Sobre el modelo de negocio de Uber
ForoCoches: Miembro
05-sep-2019 16:23
#61
|
uber pierde dinero con cada carrera. https://www.riskhedge.com/post/the-d...-money-in-2019 The dumbest thing you can do with your money in 2019 STEPHEN MCBRIDE MAY 2, 2019 When was the last time you took a cab? I mean a real yellow taxicab, with a light on the roof and a fare meter running. I don’t even own a car, and I haven’t climbed into a cab in years. That’s not because I never go anywhere. I travel all the time for research. Instead of taking cabs, I “Uber” everywhere. You surely know all about Uber by now... Its technology allows anyone with a smartphone to drive their own personal vehicle like a taxi. 900,000 people drive for Uber today. Passengers took five billion Uber rides last year. Uber isn’t in the business of owning cars. It doesn’t employ drivers. Instead its “app” connects drivers with people who want a ride. Uber sets the price of the ride and facilitates the transaction. The driver keeps most of the fare, and Uber takes a 20% cut on average. “Ubering” is so popular it has become a verb. For now the company is private and doesn’t trade on the stock market. But don’t confuse private with small. Recent estimates value Uber at up to $100 billion. That puts Uber among America’s largest companies. It’s bigger than coffee giant Starbucks (SBUX) and America’s #1 defense contractor Lockheed Martin (LMT)! Uber’s upcoming IPO is set to be the most hyped financial event of 2019... After years of anticipation, Uber has filed documents to go public. No date has been set, but the IPO is expected in the next few weeks. It will trade under the ticker UBER. Uber’s IPO is set to be a COLOSSAL event. It’ll be one of the biggest IPOs since Facebook (FB) went public in 2012. Soon you will be hearing about this everywhere. There’s a good chance they’re talking about Uber on CNBC right now. An IPO, as you may know, is when a company first sells shares in the public markets. It marks the first time individual investors can buy the stock. IPOs carry a special allure. Investors dream of “getting in on the ground floor” and riding the stock to 20x–30x profits. As a RiskHedge reader, you know collecting profits of 20x or better is possible if you identify disruptive stocks early on. Uber is certainly disruptive. But as I’ll show you, it’s a HORRIBLE investment. Uber burns more cash than any company I’ve ever seen. It is dangerously unprofitable. Its IPO documents show it lost $1 billion on $3 billion in sales in just the past three months. Now some might say: "Stephen, it's no big deal that Uber makes no money. Amazon made little profit for its first couple of years and it’s been an incredible investment. Its stock has soared 100,000% since its IPO. I want to get in on the ground floor of Uber like many did with Amazon!" It’s true that early investors in Amazon (AMZN) got rich. It’s also true that Amazon lost money in its first seven years of business. From 1996 to 2002, it burned through around $3 billion. The thing is… Uber has lost more money in the past nine months than Amazon did in its first seven years! And Uber isn’t a “new” company. You can forgive young startups for sacrificing profits for growth. Uber has been around for a decade and is still nowhere near profitability. Another popular argument for buying Uber stock goes like this: “Uber will be among the biggest IPOs since Facebook… and Facebook’s stock has shot up 450% since 2012!” Facebook, as we’ve discussed, is one of the most efficient cash-generating machines America has ever seen. It makes money selling online ads, which is an extremely profitable business. At its peak, Facebook was turning $0.50 on every dollar of sales into pure profit. That is off-the-charts incredible. It’s nearly unheard of for a company as big as Facebook. Uber’s margins are off the charts too. But they’re off-the-charts awful. Uber loses 25 cents on every dollar it brings in. In fact, research from Recode shows Uber loses an average of $1.20 on every ride. Uber’s problem is the fares it charges aren’t nearly enough to cover its expenses. Roughly 80% of a fare goes toward paying drivers and related expenses. In other words, almost all its revenue goes right back out the door before it can even pay overhead costs like rent or salaries for its 16,000 employees. As far as I can tell, Uber will never make money. Money-losing firms often aim to achieve profitability through “scale.” This means a company keeps growing and growing and selling more and more stuff, until eventually its revenue surpasses expenses. This worked for Facebook. In its first few years, Facebook actually lost money. By 2009, it was selling enough ads to earn a profit. It cost Facebook a ton of money to build out its online ad platform. But once it was up and running, it barely cost anything to sell each additional ad. As it sold more and more ads, costs stayed flat and income soared. Uber’s business model does not afford this luxury. Very few of its costs are “fixed.” Every ride costs it money. As I said, it’s losing roughly $1.20 on every trip. More trips won’t solve this because costs rise just as fast as revenue. Uber is trapped in a money-losing spiral it can’t escape. And even if Uber were a decent business, which it is not... Most of the upside is long gone. Early private investors have claimed it all. For example, former cyclist Lance Armstrong is an early investor in Uber. He invested $100,000 around 2009 when the company was valued at less than $4 million. Since then Uber has surged 25,000x in value! If Armstrong held onto his whole $100,000 stake, it’d be worth roughly $2.5 billion today. As I said, the allure of buying a company when it goes public is “getting in on the ground floor.” You buy when a promising company is small and 20x gains (or better) are on the table. But Uber is already HUGE. As I mentioned, it’s worth $100 billion. It’s already among America’s 100 largest companies. Uber’s IPO is no ground-floor opportunity. Uber is a giant, overvalued, money-losing enterprise that early investors have already milked dry. To be clear, I love using Uber’s service... Uber has improved life for millions. Drivers can make a decent living driving for Uber full time. Hustlers can earn some extra cash on the side by driving part time. Passengers get a cheaper, cleaner, and an overall more pleasant experience than riding in a cab. It’s a win-win for drivers and customers. But it’s a LOSE for investors. Do you know anyone excited to buy the Uber IPO? Tell me about it at [email protected]. Stephen McBride Chief Analyst, RiskHedge |
