←back to thread

Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing

(www.bbc.com)
256 points reubensutton | 5 comments | 25 Nov 19 10:19 UTC | HN request time: 0.786s | source
Show context
harel ◴[25 Nov 19 14:37 UTC] No.21628429[source]▶
I'm not a fan of companies like Uber or AirBnB who attempt a violent takeover of a market. However, as a consumer who needs to get from A to B, or stay at some random city, I find those services invaluable. The black cabs in London are expensive, never around when you need them, and until recently might have refused card payments (now they just seem unhappy about it). At the very least I was hoping Uber would make that industry wake up and join the modern world, but instead they chose to protest and block roads. With Uber, I always have a car available within minutes and the prices are reasonable. I just hope that the competition will take their place (and driver mass) if they do end up leaving.
replies(11): >>21628452 #>>21628619 #>>21628630 #>>21628691 #>>21629037 #>>21629572 #>>21629708 #>>21630221 #>>21630765 #>>21630923 #>>21631069 #
1. bart_spoon ◴[25 Nov 19 15:41 UTC] No.21629037[source]▶
Uber is cheap because they are subsidizing your fare with investment dollars at an unsustainable level. They are selling $2 for the price of $1. The ride sharing economy is convenient, but I can't see it lasting for much longer. At least not without losing some of what makes it so convenient, like low prices.
replies(3): >>21629078 #>>21630199 #>>21631091 #
2. harel ◴[25 Nov 19 15:44 UTC] No.21629078[source]▶
What makes them convenient is availability and driver mass. Prices are an added bonus but not the main USP. Not to me anyway.
replies(1): >>21629311 #
3. aguyfromnb ◴[25 Nov 19 16:01 UTC] No.21629311[source]▶
>Prices are an added bonus but not the main USP. Not to me anyway.

But it's all related. There is more availability because both drivers and customers are being subsidized.

At the end of the day, a car costs so much to operate and maintain, and a person requires so much economic profit to make driving around worth their while. No "hacks" around that fact.

4. marcosdumay ◴[25 Nov 19 17:07 UTC] No.21630199[source]▶
Somehow here in Brazil there was a startup (recently sold) that had cheaper fares, paid more to drivers, and was still lucrative.

I imagine Uber is incredibly badly managed.

5. jimmaswell ◴[25 Nov 19 18:20 UTC] No.21631091[source]▶
I don't get this. Supplying a ride sharing app, especially just supporting one, should have very minimal overhead. If Uber didn't have other interests like self driving research, they could be distilled down to a small startup's worth of support devs and one manager and just let the app make money. A revenue of 3 billion would be way more than sustainable being split among a company size of 10 or even 30. If anything, if forced by circumstances they could just cut all the fat and massively, massively downsize while staying the same from the consumer's perspective. VC's know this so growing for now and investing in R&D is fine when at a moment's notice a company could be reduced to 30 people and just keep supporting an app.