You do realize Lyft has raised 4+ billion in funding and they aren't profitable either. Their ride prices are Coke and Pepsi similar to Uber in most major US markets. Do the math.
Not that VC mandates are normally more than a few %s of most LP's allocations, it's still someones money; pensions, insurance, etc. all take a hit if VC funds fail.
The thing is not that Lyft takes longer or is more expensive. The thing is that Lyft is not an Uber competitor for the vast majority of the world. They are US only. In a few markets they have partnerships with local services, but that's it currently.
If Uber suffered hard enough, do you think VC money might shift or otherwise move into Lyft? Even if all of Uber's VC money vaporized? Billionaires gotta make a living too.
>>If Uber suffered hard enough, do you think VC money might shift or otherwise move into Lyft?
Probably not. The main reason Uber got so much VC funding is because they promised investors that they would be treated as a technology services company, which would allow them to ignore various laws and regulations taxi companies are subject to and eventually drive them out of business to become a monopoly.
If Uber fails at executing this business model, it's not clear why investors would take a second chance with another company of the same type.
Are these venture capitalists even seeing a return on their money? I was under the impression that with how much Uber receives and loses, the only people gaining are paid Uber employees and riders getting discounted rides.
Where does the profit come from, and does it go to the VC investors?
I have never seen surge rates with Lyft. I find lyft to be more cheaper. There are times when from ORD Chicago, Uber would display surge rates (~$55, normally ~$35). Earlier, I used to call 303 taxi which takes forever. Now, I tried lyft which costed me $34 so competition is good
I wouldn't at all be surprised if we learn that Uber had written software to detect which users use Lyft and then systematically underestimate the times to pick up for those users.
I've been using Lyft almost exclusively since Susan Fowler's blog post (only using Uber if Lyft has a surge and Uber doesn't), and it's really getting on my nerves how many Lyft drivers use Waze.
Waze is spectacularly terrible at everything. The algorithm is designed to take you out of your way to run up the meter, it encourages unsafe turns, and it's literally unable to navigate to where I live, so I straight-up refuse to ride in any car with Waze running. And yet Lyft recommends it to new drivers. It's not uncommon for me to walk out of cars because the driver pitched a hissy fit when I said "Please don't use Waze", and even when I don't walk out of the car I usually end up having to navigate the driver manually because Waze is the only thing they have installed.
Using Lyft has become a thoroughly unpleasant experience, but I'm not comfortable using Uber either for ethical reasons. I'm considering looking into what it would cost to straight-up hire a private driver as an on-call employee.
>“If we are not tied for first, then the person who is in first, or the enemy that’s in first, then rolls out a ride-sharing network that is far cheaper or far higher quality than Uber’s, then Uber is no longer a thing,” Kalanick said.
>“It starts with understanding that the world is going to go self-driving and autonomous,” he told Business Insider in an interview. “So if that’s happening, what would happen if we weren’t a part of that future? If we weren’t part of the autonomy thing? Then the future passes us by basically, in a very expeditious and efficient way.”
Well, I think he's wrong. I don't think Uber would have won the space anyway and I think self-driving cars will require a driver behind the wheel for a long long time, effectively eliminating any benefits for Uber.
They need investments to keep uber running as-is. And without the possibility to self-driving cars obliterating the need for drivers a huge part of the story uber sells to investors breaks away.