Netflix has secured a deal with Microsoft to introduce advertising breaks for its streaming service as it scrambles to offset a fall in subscribers by offering a cheaper service for customers.
The streaming giant has chosen Microsoft to be its global technology and sales partner and will provide ads through its platform, its chief operating officer Greg Peters said on Wednesday.
Another massive hole in Nadine Dorries argument that BBC could be a subscription service like Netflix.
a) Netflix basic subs model under assault post-pandemic
b) Ads on BBC. Really? Pretty sure the Antiques roadshow loving tory members of Home Counties don't want any interruptions to sell them Equity Release.
Netflix problem is that the big bad mouse has appeared on the scene to eat their lunch (along with Amazon, Apple, Discovery and Paramount), while also spaffing too much money up the walls on very poor programmes, but the biggest problem is most crucially lost the old sticky content e.g. Friends and the Office
Content producers realising they can have they own streaming service is a game changer isn’t it? Now the film studios and networks are creating their own distribution, the value proposition of someone like Sky drops. If the FA, the ECB, the RFU and F1 clubbed together on a sports steaming platform, Sky would presumably die.
That being said it could go the other way, and there will need to be consolidation of streaming services and we go back to production departing from dissemination.
Could they do it without clubbing together? My problem with sky sports is that 80% of the cost is for football, and I don't get value from that. But I'd probably pay for cricket and rugby. If I could pay 20% of the costs and get an everything-but-football package it would suit me very well. Or even buy a separate package for each sport.
You’d have to guess that if the ECB, Aussies and other smaller boards buddied up with the Indians it would be very doable for cricket.
Channel already exists...Willow. Indian chap in US started, doing very nicely thank you out of it.
Woke isn't a thing. It's all made up. Massively exaggerated etc.
Tonight's hectoring at Waterloo station - taken on my phone.
It is strangely totalitarian.
You find yourself starting to criticise it (ie: is 'sexist hate' really only a male phenomenon?), but then you realise that the act of criticism is defined as an act of denial or oppression, so whatever you try and do, you can't win.
The only viable solution is actually just to shrug your shoulders and ignore it.
Totalitarian? To have a poster suggesting that men could do something about stopping sexist hate? It’s not exactly Kristallnacht.
Do you think that the sort of people who might do those things are going to take the slightest bit of notice of a poster like this? They couldn't care less about a poster. It's like putting a bit banner outside every bank saying "If you rob this bank you will go to prison".
Everybody thinks advertising doesn't work, apart from the hard-nosed business people who pay lots of money for it. They know, you don't.
'Working' in this case though isn't stopping hate but selling more EE products.
Very true. The design of the billboard is about getting attention, and well, lookie here. That's worked.
Yes, fair point. "Being deliberately irritating" has always been a valid advertising tactic.
Remember those halcyon days when BigG could barely contain himself at the launch of a new TV station despite warnings that it would turn out to be an alt-right disinformation engine, fully subsidised by shadowy multi-millionaires?
Is it just me or is Big G wrong, like a lot
I believe he is unduly influenced by the media he consumes.
Netflix has secured a deal with Microsoft to introduce advertising breaks for its streaming service as it scrambles to offset a fall in subscribers by offering a cheaper service for customers.
The streaming giant has chosen Microsoft to be its global technology and sales partner and will provide ads through its platform, its chief operating officer Greg Peters said on Wednesday.
Ugh, ads on Netflix. Glad I never threw out my blu rays.
I think the idea is offer a lower monthly if you take the ads, but higher tier option still ad free.
Netflix has secured a deal with Microsoft to introduce advertising breaks for its streaming service as it scrambles to offset a fall in subscribers by offering a cheaper service for customers.
The streaming giant has chosen Microsoft to be its global technology and sales partner and will provide ads through its platform, its chief operating officer Greg Peters said on Wednesday.
Another massive hole in Nadine Dorries argument that BBC could be a subscription service like Netflix.
a) Netflix basic subs model under assault post-pandemic
b) Ads on BBC. Really? Pretty sure the Antiques roadshow loving tory members of Home Counties don't want any interruptions to sell them Equity Release.
Netflix problem is that the big bad mouse has appeared on the scene to eat their lunch (along with Amazon, Apple, Discovery and Paramount), while also spaffing too much money up the walls on very poor programmes, but the biggest problem is most crucially lost the old sticky content e.g. Friends and the Office
Content producers realising they can have they own streaming service is a game changer isn’t it? Now the film studios and networks are creating their own distribution, the value proposition of someone like Sky drops. If the FA, the ECB, the RFU and F1 clubbed together on a sports steaming platform, Sky would presumably die.
That being said it could go the other way, and there will need to be consolidation of streaming services and we go back to production departing from dissemination.
Could they do it without clubbing together? My problem with sky sports is that 80% of the cost is for football, and I don't get value from that. But I'd probably pay for cricket and rugby. If I could pay 20% of the costs and get an everything-but-football package it would suit me very well. Or even buy a separate package for each sport.
County games just seem to be streamed free on YouTube now which is an interesting way of doing it.
IMHO I think Amazon will buy up a lot of sport over time. Sky is in trouble.
Are they? That's exciting news. I can get YouTube on my telly. I've always thought how lovely it would be to have cricket on the telly by default. This may be the last you see of me until Autumn...
Pretty much any match not only Sky Sports is now streamed on YouTube, 4-day and T20 games...even for the real saddos 2nd XI games.
Disney+ has an insane amount of content now they own 20th Century as well. Netflix is an absolute nothing.
Amazon Prime is also good - but they've just bought MGM.
Which means James Bond.....
I watched Reacher the other week on Amazon Prime, thought it was pretty good.
Amazon Prime has got some properly good stuff with them having bought MGM. All James Bonds as you said.
Them and Disney+ suit me fine, I cancelled Netflix years ago. I was one of their very first UK subscribers, got it on day one when nobody here knew what Netflix was.
I don't pay for Sky as it's outrageously expensive. And whilst they do get movies a bit earlier, this will surely decrease over time with Disney coming onto the scene. Not sure how long those deals last for?
Sport is the big one but I am bemused why the Premier League don't just do a Football service, seems like they could make a lot more money.
Netflix has secured a deal with Microsoft to introduce advertising breaks for its streaming service as it scrambles to offset a fall in subscribers by offering a cheaper service for customers.
The streaming giant has chosen Microsoft to be its global technology and sales partner and will provide ads through its platform, its chief operating officer Greg Peters said on Wednesday.
Ugh, ads on Netflix. Glad I never threw out my blu rays.
I think the idea is offer a lower monthly if you take the ads, but higher tier option still ad free.
And the higher option will go up in price when only the people who don't want ads are left in it.
Netflix has secured a deal with Microsoft to introduce advertising breaks for its streaming service as it scrambles to offset a fall in subscribers by offering a cheaper service for customers.
The streaming giant has chosen Microsoft to be its global technology and sales partner and will provide ads through its platform, its chief operating officer Greg Peters said on Wednesday.
Ugh, ads on Netflix. Glad I never threw out my blu rays.
I think the idea is offer a lower monthly if you take the ads, but higher tier option still ad free.
Netflix charge you more for HD. The standard tier is standard definition.
No other service does this, their strategy is nonsensical.
Netflix has secured a deal with Microsoft to introduce advertising breaks for its streaming service as it scrambles to offset a fall in subscribers by offering a cheaper service for customers.
The streaming giant has chosen Microsoft to be its global technology and sales partner and will provide ads through its platform, its chief operating officer Greg Peters said on Wednesday.
Another massive hole in Nadine Dorries argument that BBC could be a subscription service like Netflix.
a) Netflix basic subs model under assault post-pandemic
b) Ads on BBC. Really? Pretty sure the Antiques roadshow loving tory members of Home Counties don't want any interruptions to sell them Equity Release.
Netflix problem is that the big bad mouse has appeared on the scene to eat their lunch (along with Amazon, Apple, Discovery and Paramount), while also spaffing too much money up the walls on very poor programmes, but the biggest problem is most crucially lost the old sticky content e.g. Friends and the Office
Content producers realising they can have they own streaming service is a game changer isn’t it? Now the film studios and networks are creating their own distribution, the value proposition of someone like Sky drops. If the FA, the ECB, the RFU and F1 clubbed together on a sports steaming platform, Sky would presumably die.
That being said it could go the other way, and there will need to be consolidation of streaming services and we go back to production departing from dissemination.
Could they do it without clubbing together? My problem with sky sports is that 80% of the cost is for football, and I don't get value from that. But I'd probably pay for cricket and rugby. If I could pay 20% of the costs and get an everything-but-football package it would suit me very well. Or even buy a separate package for each sport.
County games just seem to be streamed free on YouTube now which is an interesting way of doing it.
IMHO I think Amazon will buy up a lot of sport over time. Sky is in trouble.
Are they? That's exciting news. I can get YouTube on my telly. I've always thought how lovely it would be to have cricket on the telly by default. This may be the last you see of me until Autumn...
Unless they have improved, the last Middlesex stream I watched (admittedly a couple of years ago) was a fixed camera just on each batsman. Not ideal. But I may have a another look and give them a chance.
Disney+ has an insane amount of content now they own 20th Century as well. Netflix is an absolute nothing.
Amazon Prime is also good - but they've just bought MGM.
Which means James Bond.....
I watched Reacher the other week on Amazon Prime, thought it was pretty good.
Possible more Narcos is the only thing keeping me on Netflix. Now BCS and Ozark have ended. What else do hey have apart from endless true crime docs?
There is still a fair bit of popular original content e.g. Stranger Things is currently proving to be very popular.
As I said down thread, the issue is people binge something like the Crown and what kept people entertained previously was the ability to put on an episode of something like Friends, now they don't have any of those really sticky shows that people watch a 1000 times on repeat.
Not that I liked Friends, but apparently when they had it, along with the Office, it made up some crazy percentage of all watch time on Netflix.
Netflix, like Uber, and like a million businesses, are realising that investors don’t want to subsidise them indefinitely.
Janan Ganesh wrote a good piece on this.
Deliveroo etc are the same. We have all been living off investor’s money.
I used to take a lot of black cabs and although I recognise Uber forced them to up their game, I think there was a massive competition failure. It used to be called “dumping”.
Netflix, like Uber, and like a million businesses, are realising that investors don’t want to subsidise them indefinitely.
Janan Ganesh wrote a good piece on this.
Deliveroo etc are the same. We have all been living off investor’s money.
I used to take a lot of black cabs and although I recognise Uber forced them to up their game, I think there was a massive competition failure. It used to be called “dumping”.
Although true, I think there is also quite significant differences. Deliveroo has no USP or IP, all those delivery services can and are copied very easily and they have to spend crazy sums on advertising to keep getting customers to use their particular app. And it doesn't work as a business model for them or the restaurants, as so inefficient to get picking up one latte from McDonalds for some hung over 20 something in their flat.
