> Because people won’t pay $25 to take a 15 min ride.

Maybe not routinely (like to work or the grocery store), but:

I will absolutely pay $35 to get to and from the airport, which is 15 minutes away from my home.

I will absolutely pay $20 for a 10 minute ride that takes me to a restaurant or bar where I plan on drinking enough such that I don't feel comfortable driving.

I was just in Manhattan a couple weeks ago and paid a taxi to drive 10 minutes, and it cost around $20 with tip. This pricing scheme seems to work fine for traditional taxis.

I'm not saying everyone will pay this much. Maybe Uber's addressable market when charging the true cost of a ride is much, much smaller than they think it is, and they need to rethink and restructure how they operate. Maybe users need to expect longer wait times for a car, and lower availability. But that doesn't mean they're doomed or that they have an impossible business. That's like saying "taxis with an app" is an impossible business, and I don't think anyone can make the case for that.

The special cases you bring up are scenarios where there's a significant externality offsetting the fare.

If I take a rideshare to the airport, I don't have to leave my car in expensive airport parking for several days until my return. That can pay for a significant markup on the trip charge.

If I take a rideshare to a bar, I'm trying to dodge a $10,000 DWI ticket.

If I use one intermittently in Manhattan, it's likely part of the "few people own a car in Manhattan" dynamic, which is tied in part to having to pay hundreds of dollars per month just for parking said car.

That may be the best argument that I've heard so far, but after thinking for a minute, it sounds not like "Uber can never be profitable", but rather "the legacy taxi market is an upper bound on how big Uber can be in the long run". Couldn't that be profitable? That's still a pretty big market, even if middle-class people are no longer using it for 10-minute rides.

I think the key question here is profitable in what way. Can they be profitable in the sense of they made more money this year than they burned? For sure, turn down spending and turn up the prices. Can they be profitable in the sense of being in the green over the whole lifetime of the company, making a total profit over the large sums of money poured into the company? I'm not certain.

I'm asking the first question. I agree with you that even if the answer to the first question is, "yes, Uber can be profitable", the answer to the second question (can it generate a positive return for its investors) is in doubt. It's possible for a company to be a losing investment and yet still end up as a profitable business operationally.

I don't think "For sure, turn down spending and turn up the prices" is something that the people arguing "Uber can never be profitable" would agree with. They're arguing that this can't work, and therefore Uber is destined to go out of business once the investment billions dry up. I'm just asking why that is so, given that the taxi market is a thing, and that a lot of people like Uber better than taxis.

Uber can probably be profitable. Cut costs drastically. Focus on where the business can be profitable--which probably means effectively pulling out of non core urban areas. But it will clearly be a less good service for a lot of people.

And probably doesn't look a lot better than taxis for many people any longer.

And for not on demand and not price sensitive, there are always private cars as there have been all along in many areas.

> I'm asking the first question. I agree with you that even if the answer to the first question is, "yes, Uber can be profitable", the answer to the second question (can it generate a positive return for its investors) is in doubt. It's possible for a company to be a losing investment and yet still end up as a profitable business operationally.

But then if we're admitting that Uber's unlikely to be profitable over its lifetime, why would anyone buy their stock?

That's really what people care about in these discussions. Its not "Will Uber be profitable this quarter?", its... "should I buy Uber stock?".

The last guy lost money on Uber stock and is trying to offload these shares / certificates onto someone else now. Will buying those shares at this current price (aka: very expensive: $81 Billion market cap) be worthwhile?

You can buy many other companies at much cheaper prices than that.

> That's really what people care about in these discussions. Its not "Will Uber be profitable this quarter?", its... "should I buy Uber stock?".

It's definitely not what I care about. I'm just a user, not an investor. What I care about is whether I'll still be able to use the service in the long run, albeit at higher prices.

Also, if that's what people making these arguments really care about, then I think it's misleading for them to be arguing that Uber can never be profitable and is destined to go out of business. That is not the same thing as being a poor stock market buy at current valuations, whether the latest round of investors will lose money, and so on.

Maybe you're not the target audience of the blogpost then?

The blogpost is pretty clear to be coming in from an angle of "stockholders" perspective.

> Uber didn't need self-driving cars – it needed us to think it would have self-driving cars. That way the company's Saudi owners could raise investment capital from subsequent "investors" (AKA "suckers") all the way up to the IPO, cash out, and walk away, whistling innocently.

> That's the bezzle at work – a dazzle op that keeps new money flowing in, convincing people that a pile of shit this big must have a pony beneath it. But as the years went by, the stories that Uber told us about its path to profitability got more and more fanciful.

