Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

[SevenEleven]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/12/uber-may-shut-down-temporarily-in-california.html

Khosrowshahi said on Wednesday that his Plan B if Uber can’t win on appeal would be to temporarily pause service in California. While he said Uber would later resume service in the state, it would likely be more centered in cities, which could mean limited availability in less concentrated areas such as suburbs.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

This is the right move. If a city/state wants to make it impossible for a business to operate, the business should let the people there see what life is like without it.

[GP270watch]

This is the right move. If a city/state wants to make it impossible for a business to operate, the business should let the people there see what life is like without it.

I can't imagine a world without Uber, oh yeah I can, lol. Uber is so dumb and if they leave the most influential state in the nation somebody else will just step in.



 

[darklordoftech]

What will people in California who depend on Uber do?

[DrScholl]

Uber was never intended to be a full time job or even a part time one, it was an opportunity for people to supplement their income or earn some extra money.

[darklordoftech]

Uber was never intended to be a full time job or even a part time one, it was an opportunity for people to supplement their income or earn some extra money.

I meant people who depend on Uber for transportation.

[Crumpets]

Uber was never intended to be a full time job or even a part time one, it was an opportunity for people to supplement their income or earn some extra money.

I meant people who depend on Uber for transportation.

Contrary to popular belief, Uber is rarely the cheapest option to get between two places. I find it hard to believe there are a significant number of people who only have the option of taking Uber, especially given its relatively recent appearence on the scene. You'd need to be someone who lives in an area with no public transportation, but who still needs to commute long distances, who is wealthy enough to afford Uber, but not wealthy enough to afford a baseline used car. Am I missing some big demographic here?

[darklordoftech]

Uber was never intended to be a full time job or even a part time one, it was an opportunity for people to supplement their income or earn some extra money.

I meant people who depend on Uber for transportation.

Contrary to popular belief, Uber is rarely the cheapest option to get between two places. I find it hard to believe there are a significant number of people who only have the option of taking Uber, especially given its relatively recent appearence on the scene. You'd need to be someone who lives in an area with no public transportation, but who still needs to commute long distances, who is wealthy enough to afford Uber, but not wealthy enough to afford a baseline used car. Am I missing some big demographic here?

I’m talking about people who can’t drive.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Uber was never going to work. It's only plan, ever, was to monopolize paid car transport and jack up the rates. It was never a particularly good plan, and it has never shown any real sign of being likely to succeed. Hopefully the pandemic will kill Uber deader than the GOP's moral compass.

Hubert Horan: Can Uber Ever Deliver? Part Twenty-Three: Uber’s Already Hopelessly Unprofitable Economics Take A Major Coronavirus Hit

Nothing has happened to change the fact that after ten years, riders have always been fundamentally unwilling to pay prices that would cover Uber’s actual costs, that Uber was always less efficient than the traditional taxis it drove out of business, that its only “efficiency improvement” was to push driver compensation to minimum wage levels, and that its growth depended entirely on unsustainable predatory subsidies.

But if anyone still thought that Uber could somehow magically reverse its multi-billion dollar losses, the coronavirus should have put their fantasies totally to rest. The coronavirus has crushed the major drivers of urban car services demand, including business travel and discretionary urban entertainment (clubs, restaurants, etc.). Their customers remain highly concerned about the health risks of all forms of public transportation.

While many industries have been devastated by the coronavirus it is critical to distinguish between those that clearly had a strongly profitable business model prior to the pandemic (United Airlines, Disneyland, Major League Baseball) and a company like Uber that had been incapable of generating positive cash flow under ideal economic conditions. There needs to be discussion about how to best restructure airlines, tourist and entertainment industries because they have contributed to overall economic welfare in the past, and clearly can in the future. Uber has only served to reduce overall economic welfare. Society has nothing to gain from “saving” Uber.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Uber's business model is, in the long term, about as sustainable as MoviePass. As evidenced by it burning through a couple billion dollars every quarter. Get used to life without it, because it's coming one day.

