[rockshassa]

another Brooklynite here. this is 100% true. You absolutely needed to "trick" the driver into letting you into the car. I've had taxis drive off, or refuse to let me in. When I was in the car, they would say they can't take me to my destination because their "shift was ending" and they had to go in a different direction. Many of these incidents happened in the LES, which is right next to the bridge I had to cross!

Taxi drivers also never know the destination, I got pretty good at giving my directions speech (to a well known neighborhood)

And taxis cost more!

As far as I'm concerned, the old way of hailing can rot, the old taxis can rot. they can't hold a candle to uber, and they'll never be able to become competitive on price or quality given the cost of a medallion.

[x_throwaway80bf]

This still doesn't address the fact that the reason Uber experiences are different from this is purely down to subsidy. If drivers weren't being subsidized to provide the unprofitable rides that yellow cabs are forced to provide by law (and which drivers try to avoid), then Uber also wouldn't provide this.

Basically, your comment is the same as saying, "I am glad VCs are giving me reduced-cost rides and subsidizing drivers to provide ride stock for intrinsically unprofitable routes and locations."

You're not saying that the Uber experience is better than the old yellow cab experience. You're saying that the experience where VCs give away money for free in order to finance a ride you could otherwise never expect to get (except at much higher price) is nice.

This isn't a property of Uber or any transformation of taxi services. It is just a temporary property of VCs being willing to artificially increase supply, artificially increase car quality, and artificially reduce prices via subsidy, while not providing any evidence that it could persist without subsidy.

[throwaway_80bf3]

I finally understand what you are saying: it's as if Uber is like Kozmo.com and Uber's service of safe, convenient, affordable transportation, despite existing in reality now, won't exist in some near future, much like Kozmo's subsidized service of same day turnaround of food, groceries, alcohol, coffee, home goods, etc. was part of a fleeting moment never to be realized again...

[x_throwaway80bf]

Yes, that is a good comparison. With Uber though, it is dramatically worse, since all obtainable data about their finances shows that Uber has created, by far, the biggest losses among VC-funded companies in the start-up / post-tech-bubble era. The degree of Uber's published losses is _staggering_ to a level not seen before. And yet, there has so far been no accounting or financial data to support any path to profitability, let alone a path that could keep prices at levels that drivers and riders are happy with. So it's not just something like "will Uber make it or not?" It's more like, "with losses of X _billion_, when do we stop pretending the 'business' is anything other than a donation from VCs to consumers?"

Naked Capitalism's multi-part series goes into this with extreme detail on the finance and business model side.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/category/uber

[rockshassa]

if the end-game of all this is driverless cars, I suspect that will greatly reduce costs and probably make Uber's model sustainable.

[x_throwaway80bf]

This is generally the first thing that everyone thinks in response to seeing Uber's shocking loss numbers and lack of profitability in the model where drivers needs to be subsidized greatly to increase supply in unprofitable areas.

Since the idea of self-driving cars as an Uber savior is so common, it is one of the most deeply analyzed, particularly by Naked Capitalist [0].

The outlook doesn't look good unless some very specific and IMO unlikely conditions are met for _any_ ride hailing service.

Most ride-hailing services can only profit from self-driving technology if they get it to a fully completed and commercially viable final product. Partial solutions that could power robotics at, say, a seaport or warehouse, likely wouldn't work well unless the business pivots away from ride-hailing. The ride-hailing part, though, requires a full end-to-end solution before the losses Uber currently has could ever begin unwinding or leading towards a profit.

But the problem here is that many competitors in the self-driving tech space are perfectly able to profit from shorter term or partial solutions. Waymo and GM in particular. And if they can build from incremental successes, rather than needing the whole shebang before they can use it for profit, it suggests they will have a large advantage when claiming patents, understanding how the technology works for customer needs, legal requirements or licenses, and many other things.

In short, Uber would basically need to beat all of those competitors to self-driving tech, create an unassailable patent war chest from it, _and_ get the commercial implementation all the way to the end state where it is ready for consumers in large-scale taxi situations (including all the issues with governments, safety, and so on)... all _before_ any competitor seriously develops even partial business models on components of overall self-driving systems.

I just think it's such an unrealistic ask. But I do grant that somehow, maybe, if Uber is exceptional enough at self-driving cars, it is a possibility they could become a full on monopoly of the tech and that would be their way to capture the market and have room to charge higher prices.

But essentially _any_ other outcome in which self-driving tech is commoditized, so that either Uber leases it out from someone else like Waymo or GM, or where multiply players all have separate commercially viable systems, then Uber would gain no cost advantage.

Basically, if Lyft, Via, Uber, local taxis, etc., are all just licensing the same self-driving cars, then everybody can eliminate the cost of drivers, and now suddenly you're in the same price war you were in with drivers. The total price of a ride might be lower, but you're still pressured to drive it to the marginal price that the wear and tear on the self-driving vehicle costs, because all the other players can do this too.

So it means Uber's expenses would go down, but their revenue per ride should go down more or less exactly the same, eating away any excess revenue gained from eliminating the need for a driver. Sure, it won't be perfect, but it still immediately begs the question, how can Uber prove this would be profitable? So far, there is no evidence to suggest it would be, unless Uber has an insane monopoly of self-driving for ride-hailing.

Finally, the second thing everyone thinks of after they realize that self-driving doesn't change the fundamental profitability of taxi services if it's commodity, is they think about Uber-based gig economy stuff like Uber Eats. But there again, Naked Capitalism has looked into it, and the results are dire.

The best I could say is that maybe Uber can find a way to use partially completed or partially approved self-driving tech to hammer on their logistics business. But again, any way you slice it, to be profitable, it literally requires a pivot away from general purpose ride-hailing. The business model is intrinsically not profitable for what Uber claims to do. A subsidy to increase ride stock in regions where ride stuck is fundamentally unprofitable is, well, unprofitable. It's just a VC subsidy. Unless they produce an innovation whereby they actually reduce the in-built cost of inconvenient and under served transit relative to all other ride providers, then they don't have a business there, just more losses.

[0] https://medium.com/@michaelhaupt/this-is-such-an-important-r...