In message , at 14:48:42 on Wed, 21 Sep
2016, d remarked:

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.

The convenience of rental depends a great deal on where you live. I once
had a house in quite a small village and there was a (mom and pop)
rental place within a minute's walk. It was usually possible to turn up
and rent a car on spec.

Today living in a town ten times the size, I have a choice of a half
hour walk to a place that's usually booked up at least a week in
advance, or taking the train for a 45 minute trip to one of the majors.
And then it's at least another half hour drive back home to pick up
whatever it was I needed the car for.

There are a few other places closer, but they specialise in contract
hire and aren't interested (nor have availability) for periods of less
than a week.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 19:54:50 on Wed, 21 Sep
2016, Mizter T remarked:
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).

Is the £25 deducted off the drivers who win those lucky rides, or is it
Uber? If the latter that's something which could be called a subsidy
(because the drivers are getting 80% of £25, more than the passengers
are paying).
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 08:46:39 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 19:54:50 on Wed, 21 Sep
2016, Mizter T remarked:
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).

Is the £25 deducted off the drivers who win those lucky rides, or is it
Uber? If the latter that's something which could be called a subsidy
(because the drivers are getting 80% of £25, more than the passengers
are paying).

As I said upthread, Uber pays. In effect, it's part of the driver
subsidy. I don't suppose the driver even knows the customer is getting
a discount, as he/she isn't involved in the financial transaction
(unless the customer mentions it).

On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:03:48 +0100, David Cantrell
wrote:

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.

Exactly. People who only look at the deliberate short-term losses are
ignoring the bigger picture.

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 01:11:32PM +0200, 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?

You appear to be confusing Uber in London with Uber as a whole. The
article that started this whole thread was about the latter.

It is possible for both of these statements to be true:

* Uber subsidises some drivers
* Uber does not subsidise drivers in London

As for why they're advertising for drivers in London, it could be
because they're losing drivers. In fact they almost certainly are losing
drivers, because just like in every other business there is natural
staff turnover (please don't get pedantic about the employment
relationship, it's not relevant). It could also be because they are
still expanding and need more drivers, but they now have to advertise
for them because they've already got all the ones they didn't need to
advertise at. In reality it'll be a combination of both of those.

BTW, have you noticed that Arriva are *always* advertising for bus
drivers in London? Argh, doom, disaster! Arriva are bleeding to death!

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club"

One person can change the world, but most of the time they shouldn't
-- Marge Simpson

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

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).

still?

I would have thought that with all the banter on social medial Uber needed
no more help with finding customers, even in locations where they are new
players.

I frequently read posts on TA from people saying "please help us what to
see, restaurants to go to etc. We intend to Uber everywhere" even before
they have checked to see if Uber exists in that location (cos sometimes they
are met with - there is no Uber here)

tim

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
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


The simple solution to that is not to insist on such a ridiculously high
spec car (as I have read that they do)

it is cheap and cheerful taxi service FFS, not a limousine service

What's wrong with a 5 year old Mondeo?

tim

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:03:48 +0100, David Cantrell
wrote:

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.

Exactly. People who only look at the deliberate short-term losses are
ignoring the bigger picture.

It's possible for Amazon to kill the competition and for it not to come back
again, leaving you in an unassailable position to reap the rewards of
previous work

Once Uber has established in a city, competition can continually spring up
again meaning that you are continually fighting it. There is no path to
killing it off completely (other than making your price so low you don't
make a profit). There are always new drivers prepared to compete with you.

tim

tim... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
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


The simple solution to that is not to insist on such a ridiculously high
spec car (as I have read that they do)

it is cheap and cheerful taxi service FFS, not a limousine service

What's wrong with a 5 year old Mondeo?

Uber started up as a limo service. The later UberX introduced cheaper cars,
but the idea is still that they're clean and new.

tim... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:03:48 +0100, David Cantrell
wrote:

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.

Exactly. People who only look at the deliberate short-term losses are
ignoring the bigger picture.

It's possible for Amazon to kill the competition and for it not to come back
again, leaving you in an unassailable position to reap the rewards of
previous work

Once Uber has established in a city, competition can continually spring up
again meaning that you are continually fighting it. There is no path to
killing it off completely (other than making your price so low you don't
make a profit). There are always new drivers prepared to compete with you.

It's an international business, which benefits from network effects. Also,
the long-term game plan is to have self-driving cars, which need things
like highly detailed maps that new competitors won't have:
https://newsroom.uber.com/uk/mapping-ubers-future/