Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This is underselling the Uber story to a degree. The original sell for Uber was that their total addressable market was the entire auto industry because people will start preferring taxis over driving. They are still trying to achieve that with similar stories now pushed to sell robotaxis.

Uber was undercutting traditional taxis either through driver incentive or cheaper pricing. Many hot takes were around the sustainability of this business model without VC money. In many places this turned out to be true. Driver incentives are way down and Uber pricing is way up.

That said, this is also conflating one company with an industry. Uber might have survived but how many ride sharing companies have survived in total? How many markets have Uber left because it couldn’t sustain?

In a bubble the destruction is often that some big companies get destroyed and others survive. For every pets.com there is one Amazon. That doesn’t mean Amazon is good example to say naysayers during the dot bubble were wrong.



Simplifying Uber's story to "pricing or more drivers" misses the most important part.

Uber was undercutting traditional taxis because, at least in the US, the traditional taxis was horrible user experience. No phone app, no way to give feedback on driver, horrible cars, unpredictable charges... This was because taxis had monopoly in most cities, so they really did not care about customers.

The times when Uber was super-cheap have long passed, but I still never plan to ride regular taxis. It's Waymo (when availiable) or Lyft for me.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: