Companies in burgeoning industries at this scale are concerned with longevity, specifically outlasting their competitors. Not short term profits.
They are thinking more along the lines of "how can we make 10 billion dollars per year, for the next 150 years." Think General Electric.
That's why they require huge amounts of money from investors, so they can aggressively grow to a size where other companies can't touch them.
The huge amount of capital is sort of like a moat.
When you're larger, you have something called economy of scale. Which means you have enough resources to do stuff the smaller guys can't do.
When you're larger, you also have something called a data advantage. Which means you know so much more about your customers, you can predict things and make decisions the smaller guys can't.
Someone please create a browser extension that automatically adds every word you "Look Up" to an Anki stack. My vocabulary would be vastly improved if I had this, I always find myself looking up the definition of the same complex words over and over again that are for whatever reason slippery for me to remember.
I think it's a lot of fun and they pulled some interesting data from it. There are far more pressing concerns in the world right now, people have sex sometimes NBD.
I own a similar content network, but we have since broke it up into multiple niche properties to avoid having one massive neck to choke like Upworthy.
In the past fb has issued domain wide bans on properties I've owned if we were getting a little too savvy in exploiting their edge rank algo.
This "pass thru" traffic is amongst the least valuable on the internet, believe me, we have tried everything under the sun to monetize visitors, adsense, every ad network, affiliate, etc.
Believe it or not the best thing we've figured out is to use the authority of a massively viral website to help us rank terms in google on the backend. All comes full circle, lol.
Calling it right now.
No one just takes down an app that is generating $50k+ day in ad revenue. This might just be a brilliant PR stunt, should drive several million downloads today. No way is the app coming down tomorrow.
I think this may be the case, but wouldn't be surprised if he did take it down. He has plenty of money from this, the name recognition now that any releases he makes will get a decent amount of players, and he can just work on something with less pressure behind it.
Generous of the article to refer to Gett as a "rival" and not a clone.
Because Uber is so crazily innovative that no-one else would ever think about doing it? Come on. It's a car service with a smartphone app. There's a reason there are at least a dozen companies doing it.
Non-taxi on-call cars have existed for many, many decades before Uber. Especially in NYC where this article is relevant, car services are a dime a dozen and have been a regular part of city life for decades.
The difference is between picking up your phone to get one vs. using your smartphone. Uber was first to market, but it's silly to pretend that without them it wouldn't have happened. That's like calling the Pizza Hut app a clone of the Domino's app, because they both order pizzas and Domino's came out first. Ultimately Uber is a newfangled (and more convenient) front-end to a service that has pre-dates itself by a wide, wide margin.
The extension from "call the car company to get a car" to "use an app to get a car" is a pretty obvious innovation, particularly in NYC.
So what? You can say that about any large tech companies.
Google wasn't the first search engine. Apple didn't make the first music player. Facebook wasn't the first social network.
Being unique doesn't matter a single bit. Only thing that matters is that people are using them. And that's the case with Uber. Judge however you will their shady tactics, but it's ridiculous to downplay their success based on that.
You're reading dismissiveness into my post that was not intended. Uber has done something remarkable, but it is not so novel as to justify calling everyone doing the same thing a "clone".
Not to mention Uber is not the first GPS-based car-hailing app. They were the first ones that were able to gain mass traction - which is an achievement in and of itself, to be certain, but also makes claims that "X cloned Uber" somewhat laughable. If we're going to split hairs about who copied whom, Uber is on the wrong end of that statement.
But it's precisely because Uber was able to get such traction, that other companies followed into the field. Lyft and Gettit may not be "clones", but I'd wager the followed the industry leader (Uber) in the the field.
Gettit is as much a clone of Uber as Androids a clone of iPhone. Not an exact copy, but probably wouldn't be existing without the other paving the path.
I'd wager that people in ancient Athens would send a messenger to the local chariot service when they needed to get around on short notice. The idea that Uber is somehow doing something new is ludicrous.
Was Uber really the 'first'? Lyft a similar service came out of zimride.com which was doing ride sharing as early as 2007 though perhaps not through a smart phone in real time.
Zimride did indeed launch in 2007 as a Facebook based carpooling app. It wasn't real-time at that time. Don't know if/when Zimride built an iPhone app but I built a real-time ridesharing iPhone app in 2008: http://ridecell.com/gt/
Uber started in 2009.
Disclaimer: The company I started, InstantCab, competes directly with Uber.
I'm curious, do you think all of those "X but on the internet" patents are good inventions worthy of 17 years of government protection? Because this is basically the same thing. Uber provides a service that has been around for centuries, it's just "on smartphones". Is that really sufficiently unique to call other people who do it "a clone"?
To be fair, integrating the Ebay-style rating of sellers/drivers does stand out as an important distinction - making that a core part of their app is a bit disruptive. Not a huge deal and not all their competitors do it, but that's something you don't usually expect in that kind of car service.
I agree, and I don't want to make it sound like Uber isn't doing anything interesting or innovative. I just don't think that what they're doing is interesting or innovative enough that we should consider it all an original idea that others could "clone".
Taking smartphones and eBay-style ratings and integrating it into a smartphone app is great! But imitators, if they are "cloning" anything, are cloning eBay and car services, not Uber. The combination is extremely useful but ultimately nothing special.
A few requests/cancellations to get the cell # would be scrappiness. 100+ is sleazy and if I were Travis or Ryan I would be removing the NYC GM if this story is accurate.
They are thinking more along the lines of "how can we make 10 billion dollars per year, for the next 150 years." Think General Electric.
That's why they require huge amounts of money from investors, so they can aggressively grow to a size where other companies can't touch them.
The huge amount of capital is sort of like a moat.
When you're larger, you have something called economy of scale. Which means you have enough resources to do stuff the smaller guys can't do.
When you're larger, you also have something called a data advantage. Which means you know so much more about your customers, you can predict things and make decisions the smaller guys can't.