Why Neither/New companies are different than traditional marketplaces, how Vision Fund’s flaws led to Adam Neumann being forced out, and why Peloton has a big opportunity it might not see.
Uber represents something new: a company that is different than incumbents because of technology, yet not itself a tech company — just like the Venture Fund is not a VC.
California has passed a new bill, AB 5, that may have a big impact on Uber, Lyft, and other similar companies, but only if it survives court and ballot challenges. The unintended consequences could be huge.
The question of “What is a tech company” comes down to how much software and its unique characteristics affects the company’s core business.
Disney’s bundle is compelling both for Disney and also Hulu, then Huawei’s new OS doesn’t make sense commercially but does make sense geopolitically. Plus, Uber’s earnings have been unfairly represented even as they are very concerning.
Uber’s layoffs were a necessary adjustment to a marketing strategy that made sense previously, but not today. Then, why the T-Mobile-Sprint merger should have been approved, and the secondary impacts of the decision.
What went wrong with Uber’s IPO, and why the trend to stay private longer is problematic for everyone involved.
More on why giving information to investors often helps companies, then why Luminary, a new service for podcasters, is probably not going to succeed. Building bundles is hard!
Uber’s S-1 raises more questions than it answers
Lyft’s S-1 is out, confirming some suspicions about the ride-sharing market, and raising questions about others. The big question: can Lyft get leverage on its costs, or is Uber better placed?