[Crumpets]

Uber was never intended to be a full time job or even a part time one, it was an opportunity for people to supplement their income or earn some extra money.

I meant people who depend on Uber for transportation.

Contrary to popular belief, Uber is rarely the cheapest option to get between two places. I find it hard to believe there are a significant number of people who only have the option of taking Uber, especially given its relatively recent appearence on the scene. You'd need to be someone who lives in an area with no public transportation, but who still needs to commute long distances, who is wealthy enough to afford Uber, but not wealthy enough to afford a baseline used car. Am I missing some big demographic here?

I’m talking about people who can’t drive.

How many people who can't drive have Uber as their go-to, though? Uber is a service dominated by affluent urban millennials, which tend not to be the demographic that doesn't have other options. The people in my life who can't drive are disproportionately old and have probably never taken an Uber in their life. If they need to get somewhere, they take public transit or get a friend to drive them. Worst case scenario, they call a cab. I'm sure there are exceptions, but the number of people who rely on Uber as their only option has got to be absolutely tiny, especially since, as I said, it's such a recent addition to most areas that all of the services it was meant to replace are generally still operating at full or near-full capacity.

[Santander]

Uber was never intended to be a full time job or even a part time one, it was an opportunity for people to supplement their income or earn some extra money.

I meant people who depend on Uber for transportation.

Contrary to popular belief, Uber is rarely the cheapest option to get between two places. I find it hard to believe there are a significant number of people who only have the option of taking Uber, especially given its relatively recent appearence on the scene. You'd need to be someone who lives in an area with no public transportation, but who still needs to commute long distances, who is wealthy enough to afford Uber, but not wealthy enough to afford a baseline used car. Am I missing some big demographic here?

People who don't need to commute on a daily basis, for one. Or people who need temporary transportation due to whatever circumstances. Or travelers away from home. Or people in the burbs who need a ride home from the bar. Or people unable to drive due to injury, old age, or mild disability. "Depending" on a mode of transportation does not mean there are no other modes of transportation available or that it is the cheapest mode of transportation. Someone living in Long Island could take buses to commute to Manhattan, but that doesn't mean they don't depend on LIRR.

[Crumpets]

Uber was never intended to be a full time job or even a part time one, it was an opportunity for people to supplement their income or earn some extra money.

I meant people who depend on Uber for transportation.

Contrary to popular belief, Uber is rarely the cheapest option to get between two places. I find it hard to believe there are a significant number of people who only have the option of taking Uber, especially given its relatively recent appearence on the scene. You'd need to be someone who lives in an area with no public transportation, but who still needs to commute long distances, who is wealthy enough to afford Uber, but not wealthy enough to afford a baseline used car. Am I missing some big demographic here?

People who don't need to commute on a daily basis, for one. Or people who need temporary transportation due to whatever circumstances. Or travelers away from home. Or people in the burbs who need a ride home from the bar. Or people unable to drive due to injury, old age, or mild disability. "Depending" on a mode of transportation does not mean there are no other modes of transportation available or that it is the cheapest mode of transportation. Someone living in Long Island could take buses to commute to Manhattan, but that doesn't mean they don't depend on LIRR.

Maybe it's just where I've lived, but cabs tend to be the cheaper option compared to Uber for me. They do tend to be slightly less convenient and take longer to get to where you are unless you're in a high-traffic area, and you tend to gamble more with how clean it'll be, but that also varies city-to-city.

[SevenEleven]

Uber was never intended to be a full time job or even a part time one, it was an opportunity for people to supplement their income or earn some extra money.

I meant people who depend on Uber for transportation.

Contrary to popular belief, Uber is rarely the cheapest option to get between two places. I find it hard to believe there are a significant number of people who only have the option of taking Uber, especially given its relatively recent appearence on the scene. You'd need to be someone who lives in an area with no public transportation, but who still needs to commute long distances, who is wealthy enough to afford Uber, but not wealthy enough to afford a baseline used car. Am I missing some big demographic here?

