Japanese carmaker Toyota is investing $500m in Uber, it confirmed late last night, valuing Uber at more than $70bn as part of a deal to work together on driverless cars.
So, the company is said to be worth $70bn? A company that has had to postpone its IPO because of crippling debt !!!
Apart from the plethora of expensive court settlements, Uber’s expensive driverless car programme has been plagued by delays after it caused a pedestrian death earlier this year.
The world’s largest automaker is flinging big bets around in the hope that something sticks. It might be better off doing what it knows best.
Toyota Motor Corp. said Tuesday it’s deepening ties with Uber Technologies Inc., investing $500 million and making Sienna minivans equipped with the tech company’s self-driving software. A yet-to-be determined third party will operate that fleet. One day earlier, four Toyota-affiliated parts companies announced a joint venture to develop software that manages components for automated driving. A few months before that, Toyota put $1 billion into Southeast Asia’s largest ride-hailing provider, Grab, the largest such investment by an automaker.
From chunky stakes in mobility and autonomy to financing partnerships and doubling down in China, the Japanese leader is splashing out on the future of the car. Increasingly, though, it looks like two Toyotas: One that remains squarely focused on cost-cutting and operating within the confines of a struggling world market, the other trying to spend its way out of the gloom.
This new deal will see Toyota and Uber working together on car safety systems for autonomous vehicles.
Last month, Uber chief operating officer Barney Harford made the statement to the media that the company was "not focused in the short-term" on profits, but was instead piling investment into driverless cars and its other businesses.
Another company that had a go-private failure and is now in a position where it will have to add to its debt to keep business going is Tesla. Unless it is able to turn its auto business profitable fast, it is going to have to raise massive funds again.
Bankers have already cut Tesla’s share price estimates after the debacle, although some investors were buoyed, claiming Tesla could be worth far more (eventually). Tesla shares fell as much as 5pc on Monday.
TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT : by Lenny Etheridge.
Gerald Gouriet QC's summary of Judge Arbuthnot's decisions concerning Uber, during Uber's London License Appeal.
With our courts compromised by the dollar, we are left to question the safety of our nation as a whole.
This country was lost on the playing fields of Eton.
It’s not all bad news though....
Taken from the Uber people Blog mainly (Uber drivers).
Now Uber is stuck. If the IPO fails to meet the needed value mark, Uber will have a huge problem with cash flow. Soft Bank and the rest that have carried Uber are no long willing to pump good money after bad. If Uber sells off the self driving unit, investors will dry up. Investors will not fund a cheap taxi company with billions in debt. The only hope for Uber is to have self drivers on the road and quickly. Not going to happen it appears.
Drivers have a window right now. If even 2 or 3 big markets go the direction of NYC, Uber will loose control of the drivers to the states and the laws that protect employees. The momentum will move state to state until Uber is toast
:quality(90)/https://media.mv.urlaubspiraten.de/images/2018/07/5b56120b5b7e6532526433do19iytj.jpg)
If US District Judge William Alsup agrees, Uber will pay out $345,622. When divided amongst the group, that will result in approximately $75 per person, before attorneys' fees are calculated.
The suit, Dulberg v. Uber, was filed in February 2017 in federal court in San Francisco. The suit alleges that Martin Dulberg and other drivers like him are consistently underpaid based on the company's own formula.
Since nearly the beginning, Uber has paid its drivers 80 percent of a given fare. However, in the lawsuit, lead plaintiff Martin Dulberg claims that the company has now changed the way it calculates what that fare is. The result is that the company consistently pays between 70 and 80 percent—but not the full 80 percent—of what the fare should be.
This, plaintiffs claimed, is in violation of the December 2015 work agreement (known as the Technology Services Agreement, or "TSA") that they and many other drivers signed. As they opted out of arbitration, they can sue and band together as a class.
The case largely turned on a difference of interpretation in the work contract.
As the motion for settlement approval, which was submitted on Friday, states:
According to Dulberg, the TSA contemplates only one Fare: the Fare determined by the Fare Calculation. It ties both drivers' payments and Uber's Service Fee to that Fare. Dulberg contends that Uber performed one Fare Calculation based on actual inputs for time/distance at the end of each ride until it implemented upfront pricing. Passengers paid that Fare, Uber calculated its Service Fee based on that Fare, and class members received the remainder of that Fare. When Uber implemented upfront pricing, its practices changed. It began doing two separate Fare Calculations, one upfront to charge passengers (with estimated inputs for time/distance) and another after the ride (with actual inputs for time/distance) to determine class members' compensation. Dulberg claims that practice breached the TSA.
On the other hand, Uber asserts that it "introduced upfront pricing to create more certainty for riders to enable better informed choices that fit their needs—not to undermine driver payments or earnings." (Dkt. No. 71 at 6.) Uber maintains that, regardless of upfront pricing for riders, a driver's Fare Calculation remained constant under the TSA. (Id.) Moreover, as discussed above, most drivers benefited financially from Uber's practice.
Because of this realization, the final number in the affected class was cut from around 9,000 to around 4,500.
To be clear, the alleged violations of the TSA are the only issue at hand: the case does not turn on whether Dulberg and the other drivers were properly classified as contractors or employees, as numerous other cases have.
Uber did not immediately respond to Ars' request for comment. The two sides are set to meet before Judge Alsup on October 29
Source : Arstechnica
