
Uber Revenue Slows as Quarterly Loss Surges to $1.1B - toomuchtodo
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-14/uber-revenue-slows-as-quarterly-loss-surges-to-1-1-billion
======
Androider
Uber doesn't have much of a moat or lock-in effect. I just switched one day
from being a frequent Uber rider to 100% using Lyft, simply because I don't
like Uber's behavior as a company. The prices are so close it doesn't make any
practical difference to me.

Anecdotally, among my friends I also see Lyft becoming the default, and
sometimes price-checking with Uber. If Waymo or whoever came out tomorrow with
a cheaper/safer driverless car, I'd just as likely drop Lyft in a heartbeat.

~~~
buzzdenver
The reason I'm reluctant to use Lyft is that they do not say beforehand how
much my ride is going to be.

Edit: I stand corrected. Their UI mislead me because for airport rides the
price is only shown after you hit a Confirm button, but that does not order
the car as I thought, only takes you to the next screen.

~~~
buzzdenver
I stand corrected. Their UI mislead me because the price is only shown after
you hit a Confirm button, but that does not order the car as I thought, only
takes you to the next screen.

~~~
tyre
I just opened the Lyft app and tried it. After entering a destination, I was
taken to a screen showing the prices for the various options.

There was no confirm button Or anything else hiding prices.

(This was on iOS)

~~~
buzzdenver
As somebody else in this three said, the Confirm button is only for airport
destination when you select the airline where you want to be dropped off.

------
ChuckMcM
That is not a happy balance sheet. They have raised over $24B, then they
shifted around the cap table when Soft Bank came in[1] where they valued the
company at $48B. I have never played poker where the lowest valued chips were
a million dollars but it has to feel like that to senior management at the
company right? And their investors, they have serious money in the pot too. It
feels like they have managed to create a company that is 'too big to fail.'

Every time I think I've seen the most amazingly challenging business situation
I'll ever see, something comes along to top it. Win or lose, the book about
Uber is going to be really amazing.

[1] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-28/uber-
inve...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-28/uber-investors-
are-said-to-agree-to-sell-stake-in-softbank-deal)

~~~
shubhamjain
At this point, I would have zero doubts about betting against Uber. The fact
that company with ginormous loss continues to pursue loss-making ventures is
beyond me. Food delivery was already an established market in India, and
UberEats had no competitive value compared market leaders when it came--
except, of course, zero delivery fees. The market itself is extremely
challenging and not even the biggest companies have profitability in sight,
and yet for Uber it somehow fits in their long term vision.

Wake up, Uber management. No company, however appealing, can continue to raise
money making a billion in quarterly loss.

~~~
kamaal
>>Food delivery was already an established market in India

Same Uber model there too.

`Eat this 500 rupees biryani for 50 rupees`

`Let me help you order this Baskin Robbins Ice cream for 80% discount`

`Diwali food festival, expensive ad on TV, Dal Maakhni at 60% discount`

These people are hoping that people will get so addicted to their app,
eventually they will either stop cooking(Which ridiculous at the very face of
it), or stop driving/walking up to their nearest restaurant.

Also, this luring people into using apps with discounts has max utility, its
not a infinite trick you can play forever.

------
guelo
My "Uber sucks" story is that I left a jacket in the back seat of a car. I
immediately tried to figure out how to call the driver but Uber decided they
needed to make money off my misfortune. Not only did they charge me $15 to
connect with the driver but they refused to let me message the driver
directly, so what could have been a few minutes of time turned into a week
long saga. Once I finally got a hold of the driver several days later she had
the same story as me where she had immediately tried to contact me and return
my item but Uber didn't let her contact me.

That permanently cost Uber a customer because now I know that they'll try to
use dark patterns to screw me over any chance they get.

~~~
manigandham
You were not charged to connect to anyone. That is a Returned Item Fee for
drivers to give the item back to you:
[https://help.uber.com/riders/article/lost-item-return-
fee-?n...](https://help.uber.com/riders/article/lost-item-return-
fee-?nodeId=633c684e-1d4b-426a-bd4f-6bee488dac6a)

~~~
anigbrowl
Whether or not the driver wants it? Pull the other one.

~~~
manigandham
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The fee is only charged if the driver
returns the item, so if they cant or dont want to then there's no fee.

~~~
anigbrowl
What if the driver doesn't want to charge a fee and is happy to just circle
the block and drop the item off to a thankful customer, as described in this
episode? Maybe things won't be as convenient for some drivers, in which case a
fee is appropriate. But imposing a fee without asking the driver or allowing
the driver an easy way to notify the customer of the lost item is dishonest;
Uber is _not_ doing it on the driver's behalf but acting _in loco parentis_ of
the driver and deciding on their behalf, thus robbing the driver of autonomy.

~~~
manigandham
The driver _chooses_ to return the item in the first place (and they know the
fee), and they _can_ notify riders about lost items via their app.

Uber avoids price negotiation, and considering that it takes time and effort
to resolve your mistake, it's likely much better to just charge a standard fee
instead of planning for every single case.

~~~
wyattpeak
It feels like you're only acknowledging the part of the story which is
comparatively easy to argue against.

If my driver is a block away but can't contact me until ops gets back to them
and they're miles away, that's an indisputable failure.

~~~
manigandham
Failure in what exactly? It's a standard process with a standard fee.

This comment thread shows just how much contention there would be otherwise,
which is probably what encouraged these changes.

~~~
wyattpeak
Failure in turning a process that could have taken two minutes into one that
took a week.

~~~
manigandham
Isn't that just some narrow condition?

The lost items were returned, so the _return process_ is actually successful.
It's designed to work for many people under various conditions, not just you.
Whether it was as quick as possible is irrelevant to the original claim of
being charged for the wrong reason.

Perhaps try and remember your items if you don't want to worry about
recovering them later. There are plenty of drivers who also immediately check
for and return items before they set off. Saying a system has failed because
it doesn't perfectly suit your exact life situation/mistake is disingenuous
and unproductive.

~~~
wyattpeak
The fact that you made a mistake doesn't absolve another party of all duty to
act like a reasonable person. Is capital punishment for stealing a loaf of
bread okay, because perhaps you should try to remember not to steal things?

I also question the assertion that this process is designed to be as effective
as possible for anyone, unless you mean Uber. As stated in the original post,
both parties were trying to resolve this, while a busybody middleman stopped
them.

~~~
manigandham
This is what I mean by disingenuous. Nobody is getting punished. Uber _is_
being reasonable, which is why the user got their items back, using a
standardized process.

Why do you keep saying they failed under some arbitrary scenario?

Again, just because it could've been faster does not mean that it didn't work.
That specific scenario is not the majority nor the only one that matters.

~~~
wyattpeak
What arbitrary scenario? I'm literally discussing the scenario which kicked
off this discussion.

The problem is not that it _could_ have been faster, the problem is that it
_would_ have been faster if they'd done nothing at all. They injected
themselves unnecessarily to slow down something which would have worked fine
without interference.

If I find someone's wallet in the back of my car and I call them two years
later to give it back, am I being reasonable? I mean, they got their items
back. Or is it specifically a week which is acceptable? What's the maximum
amount of time that it's reasonable to delay a by-default two-minute
interaction?

~~~
wyattpeak
Look, you haven't addressed my response, you've just reiterated your point,
which I already understood.

We're obviously not going to come to agreement on this, so let's leave it be.

------
jbhatab
Nothing reminds me how out of loop the Hacker News and Silicone Valley is from
the rest of the America like an Uber post. It always degrades into an
anecdotal competition on who had the worst experience with Uber and how
amazing Lyft has been. The fact that they are growing 38% in a quarter at
their scale and we're calling that 'slow' is pretty nuts.

Personally I've had good and bad experiences with both, but almost everyone of
my friends outside of tech uses Uber exclusively and love it. Can't wait to
see how the race to a better self driving experience goes.

~~~
RL_Quine
I think you mean silicon valley. Silicone valley is something else entirely.

~~~
jakegarelick
That’s in Southern California :)

------
femto113
Uber's been buying revenue at the cost of margin in at least two ways by
shifting rides to Pool (where they can declare the entire ride's cost as
revenue, not just their cut), and ramping up Uber Eats (where they take a
percentage of the total cost of the food and may actually lose money on the
ride). Neither strategy can continue indefinitely.

~~~
elhudy
Uber's new "cheap" pool option forces you to walk up to 5 blocks (!!) and is
the same price that it used to be. Lyft's pool option doesn't make you walk
and the prices have remained unchanged.

Uber lost all of my (bi-daily) business when they moved to the pool express
business model.

~~~
blawson
Interesting! That’s new to me, and honestly a benefit in places like SF, where
dropping someone off or picking someone up at a specific address might involve
numerous annoying loops / turns around one way streets, where the passenger
could just make everyone else’s life easier and walk a block or two.

This feels like a positive change as long as weather isn’t a huge concern.