Uber used investor money to undercut taxis, but they still have the huge problem that its doesn't actually work for the drivers when you factor in everything....so the turn over of drivers is crazy.
Netflix did have an advantage (and still does to some extent)....its isn't trivial to build a world wide streaming service to deliver 4k content and then also building the analytics is non-trivial. Disney knew they couldn't just do it, so they had to pay big bucks to purchase BamTech. Amazon bought Twitch.
The problem Netflix has is it lost key content, spaffed too much money at crap and not managed to create enough of its own sticky repeatable content. And now some bigger boys have come along to steal their customers.
Netflix, like Uber, and like a million businesses, are realising that investors don’t want to subsidise them indefinitely.
Janan Ganesh wrote a good piece on this.
Deliveroo etc are the same. We have all been living off investor’s money.
I used to take a lot of black cabs and although I recognise Uber forced them to up their game, I think there was a massive competition failure. It used to be called “dumping”.
It is worth adding that all such businesses enjoyed inflated valuations on the explicit premise that they would become monopolies.
It only seems to be the EU that gives a shit and even then they’ve no fucking clue how to regulate.
The UK’s approach seems to be “You want to fleece British consumers? Fleece away!”
Netflix, like Uber, and like a million businesses, are realising that investors don’t want to subsidise them indefinitely.
Janan Ganesh wrote a good piece on this.
Deliveroo etc are the same. We have all been living off investor’s money.
I used to take a lot of black cabs and although I recognise Uber forced them to up their game, I think there was a massive competition failure. It used to be called “dumping”.
Although true, I think there is also quite significant differences. Deliveroo has no USP or IP, all those delivery services can and are copied very easily and they have to spend crazy sums on advertising to keep getting customers to use their particular app. And it doesn't work as a business model for them or the restaurants, as so inefficient to get picking up one latte from McDonalds for some hung over 20 something in their flat.
Uber used investor money to undercut taxis, but they still have the huge problem that its doesn't actually work for the drivers when you factor in everything....so the turn over of drivers is crazy.
Netflix did have an advantage (and still does to some extent)....its isn't trivial to build a world wide streaming service to deliver 4k content and then also building the analytics is non-trivial. Disney knew they couldn't just do it, so they had to pay big bucks to purchase BamTech. Amazon bought Twitch.
The problem Netflix has is it lost key content, spaffed too much money at crap and not managed to create enough of its own sticky repeatable content. And now some bigger boys have come along to steal their customers.
Uber is a pyramid scheme.
Get lots of money from investors with claims you will one day become profitable with self driving cars.
Uber's IP SHOULD be in the technology they use but it isn't, because they went about this the wrong way. What they should have done is licensed the technology to TfL and the taxi operators. They didn't do that.
It is just the same as all of these fast delivery companies, no unique idea. No long term strategy, burn through cash.
There's a reason the big players are not in this game in a big way, because it is dead end.
Wife (political bellweather) mentioned Badenoch. Said she hadn't liked what she'd heard but couldn't remember what it was she didn't like. She dug into her a bit and views were more mixed - but concerns about the idea of a party leader for whom religion is quite such a part of her hinterland.
Where does that come from, please?
Badenoch had a grandpa who was a Methodist Minister, and calls herself a "cultural Christian".
The most unusual thing is that her other grandfather converted from Islam to Christianity, and I make that in Nigeria in a time of inter-community wars. So potentially an eye-opener.
Unless it is being underplayed, that is not very much.
Have I missed something? Is your wife nervous about the type of religion often practised amongst black communities, which tends to be a touch more passionate (!) than eg CofE?
I think Mrs Cookie has got this one wrong.
Kemi is on record (easily googlable) as being agnostic. It’s her husband that is the catholic.
That's interesting. Maybe it was just the 'cultural Christian' thing- maybe that was inferred as 'Christian, and takes it seriously, not like these going-through-the-motions Anglicans'.
In my experience, "cultural Christian" is usually code for 'that is a significant part of the base for my value system, but I am not a core member of a church or have my political beliefs defined only by religion'. Other terms are also used.
For a public figure it is a useful difficult-to-nail-down phrase.
But usage of the phrase may well be different for someone from an African culture.
I thought it meant I grew up in a broadly Christian country, agree with six or seven of the Ten Commandments but don't actually believe in God.
Uber's IP SHOULD be in the technology they use but it isn't, because they went about this the wrong way. What they should have done is licensed the technology to TfL and the taxi operators. They didn't do that.
It is just the same as all of these fast delivery companies, no unique idea. No long term strategy, burn through cash.
There's a reason the big players are not in this game in a big way, because it is dead end.
Uber's unit economics in mature markets are excellent.
Uber's IP SHOULD be in the technology they use but it isn't, because they went about this the wrong way. What they should have done is licensed the technology to TfL and the taxi operators. They didn't do that.
It is just the same as all of these fast delivery companies, no unique idea. No long term strategy, burn through cash.
There's a reason the big players are not in this game in a big way, because it is dead end.
Uber's unit economics in mature markets are excellent.
Netflix, like Uber, and like a million businesses, are realising that investors don’t want to subsidise them indefinitely.
Janan Ganesh wrote a good piece on this.
Deliveroo etc are the same. We have all been living off investor’s money.
I used to take a lot of black cabs and although I recognise Uber forced them to up their game, I think there was a massive competition failure. It used to be called “dumping”.
Although true, I think there is also quite significant differences. Deliveroo has no USP or IP, all those delivery services can and are copied very easily and they have to spend crazy sums on advertising to keep getting customers to use their particular app. And it doesn't work as a business model for them or the restaurants, as so inefficient to get picking up one latte from McDonalds for some hung over 20 something in their flat.
Uber used investor money to undercut taxis, but they still have the huge problem that its doesn't actually work for the drivers when you factor in everything....so the turn over of drivers is crazy.
Netflix did have an advantage (and still does to some extent)....its isn't trivial to build a world wide streaming service to deliver 4k content and then also building the analytics is non-trivial. Disney knew they couldn't just do it, so they had to pay big bucks to purchase BamTech. Amazon bought Twitch.
The problem Netflix has is it lost key content, spaffed too much money at crap and not managed to create enough of its own sticky repeatable content. And now some bigger boys have come along to steal their customers.
Uber is a pyramid scheme.
Get lots of money from investors with claims you will one day become profitable with self driving cars.
Spend money on settling legal disputes.
Sell of self-driving car division.
Spend more money on settling legal disputes.
Move profitability target into the future.
They are a scam of a company.
I don't really agree. Terrible ethics and morals.
Deliveroo and alike are far worse....they couldn't even make any money during a sodding world wide pandemic when nobody could leave their homes for months on end, while restaurants have to pay crazy fees and the riders wages aren't very good.
If you wanted to test your business model for home food delivery you literally couldn't ask for a more favourable situation than the government paying people to stay at home only being able to leave for an hour a day.
Uber's IP SHOULD be in the technology they use but it isn't, because they went about this the wrong way. What they should have done is licensed the technology to TfL and the taxi operators. They didn't do that.
It is just the same as all of these fast delivery companies, no unique idea. No long term strategy, burn through cash.
There's a reason the big players are not in this game in a big way, because it is dead end.
Uber's unit economics in mature markets are excellent.
Then you wonder why it keeps losing so much money. And that is because it is fundamentally unsound.
Netflix, like Uber, and like a million businesses, are realising that investors don’t want to subsidise them indefinitely.
Janan Ganesh wrote a good piece on this.
Deliveroo etc are the same. We have all been living off investor’s money.
I used to take a lot of black cabs and although I recognise Uber forced them to up their game, I think there was a massive competition failure. It used to be called “dumping”.
Although true, I think there is also quite significant differences. Deliveroo has no USP or IP, all those delivery services can and are copied very easily and they have to spend crazy sums on advertising to keep getting customers to use their particular app. And it doesn't work as a business model for them or the restaurants, as so inefficient to get picking up one latte from McDonalds for some hung over 20 something in their flat.
Uber used investor money to undercut taxis, but they still have the huge problem that its doesn't actually work for the drivers when you factor in everything....so the turn over of drivers is crazy.
Netflix did have an advantage (and still does to some extent)....its isn't trivial to build a world wide streaming service to deliver 4k content and then also building the analytics is non-trivial. Disney knew they couldn't just do it, so they had to pay big bucks to purchase BamTech. Amazon bought Twitch.
The problem Netflix has is it lost key content, spaffed too much money at crap and not managed to create enough of its own sticky repeatable content. And now some bigger boys have come along to steal their customers.
Uber is a pyramid scheme.
Get lots of money from investors with claims you will one day become profitable with self driving cars.
Spend money on settling legal disputes.
Sell of self-driving car division.
Spend more money on settling legal disputes.
Move profitability target into the future.
They are a scam of a company.
I don't really agree. Terrible ethics and morals.
Deliveroo and alike are far worse....they couldn't even make any money during a sodding world wide pandemic when nobody could leave their homes for months on end, while restaurants have to pay crazy fees and the riders wages aren't very good.
If you wanted to test your business model for home food delivery you literally couldn't ask for a more favourable situation than the government paying people to stay at home only being able to leave for an hour a day.
Deliveroo is another pyramid scheme. All of these companies are.
Unless it is built on a solid foundation of attracting private sector investment and jobs, no other aspect of levelling up will ever succeed. Geographically, we need to recognise our economy has changed, and broaden the number of places that levelling up must help.
For a long time, government policy has been overly focussed on the inner cities.
But now our largest cities have been growing faster than the rest of the country. Levelling up is about Stoke and Bodmin as much as Birmingham, and Hartlepool as much as central Newcastle.
Rural and coastal areas can have the lowest earnings, lowest productivity, lowest school achievement and the most limited opportunities for young people. Levelling up has to be about helping these communities, not just the centres of our biggest cities.
If I become Prime Minister, I will build on the current levelling up agenda to deliver jobs and prosperity for the people of this country.
Uber's IP SHOULD be in the technology they use but it isn't, because they went about this the wrong way. What they should have done is licensed the technology to TfL and the taxi operators. They didn't do that.
It is just the same as all of these fast delivery companies, no unique idea. No long term strategy, burn through cash.
There's a reason the big players are not in this game in a big way, because it is dead end.
Uber's unit economics in mature markets are excellent.
Great. They can start paying social taxes then.
Uber is just a high tech minicab firm. In the old days, they'd call out on the radio "anyone available for a pick up near Fulham Broadway". Nowadays, it's Uber's systems that direct the taxis.
In most places, it's a duopoly between Uber and Lyft (with traditional taxi services a long way behind.)
Why should Uber/Lyft be treated any differently to a minicab firm? There is no obligation for any drivers to work for them on a given day and the drivers are responsible for their own vehicles. It is literally the very definition of self employed.
When the recession comes, these companies with fundamentally unstable and very uncertain business models are going to crash.
Invest in good companies, you have been warned.
