turn!
They bait and switched me out of $6, made me wait 90 minutes for a ride, and refused to refund me. Have used Lyft ever since.
And the weekend before this inciden4, I had spent over $200 on Ubers.
Guess they're going to learn about customer satisfaction the hard way.
Only that's not a business, that's giving away money which can be used for whatever else. Now try applying your example to something that is a little harder to consume. Think promotions, if they don't add to the bottom line, then why on earth do they exist ?????
Would Lyft's revenue be where it is if they paid their drivers a living wage?
In recent months every time I've ordered an Uber the car has either been (or seemed) older or of questionable cleanness, or it has been a bare bones tin can, think bog standard Chevy Cruze that sounds like it's going to shake apart. Through Lyft, I've gotten nicer vehicles (mostly Camrys and Accords, and even a Mercedes in the mix). As long as that's my experience, I will be using Lyft. But like most people I'll change in a heartbeat if something better comes along. This is not a business that elicits much loyalty from customers...