~~~
et-al
Lyft offered this back in 2015 and called it "HotSpots". I thought it was
great for the same reasons, but unfortunately they discontinued it after one
summer.

[https://www.recode.net/2015/8/25/11618002/lyft-kills-off-
hot...](https://www.recode.net/2015/8/25/11618002/lyft-kills-off-hotspots-as-
uber-launches-copycat-smart-routes-service)

------
Ftuuky
Speaking as a infrequent user (1-3 times per month) in Lisbon, Portugal, I
can't choose Uber anymore. There are so many other apps providing the same
service with cheaper prices (some of them such as Taxify do not have surge
pricing) and better drivers. The drivers' quality declined a lot: sometimes
they don't speak portuguese or english and if they notice you're drunk they
try to scam you (leave you in some random spot far away from destination and
gaslight you with "nah mate you put the wrong address, but try again and I'll
get you hoe"). I'm not that drunk and I'm not stupid.

~~~
prostoalex
This ringed true to me in Tokyo and Barcelona - local taxi apps were
significantly cheaper and had better availability than Uber.

When they were competing with Grab in most southeast Asian markets, Grab would
usually out-compete on both parameters, too.

~~~
icebraining
Taxify, despite the name, doesn't actually call regular taxis, they have their
own drivers like Uber.

They're also not local, they're from Estonia, and operate in dozens of
countries.

~~~
prostoalex
I think for Spain the app of choice was Cabify.

------
tompetry
There is always an "Uber is dead" sentiment floating around when losses come
out, but I don't buy it. The long term on-demand transportation opportunity is
absolutely massive. Uber has tried to win the land grab and "outlast"
everybody with obviously unsustainable subsidies, and maybe that didn't
exactly work out. But if the economics don't work for Uber, they won't work
for anybody else at scale either. Consumers are benefitting as the industry is
subsidized, but it won't last. As with most mature industries, there will
eventually be 2-3 players that stay alive, and eventually become profitable.
Uber, Lyft, Waymo, Tesla? I don't know, it will be interesting to see. But
just because the economics are bad today doesn't mean they always will be. I
wouldn't count them out.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> But if the economics don't work for Uber, they won't work for anybody else
> at scale either.

Uber has no other profit center to prop it up. Everyone else has profitable
businesses to lean on (Tesla, Waymo) or corporate backing (Lyft through GM)
until they get to the finish line.

If you bet on Uber as an investment, you bet on the wrong horse.

------
nemo44x
Their prices are often worse than yellow cabs in NYC. They act like locals
won't be able to tell but it's pretty obvious when it's a $10 more ask at a
time that isn't even busy and there are yellow cabs everywhere.

~~~
Androider
I had a yellow cab driver claim just last month that his credit card machine
was broken, after a ride from the airport into Manhattan. I told him too bad,
plastic is all I got, and wouldn't you know it _miraculously_ the machine
worked when he tried it (with a sour face). As a cherry on top he then tried
to charge me more than the fixed rate set for the airport fares. So taking a
yellow cab in NYC still absolutely sucks in 2018 and you'll get swindled if
you're a tourist.

~~~
nemo44x
I'm not defending yellow cabs here. There's a reason ride-share has taken so
much of their market.

I'm just pointing out how ridiculous Uber is by trying to charge me
significantly more than a yellow cab to get somewhere when I can ballpark the
cost pretty easily. It's just a very poor longterm business decision.

Only now do I try other services because I am suspicious that Uber is trying
to rip me off.

~~~
chrisseaton
> I'm just pointing out how ridiculous Uber is by trying to charge me
> significantly more than a yellow cab

They charge more... for a better service.

It's not some kind of con or scheme or a rip-off.

~~~
nemo44x
They charge 2 different prices at the same time for the same ride to 2
different people. And they aren’t clear about this.

I didn’t say it’s a con and sometimes they charge less. But it’s certainly a
practice that makes me skeptical and check out other services.

~~~
sjg007
I am pretty sure that Amazon.com and Sears.com do this too.

~~~
nemo44x
For different locations, yes. But if my wife and I, at the same time and same
location try and buy the exact same thing, we are given the same price.

This is a case of Uber using a variety of algorithms to determine just how
much they can get out of you. I prefer the old surge pricing model where it
was a conscious choice to overpay.

But however clever they may think they are I’m not fooled by their fake market
pricing. Only now do I look for cabs and have accounts on competitors when I’m
sure Uber is mispricing actual market value.