Lots of "Tech" companies (I put that in air quotes) are massively overvalued. We have already seen it with for example WeWork, there will be plenty more. Too many have had silly valuation because they have said something or other about tech or ML or AI, when WeWork it was a office rental company, that was it. They weren't building Westworld's super bollox, I mean AI computer.
Unless it is built on a solid foundation of attracting private sector investment and jobs, no other aspect of levelling up will ever succeed. Geographically, we need to recognise our economy has changed, and broaden the number of places that levelling up must help.
For a long time, government policy has been overly focussed on the inner cities.
But now our largest cities have been growing faster than the rest of the country. Levelling up is about Stoke and Bodmin as much as Birmingham, and Hartlepool as much as central Newcastle.
Rural and coastal areas can have the lowest earnings, lowest productivity, lowest school achievement and the most limited opportunities for young people. Levelling up has to be about helping these communities, not just the centres of our biggest cities.
If I become Prime Minister, I will build on the current levelling up agenda to deliver jobs and prosperity for the people of this country.
Very rare for any politician to acknowledge rural communities. She is to be commended for that.
Uber's IP SHOULD be in the technology they use but it isn't, because they went about this the wrong way. What they should have done is licensed the technology to TfL and the taxi operators. They didn't do that.
It is just the same as all of these fast delivery companies, no unique idea. No long term strategy, burn through cash.
There's a reason the big players are not in this game in a big way, because it is dead end.
Uber's unit economics in mature markets are excellent.
Then you wonder why it keeps losing so much money. And that is because it is fundamentally unsound.
In the first quarter of this year their Mobility Division did $618m of EBITDA. They only made a net loss because they wrote down the value of a bunch of (stupid) investments they made in other firms.
Unless it is built on a solid foundation of attracting private sector investment and jobs, no other aspect of levelling up will ever succeed. Geographically, we need to recognise our economy has changed, and broaden the number of places that levelling up must help.
For a long time, government policy has been overly focussed on the inner cities.
But now our largest cities have been growing faster than the rest of the country. Levelling up is about Stoke and Bodmin as much as Birmingham, and Hartlepool as much as central Newcastle.
Rural and coastal areas can have the lowest earnings, lowest productivity, lowest school achievement and the most limited opportunities for young people. Levelling up has to be about helping these communities, not just the centres of our biggest cities.
If I become Prime Minister, I will build on the current levelling up agenda to deliver jobs and prosperity for the people of this country.
Very rare for any politician to acknowledge rural communities. She is to be commended for that.
She's broadly right in her analysis too.
It is worth remembering, though, that rural areas are poorer in every country. There's not a lot of margin (normally) in growing stuff.
Surprised at Hunt going to Sunak, I had him down as Mordaunt. Funny.
Of course Hunt doesn't have many votes to swing, and they may not all follow him, but it will be good news for Sunak on a day dominated by Mordaunt until now. This is still all to play for and too close to call after today, there's plausible paths now for four different people to make the final 2.
What there doesn't seem to be a plausible path towards is an acclamation. Today's showing was not remotely good enough for that.
Obviously, there is plenty of time for this to change as eliminated candidates' backers redistribute themselves but it must be concerning if none of those who have worked closely with Mordaunt endorse her for the top job.
When the recession comes, these companies with fundamentally unstable and very uncertain business models are going to crash.
Invest in good companies, you have been warned.
Lots of "Tech" companies (I put that in air quotes) are massively overvalued. We have already seen it with for example WeWork, there will be plenty more. Too many have had silly valuation because they have said something or other about tech or ML or AI, when WeWork it was a office rental company, that was it. They weren't building Westworld's super bollox, I mean AI computer.
AI has become such a buzzword it means nothing. Actual AI has been an absolute catastrophic failure in terms of the consumer, the best Google has managed is the Google voice.
Uber has no USP, it's why Bolt has basically stolen their app.
Deliveroo has no USP, it's why - ironically - Uber has basically stolen their app.
Gorillaz has no USP, it's why FreshMarket or whatever it's called has basically stolen their app.
These companies will not and cannot survive, the cash is going to run out.
Uber's IP SHOULD be in the technology they use but it isn't, because they went about this the wrong way. What they should have done is licensed the technology to TfL and the taxi operators. They didn't do that.
It is just the same as all of these fast delivery companies, no unique idea. No long term strategy, burn through cash.
There's a reason the big players are not in this game in a big way, because it is dead end.
Uber's unit economics in mature markets are excellent.
Great. They can start paying social taxes then.
Uber is just a high tech minicab firm. In the old days, they'd call out on the radio "anyone available for a pick up near Fulham Broadway". Nowadays, it's Uber's systems that direct the taxis.
In most places, it's a duopoly between Uber and Lyft (with traditional taxi services a long way behind.)
Why should Uber/Lyft be treated any differently to a minicab firm? There is no obligation for any drivers to work for them on a given day and the drivers are responsible for their own vehicles. It is literally the very definition of self employed.
1. They were (are?) subsidised to such an extent they were (are?) anti-competitive
2. The technology (a brilliant invention) tends to monopoly (or duopoly).
3. I believe most of the drivers are effectively employed rather than self-employed by a fair adjudication.
Unless it is built on a solid foundation of attracting private sector investment and jobs, no other aspect of levelling up will ever succeed. Geographically, we need to recognise our economy has changed, and broaden the number of places that levelling up must help.
For a long time, government policy has been overly focussed on the inner cities.
But now our largest cities have been growing faster than the rest of the country. Levelling up is about Stoke and Bodmin as much as Birmingham, and Hartlepool as much as central Newcastle.
Rural and coastal areas can have the lowest earnings, lowest productivity, lowest school achievement and the most limited opportunities for young people. Levelling up has to be about helping these communities, not just the centres of our biggest cities.
If I become Prime Minister, I will build on the current levelling up agenda to deliver jobs and prosperity for the people of this country.
Very rare for any politician to acknowledge rural communities. She is to be commended for that.
She's broadly right in her analysis too.
It is worth remembering, though, that rural areas are poorer in every country. There's not a lot of margin (normally) in growing stuff.
I think its often over looked particularly in the UK because rich people have their second homes in the countryside or seaside....so they pop to Cornwall, stay in their very nice house by the ocean and eat the lovely restaurant by the sea, its all very idyllic, and not exactly Tower Hamlets or Toxteth, but little understanding that there are actually few good jobs, the bright kids move away and of course the housing costs going up from second home ownership etc.
When the recession comes, these companies with fundamentally unstable and very uncertain business models are going to crash.
Invest in good companies, you have been warned.
Lots of "Tech" companies (I put that in air quotes) are massively overvalued. We have already seen it with for example WeWork, there will be plenty more. Too many have had silly valuation because they have said something or other about tech or ML or AI, when WeWork it was a office rental company, that was it. They weren't building Westworld's super bollox, I mean AI computer.
AI has become such a buzzword it means nothing. Actual AI has been an absolute catastrophic failure in terms of the consumer, the best Google has managed is the Google voice.
Uber has no USP, it's why Bolt has basically stolen their app.
Deliveroo has no USP, it's why - ironically - Uber has basically stolen their app.
Gorillaz has no USP, it's why FreshMarket or whatever it's called has basically stolen their app.
These companies will not and cannot survive, the cash is going to run out.
There's nothing unique about the London Stock Exchange or eBay, except that those are the places where there is liquidity. Anyone can create a YouTube, because video hosting is not that complicated.
Having actual users is a big deal. Uber has the customers, and it has the drivers. It is actually pretty profitable if you look at their core taxi business. And no-one can compete with them, because competing with them means spending a fortune to get users, who won't be on the platform unless there are drivers... and why would there be drivers when all the customers are on Uber.
When the recession comes, these companies with fundamentally unstable and very uncertain business models are going to crash.
Invest in good companies, you have been warned.
Lots of "Tech" companies (I put that in air quotes) are massively overvalued. We have already seen it with for example WeWork, there will be plenty more. Too many have had silly valuation because they have said something or other about tech or ML or AI, when WeWork it was a office rental company, that was it. They weren't building Westworld's super bollox, I mean AI computer.
AI has become such a buzzword it means nothing. Actual AI has been an absolute catastrophic failure in terms of the consumer, the best Google has managed is the Google voice.
Uber has no USP, it's why Bolt has basically stolen their app.
Deliveroo has no USP, it's why - ironically - Uber has basically stolen their app.
Gorillaz has no USP, it's why FreshMarket or whatever it's called has basically stolen their app.
These companies will not and cannot survive, the cash is going to run out.
There's nothing unique about the London Stock Exchange or eBay, except that those are the places where there is liquidity. Anyone can create a YouTube, because video hosting is not that complicated.
Having actual users is a big deal. Uber has the customers, and it has the drivers. It is actually pretty profitable if you look at their core taxi business. And no-one can compete with them, because competing with them means spending a fortune to get users, who won't be on the platform unless there are drivers... and why would there be drivers when all the customers are on Uber.
Uber isn't going to have customers much longer as they keep jacking up the prices, because the discounted rates are not enough to become profitable.
Maybe they will make it in other markets but in London certainly, they are going down the toilet. And that is supposed to be a key market for them.
They can be credited with introducing technology to an industry that badly needed it - but they will not be around in twenty years time, I am almost certain of it.
When the recession comes, these companies with fundamentally unstable and very uncertain business models are going to crash.
Invest in good companies, you have been warned.
Being the world's leading transportation networking company sounds pretty good to me. Uber's only valued at $44bn. I think I'll buy some.
It's valued at $44bn on hype. All of these companies are.
Uber did almost $26bn of bookings last quarter - that's close to $100bn a year. And it's still growing pretty rapidly. I think that looks pretty attractive.
When the recession comes, these companies with fundamentally unstable and very uncertain business models are going to crash.
Invest in good companies, you have been warned.
Lots of "Tech" companies (I put that in air quotes) are massively overvalued. We have already seen it with for example WeWork, there will be plenty more. Too many have had silly valuation because they have said something or other about tech or ML or AI, when WeWork it was a office rental company, that was it. They weren't building Westworld's super bollox, I mean AI computer.
AI has become such a buzzword it means nothing. Actual AI has been an absolute catastrophic failure in terms of the consumer, the best Google has managed is the Google voice.
Uber has no USP, it's why Bolt has basically stolen their app.
Deliveroo has no USP, it's why - ironically - Uber has basically stolen their app.
Gorillaz has no USP, it's why FreshMarket or whatever it's called has basically stolen their app.
These companies will not and cannot survive, the cash is going to run out.
There's nothing unique about the London Stock Exchange or eBay, except that those are the places where there is liquidity. Anyone can create a YouTube, because video hosting is not that complicated.
Having actual users is a big deal. Uber has the customers, and it has the drivers. It is actually pretty profitable if you look at their core taxi business. And no-one can compete with them, because competing with them means spending a fortune to get users, who won't be on the platform unless there are drivers... and why would there be drivers when all the customers are on Uber.