People who don't need to commute on a daily basis, for one. Or people who need temporary transportation due to whatever circumstances. Or travelers away from home. Or people in the burbs who need a ride home from the bar. Or people unable to drive due to injury, old age, or mild disability. "Depending" on a mode of transportation does not mean there are no other modes of transportation available or that it is the cheapest mode of transportation. Someone living in Long Island could take buses to commute to Manhattan, but that doesn't mean they don't depend on LIRR.

Maybe it's just where I've lived, but cabs tend to be the cheaper option compared to Uber for me. They do tend to be slightly less convenient and take longer to get to where you are unless you're in a high-traffic area, and you tend to gamble more with how clean it'll be, but that also varies city-to-city.

Cabs are way more expensive than Uber or Lyft and far less convenient.

[darklordoftech]

How many people who can't drive have Uber as their go-to, though?

I do. I literally have no other means of transportation.

[Santander]

Cabs are way more expensive than Uber or Lyft and far less convenient.

There are times cabs are more convenient (not-so-busy taxi stand, hailing a cab on the street) and/or less expensive (surge pricing, flat fare routes). The majority of the time though, yeah, Uber is far better on both. Plus you don't have to fiddle around with payment, you get receipts emailed to you, you can more easily get customer support, etc. There are also many big cities (Las Vegas, Kuala Lumpur come to mind) where Uber/Grab have dramatically improved the transportation situation.

I used to never take Uber because of their role in the 1099-ization of workers, but I've accepted the fact that these services are necessary. (not necessarily Uber the company itself) It works better in some markets than others.

[dead0man]

good for Uber, teach 'em a lesson.  Google/Facebook/Amazon/etc should do the same with Europe.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What will people in California who depend on Uber do?

Find someone else to give them a lyft.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

What will people in California who depend on Uber do?

Find someone else to give them a lyft.

Speaking of, if Lyft takes Uber's place entirely, they'll just jack up their own rates.

[politics_king]

This is the right move. If a city/state wants to make it impossible for a business to operate, the business should let the people there see what life is like without it.

Uber exploits people desperate for money.

[dead0man]

This is the right move. If a city/state wants to make it impossible for a business to operate, the business should let the people there see what life is like without it.

Uber exploits people desperate for money.

exploits?  In your opinion, which entities that hire low skilled people don't "exploit" them?

[Beet]

Uber was never intended to be a full time job or even a part time one, it was an opportunity for people to supplement their income or earn some extra money.

Except for all the taxicab drivers who Uber put out of business and had to start driving for them.

[SevenEleven]

This is the right move. If a city/state wants to make it impossible for a business to operate, the business should let the people there see what life is like without it.

Uber exploits people desperate for money.

exploits?  In your opinion, which entities that hire low skilled people don't "exploit" them?

I mean the fact that you have to own a newer car and carry good insurance kind of belies the "desperate for money" sentiment. Most Uber+Lyft drivers are people who want some extra cash in addition to their job, people who want to be able to work according to their own scheduling, or people who aren't "employable" for other reasons, such as looks or disabilities.

[SevenEleven]

Uber was never intended to be a full time job or even a part time one, it was an opportunity for people to supplement their income or earn some extra money.

Except for all the taxicab drivers who Uber put out of business and had to start driving for them.

Ok? Those people still can have a job doing the exact same thing. Do you seriously think that methods of distribution shouldn't change due to technological advancements?

[Beet]

Uber was never intended to be a full time job or even a part time one, it was an opportunity for people to supplement their income or earn some extra money.

Except for all the taxicab drivers who Uber put out of business and had to start driving for them.

Ok? Those people still can have a job doing the exact same thing. Do you seriously think that methods of distribution shouldn't change due to technological advancements?

I mean, if the argument is that working class people who drive for a living should be shoved out of their livelihoods so some privileged people who "just want some extra cash now and then" and have a new side gig, I don't think that's either humane and just, or accurate as to what actually happened in the market.