~~~
sjg007
Nope. I had two tabs open with different prices.

------
ProAm
This plus the news that Waymo is starting its autonomous ride-share service
next month is a one-two punch for Uber this week. Might be one of the largest
unicorns to die in our generation.

~~~
jsonne
You don't get to the size they do and simply die. They'll be acquired and
vertically integrated in a way that lets them be competitive on price. You can
break even on the ride if you make it up in harvesting data, showing in car
advertisements, having sample products placed in cars, and a million other
"fremium" style revenue harvesting techniques.

~~~
nopriorarrests
They need 1 billion per quarter in "fremium" revenue to get breakeven, though.
Thats _plenty_ of in car ads.

~~~
goobynight
That's if they want to continue with every cost they currently incur, which
includes some expensive R&D.

~~~
nopriorarrests
Assuming 300-400mln out of 1B is R&D and we cut it completely, they need to
make ~600mln per quarter -- which is, as comparison, in the same ballpark as
the quarterly revenue of Twitter.

------
kevin_b_er
Oh don't you know they want to IPO to cash out on gullible public investors
based on hype. With accelerating losses as revenue grows means each dollar of
revenue has negative return. More revenue means more negative return.

They only way to win is if they monopolize a segment enough that they can jack
up prices to make up for the sustained losses. Other ways this looks like
Groupon. The more they sell, the more they lose. It is like some kind of
pyramid scheme.

~~~
autokad
i dono about Groupon. with 'their more they sell more they lose' balance
sheet, I thought they would go out of business in 2012 but they are still
here, so maybe I was wrong about them?

------
wingworks
A few weeks back I booked an Uber after a concert, then the Uber driver called
me saying to come to him (he was way out + the GPS location of the taxis seems
terribly inaccurate whenever I've used it, so who knows where he really was),
we were by the official Uber pickup location. He said he didn't know how to
get to where we were... Obviously some bad planning by someone. He said he
could try, and not to cancel the trip. Then he cancelled it a few minutes
later.

Then Uber connected us to a new Uber driver, we found the car in the official
Uber road queue, but there were people already in the car. This was about a
min after we were connected with this new driver, we asked if he could cancel
as we can't wait for him to drop off his current passengers, but he didn't
seem to know how to (or unwilling to). My question is, are Uber drivers just
accepting people while they have people in the car, while stuck in concert
traffic and obviously won't be done with there current fair for ages, then
forcing the new passengers to cancel and get a MUCH higher rate.

Anyway, since we then had to force the cancel, we now had a HUGE uber fare
quoted, like 3-4x our last price to try get a new cab. We tried it, but the
guy was miles away, so we ended up giving up on Uber and taking public
transport way out, then taking an Uber.

In hindsight, probably should have gone with public transport option first.
Lesson learnt I guess. I just assumed, since there was an official Uber tent
setup and people with official looking Uber vests on that they'd have a system
set up to get people to there Uber's fast... or some system to just link up
each person with the first uber car in the queue. Was nothing like that, it
was chaos.

// end of rant

------
cm2012
I am a pretty loyal Uber user, and probably spend around $400 a month with
them.

But... I was stuck out in the cold in the boonies of long island recently, and
Uber kept bugging out and not finding rides since I was fairly rural. I
downloaded Lyft for the first time and it found me a ride instantly. I'm going
to have to use them more often.

Just my random anecdote.

~~~
Balgair
$400/mo. Woah! Why not lease a car at that rate? Leases go for ~$150/mo there.

~~~
gergles
In addition to the lease, you also have to add in the cost of insurance and
fuel, and potentially parking (depending on where precisely in the region you
live). Also, you almost always have to carry (expensive) full coverage for
leased vehicles, further increasing the price.

------
beaconstudios
what the fuck is going on when a company can lose over $1 billion a quarter
with no profit in sight and still receive further investment? Would they be
hugely profitable if not for reinvestment in expansion and R&D?

~~~
beagle3
I have a pet theory.

These investors aren't investing _their_ money, but _someone else 's_ money.
If Uber folds now, these investors are to blame. But if Uber folds when the
great crash (a-la 2001 and 2008), then, well, it's the entire economy - not
the individual investor's fault.