Uber isn't going to have customers much longer as they keep jacking up the prices, because the discounted rates are not enough to become profitable.
Maybe they will make it in other markets but in London certainly, they are going down the toilet. And that is supposed to be a key market for them.
They can be credited with introducing technology to an industry that badly needed it - but they will not be around in twenty years time, I am almost certain of it.
They are headed the same way as Netflix. Down.
Good for you.
I didn't own their shares this morning, but you've convinced me to buy some.
If levelling up means Bodmin is as important as Birmingham, we are fucked. We can’t compete with the USA, France, Germany and the Netherlands from Bodmin, as lovely as it no doubt is.
When the recession comes, these companies with fundamentally unstable and very uncertain business models are going to crash.
Invest in good companies, you have been warned.
Lots of "Tech" companies (I put that in air quotes) are massively overvalued. We have already seen it with for example WeWork, there will be plenty more. Too many have had silly valuation because they have said something or other about tech or ML or AI, when WeWork it was a office rental company, that was it. They weren't building Westworld's super bollox, I mean AI computer.
AI has become such a buzzword it means nothing. Actual AI has been an absolute catastrophic failure in terms of the consumer, the best Google has managed is the Google voice.
Uber has no USP, it's why Bolt has basically stolen their app.
Deliveroo has no USP, it's why - ironically - Uber has basically stolen their app.
Gorillaz has no USP, it's why FreshMarket or whatever it's called has basically stolen their app.
These companies will not and cannot survive, the cash is going to run out.
There's nothing unique about the London Stock Exchange or eBay, except that those are the places where there is liquidity. Anyone can create a YouTube, because video hosting is not that complicated.
Having actual users is a big deal. Uber has the customers, and it has the drivers. It is actually pretty profitable if you look at their core taxi business. And no-one can compete with them, because competing with them means spending a fortune to get users, who won't be on the platform unless there are drivers... and why would there be drivers when all the customers are on Uber.
YouTube actually makes money, it is a profitable business. Deliveroo is not. Uber is not. Gorillaz is not.
These companies are valued entirely on hype, "YOLO" investing and debt. Huge amounts of debt.
Uber has nothing. Nearly all Uber drivers are on Bolt, Freenow. People will go to the app with the cheapest rates, that is not Uber. Uber has no customer loyalty.
They made a big mistake in not licensing the technology.
Uber's IP SHOULD be in the technology they use but it isn't, because they went about this the wrong way. What they should have done is licensed the technology to TfL and the taxi operators. They didn't do that.
It is just the same as all of these fast delivery companies, no unique idea. No long term strategy, burn through cash.
There's a reason the big players are not in this game in a big way, because it is dead end.
Uber's unit economics in mature markets are excellent.
Great. They can start paying social taxes then.
Uber is just a high tech minicab firm. In the old days, they'd call out on the radio "anyone available for a pick up near Fulham Broadway". Nowadays, it's Uber's systems that direct the taxis.
In most places, it's a duopoly between Uber and Lyft (with traditional taxi services a long way behind.)
Why should Uber/Lyft be treated any differently to a minicab firm? There is no obligation for any drivers to work for them on a given day and the drivers are responsible for their own vehicles. It is literally the very definition of self employed.
1. They were (are?) subsidised to such an extent they were (are?) anti-competitive
2. The technology (a brilliant invention) tends to monopoly (or duopoly).
3. I believe most of the drivers are effectively employed rather than self-employed by a fair adjudication.
So, I have you saying that Uber is an effective monopoly, while I have @CorrectHorseBattery telling me that it's going out of business and is going to have no customers soon...
When the recession comes, these companies with fundamentally unstable and very uncertain business models are going to crash.
Invest in good companies, you have been warned.
Lots of "Tech" companies (I put that in air quotes) are massively overvalued. We have already seen it with for example WeWork, there will be plenty more. Too many have had silly valuation because they have said something or other about tech or ML or AI, when WeWork it was a office rental company, that was it. They weren't building Westworld's super bollox, I mean AI computer.
AI has become such a buzzword it means nothing. Actual AI has been an absolute catastrophic failure in terms of the consumer, the best Google has managed is the Google voice.
Uber has no USP, it's why Bolt has basically stolen their app.
Deliveroo has no USP, it's why - ironically - Uber has basically stolen their app.
Gorillaz has no USP, it's why FreshMarket or whatever it's called has basically stolen their app.
These companies will not and cannot survive, the cash is going to run out.
There's nothing unique about the London Stock Exchange or eBay, except that those are the places where there is liquidity. Anyone can create a YouTube, because video hosting is not that complicated.
Having actual users is a big deal. Uber has the customers, and it has the drivers. It is actually pretty profitable if you look at their core taxi business. And no-one can compete with them, because competing with them means spending a fortune to get users, who won't be on the platform unless there are drivers... and why would there be drivers when all the customers are on Uber.
Uber isn't going to have customers much longer as they keep jacking up the prices, because the discounted rates are not enough to become profitable.
Maybe they will make it in other markets but in London certainly, they are going down the toilet. And that is supposed to be a key market for them.
They can be credited with introducing technology to an industry that badly needed it - but they will not be around in twenty years time, I am almost certain of it.
They are headed the same way as Netflix. Down.
Good for you.
I didn't own their shares this morning, but you've convinced me to buy some.
I'll invest in companies I believe in, I would hope you would do the same.
I remember when people said Netflix would grow forever, that it had customer loyalty because it was Netflix. They were wrong then and they will be wrong again.
When the recession comes, these companies with fundamentally unstable and very uncertain business models are going to crash.
Invest in good companies, you have been warned.
Lots of "Tech" companies (I put that in air quotes) are massively overvalued. We have already seen it with for example WeWork, there will be plenty more. Too many have had silly valuation because they have said something or other about tech or ML or AI, when WeWork it was a office rental company, that was it. They weren't building Westworld's super bollox, I mean AI computer.
AI has become such a buzzword it means nothing. Actual AI has been an absolute catastrophic failure in terms of the consumer, the best Google has managed is the Google voice.
Uber has no USP, it's why Bolt has basically stolen their app.
Deliveroo has no USP, it's why - ironically - Uber has basically stolen their app.
Gorillaz has no USP, it's why FreshMarket or whatever it's called has basically stolen their app.
These companies will not and cannot survive, the cash is going to run out.
There's nothing unique about the London Stock Exchange or eBay, except that those are the places where there is liquidity. Anyone can create a YouTube, because video hosting is not that complicated.
Having actual users is a big deal. Uber has the customers, and it has the drivers. It is actually pretty profitable if you look at their core taxi business. And no-one can compete with them, because competing with them means spending a fortune to get users, who won't be on the platform unless there are drivers... and why would there be drivers when all the customers are on Uber.
YouTube actually makes money, it is a profitable business. Deliveroo is not. Uber is not. Gorillaz is not.
These companies are valued entirely on hype, "YOLO" investing and debt. Huge amounts of debt.
Uber has nothing. Nearly all Uber drivers are on Bolt, Freenow. People will go to the app with the cheapest rates, that is not Uber. Uber has no customer loyalty.
They made a big mistake in not licensing the technology.
No, they really didn't.
The money is in being the exchange, not in selling the technology for the exchange. Liquidity is Uber's USP.
Uber's IP SHOULD be in the technology they use but it isn't, because they went about this the wrong way. What they should have done is licensed the technology to TfL and the taxi operators. They didn't do that.
It is just the same as all of these fast delivery companies, no unique idea. No long term strategy, burn through cash.
There's a reason the big players are not in this game in a big way, because it is dead end.
Uber's unit economics in mature markets are excellent.
Great. They can start paying social taxes then.
Uber is just a high tech minicab firm. In the old days, they'd call out on the radio "anyone available for a pick up near Fulham Broadway". Nowadays, it's Uber's systems that direct the taxis.
In most places, it's a duopoly between Uber and Lyft (with traditional taxi services a long way behind.)
Why should Uber/Lyft be treated any differently to a minicab firm? There is no obligation for any drivers to work for them on a given day and the drivers are responsible for their own vehicles. It is literally the very definition of self employed.
1. They were (are?) subsidised to such an extent they were (are?) anti-competitive
2. The technology (a brilliant invention) tends to monopoly (or duopoly).
3. I believe most of the drivers are effectively employed rather than self-employed by a fair adjudication.
So, I have you saying that Uber is an effective monopoly, while I have @CorrectHorseBattery telling me that it's going out of business and is going to have no customers soon...
I don't think you can both be right.
That’s because we are separate posters. We’re not working in alliance!
When the recession comes, these companies with fundamentally unstable and very uncertain business models are going to crash.
Invest in good companies, you have been warned.
Lots of "Tech" companies (I put that in air quotes) are massively overvalued. We have already seen it with for example WeWork, there will be plenty more. Too many have had silly valuation because they have said something or other about tech or ML or AI, when WeWork it was a office rental company, that was it. They weren't building Westworld's super bollox, I mean AI computer.
AI has become such a buzzword it means nothing. Actual AI has been an absolute catastrophic failure in terms of the consumer, the best Google has managed is the Google voice.
Uber has no USP, it's why Bolt has basically stolen their app.
Deliveroo has no USP, it's why - ironically - Uber has basically stolen their app.
Gorillaz has no USP, it's why FreshMarket or whatever it's called has basically stolen their app.
These companies will not and cannot survive, the cash is going to run out.
There's nothing unique about the London Stock Exchange or eBay, except that those are the places where there is liquidity. Anyone can create a YouTube, because video hosting is not that complicated.
Having actual users is a big deal. Uber has the customers, and it has the drivers. It is actually pretty profitable if you look at their core taxi business. And no-one can compete with them, because competing with them means spending a fortune to get users, who won't be on the platform unless there are drivers... and why would there be drivers when all the customers are on Uber.
YouTube actually makes money, it is a profitable business. Deliveroo is not. Uber is not. Gorillaz is not.
These companies are valued entirely on hype, "YOLO" investing and debt. Huge amounts of debt.
Uber has nothing. Nearly all Uber drivers are on Bolt, Freenow. People will go to the app with the cheapest rates, that is not Uber. Uber has no customer loyalty.
They made a big mistake in not licensing the technology.
No, they really didn't.
The money is in being the exchange, not in selling the technology for the exchange. Liquidity is Uber's USP.
So many drivers they cancel on me five times. My rating is 4.95 stars.
When the recession comes, these companies with fundamentally unstable and very uncertain business models are going to crash.
Invest in good companies, you have been warned.
Lots of "Tech" companies (I put that in air quotes) are massively overvalued. We have already seen it with for example WeWork, there will be plenty more. Too many have had silly valuation because they have said something or other about tech or ML or AI, when WeWork it was a office rental company, that was it. They weren't building Westworld's super bollox, I mean AI computer.
AI has become such a buzzword it means nothing. Actual AI has been an absolute catastrophic failure in terms of the consumer, the best Google has managed is the Google voice.
