Google is not my friend and none of those links will
change that.

Not one persuaded me that Uber are genuinely
subsidising their drivers anywhere, least of all in London.
It is clear from those links that the idea of Uber's losses
arising from subsidies to drivers came from their financial
director, Guatam Gupta, who seems to have made no
attempt to substantiate the contention. As is the way of
the Internet, those unquantified assertions have been
repeated by people who are trying to pretend that they
have done original research and are in possession of
confidential information.

There is also the issue of semantics. Some of those links
show people confused by the differences between a subsidy,
a guarantee and a loss-leading market strategy.

Robin9 wrote:

'Recliner[_3_ Wrote:
;158096']Robin9 wrote:-

'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
;158092']Robin9 wrote:-

'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
;158072']Robin9 wrote:-

tim...;158053 Wrote: -
came into my in box via my linkedin account

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-...jared-carmel-2

posted without comment (for now)

tim



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus-

Interesting. What surprises me is that Uber is deemed to be
losing money hand over fist. Not making enough profit to
provide investers with a satisfactory return is one thing.
Actually making a substantial loss is another. As Uber's
drivers are paid only a percentage of what customers are
charged, in London at least the business must show a profit
before overheads are included. Are Uber's overheads far
too high?-

Uber's overheads are famously low. Why do you think Uber is making a
profit
in London? It doesn't even make a profit in the US.

-

If Uber can't make a profit before overheads are included,
they must be grossly incompetent. Remember how the London
minicab trade works. The driver is deemed to be self-employed,
and pays for the car, insurance and petrol himself. The customer
pays Uber by credit card and Uber pays a small percentage to the
driver.

As Uber seems to have taken a huge share of the market away
from both Hackney cabs and minicabs, the number of jobs per
day must be in the thousands. Multiply that number of jobs by
an average net revenue of, say, five pounds and you arrive at a
gross income which must be more than the cost of a minimal
office set-up.-

Uber is investing in market growth. That's where the big money goes.
So
it
subsidies drivers to get into new markets, and spends a lot on
marketing. I
dare say it spends a lot on political lobbying as well.

The really big losses were in China, but that's now stopped, so from
now
on, the losses should taper. But it's still fighting competitive
battles
in
many markets, so bottom line profits will remain illusive.

It also seems to be spending a lot on driverless technologies, as it
expects these to be cheaper than drivers within a few years. But that
means
it will need to invest in the cars.-

I'm discussing the situation in London, and there is no
indication that Uber are subsidising their drivers here. I am
sceptical that they do anywhere, and I'm not persuaded
merely because it is stated on the Internet.

I'd like someone who believes that Uber are subsidising their
drivers to explain in detail how this is done.-

Google is your friend:

http://tinyurl.com/zrtmng4

http://tinyurl.com/h4a9dz4

http://tinyurl.com/grxowog

http://tinyurl.com/j3fknwr

http://tinyurl.com/meu2elv

http://tinyurl.com/zrfhsdl

http://tinyurl.com/pyo4b3m

http://tinyurl.com/zk2hg4u

http://tinyurl.com/h7aac2h

Google is not my friend and none of those links will
change that.

In other words, your mind is made up, regardless of the evidence.


Not one persuaded me that Uber are genuinely
subsidising their drivers anywhere, least of all in London.
It is clear from those links that the idea of Uber's losses
arising from subsidies to drivers came from their financial
director, Guatam Gupta, who seems to have made no
attempt to substantiate the contention. As is the way of
the Internet, those unquantified assertions have been
repeated by people who are trying to pretend that they
have done original research and are in possession of
confidential information.

It looks like you've not read many of the links then.


There is also the issue of semantics. Some of those links
show people confused by the differences between a subsidy,
a guarantee and a loss-leading market strategy.

What confusion? Uber often pays its drivers more than the usual 80% of the
fare the customer paid. That's a driver subsidy, which hits Uber's bottom
line. It doesn't matter why Uber chooses to do it.

In the UK, new customers get a £15 discount. That's paid by Uber, not the
driver. In other words, a driver subsidy:

https://www.list.co.uk/offer/2097-ge...jor-uk-cities/

https://www.vouchercodes.co.uk/uber.com

So do you still maintain that "there is no indication that Uber are
subsidising their drivers here. I am sceptical that they do anywhere, and
I'm not persuaded merely because it is stated on the Internet"?

And if you disregard everything you read on the internet, what are you
doing here?

The facetious answer to your ill-mannered question
is that I'm trying to learn the mind-set of people who
do believe everything they read on the Internet.

The point you seem to have missed is that all those links
are repeating and elaborating on an assertion made by
someone who has a vested interest in propagating the
idea that Uber are subsidising drivers. Can you find
anywhere a confirmation by a driver that they are being
subsidised? Can you find any verification that the
calculations quoted are valid?

Another point you seem to be overlooking is that Uber
now find it necessary to advertise regularly for drivers on
LBC and on the Internet. Why do they? Almost certainly
because they are losing drivers. If drivers are being
subsidised and/or paid 80% of the fare paid, why are they
leaving Uber? Why do so many phone-in programs on the
radio have drivers complain that they can't make a living
working with Uber?