ForoCoches: Miembro
06-sep-2019 08:48
#62
|
Demoledor https://jalopnik.com/uber-and-lyft-d...ist-1837680434 Uber And Lyft Don't Have A Right To Exist Aaron Gordon On Wednesday, Uber and Lyft released a new petition against Assembly Bill 5, the California bill about to be debated in the Senate that, if passed, would almost certainly result in gig economy workers being designated as employees in the state rather than independent contractors. Uber and Lyft fear AB5 could tank their business. They’re right to be afraid. The petition includes a series of lame offers from the ridehail companies that ring hollow to anyone familiar with their business. Moreover, it only underscores the need for AB5 to apply to rideshare drivers, because it demonstrates Uber and Lyft still don’t get the problem that is trying to be solved, that of their incongruous existence. AB5 would suck Uber, Lyft, and other gig economy platforms out of their legal vacuum and into well-defined orbits of labor law. It would be doing so in a way that tracks with the reality of their businesses and a common-sense definition of what an “employee” is. This, the companies contend, would be unacceptable, so they’re fighting it like hell. The rideshare companies are now offering to ensure drivers would “earn a minimum of approximately $21 per hour while on a trip, including the costs of their average expenses.” This is very much not a minimum wage of $21 per hour, as it’s been widely framed by the media, because it only applies “while on a trip,” and drivers typically spend 40 to 60 percent of their time the app is open either waiting for their next fare or in transit to it. So, this is in fact a minimum wage proposal of about $11 per hour—below the state’s minimum wage of $12 per hour for companies with more than 25 employees—notwithstanding details of how average expenses are calculated. In addition, the companies propose “robust new benefits such as paid time off, sick leave, and compensation if they are injured while driving.” Notably absent is medical insurance, as well as whether these benefits will be given to workers or offered at a cost. They also promise to empower drivers “to have a collective voice with rideshare companies, and the ability to influence decisions about their work.” This is similar to the driver associations both companies have previously advocated for and the controversial Independent Drivers Guild in New York City that receives money from Uber, signed a no-strike clause as a condition of its existence, and refuses to address systemic problems within the rideshare companies. Uber and Lyft have proposed this middle-ground solution not only because it requires minimal sacrifice on their parts, but because their entire business model, such as it is, relies on passing off as much of the cost to the drivers as possible: their time when they’re not transporting passengers (otherwise known as deadheading), the car, fuel, insurance, maintenance, etc. All despite the fact that Uber and Lyft’s businesses cannot function without those costs. This is where AB5 comes in, which may be the biggest fight yet for the future of ridesharing. Specifically, AB5 is codifying into law a ruling from the California Supreme Court last year that established what’s known as the ABC test, one of the strictest standards for independent contractor designation, as the LA Times summarized: To classify someone as an independent contractor, the court said, businesses must show that the worker is free from the control and direction of the employer; performs work that is outside the hirer’s core business; and customarily engages in “an independently established trade, occupation or business.” Pretty much everyone, including Uber and Lyft, interpret this to mean gig economy workers would be classified as employees. This would pose an existential threat to their businesses. If drivers were made employees, Barclays analysts estimated, as reported by Quartz, it would cost Uber and Lyft $3,625 per driver in California, or hundreds of millions of dollars a year in addition to the billions of dollars a year they already lose. Further, if AB5 passed, it would mean Los Angeles and San Francisco, two of the country’s largest ride-hailing markets, would join New York City in clamping down on the industry. Earlier this month, New York City renewed its vehicle cap and minimum wage laws. Should other cities or states follow with similar laws, it’s difficult to see how Uber and Lyft could go on in similar form. Both opponents and supporters of AB5 acknowledge it would have a profound impact on the ridehailing industry and other gig economy-based companies. What they fundamentally disagree on is whether or not that is a good thing. One side sees this as very much the point of the legislation to correct the equally profound misclasification of gig workers. Back in July when AB5 passed the Assembly, Samantha Gallegos, a spokesperson for Rep. Gonzalez, told our pals at Gizmodo gig economy companies “are likely already misclassifying their workers under the Dynamex decision [the Supreme Court case ruled in 2018 that established the validity of the ABC test]. Assembly Bill 5 will codify this decision and bring clarity to those professions and industries in which workers actually do operate as independent contractors.” Opponents of AB5, such as Uber, Lyft, and gig economy delivery startup Doordash, contend it is, in effect, government overreach stifling innovative businesses that are just trying to make the world a better place, and therefore AB5 should offer that clarity by exempting gig workers from the new classification. As this debate heated up anew, 75 professors from leading American universities signed a letter urging Governor Gavin Newsom