Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

smkAce0921 t1_jdamu6k wrote

>We have told city leaders that if this ordinance is passed as drafted today, it may force UberEats to suspend delivery to City of Alameda residents

And this is a bad thing because....

If Uber left, another company would jump right in (i.e. Grubhub, Doordash) and abide by the price cap....It'd be nice to see more cities follow

137

Xanthn OP t1_jdaojor wrote

Exactly. The companies still want to make money, so if they turn their nose up at it out of spite, another will gladly take the profits Uber abandoned.

47

boganvegan t1_jdar10h wrote

Companies, at least profitable ones, are cold-hearted and calculating, they will not leave because of spite they will stay if they can make money and leave if they can't. It all depends on what the fee limit is.

25

Xanthn OP t1_jdasmai wrote

Of course. But even with the cap they will still profit. If they leave because it's not enough it's on them and I see it as spite. Otherwise they won't leave. There is plenty to still be made from the companies. It happens all the time, they threaten to leave, and rarely ever do. The ones that do leave blame it on being unprofitable not necessarily always the truth, sometimes they still push for deregulation and try to throw their power around. "Hey do you miss us yet? If you change back to how we want it to be, well return like nothing happened."

I'm doubtful they'll leave anyway, and stick to the belief that if they do it's not because they can't make money doing what they do, it's because they don't want to do it and are acting out of spite. Again I don't believe they'll actually leave.

3

Romanian_ t1_jdbxwd3 wrote

These are mostly public listed companies, their financial reports are available. None of the delivery / ride-sharing companies really make profits. That's the reality, not some made up stunt, like you claim.

Uber as a whole had 2 profitable quarters in 14 years. Uber Eats as a subsidiary recently broke even for the first time. Lyft, Door Dash, Postmates etc - are not profitable.

2

Xanthn OP t1_jdbys7g wrote

I wonder if them giving bonuses to sign up drivers and the amount of money that the CEO and other execs get paid actually make a difference in the loses. I mean somehow the CEO got around $20 million in 2021, $40 million odd a few years earlier, and since a lot of that seems to be related to stock, others also would be getting millions. Something doesn't then add up, how are they not making money and still pay out this sort of money?

Edit: spelling.

6

Captain_Mazhar t1_jdczumy wrote

For the last decade, venture capital was throwing billions and billions of dollars at startups who could afford to burn reserves because money was cheap, betting on market share over current profitability.

Now that money is getting more expensive, we are coming into phase 2 of that, and we will see who remains when the flood of cheap money dries up.

6

Atlasatlastatleast t1_jdc5auv wrote

Is that not because of reinvestment of revenue?

2

Buckets-of-Gold t1_jdcgsgm wrote

It’s because Uber and its competitors have hemorrhaged money nearly every quarter of their existence.

They are relying on autonomous vehicles or complete market domination to become profitable. They will probably go bankrupt.

2

simplifysic t1_jdpse6f wrote

Uber is hugely profitable. They aren’t in business to deliver food silly. The customers they serve are the execs and shareholders.

1

boganvegan t1_jdatwud wrote

Typically it doesn't end well for the customer when government bodies try to determine a fair price for a product or service. For products or services that are essential, highly complex or monopolized there's a case for government involvement but I don't think that food delivery in Alameda is essential, complex or a monopoly.

−11

efnfen4 t1_jdbnx28 wrote

"Lower fees for customers? This is awful!" - dumb people

7