Uber has no USP, it's why Bolt has basically stolen their app.
Deliveroo has no USP, it's why - ironically - Uber has basically stolen their app.
Gorillaz has no USP, it's why FreshMarket or whatever it's called has basically stolen their app.
These companies will not and cannot survive, the cash is going to run out.
Again I don't really agree with the AI comment. I think it is what people want to mean as AI. Its thrown around very loosely and people take it to mean general artificial intelligence. In reality a lot of the time, they really talking about machine learning system and there is a huge amount of successful profitable businesses built on the back of having extremely good propriety machine learning tech.
The problem is lots of businesses have thrown it around as a pitch, we will do x and we will do it better than existing market leader because....AI...but they haven't built it (and not necessarily any idea how to build it)...something something big data, that will be our competitive advantage.
Uber's IP SHOULD be in the technology they use but it isn't, because they went about this the wrong way. What they should have done is licensed the technology to TfL and the taxi operators. They didn't do that.
It is just the same as all of these fast delivery companies, no unique idea. No long term strategy, burn through cash.
There's a reason the big players are not in this game in a big way, because it is dead end.
Uber's unit economics in mature markets are excellent.
Great. They can start paying social taxes then.
Uber is just a high tech minicab firm. In the old days, they'd call out on the radio "anyone available for a pick up near Fulham Broadway". Nowadays, it's Uber's systems that direct the taxis.
In most places, it's a duopoly between Uber and Lyft (with traditional taxi services a long way behind.)
Why should Uber/Lyft be treated any differently to a minicab firm? There is no obligation for any drivers to work for them on a given day and the drivers are responsible for their own vehicles. It is literally the very definition of self employed.
1. They were (are?) subsidised to such an extent they were (are?) anti-competitive
2. The technology (a brilliant invention) tends to monopoly (or duopoly).
3. I believe most of the drivers are effectively employed rather than self-employed by a fair adjudication.
So, I have you saying that Uber is an effective monopoly, while I have @CorrectHorseBattery telling me that it's going out of business and is going to have no customers soon...
I don't think you can both be right.
That’s because we are separate posters. We’re not working in alliance!
Uber was able to expand because it lobbied Governments privately to avoid regulations, it got there first and offered discounted rates to grow the customer base.
The problem is that was only supposed to be temporary, they were intending to transition to driverless cars as staffing costs were the main problem. That business failed spectacularly.
When the recession comes, these companies with fundamentally unstable and very uncertain business models are going to crash.
Invest in good companies, you have been warned.
Lots of "Tech" companies (I put that in air quotes) are massively overvalued. We have already seen it with for example WeWork, there will be plenty more. Too many have had silly valuation because they have said something or other about tech or ML or AI, when WeWork it was a office rental company, that was it. They weren't building Westworld's super bollox, I mean AI computer.
AI has become such a buzzword it means nothing. Actual AI has been an absolute catastrophic failure in terms of the consumer, the best Google has managed is the Google voice.
Uber has no USP, it's why Bolt has basically stolen their app.
Deliveroo has no USP, it's why - ironically - Uber has basically stolen their app.
Gorillaz has no USP, it's why FreshMarket or whatever it's called has basically stolen their app.
These companies will not and cannot survive, the cash is going to run out.
Again I don't really agree with the AI comment. I think it is what people want to mean as AI. Its thrown around very loosely and people take it to mean general artificial intelligence. In reality a lot of the time, they really talking about machine learning system and there is a huge amount of successful profitable businesses built on the back of having extremely good propriety machine learning tech.
The problem is lots of businesses have thrown it around as a pitch, we will do x and we will do it better than existing market leader because....AI...but they haven't built it (and not necessarily any idea how to build it)...something something big data, that will be our competitive advantage.
^ Or more accurately, people say AI when they mean machine learning. AI is a buzzword used by marketing teams, even where there is no intelligence or machine learning at all.
My last two companies have done this, fair enough it works brilliantly as a marketing tool. And it means nothing.
When the recession comes, these companies with fundamentally unstable and very uncertain business models are going to crash.
Invest in good companies, you have been warned.
Lots of "Tech" companies (I put that in air quotes) are massively overvalued. We have already seen it with for example WeWork, there will be plenty more. Too many have had silly valuation because they have said something or other about tech or ML or AI, when WeWork it was a office rental company, that was it. They weren't building Westworld's super bollox, I mean AI computer.
AI has become such a buzzword it means nothing. Actual AI has been an absolute catastrophic failure in terms of the consumer, the best Google has managed is the Google voice.
Uber has no USP, it's why Bolt has basically stolen their app.
Deliveroo has no USP, it's why - ironically - Uber has basically stolen their app.
Gorillaz has no USP, it's why FreshMarket or whatever it's called has basically stolen their app.
These companies will not and cannot survive, the cash is going to run out.
There's nothing unique about the London Stock Exchange or eBay, except that those are the places where there is liquidity. Anyone can create a YouTube, because video hosting is not that complicated.
Having actual users is a big deal. Uber has the customers, and it has the drivers. It is actually pretty profitable if you look at their core taxi business. And no-one can compete with them, because competing with them means spending a fortune to get users, who won't be on the platform unless there are drivers... and why would there be drivers when all the customers are on Uber.
Uber isn't going to have customers much longer as they keep jacking up the prices, because the discounted rates are not enough to become profitable.
Maybe they will make it in other markets but in London certainly, they are going down the toilet. And that is supposed to be a key market for them.
They can be credited with introducing technology to an industry that badly needed it - but they will not be around in twenty years time, I am almost certain of it.
They are headed the same way as Netflix. Down.
Good for you.
I didn't own their shares this morning, but you've convinced me to buy some.
I'll invest in companies I believe in, I would hope you would do the same.
I remember when people said Netflix would grow forever, that it had customer loyalty because it was Netflix. They were wrong then and they will be wrong again.
There's a fundamental difference between Netflix and Uber, though.
Netflix was dependent on renting content from Disney, etc., and then selling it at a mark up. Disney and co realised that there was more money to be made by creating their own Netflix. (As someone put it to me back in 2014: can Netflix become HBO faster than HBO becomes Netflix?)
I don't think that's true of Uber.
They have the liquidity. As @Gardenwalker posits, it's a pseudo-monopoly in many places. Yesterday when I landed at LAX, I got my phone out and ordered an Uber. Why? Because there is a guarantee of quality that comes with driver rating, and there is lots of liquidity (i.e. drivers).
Food delivery is more difficult: there's much more that can go wrong, because you're dependent on restaurants and drivers; and the restaurants themselves have more power relative to the transportation company. I don't think food delivery becomes a monopoly/duopoly, while I think it's pretty clear that minicab-esque services do.
^ Or more accurately, people say AI when they mean machine learning. AI is a buzzword used by marketing teams, even where there is no intelligence or machine learning at all.
My last two companies have done this, fair enough it works brilliantly as a marketing tool. And it means nothing.
Yes, but I don't agree with in the broadest term in the way normal people talk about it, AI is restricted to say Google Voice. There are lots of companies who wider investors / the world would say utilise AI to achieve things and are profitable because of it.
However, there are also lots of companies who use it as a gimmick which don't even have any real machine learning capabilities.
Uber's IP SHOULD be in the technology they use but it isn't, because they went about this the wrong way. What they should have done is licensed the technology to TfL and the taxi operators. They didn't do that.
It is just the same as all of these fast delivery companies, no unique idea. No long term strategy, burn through cash.
There's a reason the big players are not in this game in a big way, because it is dead end.
Uber's unit economics in mature markets are excellent.
Great. They can start paying social taxes then.
Uber is just a high tech minicab firm. In the old days, they'd call out on the radio "anyone available for a pick up near Fulham Broadway". Nowadays, it's Uber's systems that direct the taxis.
In most places, it's a duopoly between Uber and Lyft (with traditional taxi services a long way behind.)
Why should Uber/Lyft be treated any differently to a minicab firm? There is no obligation for any drivers to work for them on a given day and the drivers are responsible for their own vehicles. It is literally the very definition of self employed.
1. They were (are?) subsidised to such an extent they were (are?) anti-competitive
2. The technology (a brilliant invention) tends to monopoly (or duopoly).
3. I believe most of the drivers are effectively employed rather than self-employed by a fair adjudication.
So, I have you saying that Uber is an effective monopoly, while I have @CorrectHorseBattery telling me that it's going out of business and is going to have no customers soon...
I don't think you can both be right.
That’s because we are separate posters. We’re not working in alliance!
Uber was able to expand because it lobbied Governments privately to avoid regulations, it got there first and offered discounted rates to grow the customer base.
The problem is that was only supposed to be temporary, they were intending to transition to driverless cars as staffing costs were the main problem. That business failed spectacularly.
"it got there first and offered discounted rates to grow the customer base"
You mean, "it was willing to take a smaller cut than traditional minicab firms"?
It still does, by the way. If you get an Addison Lee and pay £20, the driver gets £6 or 7. If you get an Uber he gets £13-15. It's why Addison Lee has essentially disappeared, while Uber is ubiquitous.
^ Or more accurately, people say AI when they mean machine learning. AI is a buzzword used by marketing teams, even where there is no intelligence or machine learning at all.
My last two companies have done this, fair enough it works brilliantly as a marketing tool. And it means nothing.
Yes, but I don't agree with in the broadest term in the way normal people talk, AI is restricted to say Google Voice. There are lots of companies who wider investors / the world would say utilise AI to achieve things and are profitable because of it.
However, there are also lots of companies who use it as a gimmick.
I guess my point is that AI is mostly a hyped marketing tool.
Google Voice or whatever it is called these days is actually pretty useless for anything beyond quite simple commands. It's entirely reactive, any proactive features it does have are so limited as to be useless. It's essentially still a gimmick feature, it it still faster to do the operation manually (or it is the same speed).
^ Or more accurately, people say AI when they mean machine learning. AI is a buzzword used by marketing teams, even where there is no intelligence or machine learning at all.
My last two companies have done this, fair enough it works brilliantly as a marketing tool. And it means nothing.
Yes, but I don't agree with in the broadest term in the way normal people talk, AI is restricted to say Google Voice. There are lots of companies who wider investors / the world would say utilise AI to achieve things and are profitable because of it.
However, there are also lots of companies who use it as a gimmick.
I guess my point is that AI is mostly a hyped marketing tool.
Google Voice or whatever it is called these days is actually pretty useless for anything beyond quite simple commands. It's entirely reactive, any proactive features it does have are so limited as to be useless. It's essentially still a gimmick feature, it it still faster to do the operation manually (or it is the same speed).
Uber's IP SHOULD be in the technology they use but it isn't, because they went about this the wrong way. What they should have done is licensed the technology to TfL and the taxi operators. They didn't do that.
It is just the same as all of these fast delivery companies, no unique idea. No long term strategy, burn through cash.
There's a reason the big players are not in this game in a big way, because it is dead end.
Uber's unit economics in mature markets are excellent.