and the leaders of the legislature to adopt AB5 as written without any carve-outs for so-called “gig economy” workers. “We oppose attempts to carve platform gig workers out of Dynamex and AB5,” the letter states in no uncertain terms. “App-based workers, as many of us have found through our research, are algorithmically controlled in the traditional ways that employees are controlled. They have very limited—if any—entrepreneurial potential; their hours and work are highly structured by the platform employer; they can be unilaterally terminated from their work; and most do not set their own prices.” Indeed, the letter from some of America’s leading experts underscores that AB5 is clarifying how existing rules in a post-Dynamex landscape ought to be applied, as ruled by the California Supreme Court. This, they contend, is a clarification needed now more than ever precisely because of the gig economy’s intentional misclassification of millions of American workers as independent contractors. This misclassification exempts those workers from the very protections employees have won through centuries of labor law developments. Uber and Lyft are lamenting the existential threat to their business such a clarification to the very labor laws they’ve long undermined would present. And now, after years of cutting driver pay, instituting new, onerous work rules, and failing to meaningfully address this fundamental paradox at the core of their business, they are deeply concerned that should AB5 survive, their business may not. They are so concerned about this, in fact, that Lyft, Uber, and Doordash have announced a $90 million slush fund to launch a voter referendum in California to exempt gig economy workers from AB5, should it pass. That $90 million could have gone an awful long way towards addressing the needs of homeless Uber and Lyft drivers, to say nothing of the ones with roofs over their heads still struggling to make end’s meet. But, the companies have decided that money is better spent fighting AB5 to the very death. Uber and lyft have hung their legal hat on the idea that drivers are not workers because they have flexibility. This has never been the criteria on which courts have ruled if workers are employees. “Speak with drivers,” an op-ed co-written by Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi and Lyft co-founders Logan Green and John Zimmer asserted, “and they will tell you they are attracted to the work because of the flexibility it affords. Very few jobs allow you to start or stop working whenever, wherever, as often as you want.” This, the companies argue, is what’s worth preserving, and AB5 would kill that flexibility. It is undoubtedly true that most drivers value the flexibility of ridesharing, although such an observation glosses over the myriad ways Uber and Lyft undermine that flexibility by cutting rates, gamifying their platform, and otherwise incentivizing drivers to work certain times or drive a certain amount to the degree that it’s unprofitable to do otherwise. While reporting our recent investigation into driver pay, many drivers told us they no longer feel like their jobs are all that flexible. Sure, they can log on or off whenever they want, but constant pay cuts mean they have financial pressures to stay logged on longer than they used to. It also means pressure to stay on at times when it is barely profitable to do so. And that’s leaving out gamified but much-needed bonuses or mysterious “timeouts.” Uber And Lyft Take A Lot More From Drivers Than They Say In July, an Uber driver we’ll call Dave—his name has been changed here to protect his… Read more Nevertheless, the only ones who are in fact threatening to end that flexibility are not California lawmakers, but Uber and Lyft. Nothing in AB5 requires employees to work fixed hours, according to Wayne State University law professor Sanjukta Paul, who was one of the signatories of the letter supporting AB5 applying to gig workers. “Employers and employees are free to come up with whatever hours arrangement is mutually agreeable,” Paul wrote in an email. “Maybe [Uber’s] argument is that it wouldn’t make business sense for them, but that’s a different point than just pointing to the law.” Indeed, this is very much their argument, and the central point of contention at the heart of AB5. The petition echoes much of the rhetoric since the AB5 fight began by stating that “Forcing all drivers to become employees could drastically change the rideshare experience as you’ve come to know it, and would limit Uber’s ability to connect you with the dependable rides you’ve come to expect.” Fundamentally, Uber and Lyft are saying if they internalized all the costs of their business, they could not run this business as it’s currently run. Uber makes this very argument in their own S-1 filing prior to going public: Changes to foreign, state, and local laws governing the definition or classification of independent contractors, or judicial decisions regarding independent contractor classification, could require classification of Drivers as employees (or workers or quasi-employees where those statuses exist). Examples of recent judicial decisions relating to independent contractor classification include the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court. “Our business would be adversely affected,” the S-1 continued, “if Drivers were classified as employees instead of independent contractors.” It’s worth taking a moment to reflect on what an utterly bizarre argument this is for a company to make. Should this be any other business—a clothing store, a coffee shop, a food cart, an auto parts supplier—one would struggle to see the dilemma. This would be, quite simply, a bad business that loses lots of money. It would go under. There would no quandary. Just capitalism, baby. Or, to take a more modest forecast, Uber and Lyft threaten that, at the very least, wait times would get longer and rides more expensive. This is an indirect appeal to the positive externalities their venture capital-subsidized taxi rides produce. These rides, the companies are saying, provide services for the public and we’d all be worse off should fewer