A stretch: is Lyft going to use these metrics to go public before Uber to hype itself up?
It seems like it Lyft has everything to gain and little to lose by building a growth story and rushing out to IPO. They get to set the price, they could be used as an Uber proxy which would increase demand for their stock, and more.
It really is possible for a company to piss off enough people.
My extended family in the southeast and northeast US is familiar with Uber (without using it), but they haven't heard of Lyft. When I lived in Chicago, most of my peers had Lyft, but Uber was the always the first choice.
Does anyone else see the same trend? The bay area certainly seems to be Lyft-dominant, but I haven't seen that anywhere else.
HN is not only a regional but also an ideological bubble, and it seems to hate companies that are doing well for themselves (except Apple and Musk-affiliated gigs).
They've never heard of Lyft and don't know anything about any Uber controversy other than the fact that 'taxi drivers hate it!"
Contrast e.g. Equifax, Comcast, SAP, etc, who've pissed of plenty of people with little consequences.
Apple didn't sell the first smartphone or tablet...
Facebook wasn't the first social media site...
Amazon wasn't the first to sell shit online...
And Lyft wasn't the first ride-sharing app.
Maybe being first to market is overrated?
Sometimes being first to market yields an unshakable dominance in that market for a long time to come... Mostly not though :)
What you're pointing out is often called 'second movers advantage'. Apples iPhone is a pretty decent example: by not being the first phone provider Apple got to enter a maturing market with a mature offering, use their own core competencies, and dominate. That's hard to do if you're bogged down with backwards compatibility and fighting to make the tech possible.
Can you name 3?
Where's the data for this?
> with a particularly strong Q4 during which its revenue outpaced Uber’s by 2.75x
How much revenue did Lyft pull in? Or Uber? This article isn't very good.
How confident were you in the accuracy of the internal numbers being shared? ;-)
Devil's advocate question for sure, but I've been at companies where real numbers of all kinds were casually inflated internally during communications for morale (or just to flatter management's ego)..
It's much nicer and easier to get an Uber at most airports and know you're not getting screwed, communicate your destination easily when you don't speak the same language and know that they take payment by card -- rather than arriving at the destination, having already asked if they take card payment, they said yes, then suddenly they don't.
Looking at it another way, given a huge funding pool (say $10B) a modestly competent company could outpace both Uber and Lyft in revenue growth by the end of the year simply by subsidizing rides even more. The initial skepticism towards ride sharing services is gone and there's little keeping customers and drivers loyal to either Uber or Lyft.
But it will reach a point where the dispute will not be with the old business models related to mobility. And at this point, it will make sense to compare these companies. But at the moment it makes no sense to compare revenue.
It is a expression with no clearly defined meaning, and really shouldn't be used.
(No doubt that some companies take it much too far, but profits are not critical in this stage of any online/mobile ride-hailing company.)
Factually accurate, but none the less closer to bias / propaganda than truth. Unnecessary and inappropriate.
Techcrunch (and all others who choose to deny their journalistic responsibilities) should be embarrassed for being so willing to publish such click bait-y headlines.
Perhaps greed isn't so good after all?
Perhaps Uber should first try to get profitable.