So they do whatever is needed to keep Uber with high book value until the big
crash. What's $20B of other people's money to maintain your sterling
reputation as a smart investor?

~~~
tim333
Social Capital's Chamath Palihapitiya had an interesting theory of VC
overvaluation in his recent letter:

> [VCs] get paid to allocate other people’s (LPs) money, and they are smart
> enough to transfer the risk. For example, VCs habitually invest in one
> another’s companies during later rounds, bidding up rounds to valuations
> that allow for generous markups on their funds' performance. These markups,
> and the paper returns that they suggest, allow VCs to raise subsequent,
> larger funds, and to enjoy the management fees that those funds generate.

And he has more such analysis. It's quite a good read if you are interested in
that stuff [https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/socialcapital-annual-
lett...](https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/socialcapital-annual-
letters/Social+Capital+Interim+Annual+Letter,+2018.pdf)

------
yalogin
How can they incur that huge a loss? According to Crunchbase they have
5000-10000 employees. They have a backend to manage. They have limited sales
and marketing expense.Where is their money going? R&D or just employee pay?

~~~
alasdair_
I assume most of the money goes to incentives to the drivers to keep driving
when a 30 minute ride in sf cost me $3 the last time i used uber.

------
adjkant
Right now honestly I don't see much of a difference between Uber and Moviepass
when you (realistically) rule them out of winning the self-driving race. They
are offering a service for less than it costs but have no way to stop
customers from switching if they raise prices. And to boot Moviepass has a
better corporate reputation than Uber somehow. I feel like this has been
obvious for a year now, but as others said, I guess it has to be too big to
fail now?

The only thing that looks like it could ever be profitable is Uber Eats, but
there's no way that keeps the company afloat.

------
matchagaucho
I suspect, like Amazon, Uber could be profitable any time it wants.

Their burn just reflects a continued, aggressive customer acquisition
strategy.

~~~
babygoat
If they were sincerely trying to acquire new customers, why wouldn't they do
anything to combat their shit reputation?

~~~
conanbatt
Their shit reputation has paved the ground for all the other apps that showed
up afterwards. I dont think people appreciate how the ride-share revolution
would not have happened without Uber's aggresive brand.

Look at lyft, stuck in markets where uber is already there. Meanwhile, Uber
fought legal battles and city governments all around the world: their staff
often jailed and persecuted. What brand do you want to have when governments
send your employees to jail? Quirky funny, or ruthless?

~~~
IanCal
Why do people call it ride-sharing? It's not about sharing rides, it's just a
taxi firm with an app.

~~~
rohit2412
Because that would make Uber illegal. They call themselves ride sharing to
escape taxi regulations

------
kamaal
Not least surprised. In a country like India, these people are now facing
infinite competition. Their original strategy of bankrupting their competition
by offering deep discounts just isn't working, because in a country like India
you kill one set, and give the overall scale of competition/population the
next comes like up weeds.

The same problem is being faced by amazon/flipkart/walmart. Everytime you
think that you are going to eliminate competition by offering discounts in say
two years. Come two years and you see there is a whole new set of competition
and you face a new task to burning $3 - $4 billions to the ground without the
hope of seeing a dollar worth profit in return.

The fact that customer loyalty is totally absent and largely shifts based on
prices isn't helping either.

------
keyle
Side note, I'm getting fed up with Uber...

I'm a decent user, I use it 1-2 a week.

Drivers have become worse. They used to have clean cars and were of all
ethnicity. There also used to be a lot of women drivers. Now it's basically
taxi drivers with their mate's cars. Cars are now often dirty, greasy
interiors, dirty outside and bad smell.

And as soon as you have a 'usual' route, or you use the app a lot, you get
charged more!! It's so disgusting.

I tried to book a trip to the airport for my inlaws using both my account and
my wife's account. She rarely uses Uber, and hers showed a 10-15% cheaper
rate. Do they think we're stupid? They targetted 'smart' people for using ride
sharing as opposed to taxis, and now they try to play us.

Let's not even get started about dark UX patterns. It's hard to see peak rates
now, and unless you get a bad gut feeling, you wouldn't know you're currently
paying more than a cab rate.

What about that '3 mins away'? They're always 3 mins away for 10 minutes.
Unless they fly close to a black hole it's just lies and horrific UX.

The same ride I used to pay $8 for is sometimes $25-32 now. Let's be honest,
if anything better came along, I wouldn't look back.

At best now, my Uber rides always seem to be just about 10% cheaper than a
cab.

I must be at "max milking rate".

(update: I went from +10 to -1 in 15 mins... I guess I touched a secret
society)

~~~
MetalGuru
_Let 's be honest, if anything better came along, I wouldn't look back._

What about Lyft?