members of the public have access to it. This is awfully, awfully close to making the argument that Uber and Lyft are quasi-public goods that deserve some form of regulatory protection to continue to offer such cheap rides. Not only is this a deeply ironic argument for the fiercely capitalist Silicon Valley darlings to be making, but it is deeply unconvincing. I rely on any number of private companies, including my local grocery store, to live my life, but that doesn’t give them the right to call their cashiers independent contractors to save money. But on an even deeper level, Uber and Lyft are trying to have it both ways. Public goods are even more regulated and controlled by government than private companies. Should we grant the premise and acknowledge Uber and Lyft provide a public service so critical to civic life it cannot be narrowed, AB5 would be just the tip of the iceberg of worries bearing down upon Uber and Lyft’s path to profitability. Even though Uber and Lyft have achieved massive scale by growing faster than their balance sheet would otherwise allow—thanks to artificially low prices due to massive investments from rich people that allow both companies to constantly operate at a loss—that doesn’t entitle them to a right to bend labor laws to fit their business models. Nor does it grant them exemptions from the definition of what an “employee” is. Indeed, when you get right down to it, Uber and Lyft are arguing that they have a right to exist as they currently do, and any efforts to undermine that right to exist are fundamentally and obviously wrong. But once that presumption of existence is done away with, it is very difficult to see why Uber and Lyft should be protected from their own follies. Uber, and later Lyft, purposefully exploited long-standing gaps in labor and antitrust law to form a company, attract investors, go public, and get rich. Perhaps their exploitation of those gaps in law are no more egregious in the particulars than what businesses have done for decades, but they intentionally did so on a grand, aggressive scale to attract more investors and get even richer. That scale, in turn, invited increased scrutiny and upped the potential for regulatory blowback And when that model does get challenged, it is defended in the most nonsensical of ways. By cobbling together several different and often contradictory arguments in labor law, the companies have played whack-a-mole with any court challenges that arise, and smacked many of them down without arguing the merits of the case. Instead, they force proceedings out of the court system and into civil arbitration, avoiding the creation of any legal precedent that might harm their long-term prospects. The Uber and Lyft pretzel logic is as follows: Drivers are their customers and also independent contractors but cannot negotiate prices or any terms of their contract. Uber and Lyft are platforms, not transportation companies. Drivers unionizing would be price-fixing, but Uber and Lyft can price-fix all they want. Riders pay the driver for their transportation, not the platforms, even though the platforms are the ones that set the prices and collect the money and allocate it however they want, often such that the driver does not in fact receive much of the rider’s fare. If you think that last paragraph was aggressively confusing, it is. Uber and Lyft lack a coherent story for what they are. It is an amalgam of legal necessities in order to reach the only conclusion that keeps them in business: drivers are not employees, they are not a transportation company. AB5 seeks to clean up the independent contractor mess that Uber and Lyft have exploited. Insofar as it is not a perfect piece of legislation, and to any extent Uber and Lyft feel it reaches too far into their core business, they have no one to blame but themselves. They had ample opportunity to rationalize their company’s labor force. They have not only failed to do so, but have fought every effort tooth-and-nail. As a result, not only have gig economy companies forfeited any claim they can fix the problem themselves with well-intentioned policy changes, but they should be given no regulatory bailout from the mess they have made. There is a version of Uber and Lyft that might be profitable even if drivers are employees, but it is a much humbler one. It is one that uses the genuine efficiencies of app-based taxi hailing—the very ones Uber and Lyft claim is their actual secret sauce other than widespread worker exploitation—to get a smaller number of drivers more customers for each of them. To be sure, It is likely a low-margin business, one that carefully evaluates markets before exploding into them. It doesn’t provide 14 million trips a day on six continents or “ignite opportunity by setting the world in motion.” It is probably not a $50 billion company. But it is one that pays its workers fairly. |
ForoCoches: Miembro
06-sep-2019 16:54
#64
|
Que si declaran que los conductores son trabajadores de Uber y no meros contratistas Uber se puede ir a la mierda en su modelo de negocio. Aún así no sólo afectará a Uber, lo hará con la competencia también. |
Coordinador de Galera
07-sep-2019 00:29
#65
|
Vamos digo yo |
ForoCoches: Miembro
07-sep-2019 00:48
#66
|
Y eso tiene consecuencias en muchas cosas que tendría Uber que pagar a cada conductor que ahora se ahorra miles de millones, aparte de que los propios conductores podrán formas un sindicato. El negocio de Uber como mero intermediario se hunde. Y si sucede eso que es el pánico que tienen, tendrán que reestructurar de arriba abajo la empresa. |
ForoCoches: Miembro
07-sep-2019 12:39
#67
|
Menudo analista más relevante,que desconoce la ventaja más importante de Uber sobre sus competidores: Que tiene millones y millones de usuarios. Si voy mañana a Texas no me tengo que andar preocupándome del teléfono de la emisora local que ni lo sé ni me importa. Contadle al analista que la principal ventaja de Uber es que sus usuarios tienen cientos de ciudades donde funciona y que sus conductores tienen millones de personas que quieren viajar. No en balde en Madrid hay más usuarios de Uber en un dia que llamadas a Emisora en dos semanas.