The big gist of this entire blog post is "Hey Stockholders, I think you've been swindled by Uber's CEO". That's the thesis in a nutshell.

If you don't care about the stockholder perspective, that's fine and dandy. I'm not saying you should care. (I'm not a shareholder, so I certainly don't care very much). But... as someone who does participate in the stock market, I still find these stories fascinating. I probably will be buying stocks in the near future, so I do want to know about all of this drama going on in different companies.

There was a whole lot of some combination of self-delusion and grift going on around self-driving and not just with respect to Uber. Even if you made some very optimistic assumptions around the tech, I'm not sure it ever moved the cost needle as much as people assuming it made taxi rides almost too cheap to meter thought it would.

I think it's worth considering that Uber is the first nation-wide taxi service that we've ever seen, and they were only able to accomplish this via subsidy. Is it really possible to continue operation at that scale, while simultaneously losing their competitive edge versus local taxi companies? Why is it that no other taxi company has even come close to nation-wide? I don't think an app is sufficient to bridge that gap, and Uber doesn't have anything else to show in the innovation department.

The three biggest reasons are centralized maintenance, fuel, and fleet costs.

Taxi companies negotiate the entire fleet purchase at one time and replace vehicles on a schedule (like rental car companies). Often, the fleet is all one brand and model. This makes it easy to hire one or two guys to work on all of them. You can also buy all your standard parts in bulk and you get commercial pricing for those. Fuel is also all bought from the same vendor on a contract.

Those agreements would be impossible for any gig worker to get. He is going to pay full price for the car, the maintenance, and the fuel. Gas stations aren't owned by oil companies; they're owned by individuals. So you'll never get national pricing on gas. Each taxi company negotiates with a particular owner (hopefully of several stations) in their area.

The final nail in the coffin (and the one that keeps it from going national, even if such agreements could be worked out for a group), is that car repair is local. You cannot operate a maintenance depot in Chicago that serves Houston. The further away the depot is from the points of service, the longer the car is out of service each time.

The "hub" nature of the taxi operation with all cars, staff, repair people, and parts in one place (and all maintained on the same schedule so fewer surprises), simply doesn't scale unless you have enough customers to build another hub.

BTW, this is the same reason there's no Del Taco in Texas (or your favorite fast food where you live). You have to have a certain number of restaurants to make the distribution hub and the truck trips worthwhile. There cannot be one isolated McDonald's somewhere that's profitable, just like there cannot be a "too small" taxi operation without a hub -- it won't be profitable. And building hubs in small cities without enough demand isn't profitable, either.

Hence, taxis don't scale.

There are plenty of national chains in various industries though, they just maintain ownership of multiple "hubs" and potentially get some economies of scale on national marketing.

There is no reason "a national taxi service" couldn't operate in the top 50 US metros, even if each metro managed local hub operations.

It's a good question that I don't know enough about the taxi business to answer. However, it's also a pretty general/speculative argument, so not the strongest case for "Uber can never be profitable", especially since there are general/speculative arguments on the other side too. For example: economies of scale have worked in other industries, why can't that happen here? And: software-is-eating-the-world has generally been holding true, so why would this be an exception?

Uber cannot take advantage of the economies taxi companies have in fleet purchase, in-house maintenance, commercial prices for parts, and fuel contracts. None of these scale well nationally, which is why there has never been anything more than small, regional taxi companies, even though they were possible 100 years ago.

Uber's overhead in misbelieving they are a software company rather than a taxi service has only added to the expense, not saved anything.

Because taxis rely on cheap fleets, centralized and cheaper maintenance, and volume fuel agreements, they simply don't scale.

I'm not convinced the gig economy taxi service can't scale--without depending on too many drivers who don't understand their costs. But it's not going to be cheaper than the alternatives, driver networks may not be much larger, and a lot of operations (including engineering) are probably going to be mostly outsourced to low cost areas.

The individual driver has no buying power to negotiate a lower price on cars, fuel, or maintenance and the big players are disincentivized to hand him one. The gig nature of the job means he pays consumer prices for everything while Uber skims off the top.

Uber is an attempt to mechanize the human aspect of driving by turning people into machines that produce for them. Unfortunately, in the fever dream that led to its creation, no one stopped to consider why "Big Taxi" wasn't a thing already.

I think Uber showed the demand curve is there, given both the lowered price and lowered transaction costs. It is certainly possible that when the dust settles there exists a larger taxi/hailing industry than before, operating more efficiently.

