"Send me an Uber..." maybe not for much longer

[bnm73]

The company lost almost $1 billion (that "b" followed by an "illion) dollars last quarter.

 

https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/15/17693834/uber-revenue-loss-earnings-q2-2018

[+ José Soplanucas]

We still have Lift.

[+ g56whiz]

We still have Lift.

You may have Lift but I’ve got Lyft. And in Malaysia I’ve got Grab Taxi (couldn’t make that up!).

[+ bigjoey]

After taking about $500,000 in donations from the taxi industry and its unions, NYC Mayor DeBlasio has put restrictions on Uber and other similar services that will cut the number of drivers about 25% over the next 12 months. That will hurt their revenue as well.

[marylander1940]

The company lost almost $1 billion (that "b" followed by an "illion) dollars last quarter.

 

https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/15/17693834/uber-revenue-loss-earnings-q2-2018

 

That technology is here to stay. A guy driving a car looking for clients to hire him is obsolete, here in DC if you click Uber you'll see all the options all the way up to taxi and select what you want. The guys are nearby in waiting areas waiting for someone to call them, saving time, gasoline, and not driving around looking at the sidewalks for someone to wave at them.

[Kenny]

I wonder how much of the cash that the story says Uber is “burning” is going to the godawful advertising campaign designed to make us think that the sleazebags who started and who are running the company are actually swell people.

[marylander1940]

After taking about $500,000 in donations from the taxi industry and its unions, NYC Mayor DeBlasio has put restrictions on Uber and other similar services that will cut the number of drivers about 25% over the next 12 months. That will hurt their revenue as well.

 

Interesting how you point to De Blasio and forget about all the politicians purchased by the Koch brothers... the evil taxi drivers who never did anything good for mankind fighting back. Btw I couldn't agree more that taxi drivers should become Uber drivers and use their system as they already do here in DC.

 

Now Uber and Lyft are learning how the game is played and they're going after their real competitor in a city when folks (before Uber pool or Lyft's line) used to walk up to a mile and not bitch about it.

 

Scooters!

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-lyft-win-endorsement-in-santa-monica-california-over-bird-2018-8

[maninsoma]

I wonder how much of the cash that the story says Uber is “burning” is going to the godawful advertising campaign designed to make us think that the sleazebags who started and who are running the company are actually swell people.

 

One of my favorite sleazebag stories about Travis Kalanick: Even after all of the bad press and the supposed efforts to rehabilitate the image of Uber (and for him to personally behave more professionally), he decided to use a women's lactation room to meditate and the company's board members were stupid enough to publicize this as if it was an indication about Travis' spiritual growth as opposed to evidence that an entitled straight white man who has a private office instead decided to take over a space devoted to new mothers. In the grand scheme of things not the biggest offense Travis committed, but it was just so tone deaf after everything that came before that I honestly could not believe he and the Uber board could be so stupid.

[+ bigjoey]

Interesting how you point to De Blasio and forget about all the politicians purchased by the Koch brothers...8

 

I did not mention the Koch brothers because it was not relevant to the post about DeBlasio limiting Uber, Lyft and others.

 

As for the taxi companies and their drivers, it would not hurt for them to get better cars (I miss those old Checker cabs that were actually easy to get in and out), provide clean cars and be available at the touch on my I-phone.

 

In addition, I have now read a few stories how taxis will not pick up people of color late at night (identified visually) where POC can get a digital service car as their race is unknown. In addition, poor people in the outer parts of NYC have said it is easier for them to get a car as taxis do not frequent their areas:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/30/al-sharpton-backs-uber-battle-new-york-city/

If you believe Al Sharpton, DeBlasio picked cash over the needs of poor people of color

[marylander1940]

I did not mention the Koch brothers because it was not relevant to the post about DeBlasio limiting Uber, Lyft and others.

 

you were pointing to a 500k donation while not minding corporate welfare.

 

As for the taxi companies and their drivers, it would not hurt for them to get better cars (I miss those old Checker cabs that were actually easy to get in and out), provide clean cars and be available at the touch on my I-phone.

 

That's the least of their problems... most of them have an attitude.

 

In addition, I have now read a few stories how taxis will not pick up people of color late at night (identified visually) where POC can get a digital service car as their race is unknown. In addition, poor people in the outer parts of NYC have said it is easier for them to get a car as taxis do not frequent their areas:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/30/al-sharpton-backs-uber-battle-new-york-city/

If you believe Al Sharpton, DeBlasio picked cash over the needs of poor people of color

 

I'm all pro Uber, I've always been!

[+ bigjoey]

you were pointing to a 500k donation while not minding corporate welfare.

 

For the record, I have long opposed “corporate welfare.”

