Why Uber may be just the beginning for fledgling ride-hailing industry

Ride-hailing industry observers are split on whether Uber will become the winner of its fledgling industry.

Lucy Nicholson/Reuters
A driver displays Uber and Lyft ride-sharing signs in his car windscreen in Santa Monica, Calif., May 23. While Uber has thus far dominated the ride-share industry, some economists still see room for competition.

Ride-hailing industry observers are split on whether Uber will become the winner of its fledgling industry.

Some say there’s only room for one dominant company in each international market. Yet others point out that there’s definitely room for more, given that it’s so easy to start a ride-hailing service: There are no infrastructure costs, few employees, and no reason for customers to get locked in. For riders, who can order rides quickly and easily through a phone app, the more competition the better.

"That one firm wins is a narrow and not accurate way to think about these firms," David Evans, chairman of the Global Economics Group and co-author of a recent book that discussed Uber, called "Matchmakers: The New Economics of Multisided Platforms," said in an interview with Reuters.

Of course, Uber, which started the industry in 2009, is doing everything it can to become the ride-hailing industry’s No. 1 worldwide. The company offers generous driver and rider subsidies, and reportedly recruits drivers aggressively from its biggest US competitor, Lyft, which appears to do the same from Uber.

It’s also fending off regulators in cities worldwide, and the traditional taxi industry, which claims the web app flouts taxi laws. There are also the class-action lawsuits brought by some of the company’s 1.5 million freelance drivers globally, who want to be treated more like employees.

Despite the challenges, the private company has raised more than $16 billion from investors and is valued at $69 billion, making it the most valuable startup in the world. Its biggest competitor is Lyft, but according to Bloomberg, Uber delivered five times more rides in July than its competitor: 62 million versus Lyft's 13.9 million. Lyft points out that this is because Uber operates in more markets.

"Uber's alleged market share is a misleading and skewed statistic," a spokeswoman for Lyft wrote in an e-mail to Bloomberg.

Uber's astronomical valuation aside, the company has lost $1.27 billion in the first half of the year, mostly because of its heavy investment in China, the company told shareholders this week. But last month it signed a collaborative deal there with its largest global competitor, Didi Chuxing, and is leaving that market. This should stem the flood of losses for Uber, says the company. Overall, the seven-year-old ride service has lost at least $4 billion in the history of the company, reports Bloomberg.

"You won't find too many technology companies that could lose this much money, this quickly," Aswath Damodaran, a business professor at New York University who is skeptical of the company's valuation, told Bloomberg. "For a private business to raise as much capital as Uber has been able to is unprecedented."

Of course, Amazon is also famous for losing money for years while growing its market share. But the company appears to have finally turned a corner and has been reporting consistent profits in recent quarters, largely thanks to its cloud computing business.

This report uses material from Reuters.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Why Uber may be just the beginning for fledgling ride-hailing industry
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today