[jacquesm]

Uber can afford to subsidize your ride for the next 10 years or so. That doesn't mean it's long term viable, it just means that they're pumping money from one pot to another until the first one is empty and won't be refilled.

They've raised over $10B...

[sokoloff]

I'm willing to take a discount on cabs for ten years. That it's not sustainable does not make it not a net positive to me. (I don't think any of my money is in that $10BB they raised.)

[jxf]

That line of thinking seems to miss a lot of the negative externalities [0] of a hypothetical world in which Uber is dominant.

Just to take one example, Uber doesn't pay the same taxes as taxi companies. Localities will be losing out collectively on a lot of revenue. Aren't you affected if your city has to raise taxes to compensate?

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative

[mikeash]

If the city is smart, they'll fill that hole by taxing Uber and other such services. If they're stupid then there's no end to the ways they can cause me to suffer.

[jxf]

They may not be able to. Many cities are subject to state laws about what can and cannot be taxed.

[sokoloff]

I am overwhelmingly likely to save more on car services in the next 10 years than I am to pay in increased local taxes, leaving Uber/Lyft a net economic positive for me, even after considering that most of my Uber rides are expense-able to my company.

Uber is proving that car service is not a natural monopoly. If the dominant provider is taking too many liberties with pricing, someone else will come in to right the market.

I didn't intend to start a massive defense of Uber subthread, but to say there's no single thing positive about Uber I thought was a substantial overstatement.

[tkfu]

> Uber is proving that car service is not a natural monopoly. If the dominant provider is taking too many liberties with pricing, someone else will come in to right the market.

This is complete nonsense. Car services have never been a monopoly, natural or otherwise; in every major city there have always been multiple car services. Uber's valuation is premised almost completely on the hope/expectation that they can become a monopoly and start exploiting their market position to the detriment of everyone.

Seriously, check out the Naked Capitalism series linked above. It lays out in great detail why Uber is not in any way an example of someone "coming in to right the market". They're wronging the market.

[sokoloff]

?? I said they're not a monopoly and you seem to violently argue against my text saying that they're not a monopoly. You've convinced me: I agree that they're not a monopoly.

Uber is losing money, believing they can make it up later somehow (presumably self-driving cars, possibly by taking a cut of a substantial percentage of the car service rides).

That's participating in the market, not wronging it, IMO.

[Daishiman]

No, they believe they can be a monopoly. There's no other way they can be profitable.

[stale2002]

So.... You agree that the taxi market is NOT a monopoly?

As soon as Uber tries to become a monopoly, and raise prices, then Taxi cabs can start right back up again, and take back the market with lower prices.

Or ANOTHER VC company can come in, and subsidize prices, and knock Uber out.

As soon as Uber attempts to exploit the market, they are dead.