Por otro lado, ya veo por donde vais con trifachitos y demáses. Lo que estamos leyendo aquí son cosas de rojos. |
ForoCoches: Miembro
02-oct-2019 20:33
#68
|
No habla únicamente de Uber pero es curioso como los unicornios, de momento, no convence en la bolsa Alerta tech: Uber, Spotify y el resto de unicornios no levantan cabeza en bolsa Uber, lleva desde ayer por debajo de los 30. ¿Bajará de los 20? |
ForoCoches: Miembro
05-oct-2019 09:13
#69
|
No habla únicamente de Uber pero es curioso como los unicornios, de momento, no convence en la bolsa Alerta tech: Uber, Spotify y el resto de unicornios no levantan cabeza en bolsa
Uber, lleva desde ayer por debajo de los 30. ¿Bajará de los 20? |
ForoCoches: Miembro
15-oct-2019 19:13
#70
|
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.elm...1928b45a6.html Viento en popa a toda vela!!!!!!!! Se plantean poner una cuota como Netflix, mirando por el empleo. |
ForoCoches: Miembro
28-nov-2019 15:57
#71
|
Servicio pedido por app, opción a taximetro o precio cerrado.
Servicio de "mano" taximetro. Por el momento es lo más facil y rápido de aplicar y para eso hace falta una app buena, a ser posible, nacional. Pasado un tiempo se podría hablar de precios cerrados en todos los servicios. |
Angel of Death
28-nov-2019 16:27
#72
|
En 2035 el coche autónomo será totalmente funcional y estará en la calle, puedes citar mi mensaje
Desconozco por el contrario si será cabify, Uber, perico de los palotes, por el momento quien parece que lleva más avanzadas las pruebas es Uber, tesla y alguno más Quizás incluso sea Mercedes o alguna empresa similar la que elimine a Uber y cabify ofreciendo flotas autónomas de carsharing Es necio pensar que a un inversor le van a estafar si invierte en Uber, cuando hay miles de analistas y financieros controlando para obtener un retorno de su inversión, saben más que nosotros sin duda Pues no seré yo quien discrepe contigo...
Aunque tu opinión es diametralmente opuesta a la de Felipe Jiménez, director de la unidad de Sistemas Inteligentes en Vehículos del Instituto Universitario de Investigación del Automóvil (INSIA) de la UPM. Según él, "nuestra generación no verá el coche autónomo de nivel 5". Y no es el único que viene diciendo esto mismo. Lo del vehículo nivel 5, me está recordando un poco como el grafeno, que estando en boca de todo y de todos, sólamente habían alabanzas del futuro inmediato que estaba por venir, pero yo, muchos años después sigo sin verlo materializarse... (y no niego la mayor, ojo!). Pues muy bien, amigo. Se te ve informado.
Supongo que serás consecuente e irás haciendo poco a poco carterita de acciones de uber y Tesla. Cuando se cumplan tus predicciones vas a dar un pelotazo épico. Yo por mi parte voy a seguir con mis necedades. Más que nada porque coinciden con las necedades de expertos de la industria y las finanzas, como las de todos los artículos que he puesto en este hilo y que sospecho que no te has leído. Lo único que no veo sólido en tu exposición es lo de que como van a estafar a un inversor que mete la pasta en Uber con la cantidad de analistas financieros que hay "controlando". Te recomiendo dos películas (sospecho que no eres de libros): Margin Call y el lobo de Wall Sreet. Las dos sobre hechos reales, las dos muy recientes. Si tras eso te pica la curiosidad bichea en Google sobre la burbuja.com, la crisis de deuda, la salida a bolsa de Terra, la de Bankia, Madof, gescartera, banesto, afinsa y forum filatelico... Seguramente me dejo algo. ¡Que pases buen verano!  Comparar lo que ha pasó hace 20 años con lo que pasa ahora, con el avance en regulación, información, sensibilización y demás es de no tener pies ni cabeza
Pones casos españoles recientes, cuando ya se sabe que somos en muchos aspectos una republica bananera. Cuando hablo de inversores no hablo de una persona, hablo de fondos grandes e institucionales Te tomas como un ataque contra los taxistas lo que digo, y recurres a intentar atacarme con que si no leo, o alguna gilipollez similar, no te preocupes que yo no estoy en contra de los taxistas, tan sólo aportaba información Invierto en otros activos, que me recomienda mi gestor de crédit agricole, pero eso es otra historia.. Ni pies ni cabeza es pensar que el mercado de inversiones, bolsa y capitales es hoy mas seguro que hace 20 años.