Great. They can start paying social taxes then.
Uber is just a high tech minicab firm. In the old days, they'd call out on the radio "anyone available for a pick up near Fulham Broadway". Nowadays, it's Uber's systems that direct the taxis.
In most places, it's a duopoly between Uber and Lyft (with traditional taxi services a long way behind.)
Why should Uber/Lyft be treated any differently to a minicab firm? There is no obligation for any drivers to work for them on a given day and the drivers are responsible for their own vehicles. It is literally the very definition of self employed.
1. They were (are?) subsidised to such an extent they were (are?) anti-competitive
2. The technology (a brilliant invention) tends to monopoly (or duopoly).
3. I believe most of the drivers are effectively employed rather than self-employed by a fair adjudication.
So, I have you saying that Uber is an effective monopoly, while I have @CorrectHorseBattery telling me that it's going out of business and is going to have no customers soon...
I don't think you can both be right.
That’s because we are separate posters. We’re not working in alliance!
Uber was able to expand because it lobbied Governments privately to avoid regulations, it got there first and offered discounted rates to grow the customer base.
The problem is that was only supposed to be temporary, they were intending to transition to driverless cars as staffing costs were the main problem. That business failed spectacularly.
"it got there first and offered discounted rates to grow the customer base"
You mean, "it was willing to take a smaller cut than traditional minicab firms"?
It still does, by the way. If you get an Addison Lee and pay £20, the driver gets £6 or 7. If you get an Uber he gets £13-15. It's why Addison Lee has essentially disappeared, while Uber is ubiquitous.
What you are saying agrees with me, the cut they take means they will never be able to be profitable. And that is why they bet so big on driverless vehicles to eliminate it.
They as far as I could understand it, have actually increased the cut they take, which has meant many drivers have left and gone to Bolt who let them keep more of it. Indeed there is/was an Uber strike over this issue because of the cost of petrol/diesel not being reflected in the cut so drivers end up not being able to make any money at all.
I agree the technology is fantastic - but that is where the money should have been. What they have now is not unique in any way, is easily copyable and the customer base is not inclined to stay because of the rates.
It is like Netflix, because Netflix believed they could keep jacking up the prices and people would stay. It took a while but then people started to leave.
This is what is happening with Uber right now in London.
Uber's IP SHOULD be in the technology they use but it isn't, because they went about this the wrong way. What they should have done is licensed the technology to TfL and the taxi operators. They didn't do that.
It is just the same as all of these fast delivery companies, no unique idea. No long term strategy, burn through cash.
There's a reason the big players are not in this game in a big way, because it is dead end.
Uber's unit economics in mature markets are excellent.
Great. They can start paying social taxes then.
Uber is just a high tech minicab firm. In the old days, they'd call out on the radio "anyone available for a pick up near Fulham Broadway". Nowadays, it's Uber's systems that direct the taxis.
In most places, it's a duopoly between Uber and Lyft (with traditional taxi services a long way behind.)
Why should Uber/Lyft be treated any differently to a minicab firm? There is no obligation for any drivers to work for them on a given day and the drivers are responsible for their own vehicles. It is literally the very definition of self employed.
1. They were (are?) subsidised to such an extent they were (are?) anti-competitive
2. The technology (a brilliant invention) tends to monopoly (or duopoly).
3. I believe most of the drivers are effectively employed rather than self-employed by a fair adjudication.
So, I have you saying that Uber is an effective monopoly, while I have @CorrectHorseBattery telling me that it's going out of business and is going to have no customers soon...
I don't think you can both be right.
That’s because we are separate posters. We’re not working in alliance!
Uber was able to expand because it lobbied Governments privately to avoid regulations, it got there first and offered discounted rates to grow the customer base.
The problem is that was only supposed to be temporary, they were intending to transition to driverless cars as staffing costs were the main problem. That business failed spectacularly.
"it got there first and offered discounted rates to grow the customer base"
You mean, "it was willing to take a smaller cut than traditional minicab firms"?
It still does, by the way. If you get an Addison Lee and pay £20, the driver gets £6 or 7. If you get an Uber he gets £13-15. It's why Addison Lee has essentially disappeared, while Uber is ubiquitous.
What you are saying agrees with me, the cut they take means they will never be able to be profitable. And that is why they bet so big on driverless vehicles to eliminate it.
They as far as I could understand it, have actually increased the cut they take, which has meant many drivers have left and gone to Bolt who let them keep more of it. Indeed there is/was an Uber strike over this issue because of the cost of petrol/diesel not being reflected in the cut so drivers end up not being able to make any money at all.
I agree the technology is fantastic - but that is where the money should have been. What they have now is not unique in any way, is easily copyable and the customer base is not inclined to stay because of the rates.
It is like Netflix, because Netflix believed they could keep jacking up the prices and people would stay. It took a while but then people started to leave.
This is what is happening with Uber right now in London.
If levelling up means Bodmin is as important as Birmingham, we are fucked. We can’t compete with the USA, France, Germany and the Netherlands from Bodmin, as lovely as it no doubt is.
They’re complementary. Focusing on the issues facing Bodmin doesn’t preclude a Canary Wharf style project somewhere else.
Uber's IP SHOULD be in the technology they use but it isn't, because they went about this the wrong way. What they should have done is licensed the technology to TfL and the taxi operators. They didn't do that.
It is just the same as all of these fast delivery companies, no unique idea. No long term strategy, burn through cash.
There's a reason the big players are not in this game in a big way, because it is dead end.
Uber's unit economics in mature markets are excellent.
Great. They can start paying social taxes then.
Uber is just a high tech minicab firm. In the old days, they'd call out on the radio "anyone available for a pick up near Fulham Broadway". Nowadays, it's Uber's systems that direct the taxis.
In most places, it's a duopoly between Uber and Lyft (with traditional taxi services a long way behind.)
Why should Uber/Lyft be treated any differently to a minicab firm? There is no obligation for any drivers to work for them on a given day and the drivers are responsible for their own vehicles. It is literally the very definition of self employed.
1. They were (are?) subsidised to such an extent they were (are?) anti-competitive
2. The technology (a brilliant invention) tends to monopoly (or duopoly).
3. I believe most of the drivers are effectively employed rather than self-employed by a fair adjudication.
So, I have you saying that Uber is an effective monopoly, while I have @CorrectHorseBattery telling me that it's going out of business and is going to have no customers soon...
I don't think you can both be right.
That’s because we are separate posters. We’re not working in alliance!
Uber was able to expand because it lobbied Governments privately to avoid regulations, it got there first and offered discounted rates to grow the customer base.
The problem is that was only supposed to be temporary, they were intending to transition to driverless cars as staffing costs were the main problem. That business failed spectacularly.
"it got there first and offered discounted rates to grow the customer base"
You mean, "it was willing to take a smaller cut than traditional minicab firms"?
It still does, by the way. If you get an Addison Lee and pay £20, the driver gets £6 or 7. If you get an Uber he gets £13-15. It's why Addison Lee has essentially disappeared, while Uber is ubiquitous.
What you are saying agrees with me, the cut they take means they will never be able to be profitable. And that is why they bet so big on driverless vehicles to eliminate it.
They as far as I could understand it, have actually increased the cut they take, which has meant many drivers have left and gone to Bolt who let them keep more of it. Indeed there is/was an Uber strike over this issue because of the cost of petrol/diesel not being reflected in the cut so drivers end up not being able to make any money at all.
I agree the technology is fantastic - but that is where the money should have been. What they have now is not unique in any way, is easily copyable and the customer base is not inclined to stay because of the rates.
It is like Netflix, because Netflix believed they could keep jacking up the prices and people would stay. It took a while but then people started to leave.
This is what is happening with Uber right now in London.
Uber is profitable.
Quick recap: Uber Technologies, Inc. develops and operates proprietary technology applications in the United States, Canada, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the Asia Pacific. On 31 December 2021, the US$64b market-cap company posted a loss of US$496m for its most recent financial year.
According to the 40 industry analysts covering Uber Technologies, the consensus is that breakeven is near. They expect the company to post a final loss in 2022, before turning a profit of US$19m in 2023. The company is therefore projected to breakeven just over a year from now.
How fast will the company have to grow each year in order to reach the breakeven point by 2023?
Working backwards from analyst estimates, it turns out that they expect the company to grow 52% year-on-year, on average, which signals high confidence from analysts.
Uber has a gross profit margin of 35.7%, which changed some -7.3% from three years ago, indicating that the business is still struggling with the cost structure. These results may further shift in the future, if gas prices and other inflation impacted inputs keep rising.
If levelling up means Bodmin is as important as Birmingham, we are fucked. We can’t compete with the USA, France, Germany and the Netherlands from Bodmin, as lovely as it no doubt is.
They’re complementary. Focusing on the issues facing Bodmin doesn’t preclude a Canary Wharf style project somewhere else.
When everything is important, nothing is important.
In truth, the legitimate issues faced by Bodmin are not at all comparable to the issues around Birmingham, and it does the country no favours to pretend otherwise.
What percentage of taxis in London are traditional black cabs? There still seem to be awful lot of them around. Maybe London is different to other cities.
Kemi is being largely ignored/missed by BBC News at Ten, ITV News at 10 and Newsnight in their reporting. Yet she is in 4th place after the first round of voting and has never held a cabinet post. She is not far behind the Foreign Secretary who has been planning her leadership campaign for a few years. An extraordinary achievement already.
If Kemi becomes next PM they will all say - what a shock! But there is strong evidence now that a shock could be on the cards. There's only a handful of candidates can win and she is one of them.
PBers have worked out she can win. Mainstream media. Not so much. Unbelievable.
Kemi is 21 on Betfair so roughly a 5% chance; about a 14% chance of making the final two. Not out of the question, depending how votes from Zahawi and probably soon-to-be eliminated Braverman are redistributed but not yet front-page news.
Charles Walker MP was saying earlier that the 1922 Committee might set another bar for the next round, somewhere between 40 and 50 votes. Does anyone know whether this has been put in place?
I've not seen anything and it is hard to see what difference the lower bar would make. The three lowest-scoring candidates left are Kemi 40, Tugendhat 37 and Suella Braverman on 32. It is hard to imagine any of them scoring less than 40 on Thursday without also being knocked out as the lowest candidate, given there are 43 votes to be redistributed from Hunt and Zahawi.
Uber's IP SHOULD be in the technology they use but it isn't, because they went about this the wrong way. What they should have done is licensed the technology to TfL and the taxi operators. They didn't do that.
It is just the same as all of these fast delivery companies, no unique idea. No long term strategy, burn through cash.
There's a reason the big players are not in this game in a big way, because it is dead end.
Uber's unit economics in mature markets are excellent.
Great. They can start paying social taxes then.
Uber is just a high tech minicab firm. In the old days, they'd call out on the radio "anyone available for a pick up near Fulham Broadway". Nowadays, it's Uber's systems that direct the taxis.