> The individual driver has no buying power to negotiate This is true for the full-time driver, and certainly uber drivers have by in large become this in larger markets. But where I am, most drivers are still part-timer that do it for extra income on nights/weekends. In that case, their capital expenditures are already sunk costs, and they just need fuel+maintainance to balance out, which they can probably deal with at lower margins.

One can certainly imagine a world with app-dispatched taxis (already here) that is more efficient, with burst capacity from part-timers. That is probably a world with more taxi usage proportionally to the population than 20 years ago.

Reminds me of some shrewd comments about the Airbus A380. If there really was as much of a market as Airbus thought why wasn't Boeing selling more 747's.

So yeah in the last 100 years why are there a couple of taxi companies in each large city. I think you are right the business doesn't scale beyond a certain point.

Anecdote: Friend said he and the people he was with tried getting an Uber and balked at the $50 price. Then one them had the bright idea to check a regular taxi, $15.

It’s also a market where you’re competing on margin. The winning ticket for the taxi market in North America was to stabilize taxi supply by the medallion system and have profits accrue to the drivers who owned the medallion and car (as they could charge rental fees to other driver).

There’s nothing to say that Uber/Lyft don’t stabilize near a similar dynamic.

Yes, profitable, but Uber's valuation would tank if they were just scraping by on this kind of revenue with no hopes of automated driving or other things in the future to increase margins.

OK, in that case the answer is "Uber can be profitable". Probably true that their valuation would be lower but that's not the argument I hear people making.

What happened to WeWork is almost exactly the hypothetical scenario that you are describing for Uber.

Uber doesn't have the same risk profile. When demand drops for wework, they are still on the hook for longer term leases. When demand drops for uber, drivers eat the loss of fewer transactions. As long as they can keep their overhead in check (and this certainly isn't clear) then they should be be able to have an operationally viable business.

There is no hope of price competitive automated driving. It is ludicrous.

In response to Uber we now have local taxi apps as well. Not sure how good they function, and of course, it’s a different app per place instead of one global app. But apparently, building the app for calling a taxi ride can be done quite cheaply.

Heck, there might even be a business for creating a white label taxi calling app.

You use Uber or Lyft or you don't get a ride. No one is using a taxi app; they're using the two big rideshare apps. That said, I used a taxi a total of a handful of times in my 30-something years prior to Uber/Lyft becoming a thing. Those handful of times were miserable experiences, including hours-long waits leading to no-shows.

Modern ridesharing services flipped the script. Livery services here in Minneapolis/St Paul are all over the rideshare apps and I am more often than note picked up by licensed taxi/limo service drivers instead of random Joes looking for extra dough (I'm sorry; I didn't realize it until after I typed it--it's staying).

---

I have come to rely on the expectation that rideshare will be available in whatever city I am in. On a recent vacation, there was exactly 1 rideshare vehicle available to pick up my family to go to the airport on a Friday morning at 6:30 AM and one available to get home at 12:30 AM on a Sunday night. These drivers were professional drivers. There were exactly 0 rideshares available on Hilton Head Island on the several occasions I looked and there were only a handful available in Savannah.

Ridesharing may be dead but this article is nothing but a very angry response to someone who hates the business model that actually fixed a VERY broken system. Whether or not those companies continue to exist, rideshare services have made it WAY more accessible to move around w/o having to rent cars, get stranded, etc.

Bring 'em on I say.

I've used Taxi apps, and have called taxis more than I've used Uber/Lyft in the past few years.

But the reason for this is because of surge pricing. The times I want a ride are when everyone else wants a ride, and we're all coming out of the same venue. Taxis offer much more affordable fares, and sometimes will even be parked outside waiting for the people exiting the venue.

Saying no one is using taxis is not true. Few people think to use them, but there are times when it is worth it.

The business model means nothing from a user experience point of view if the network effects needed to make it profitable don't work when the true cost of service is applied.

Uber, in its current pricing model, is unsustainable, period. You might be willing to pay an increased price for Uber's service, but you still need a minimum density of drivers to make the service not outrageously expensive.

Curb usage is pretty big in a number of metros.

> but it devolves to a taxi rate with a taxi wait, just done over an app.

What's a "taxi wait"? Do people routinely wait longer for taxis than for Ubers? is that because of a lack of taxis there?

Depends on where, I guess. In busy places in Manhattan you'll likely wait under a minute for a taxi (and more for an Uber). In San Francisco you're likely to wait 20-40 minutes for a taxi (that may never come), versus 5-10 minutes for an Uber.