~~~
komali2
Lyft is great. More expensive than Uber but none of the dark pattern bullshit.
Every price I've paid had felt "fair."

~~~
richardwhiuk
Not available in most geographies for me.

------
thisisit
One of the things I am noticing, at least in India, is that there are now
lesser number of rides available at any given point in time. So, either the
ridesharing demand has risen to match the supply or that the supply is
dwindling. I think it is the former. But on routinely talking to driver they
think it's the latter. Less and less people are now getting into the
ridesharing game.

So, it seems drivers might be wary of driving for ridehsaring companies. What
kind of knock-on effect will this have on Uber's profitability.

------
anigbrowl
A sunk cost fallacy on wheels.

------
crunchlibrarian
_Uber’s sales are dramatically slowing even as the ride-hailing company is
spending more to fuel global growth, particularly in its food delivery
business. Revenue growth of 38 percent in the third quarter was almost half of
what the growth rate was six months earlier, when the company was negotiating
a $9.3 billion investment led by SoftBank Group Corp._

Brutal opening paragraph

~~~
asteli
It's a strange world we live in when people speak poorly of 38% revenue
growth. To me, that seems like a staggeringly huge growth rate. I looked up
the numbers independently to double check, and yep.

63% revenue growth between Q2'17/Q2'18, 38% between Q3'17/Q3'18.

If my own 9 year old company was growing 38% YOY I think I'd be very very
happy.

~~~
marinman
"Highly valued companies typically grow quickly or generate big profits -- and
great ones do both. In the fourth quarter of 2005, Amazon.com Inc. had about
the same revenue as Uber’s today -- just under $3 billion, not adjusted for
inflation. Yet, Amazon earned $199 million in profit and was worth about a
fourth of Uber’s $76 billion valuation."

I think this graph neatly summarizes the concern at this point. There are few
signs that the business can live up to its existing hefty valuation, not-to-
mention the even-loftier IPO expectations.

Amazon was also famously unprofitable as a public company for a long, long
time. But they still had revenue growth rates worth investing in and
potentially more defensible businesses.

I do wonder if the ride-sharing business will wind up like the airlines
business: valuable, booming but very, very tough to consistently make large
profits.

~~~
adventured
> I do wonder if the ride-sharing business will wind up like the airlines
> business: valuable, booming but very, very tough to consistently make large
> profits.

Rather, how the airline business used to be, before it consolidated down
enough (in the US). Now it's a goldmine of consistent profit compared to what
it used to be.

Delta - the world's most profitable airline - generated $24 billion in
operating income over the prior four fiscal years; $3.3b in the last two
quarters. Not impressive compared to certain tech giants, however still
excellent operating profitability given the history of airlines. The major US
airlines are of course domestic focused, so the corporate tax cut took them
all from ~35-40% rates down to closer to 20%, further bolstering their
bonanza.

It's why Warren Buffett bought ~10% of all of them (Berkshire owns 9.2% of
Delta, 9.7% of American, 9.8% of Southwest, 9.8% of United). He perceived that
the market had permanently shifted due to consolidation. The airlines have
become more like the modern railroads, going from brutal competition to stable
oligopoly and consistent profit machines.

Last four years operating income:

Delta: $24b, American: $23b, United: $17b, Southwest: $14b

------
supergirl
uber is pets.com. lose money to get market share with the wrong assumption you
can charge more once you get users.

~~~
da02
I don't understand why people are downvoting you. At least they could explain
how Uber is different than Pets.com.

------
mathattack
Uber gave me a 50 minute ride yesterday for $50 that Lyft quoted me $90 for.
That’s why they’re losing money.

~~~
sra77
Enjoy Uber while they last

------
sfifs
Any idea where the actual numbers are? I can't find any link in the Bloomberg
text.

------
dano
Price check saved me $16 on my ride to the airport last month. Now I always
compare under and Lyft bids before selecting my ride.

------
usr1987
After having a different car and driver come to pick me up in Chicago I wowed
not to use them again!

------
brownbat
Headlines like these make me wonder if MoviePass was some kind of brilliant
performance art.

------
rpoconn1
"Surges" like their pricing. I like it.

------
ohiovr
They could try breaking the law to boost profits. I mean have they tried that?

~~~
leeoniya
i assume you left off /s accidentally

~~~
adtac
Even for HN, I don't think that was necessary.

------
Aeolun
Part of that is probably that the uber apps and website are so ridiculously
bare bones that I can’t imagine a company burning 1B cash per 3 months is
behind them.