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 03:10:42PM +0100, tim... wrote:

spending billions on trying to win a market of millions is just silly

Becoming the default choice for taxi services throughout the developed
world (which is what they seem to be going for) is not worth mere
millions.

What they're doing is very similar to what Amazon did early on. They
consistently lost money for the first few years, and only occasionally
made a profit since. It's only very recently that they started to make
vaguely reliable looking profits. Amazon spent those profitless years
buying the market.

--
David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 03:17:06PM +0000, d wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 14:08:48 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
With Uber, the investors aren't betting on the current business model, but
on an imagined future where people don't own their own cars, but rent
transport as they need it. Uber's plan is to dominate that market, and the
VCs are prepared to fund it to do so.
Only people who only ever lived in a city flat would think renting a car on
an as-you-need-it basis is a viable model for family life out in the sticks.

There is an implicit "most" between "where" and "people".

Obviously there will still be a small market for people with their own
cars, just like there is a small market today for people who use horses,
and people who generate their own electricity, and people who insist on
speaking Welsh. If you want to make lots of money you can do it by
concentrating on and pandering to little minorities like that. But if
you want to make a vast amount of money you just don't care about those
minorities, at least when you're starting out.

--
David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information

All children should be aptitude-tested at an early age and,
if their main or only aptitude is for marketing, drowned.

On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:34:22 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 03:17:06PM +0000, d wrote:
Only people who only ever lived in a city flat would think renting a car on
an as-you-need-it basis is a viable model for family life out in the sticks.

There is an implicit "most" between "where" and "people".

Obviously there will still be a small market for people with their own
cars, just like there is a small market today for people who use horses,

Cars were an enormous improvement on horses. Renting a car is zero improvement
upon owning one unless you have nowhere to park it or can't afford to buy one.
There are plenty of places to rent cars at the moment but do you see people
replacing their own cars with rentals or just using taxis? No. And just because
in the future a car might be able to drive itself will make zero difference to
that.

--
Spud

Robin9 wrote:

'Recliner[_3_ Wrote:
;158116']Robin9 wrote:-

'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
;158096']Robin9 wrote:-

'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
;158092']Robin9 wrote:-

'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
;158072']Robin9 wrote:-

tim...;158053 Wrote: -
came into my in box via my linkedin account

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-...jared-carmel-2

posted without comment (for now)

tim



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus-

Interesting. What surprises me is that Uber is deemed to be
losing money hand over fist. Not making enough profit to
provide investers with a satisfactory return is one thing.
Actually making a substantial loss is another. As Uber's
drivers are paid only a percentage of what customers are
charged, in London at least the business must show a profit
before overheads are included. Are Uber's overheads far
too high?-

Uber's overheads are famously low. Why do you think Uber is making a
profit
in London? It doesn't even make a profit in the US.

-

If Uber can't make a profit before overheads are included,
they must be grossly incompetent. Remember how the London
minicab trade works. The driver is deemed to be self-employed,
and pays for the car, insurance and petrol himself. The customer
pays Uber by credit card and Uber pays a small percentage to the
driver.

As Uber seems to have taken a huge share of the market away
from both Hackney cabs and minicabs, the number of jobs per
day must be in the thousands. Multiply that number of jobs by
an average net revenue of, say, five pounds and you arrive at a
gross income which must be more than the cost of a minimal
office set-up.-

Uber is investing in market growth. That's where the big money goes.
So
it
subsidies drivers to get into new markets, and spends a lot on
marketing. I
dare say it spends a lot on political lobbying as well.

The really big losses were in China, but that's now stopped, so from
now
on, the losses should taper. But it's still fighting competitive
battles
in
many markets, so bottom line profits will remain illusive.

It also seems to be spending a lot on driverless technologies, as it
expects these to be cheaper than drivers within a few years. But that
means
it will need to invest in the cars.-

I'm discussing the situation in London, and there is no
indication that Uber are subsidising their drivers here. I am
sceptical that they do anywhere, and I'm not persuaded
merely because it is stated on the Internet.

I'd like someone who believes that Uber are subsidising their
drivers to explain in detail how this is done.-

Google is your friend:

http://tinyurl.com/zrtmng4

http://tinyurl.com/h4a9dz4

http://tinyurl.com/grxowog

http://tinyurl.com/j3fknwr

http://tinyurl.com/meu2elv

http://tinyurl.com/zrfhsdl

http://tinyurl.com/pyo4b3m

http://tinyurl.com/zk2hg4u

http://tinyurl.com/h7aac2h-

Google is not my friend and none of those links will
change that. -

In other words, your mind is made up, regardless of the evidence.

-
Not one persuaded me that Uber are genuinely
subsidising their drivers anywhere, least of all in London.
It is clear from those links that the idea of Uber's losses
arising from subsidies to drivers came from their financial
director, Guatam Gupta, who seems to have made no
attempt to substantiate the contention. As is the way of
the Internet, those unquantified assertions have been
repeated by people who are trying to pretend that they
have done original research and are in possession of
confidential information. -

It looks like you've not read many of the links then.