Ni Madof, ni la crisis de deuda, ni la burbuja.com, ni Enrron, ni Societe Generale lavando dinero, ni Barclays manipulando el Libor, ni mil mas que podria estar aquí enumerando son casos españoles. Grandes fondos institucionales se han ido y se seguiran yendo a pique por mala gestión, administración desleal y estafa. Aquí, en USA y en todas partes donde operen. No me tomo nada como un ataque al taxi porque no es de lo que se esta hablando en este hilo ni argumento desde una perspectiva “taxista”. Y de aportar información nada, informacion he aportado yo y otros foreros con enlaces a articulos de expertos en distintas materias argumentando sobre el tema. Tu solo has aportado la opinion de tus huevos morenos, que ya me diras tu a quien le interesa. 1. El vehículo autónomo de nivel 5 NO estará disponible en 2025 2. El vehículo autónomo de nivel 4, en una zona determinada (geofenced) y en condiciones controladas si estará disponible en 2035. Y esto es lo que busca Uber. Para ellos es “do or die”. |
ForoCoches: Miembro
28-nov-2019 17:10
#73
|
Tenéis y no tenéis razón. Los dos.
1. El vehículo autónomo de nivel 5 NO estará disponible en 2025 2. El vehículo autónomo de nivel 4, en una zona determinada (geofenced) y en condiciones controladas si estará disponible en 2035. Y esto es lo que busca Uber. Para ellos es “do or die”. |
Angel of Death
28-nov-2019 17:19
#75
|
Para ellos, el 70% de los costes son los conductores Un robo taxi elimina ese coste. Si, hay costes adicionales de mantenimiento y demás, pero serian mínimos y seria una empresa de servicios encargada de darlos. Además, un robo taxi podría funcionar (casi) 24/7 El problema, como dice el articulo inicial, es que la inversion inicial sin retorno en unos cuantos anyos es ENORME |
ForoCoches: Miembro
28-nov-2019 18:19
#76
|
Para ellos, el 70% de los costes son los conductores
Un robo taxi elimina ese coste. Si, hay costes adicionales de mantenimiento y demás, pero serian mínimos y seria una empresa de servicios encargada de darlos. Además, un robo taxi podría funcionar (casi) 24/7 El problema, como dice el articulo inicial, es que la inversion inicial sin retorno en unos cuantos anyos es ENORME Sucederá, pero no creo que pille en activo a ningún taxista que lo esté hoy. |
ForoCoches: Miembro
28-nov-2019 19:25
#78
|
Tu te crees que se pueden soltar dos toneladas de hierro a circular por la calle con la fiabilidad de un GPS para posicionarse? Amigo, que un tren va por raíles y el balizamiento es fundamental. Y los aviones igual. |
ForoCoches: Miembro
28-nov-2019 21:10
#79
| Se necesita balizar todas y cada una de las calles, carreteras, y cualquier via por la que circule un coche cada tantos metros, y además balizar todos los demás vehículos que circulen. Y a eso hay que añadir el mantenimiento de todo ese sistema de balizas. Esto en un pueblo con pocas carreteras y bien definidas sería más o menos fácil, en una gran ciudad como Barcelona y alrededores lo veo casi imposible. |
Angel of Death
28-nov-2019 21:49
#80
|
No usan la “fiabilidad del GPS”. Usan GPS, IMUs y Landmarkings con mapas específicos. Pero nada de “balizas” (ja). No se contempla. Se necesita balizar todas y cada una de las calles, carreteras, y cualquier via por la que circule un coche cada tantos metros, y además balizar todos los demás vehículos que circulen. Y a eso hay que añadir el mantenimiento de todo ese sistema de balizas. Esto en un pueblo con pocas carreteras y bien definidas sería más o menos fácil, en una gran ciudad como Barcelona y alrededores lo veo casi imposible.
|
ForoCoches: Miembro
28-nov-2019 22:36
#81
|
Creo que debes aprender un poco el como funcionan los sistemas en pruebas de cosas como Waymo, Uber o demás. Ninguna usa nada relevante de la infraestructura.
No usan la “fiabilidad del GPS”. Usan GPS, IMUs y Landmarkings con mapas específicos. Pero nada de “balizas” (ja). No se contempla. Otro cuñao. |
ForoCoches: Miembro
28-nov-2019 23:01
#82
|
Creo que debes aprender un poco el como funcionan los sistemas en pruebas de cosas como Waymo, Uber o demás. Ninguna usa nada relevante de la infraestructura.