[Guest]

One time expenses or long term investment to build the platform, the product lines, or grow revenue will not necessarily be looked at adversely by investors. GAAP profit is not a fair indicator of viability in a rapid growth, high R&D environment. Conceptually, if the investment proves fruitless or problematic, one simply cuts off the hemorrhage and red turns to black. Growth will almost always find capital as long as it’s deemed productive. Tesla is an example of growth and potential growth winning capital until the required investment begins looking like its fueling a mad man’s dream; then that support turns sour quickly.

[Guest]

An observation, in short:

• The Verge (who’s mission states they do “in depth reporting and long form feature stories”) seems off mission with this article...it’s not in-depth or long form...it’s “fill” editorializing Bloomberg’s reporting
  
• The author (who’s bio indicates a background in transportation and political reporting) is not skilled in the qualitative attributes of what he’s editorializing; his points of emphasis left an entirely different impression than Bloomberg’s reporting.
  

I subscribe to Bloomberg and read it daily. While I applaud Hawkins’s insight into the sensational side of the use and evolution of technology, I’m not sure I trust his insight to frame up my reference points on matters of business and qualitative assessment of profit/loss

 

All this to say - I think Uber will be around for a while.

[MikeBiDude]

All this to say - I think Uber will be around for a while.

Thanks...sometimes takes a little research and understanding to get past sensationalized headline news.

[bnm73]

Thanks...sometimes takes a little research and understanding to get past sensationalized headline news.

https://www.pymnts.com/earnings/2018/uber-q4-earnings-losses/

 

Uber has been losing a lot of money for some time. 4.5 billion in losses for 2017. 2.8 billion in losses for 2016. At some point, investors are going to say "we need to start seeing a profit."

 

Between Uber and some other high-profile companies, I'm wondering if another "Silicon Valley bubble-burst" may be on the horizon (like at the end of the Clinton years).

[marylander1940]

https://www.pymnts.com/earnings/2018/uber-q4-earnings-losses/

 

Uber has been losing a lot of money for some time. 4.5 billion in losses for 2017. 2.8 billion in losses for 2016. At some point, investors are going to say "we need to start seeing a profit."

 

Between Uber and some other high-profile companies, I'm wondering if another "Silicon Valley bubble-burst" may be on the horizon (like at the end of the Clinton years).

 

in the 20's there were almost 2,000 car companies, many of them didn't survive the 30's. There are always adjustments, only the fit survive.

[bnm73]

in the 20's there were almost 2,000 car companies, many of them didn't survive the 30's. There are always adjustments, only the fit survive.

 

Unless you get a government bailout a la the auto companies in the recent past, the financial companies, the airline companies....and all those are within recent memory. Not that I'm cynical or anything....

[marylander1940]

Unless you get a government bailout a la the auto companies in the recent past, the financial companies, the airline companies....and all those are within recent memory. Not that I'm cynical or anything....

 

I don't think they were bailouts in the 20's and 30's, the country was more about wild capitalism.

 

Are you suggesting Uber should lobby to get a bailout?

[bnm73]

I don't think they were bailouts in the 20's and 30's, the country was more about wild capitalism.

 

Are you suggesting Uber should lobby to get a bailout?

 

They may already be doing so.....

 

BUT they are scheduled to have an IPO next year, if I remember right. That will bring in more cash for them to blow through. And then they can say "look at all the investors who will get hurt if you don't bail us out...."

 

Not that I'm cynical.

[marylander1940]

They may already be doing so.....

 

BUT they are scheduled to have an IPO next year, if I remember right. That will bring in more cash for them to blow through. And then they can say "look at all the investors who will get hurt if you don't bail us out...."

 

Not that I'm cynical.

 

You can post this on a thread about bailouts, not that I'm cynical either.

[Guest]

Between Uber and some other high-profile companies, I'm wondering if another "Silicon Valley bubble-burst" may be on the horizon (like at the end of the Clinton years).

 

It’s a fair thing to wonder and an investor should always be discerning, but I don’t think this is a risk right now (although I do think some social media platforms have jumped the shark...). The challenge I have is that accounting profit doesn’t always correlate with value creation (or vice versa)

 

Ponder this: My first amazon purchase was in 2000...I bought two art books. Last year, I spent more on amazon than I spent at Kroger, Publix, Target and Walmart COMBINED! In 2000, Bezos was driving a Honda and was Amazon was still YEARS away from making a profit.

 

And then they can say "look at all the investors who will get hurt if you don't bail us out...."

 

That’s not how it works (or worked). If your earlier comments about bailouts was in reference to TARP, the interest of stockholders in those companies was either heavily diluted or wiped out. You should also note that TARP investment in the banks was repaid AT A PROFIT to the US Treasury while the automotive portion (added on at the 11th hour) was the component that was unprofitable. No one said “do TARP to save the investors”...they said “do TARP to save the economy at the expense of the investors[as it should be]”. You may enjoy reading Hank Paulsen’s book “On The Brink”

 

Cynicism is the skeptic’s attribute and not a bad thing. But I don’t think your cynicism on these two specific points is fact based...but it’s still easy to be skeptical in this present time