In most places, it's a duopoly between Uber and Lyft (with traditional taxi services a long way behind.)
Why should Uber/Lyft be treated any differently to a minicab firm? There is no obligation for any drivers to work for them on a given day and the drivers are responsible for their own vehicles. It is literally the very definition of self employed.
1. They were (are?) subsidised to such an extent they were (are?) anti-competitive
2. The technology (a brilliant invention) tends to monopoly (or duopoly).
3. I believe most of the drivers are effectively employed rather than self-employed by a fair adjudication.
So, I have you saying that Uber is an effective monopoly, while I have @CorrectHorseBattery telling me that it's going out of business and is going to have no customers soon...
I don't think you can both be right.
That’s because we are separate posters. We’re not working in alliance!
Uber was able to expand because it lobbied Governments privately to avoid regulations, it got there first and offered discounted rates to grow the customer base.
The problem is that was only supposed to be temporary, they were intending to transition to driverless cars as staffing costs were the main problem. That business failed spectacularly.
"it got there first and offered discounted rates to grow the customer base"
You mean, "it was willing to take a smaller cut than traditional minicab firms"?
It still does, by the way. If you get an Addison Lee and pay £20, the driver gets £6 or 7. If you get an Uber he gets £13-15. It's why Addison Lee has essentially disappeared, while Uber is ubiquitous.
What you are saying agrees with me, the cut they take means they will never be able to be profitable. And that is why they bet so big on driverless vehicles to eliminate it.
They as far as I could understand it, have actually increased the cut they take, which has meant many drivers have left and gone to Bolt who let them keep more of it. Indeed there is/was an Uber strike over this issue because of the cost of petrol/diesel not being reflected in the cut so drivers end up not being able to make any money at all.
I agree the technology is fantastic - but that is where the money should have been. What they have now is not unique in any way, is easily copyable and the customer base is not inclined to stay because of the rates.
It is like Netflix, because Netflix believed they could keep jacking up the prices and people would stay. It took a while but then people started to leave.
This is what is happening with Uber right now in London.
Uber is profitable.
Quick recap: Uber Technologies, Inc. develops and operates proprietary technology applications in the United States, Canada, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the Asia Pacific. On 31 December 2021, the US$64b market-cap company posted a loss of US$496m for its most recent financial year.
- Mobility (which is the traditional taxi business + scooters) - Delivery (which is mostly food) - Freight (which is their commercial delivery business)
Of these, Mobility is highly profitable ($618m EBITDA in 1Q), while the other two are marginal propositions. (Albeit the freight business is very young.)
Now, you can argue that Uber in total is not profitable - certainly when accounting for the losses they've made on some of their historic investments - it's simply not true to say that the core taxi business is not profitable. On the contrary, in mature markets, it's extremely profitable.
It all seems a bit nebulous. There is no evidence presented that links Smith to Rishi's campaign. The bigger question is why Smith "has a Downing Street pass and is on the Tory party payroll, tasked with attacking Labour, although his name is conspicuously absent from any official party literature or staffing lists."
Steve Baker says Penny Mordaunt is not a real Brexiter because she voted for May’s Brexit deal.
At which time of asking? First, second, or third? Boris famously voted at the last.
All. But so did Truss and Badenoch.
Only Braverman kept the “faith”!
I was interested to hear Theresa Villiers say that Rishi Sunak was committed to the new NI Protocol legislation as a lot of people seem to think he would drop it.
When the recession comes, these companies with fundamentally unstable and very uncertain business models are going to crash.
Invest in good companies, you have been warned.
Lots of "Tech" companies (I put that in air quotes) are massively overvalued. We have already seen it with for example WeWork, there will be plenty more. Too many have had silly valuation because they have said something or other about tech or ML or AI, when WeWork it was a office rental company, that was it. They weren't building Westworld's super bollox, I mean AI computer.
AI has become such a buzzword it means nothing. Actual AI has been an absolute catastrophic failure in terms of the consumer, the best Google has managed is the Google voice.
Uber has no USP, it's why Bolt has basically stolen their app.
Deliveroo has no USP, it's why - ironically - Uber has basically stolen their app.
Gorillaz has no USP, it's why FreshMarket or whatever it's called has basically stolen their app.
These companies will not and cannot survive, the cash is going to run out.
There's nothing unique about the London Stock Exchange or eBay, except that those are the places where there is liquidity. Anyone can create a YouTube, because video hosting is not that complicated.
Having actual users is a big deal. Uber has the customers, and it has the drivers. It is actually pretty profitable if you look at their core taxi business. And no-one can compete with them, because competing with them means spending a fortune to get users, who won't be on the platform unless there are drivers... and why would there be drivers when all the customers are on Uber.
Uber isn't going to have customers much longer as they keep jacking up the prices, because the discounted rates are not enough to become profitable.
Maybe they will make it in other markets but in London certainly, they are going down the toilet. And that is supposed to be a key market for them.
They can be credited with introducing technology to an industry that badly needed it - but they will not be around in twenty years time, I am almost certain of it.
They are headed the same way as Netflix. Down.
Good for you.
I didn't own their shares this morning, but you've convinced me to buy some.
I'll invest in companies I believe in, I would hope you would do the same.
I remember when people said Netflix would grow forever, that it had customer loyalty because it was Netflix. They were wrong then and they will be wrong again.
There's a fundamental difference between Netflix and Uber, though.
Netflix was dependent on renting content from Disney, etc., and then selling it at a mark up. Disney and co realised that there was more money to be made by creating their own Netflix. (As someone put it to me back in 2014: can Netflix become HBO faster than HBO becomes Netflix?)
I don't think that's true of Uber.
They have the liquidity. As @Gardenwalker posits, it's a pseudo-monopoly in many places. Yesterday when I landed at LAX, I got my phone out and ordered an Uber. Why? Because there is a guarantee of quality that comes with driver rating, and there is lots of liquidity (i.e. drivers).
Food delivery is more difficult: there's much more that can go wrong, because you're dependent on restaurants and drivers; and the restaurants themselves have more power relative to the transportation company. I don't think food delivery becomes a monopoly/duopoly, while I think it's pretty clear that minicab-esque services do.
The bus to the Uber pick up point is a shag though
Unless it is built on a solid foundation of attracting private sector investment and jobs, no other aspect of levelling up will ever succeed. Geographically, we need to recognise our economy has changed, and broaden the number of places that levelling up must help.
For a long time, government policy has been overly focussed on the inner cities.
But now our largest cities have been growing faster than the rest of the country. Levelling up is about Stoke and Bodmin as much as Birmingham, and Hartlepool as much as central Newcastle.
Rural and coastal areas can have the lowest earnings, lowest productivity, lowest school achievement and the most limited opportunities for young people. Levelling up has to be about helping these communities, not just the centres of our biggest cities.
If I become Prime Minister, I will build on the current levelling up agenda to deliver jobs and prosperity for the people of this country.
Even with Michael Gove on Team Kemi, levelling up remains just a slogan.
Unless it is built on a solid foundation of attracting private sector investment and jobs, no other aspect of levelling up will ever succeed. Geographically, we need to recognise our economy has changed, and broaden the number of places that levelling up must help.
For a long time, government policy has been overly focussed on the inner cities.
But now our largest cities have been growing faster than the rest of the country. Levelling up is about Stoke and Bodmin as much as Birmingham, and Hartlepool as much as central Newcastle.
Rural and coastal areas can have the lowest earnings, lowest productivity, lowest school achievement and the most limited opportunities for young people. Levelling up has to be about helping these communities, not just the centres of our biggest cities.
If I become Prime Minister, I will build on the current levelling up agenda to deliver jobs and prosperity for the people of this country.
Very rare for any politician to acknowledge rural communities. She is to be commended for that.
Almost as though there are lots of rural MP votes up for grabs.
Steve Baker says Penny Mordaunt is not a real Brexiter because she voted for May’s Brexit deal.
At which time of asking? First, second, or third? Boris famously voted at the last.
All. But so did Truss and Badenoch.
Only Braverman kept the “faith”!
I was interested to hear Theresa Villiers say that Rishi Sunak was committed to the new NI Protocol legislation as a lot of people seem to think he would drop it.
Because he's somehow transmogrified into a sinister remainer.
Boris's work to cut him down to size earlier this year did its work.
Unless it is built on a solid foundation of attracting private sector investment and jobs, no other aspect of levelling up will ever succeed. Geographically, we need to recognise our economy has changed, and broaden the number of places that levelling up must help.
For a long time, government policy has been overly focussed on the inner cities.
But now our largest cities have been growing faster than the rest of the country. Levelling up is about Stoke and Bodmin as much as Birmingham, and Hartlepool as much as central Newcastle.
Rural and coastal areas can have the lowest earnings, lowest productivity, lowest school achievement and the most limited opportunities for young people. Levelling up has to be about helping these communities, not just the centres of our biggest cities.
If I become Prime Minister, I will build on the current levelling up agenda to deliver jobs and prosperity for the people of this country.
Almost as though there were lots of rural MP votes up for grabs.
Very rare for any politician to acknowledge rural communities. She is to be commended for that.
Almost as though there are lots of rural MP votes up for grabs.
Charles Walker MP was saying earlier that the 1922 Committee might set another bar for the next round, somewhere between 40 and 50 votes. Does anyone know whether this has been put in place?
'Might? Shouldn't they have sorted all this out before they started?
I agree, but they always seem to make it up on the hoof.
That allows for all sorts of exciting possibilities. Next round: the assault course. Then a yard of ale contest, then weeding the gardens of the 1922 Committee.
They'll end up turning into the Krypton Factor.
Which means Aaron Bell will be favourite to be Prime Minister.
Netflix has secured a deal with Microsoft to introduce advertising breaks for its streaming service as it scrambles to offset a fall in subscribers by offering a cheaper service for customers.
The streaming giant has chosen Microsoft to be its global technology and sales partner and will provide ads through its platform, its chief operating officer Greg Peters said on Wednesday.
Another massive hole in Nadine Dorries argument that BBC could be a subscription service like Netflix.
a) Netflix basic subs model under assault post-pandemic
b) Ads on BBC. Really? Pretty sure the Antiques roadshow loving tory members of Home Counties don't want any interruptions to sell them Equity Release.
The BBC was going to be subscription, back when TV started. It only had the license fee because encryption technology wasn’t up to the job. See Kahn “The Codebreakers” - a brilliant history of code breaking.
Netflix has the problem that they were selling other peoples content. Said people are now selling direct - see Disney. The BBC has lots of content.
Within a decade or two, we will be switching off broadcast TV. It will all be online. The young only use iPlayer when they watch BBC now.
The BBC stupidly cling to the license fee far too long - they should have got the rights to various programs sorted and gone worldwide. There are enough people in the USA who want to watch the BBC, alone to pay for the BBC several times over.
Think on that as a pitch - the BBC completely independent of government funding, free to people in the U.K, paid for by foreigners….