No usan la “fiabilidad del GPS”. Usan GPS, IMUs y Landmarkings con mapas específicos. Pero nada de “balizas” (ja). No se contempla. Otro cuñao. Solo tienes que ver la cantidad de accidentes que hay en los tranvias de Barcelona, que hay 4, tienen una vía para ellos solos donde solo van para delante y para atrás, y aún así tienen accidentes por imprudencia de la gente. Ahora traslada eso a millones de coches en vías que circulan miles de coches. Y argumenta las cosas antes de llamar cuñao a la gente anda. |
Angel of Death
29-nov-2019 04:59
#83
|
Tu imagínate millones de coches circulando sin conductor en una ciudad tan caótica como Madrid o Barcelona, solo guiados por un gps, donde se te cruzaran cada día peatones, bicicletas, patinetes y miles de imprevistos que suceden cada día en una carretera. No se si se controlaran los coches por balizas, por decirlo de alguna manera, o otros sistemas, pero el control sobre las vías tiene que ser absoluto por los coches..Y eso en un pueblo pequeño y de pocas calles podría funcionar, pero en una ciudad grande es casi imposible.
Solo tienes que ver la cantidad de accidentes que hay en los tranvias de Barcelona, que hay 4, tienen una vía para ellos solos donde solo van para delante y para atrás, y aún así tienen accidentes por imprudencia de la gente. Ahora traslada eso a millones de coches en vías que circulan miles de coches. Y argumenta las cosas antes de llamar cuñao a la gente anda. La comparación con el tranvía es desafortunada. Pensar que esos coches van solo con GPS es erróneo. Estos vehículos consiguen localizarse en el mapa con GPS e IMUs, para después hacer landmarking. Con esto consiguen precisiones de localización de <10cm. Después tienen una serie de sensores (radar, lidar, cámaras) que le dan una cobertura de 360 grados. Esto no lo tienen esos tranvías de tu (mal) ejemplo. Reitero - no es necesaria la inversion en infraestructura para tener estos vehículos en las carreteras. Ya existen (en desarrollo), ya están circulando, y no usan nada especial. Queda mucho camino, pero nadie esta poniendo el foco en la infraestructura en estos momentos. Si queréis aprender un poco de robotaxis, os recomiendo este par de documentos: https://storage.googleapis.com/sdc-p...ort%202018.pdf https://uber.app.box.com/v/UberATGSafetyReport Son muy básicos, para empezar, pero podréis entender mejor como funcionaran los futuros robotaxis. Luego ya si tenéis preguntas, MP. |
ForoCoches: Miembro
29-nov-2019 05:07
#84
|
en inglés pero merece la pena el esfuerzo de traducirlo
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2...f-destruction/ |
ForoCoches: Miembro
30-nov-2019 12:30
#85
|
No pretendo faltar, pero la diferencia es que vosotros especuláis con lo que creéis y yo hablo de hechos.
La comparación con el tranvía es desafortunada. Pensar que esos coches van solo con GPS es erróneo. Estos vehículos consiguen localizarse en el mapa con GPS e IMUs, para después hacer landmarking. Con esto consiguen precisiones de localización de <10cm. Después tienen una serie de sensores (radar, lidar, cámaras) que le dan una cobertura de 360 grados. Esto no lo tienen esos tranvías de tu (mal) ejemplo. Reitero - no es necesaria la inversion en infraestructura para tener estos vehículos en las carreteras. Ya existen (en desarrollo), ya están circulando, y no usan nada especial. Queda mucho camino, pero nadie esta poniendo el foco en la infraestructura en estos momentos. Si queréis aprender un poco de robotaxis, os recomiendo este par de documentos: https://storage.googleapis.com/sdc-p...ort%202018.pdf https://uber.app.box.com/v/UberATGSafetyReport Son muy básicos, para empezar, pero podréis entender mejor como funcionaran los futuros robotaxis. Luego ya si tenéis preguntas, MP. No es un entorno establecido ni un movimiento controlado como un trabajo en una factoria o dando vueltas en un entorno cerrado. El cliente tampoco hace cosas de manera lógica para que lo entienda una IA, a mi me ha tocado subirme a un bordillo en una calle estrecha por que una mujer tarda en bajar de su piso, el robo taxi debe de tener un parámetro de tiempo establecido, si no se tendría que marchar, todo eso sabiendo que vas a obstaculizar a todos los coches que vienen por detrás. He puesto un ejemplo random, puedo seguir poniendo cientos los cuales el robotaxi no tendrá ni puta idea de que hacer por más que mil técnicos le establezcan cientos de rutinas. Si existe un transporte completamente variable y complicado han elegido el peor, el hacer de taxi. |
ForoCoches: Miembro
20-dic-2019 00:24
#86
|
Un tribunal prohíbe operar a Uber en Alemania
