Sussex wrote:
Most of [Uber's financial losses] at the mo is on food delivery.
Uber isn't the biggest player, and they weren't the first in the market.
So to get the market share they are losing billions in discounts, and the other main players are losing more billions to stop Uber from getting to number one.
Which kind of underlines what I said earlier
Obviously I was referring more to Uber's 'taxi' service, but of course it applies to the bigger company in the round - rationalise by dumping the food delivery service, and get rid off the less profitable 'taxi' markets, and Uber's financial position is a lot healthier.
Haven't really been following the food delivery financials (more bothered about cars parking on the rank here and cyclists doing, er, effectively anything they want to in terms of laws and rules).
But while Uber maybe had 'first mover advantage' in the 'taxi' app market, and even then they needed to pump huge sums of start-up costs in to gain market share, obviously they're playing catch up in the food deliveries market.
But, again, that's where the local cab thing benefits them - it's a lot easier to get into new markets by piggy-backing on existing providers, and it's effectively more like simply selling a brand or franchise, rather than having to organise cars and drivers from scratch.
Maybe a bit like all these third party suppliers that sell via Amazon and eBay - Amazon and eBay help them sell their wares, but obviously at a cost for selling via their websites. So a bit like selling taxi services via Uber's app. So Amazon can benefit from taking a cut for stuff sold via its website, but without the storage and distribution costs involved.
Login
Register
FAQ