Comments
"Being deliberately irritating" has always been a valid advertising tactic.
The chief griper appears to be a mentalist.
Them and Disney+ suit me fine, I cancelled Netflix years ago. I was one of their very first UK subscribers, got it on day one when nobody here knew what Netflix was.
I don't pay for Sky as it's outrageously expensive. And whilst they do get movies a bit earlier, this will surely decrease over time with Disney coming onto the scene. Not sure how long those deals last for?
Sport is the big one but I am bemused why the Premier League don't just do a Football service, seems like they could make a lot more money.
No other service does this, their strategy is nonsensical.
I can get the stuff I like by other means, even buying it from iTunes or Prime. Still cheaper in the long run than an ongoing sub.
As I said down thread, the issue is people binge something like the Crown and what kept people entertained previously was the ability to put on an episode of something like Friends, now they don't have any of those really sticky shows that people watch a 1000 times on repeat.
Not that I liked Friends, but apparently when they had it, along with the Office, it made up some crazy percentage of all watch time on Netflix.
Janan Ganesh wrote a good piece on this.
Deliveroo etc are the same.
We have all been living off investor’s money.
I used to take a lot of black cabs and although I recognise Uber forced them to up their game, I think there was a massive competition failure. It used to be called “dumping”.
"Wow, this is one heck of a movement, and surely it must be a wake-up call for politicians here in the UK".
At 1 min 44 secs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKuqSVv3i0c
Uber used investor money to undercut taxis, but they still have the huge problem that its doesn't actually work for the drivers when you factor in everything....so the turn over of drivers is crazy.
Netflix did have an advantage (and still does to some extent)....its isn't trivial to build a world wide streaming service to deliver 4k content and then also building the analytics is non-trivial. Disney knew they couldn't just do it, so they had to pay big bucks to purchase BamTech. Amazon bought Twitch.
The problem Netflix has is it lost key content, spaffed too much money at crap and not managed to create enough of its own sticky repeatable content. And now some bigger boys have come along to steal their customers.
It only seems to be the EU that gives a shit and even then they’ve no fucking clue how to regulate.
The UK’s approach seems to be “You want to fleece British consumers? Fleece away!”
Get lots of money from investors with claims you will one day become profitable with self driving cars.
Spend money on settling legal disputes.
Sell of self-driving car division.
Spend more money on settling legal disputes.
Move profitability target into the future.
They are a scam of a company.
It is just the same as all of these fast delivery companies, no unique idea. No long term strategy, burn through cash.
There's a reason the big players are not in this game in a big way, because it is dead end.
He told me he had no support at all from the government (Kwasi).
Deliveroo and alike are far worse....they couldn't even make any money during a sodding world wide pandemic when nobody could leave their homes for months on end, while restaurants have to pay crazy fees and the riders wages aren't very good.
If you wanted to test your business model for home food delivery you literally couldn't ask for a more favourable situation than the government paying people to stay at home only being able to leave for an hour a day.
They will be saddled with this forever now, they will not ever become profitable. Pyramid scheme.
Their service is also in London at least, an absolute joke now. Five times they cancelled on me last night. FIVE TIMES.
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1547272574492708869
People have gone back to yellow cabbing.
Invest in good companies, you have been warned.
https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/1640191/tory-leadership-race-kemi-badenoch-unite-Britain
Unless it is built on a solid foundation of attracting private sector investment and jobs, no other aspect of levelling up will ever succeed.
Geographically, we need to recognise our economy has changed, and broaden the number of places that levelling up must help.
For a long time, government policy has been overly focussed on the inner cities.
But now our largest cities have been growing faster than the rest of the country. Levelling up is about Stoke and Bodmin as much as Birmingham, and Hartlepool as much as central Newcastle.
Rural and coastal areas can have the lowest earnings, lowest productivity, lowest school achievement and the most limited opportunities for young people. Levelling up has to be about helping these communities, not just the centres of our biggest cities.
If I become Prime Minister, I will build on the current levelling up agenda to deliver jobs and prosperity for the people of this country.
In most places, it's a duopoly between Uber and Lyft (with traditional taxi services a long way behind.)
Why should Uber/Lyft be treated any differently to a minicab firm? There is no obligation for any drivers to work for them on a given day and the drivers are responsible for their own vehicles. It is literally the very definition of self employed.
He’s certainly a cultural ****
It is worth remembering, though, that rural areas are poorer in every country. There's not a lot of margin (normally) in growing stuff.
https://order-order.com/2022/07/12/tory-leadership-whos-backing-who/
Obviously, there is plenty of time for this to change as eliminated candidates' backers redistribute themselves but it must be concerning if none of those who have worked closely with Mordaunt endorse her for the top job.
Uber has no USP, it's why Bolt has basically stolen their app.
Deliveroo has no USP, it's why - ironically - Uber has basically stolen their app.
Gorillaz has no USP, it's why FreshMarket or whatever it's called has basically stolen their app.
These companies will not and cannot survive, the cash is going to run out.
2. The technology (a brilliant invention) tends to monopoly (or duopoly).
3. I believe most of the drivers are effectively employed rather than self-employed by a fair adjudication.
Having actual users is a big deal. Uber has the customers, and it has the drivers. It is actually pretty profitable if you look at their core taxi business. And no-one can compete with them, because competing with them means spending a fortune to get users, who won't be on the platform unless there are drivers... and why would there be drivers when all the customers are on Uber.
Maybe they will make it in other markets but in London certainly, they are going down the toilet. And that is supposed to be a key market for them.
They can be credited with introducing technology to an industry that badly needed it - but they will not be around in twenty years time, I am almost certain of it.
They are headed the same way as Netflix. Down.
I didn't own their shares this morning, but you've convinced me to buy some.
If levelling up means Bodmin is as important as Birmingham, we are fucked. We can’t compete with the USA, France, Germany and the Netherlands from Bodmin, as lovely as it no doubt is.
These companies are valued entirely on hype, "YOLO" investing and debt. Huge amounts of debt.
Uber has nothing. Nearly all Uber drivers are on Bolt, Freenow. People will go to the app with the cheapest rates, that is not Uber. Uber has no customer loyalty.
They made a big mistake in not licensing the technology.
I don't think you can both be right.
I remember when people said Netflix would grow forever, that it had customer loyalty because it was Netflix. They were wrong then and they will be wrong again.
The money is in being the exchange, not in selling the technology for the exchange. Liquidity is Uber's USP.
We’re not working in alliance!
They are in trouble.
Boris Johnson puts the ban on smoking on planes and airports into Room 101 with Paul Merton in 2003.
At 22 mins 20 secs:
https://archive.org/details/room-101-s8/Room.101.S08E02.Boris.Johnson.avi
The problem is lots of businesses have thrown it around as a pitch, we will do x and we will do it better than existing market leader because....AI...but they haven't built it (and not necessarily any idea how to build it)...something something big data, that will be our competitive advantage.
The problem is that was only supposed to be temporary, they were intending to transition to driverless cars as staffing costs were the main problem. That business failed spectacularly.
My last two companies have done this, fair enough it works brilliantly as a marketing tool. And it means nothing.
He says that Rishi comes across incredibly creepy, like someone trying to groom a minor.
“Hello. Let me tell you a STORY.” (Evil smirk).
Netflix was dependent on renting content from Disney, etc., and then selling it at a mark up. Disney and co realised that there was more money to be made by creating their own Netflix. (As someone put it to me back in 2014: can Netflix become HBO faster than HBO becomes Netflix?)
I don't think that's true of Uber.
They have the liquidity. As @Gardenwalker posits, it's a pseudo-monopoly in many places. Yesterday when I landed at LAX, I got my phone out and ordered an Uber. Why? Because there is a guarantee of quality that comes with driver rating, and there is lots of liquidity (i.e. drivers).
Food delivery is more difficult: there's much more that can go wrong, because you're dependent on restaurants and drivers; and the restaurants themselves have more power relative to the transportation company. I don't think food delivery becomes a monopoly/duopoly, while I think it's pretty clear that minicab-esque services do.
However, there are also lots of companies who use it as a gimmick which don't even have any real machine learning capabilities.
You mean, "it was willing to take a smaller cut than traditional minicab firms"?
It still does, by the way. If you get an Addison Lee and pay £20, the driver gets £6 or 7. If you get an Uber he gets £13-15. It's why Addison Lee has essentially disappeared, while Uber is ubiquitous.
Google Voice or whatever it is called these days is actually pretty useless for anything beyond quite simple commands. It's entirely reactive, any proactive features it does have are so limited as to be useless. It's essentially still a gimmick feature, it it still faster to do the operation manually (or it is the same speed).
Siri is even worse, I only use it to set timers.
They as far as I could understand it, have actually increased the cut they take, which has meant many drivers have left and gone to Bolt who let them keep more of it. Indeed there is/was an Uber strike over this issue because of the cost of petrol/diesel not being reflected in the cut so drivers end up not being able to make any money at all.
I agree the technology is fantastic - but that is where the money should have been. What they have now is not unique in any way, is easily copyable and the customer base is not inclined to stay because of the rates.
It is like Netflix, because Netflix believed they could keep jacking up the prices and people would stay. It took a while but then people started to leave.
This is what is happening with Uber right now in London.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ubers-nyse-uber-profitability-problem-084503266.html
How fast will the company have to grow each year in order to reach the breakeven point by 2023?
Working backwards from analyst estimates, it turns out that they expect the company to grow 52% year-on-year, on average, which signals high confidence from analysts.
ROFL not a chance that can ever be maintained.
Then let's see how faithful the Uber fanbase is
In truth, the legitimate issues faced by Bodmin are not at all comparable to the issues around Birmingham, and it does the country no favours to pretend otherwise.
Only Braverman kept the “faith”!
Uber is three businesses:
- Mobility (which is the traditional taxi business + scooters)
- Delivery (which is mostly food)
- Freight (which is their commercial delivery business)
Of these, Mobility is highly profitable ($618m EBITDA in 1Q), while the other two are marginal propositions. (Albeit the freight business is very young.)
Now, you can argue that Uber in total is not profitable - certainly when accounting for the losses they've made on some of their historic investments - it's simply not true to say that the core taxi business is not profitable. On the contrary, in mature markets, it's extremely profitable.
Boris's work to cut him down to size earlier this year did its work. Almost as though there are lots of rural MP votes up for grabs.
Which means Aaron Bell will be favourite to be Prime Minister.
I'm okay with this.
Netflix has the problem that they were selling other peoples content. Said people are now selling direct - see Disney. The BBC has lots of content.
Within a decade or two, we will be switching off broadcast TV. It will all be online. The young only use iPlayer when they watch BBC now.
The BBC stupidly cling to the license fee far too long - they should have got the rights to various programs sorted and gone worldwide. There are enough people in the USA who want to watch the BBC, alone to pay for the BBC several times over.
Think on that as a pitch - the BBC completely independent of government funding, free to people in the U.K, paid for by foreigners….