La sentencia señala que la empresa debe someterse a la normativa de transportes CINCO DÍAS Un tribunal alemán de primera instancia ha prohibido a Uber operar en el país, argumentando que la compañía estadounidense carece de licencia para ofrecer servicios de transporte con coches de alquiler. La sentencia, de un tribunal alemán, rechaza el modelo de negocio de la empresa, cuya aplicación conecta a los usuarios con empresas de alquiler de vehículos. De acuerdo con la sentencia, este mecanismo es anticompetitivo, e implica falta de control sobre estas compañías. La sentencia es de aplicación inmediata, aunque puede ser recurrida a una instancia superior. En todo caso, supone un varapalo para la tecnológica, que el mes pasado perdió el permiso para operar en Londres bajo el argumento de que no verificaba correctamente la identidad de los conductores. En Alemania Uber está activa en siete ciudades, incluyendo Fráncfort, Berlín y Múnich. La empresa trabaja exclusivamente con empresas de alquiler de coches con conductor debidamente registrados. Anteriormente, en 2017, la empresa vio cómo el tribunal supremo alemán rechazaba su servicio Uber Black, que conectaba a los usuarios con conductores no profesionales que ofrecían el transporte en sus vehículos privados. "Analizaremos la sentencia del tribunal y determinaremos los siguientes pasos para que nuestro servicio en Alemania continúe. Trabajando con empresas autorizadas y conductores profesionales, nos comprometemos a ser un socio a largo plazo de las ciudades alemanas", explicó un portavoz de la empresa. Uber añade que la normativa de transporte alemana deja mucho margen a la interpretación, dado que se redactó cuando no existía el modelo de negocio basado en aplicaciones. La sentencia admite, así, las peticiones del demandante, la asociación de empresas de taxis Taxi Deutschland. Ésta buscará inmediatamente la ejecución provisional de la sentencia y, según Taxi Deutschland, implica que tendría que pagar multas a partir de 250 euros por trayecto, llegando hasta 250.000 en caso de reincidencia. Uber promociona su servicio de viajes de un modo que muestra a la empresa como el proveedor del servicio de transporte, dijo el tribunal, añadiendo que la empresa también selecciona los conductores y determina los precios. "Desde el punto de vista del pasajero, Uber proporciona el servicio en sí mismo y, por tanto, es la empresa proveedora", dijo el presidente del tribunal. Por ello, añadió, Uber tiene que cumplir con las leyes que rigen el transporte de pasajeros. Uber también violó, indica, la obligación de los coches de alquiler de regresar a la base de la empresa después de realizar un viaje. Además de la sentencia contraria en Londres y en Alemania, la empresa ha sido excluido de mercados como Copenhague (Dinamarca) o Hungría. La semana pasada presentó una apelación contra una decisión de la Comisión deregulador de transporte para despojar a la aplicación de taxi de su derecho a operar enuno de sus mercados más importantes. |
ForoCoches: Miembro
21-dic-2019 13:39
#88
|
Menuda semana llevan... Organismo estatal colombiano ordena a Uber suspender su servicio en todo el país
La Superintendencia de Industria y Comercio (SIC) de Colombia ordenó la suspensión de la plataforma de transporte Uber en todo el territorio de ese país sudamericano, tras señalar que la compañía incurrió en una competencia desleal frente a otras modalidades de transporte, como los taxis. "La SIC, en ejercicio de sus funciones jurisdiccionales, resolvió la demanda... en contra de Uber BV, Uber Technologies Inc., y Uber Colombia, y determinó que estas últimas incurrieron en actos de competencia desleal por violación de normas y desviación de clientela al prestar irregularmente el servicio público individual de transporte", indicó el organismo en un comunicado. En el texto, la SIC precisó que "como resultado del análisis... ordenó a las demandantes que de manera inmediata cesen los actos de competencia desleal declarados". Gritos, silbidos y empujones: taxistas colombianos chocan con la policía en Bogotá La decisión fue proferida en una audiencia celebrada el viernes "y sus efectos son de inmediato cumplimiento", señaló la SIC, que también consignó que la medida puede ser apelada. Por su parte, Uber aún no se pronuncia sobre la determinación de la entidad. Uber opera en Colombia desde el año 2013, pero su regulación no ha sido definitiva en el país, ya que el Ministerio de Transporte señala que aunque presta un servicio ilegal no la puede suspender porque se trata de una aplicación tecnológica y no una empresa de transporte. Por su parte, el Ministerio de las Tecnologías sostiene que aunque es una aplicación, corresponde a la cartera de Transporte regularla. Según la SIC, la plataforma no es intermediaria, sino que prestan un servicio de transporte público que no está regulado. |
TAXI_SVQ
21-dic-2019 16:52
#89
|
No te preocupes, ya estamos en Españistan para darles las alegrías que no les dan en otros sitios.... https://www.infotaxi.net/la-justicia...el-pais-vasco/ |
ForoCoches: Miembro
21-dic-2019 16:54
#90
|
No te preocupes, ya estamos en Españistan para darles las alegrías que no les dan en otros sitios....
https://www.infotaxi.net/la-justicia...el-pais-vasco/ |