-
There is also the issue of semantics. Some of those links
show people confused by the differences between a subsidy,
a guarantee and a loss-leading market strategy.-

What confusion? Uber often pays its drivers more than the usual 80% of
the
fare the customer paid. That's a driver subsidy, which hits Uber's
bottom
line. It doesn't matter why Uber chooses to do it.

In the UK, new customers get a £15 discount. That's paid by Uber, not
the
driver. In other words, a driver subsidy:

http://tinyurl.com/z5hsuer

https://www.vouchercodes.co.uk/uber.com

So do you still maintain that "there is no indication that Uber are
subsidising their drivers here. I am sceptical that they do anywhere,
and
I'm not persuaded merely because it is stated on the Internet"?

And if you disregard everything you read on the internet, what are you
doing here?

The facetious answer to your ill-mannered question
is that I'm trying to learn the mind-set of people who
do believe everything they read on the Internet.

And it appears that you only believe things on the internet if they are
things you believed already. If you didn't already believe it, you believe
it must be a lie. So, I ask again, why are you here? You're not going to
believe anything you don't already believe, so reading all these lies must
be very tedious for you.


The point you seem to have missed is that all those links
are repeating and elaborating on an assertion made by
someone who has a vested interest in propagating the
idea that Uber are subsidising drivers. Can you find
anywhere a confirmation by a driver that they are being
subsidised?

How would they even know? The customer pays Uber directly.


Can you find any verification that the
calculations quoted are valid?

Why should I? You're the one doubting everything, with no evidence to
support your assertions. Disprove it yourself, if you can. Simply saying
you disbelieve everything you don't like doesn't count.


Another point you seem to be overlooking is that Uber
now find it necessary to advertise regularly for drivers on
LBC and on the Internet. Why do they? Almost certainly
because they are losing drivers.

You seem to have forgotten that Uber is growing as fast as possible. That's
why it constantly advertises for both drivers and customers. Undoubtedly
there will be significant driver turnover, but even if there wasn't, Uber
would still be advertising for more drivers.


If drivers are being
subsidised and/or paid 80% of the fare paid, why are they
leaving Uber? Why do so many phone-in programs on the
radio have drivers complain that they can't make a living
working with Uber?

Obviously some can't. That doesn't mean that others don't. But just
because Uber feels the need to sometimes subside drivers doesn't mean that
they're well paid. Uber has a policy of reducing fares to gain market
share, which hurts driver income. Uber sometimes subsidises drivrs to
reduce this effect.

In any case, no-one has said that Uber always subsidises drivers, just that
it does so often enough to make hefty losses. This was particularly the
case in China, but that source of losses has now ceased.

Incidentally, the normal payment to drivers is 80% of the fare. It's a
subsidy when driver payments are more than that, for example when Uber
gives introductory discounts to new customers without cutting driver
payments. It's also a subsidy if drivers are guaranteed a certain level of
business, but the drivers may not see it that way.

But of course you won't accept any of this as you didn't believe it
already.

"Robin9" wrote in message
...



Another point you seem to be overlooking is that Uber
now find it necessary to advertise regularly for drivers on
LBC and on the Internet. Why do they? Almost certainly
because they are losing drivers. If drivers are being
subsidised and/or paid 80% of the fare paid, why are they
leaving Uber? Why do so many phone-in programs on the
radio have drivers complain that they can't make a living
working with Uber?

Because they aren't subsidising London anymore.

It is now a mature market (FSVO).

It is (subset of) RoW that gets the subsidies.

tim

On 21/09/2016 19:09, tim... wrote:

"Robin9" wrote:

Another point you seem to be overlooking is that Uber
now find it necessary to advertise regularly for drivers on
LBC and on the Internet. Why do they? Almost certainly
because they are losing drivers. If drivers are being
subsidised and/or paid 80% of the fare paid, why are they
leaving Uber? Why do so many phone-in programs on the
radio have drivers complain that they can't make a living
working with Uber?

Because they aren't subsidising London anymore.

It is now a mature market (FSVO).

It is (subset of) RoW that gets the subsidies.


FWIW, Uber runs a v successful referral scheme - I think currently in
London it's £15 credit for the new customer, £10 for the referrer (only
valid on one journey though).

tim... wrote:

"Robin9" wrote in message
...



Another point you seem to be overlooking is that Uber
now find it necessary to advertise regularly for drivers on
LBC and on the Internet. Why do they? Almost certainly
because they are losing drivers. If drivers are being
subsidised and/or paid 80% of the fare paid, why are they
leaving Uber? Why do so many phone-in programs on the
radio have drivers complain that they can't make a living
working with Uber?

Because they aren't subsidising London anymore.

It is now a mature market (FSVO).

It is (subset of) RoW that gets the subsidies.

Here's another part of the Uber business model: leasing cars to drivers.
It's not quite a subsidy, but it looks like Uber just about breaks even on
it. It's another way of maximising the supply of drivers, many of whom are
immigrants without enough credit history to buy new enough cars themselves:


http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/07/uber-...-industry.html