Uber Terminates Deal to Buy Delivery Hero's Taiwan Business
Uber Technologies Inc. has terminated its deal to acquire Delivery Hero SE 's Foodpanda business in Taiwan, after the island's antitrust regulator rejected it in December.
Uber is required to pay a termination fee that is estimated to be about $250 million, Delivery Hero said in a statement Tuesday. In a separate statement to Bloomberg News, an Uber spokesperson reiterated the company's disappointment about the regulator's ruling, but said it respects the decision and will not be pursuing an appeal.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Yahoo
Best Stock to Buy Right Now: Uber vs. Carvana
The world's mobility landscape is changing in several different ways. There may be room and reason to own both of these companies right now. One of these stocks, however, is experiencing oversized growth for reasons that aren't apt to persist. 10 stocks we like better than Uber Technologies › Uber Technologies (NYSE: UBER) and Carvana (NYSE: CVNA) aren't just two different companies. They're seemingly polar opposites. Ride-hailing giant Uber is thriving largely because owning and driving a car is an increasingly expensive hassle. Used car dealer Carvana, conversely, makes it easy and affordable to own your own automobile. One could reasonably argue there's solid -- even growing -- demand for both businesses. But it's difficult to deny the contrasted underpinnings of what make these two companies tick. Investors could understandably be confused. The good news is, one of these names is a clearly better bet than the other -- now and for the foreseeable future. You almost certainly know the companies. Uber Technologies isn't just a major personal mobility name, after all. It largely brought the domestic ride-hailing industry into existence, and now controls three-fourths of the U.S. market, according to data from Bloomberg. It's developing an international presence as well, even if it's not quite as dominant overseas. As for its fiscals, the $175 billion company's drivers provided over 11 billion rides last year, up 18% year over year, turning that into nearly $44 billion in revenue and almost $3 billion worth of operating net income. Nearly half of its revenue, however, came from deliveries and freight services rather than passenger trips. Carvana isn't quite as big, although its growth is just as impressive. The used car dealer reported $13.7 billion worth of revenue for 2024, up 27% year over year, generating a record-breaking $404 million in net income. Most of that profit came from sales of used vehicles to retail consumers, although wholesaling accounts for the bulk of its total unit transactions. A rebound from a inflation-crimped slide in demand after the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic helped drive these top and bottom lines higher. Last year's forward progress, however, also extends a choppy trend that's been in place for some time thanks to Carvana's clever marketing, and brilliant use of technology to establish scale. And yet, these two seemingly growing companies' stocks aren't exactly performing in tandem. Carvana shares are up by more than 200% for the past year, and testing their peak reached in 2021. Uber shares haven't made any real net progress since March of last year, upended multiple times by earnings reports marred by one modest shortfall or another. The market has largely lost its bigger-picture perspective on both companies, however. Take Uber Technologies' recent quarterly results as an example. Yes, since early 2024 either sales or earnings or guidance haven't always lived up to expectations. The company's never failed to make actual forward progress at any point during this stretch, however. Again, last year's revenue improved 18%, and is expected to repeat the feat this year. Although its sales growth rate is slowing, that's a purely mathematical matter. On an absolute basis, it's chugging along as well as it ever has. It's apt to continue doing so well into the foreseeable future, too. Uber is plugged into a serious secular trend. That is, although plenty of people still own and drive cars, there's a growing segment of the domestic and foreign population that doesn't want to do either anymore. A recent survey performed by Deloitte indicates that only 11% of people living in the United States over the age of 55 would consider giving up their vehicle, whereas 44% of people living in the U.S. under the age of 35 would consider doing so. And the disinterest is greater the younger the crowd. Thirty years ago roughly two-thirds of eligible teenagers held a driver's license. Today that figure's about one-third. The advent of a viable alternative like Uber is a key reason for this paradigm shift that's likely to remain in motion for years, as younger non-drivers grow up and pass along these new norms to their children. To this end, Straits Research believes the global ride-hailing market is set to grow at an average annual pace of more than 11% through 2033. Uber is well positioned to win more than its fair share of this growth. The food delivery industry is also set to grow at an annualized pace of 17%, by the way, according to an outlook from Precedence Research. This is another big growth opportunity for Uber, which already enjoys a strong presence within the market. But is Carvana just too promising to pass up? The bullish arguments hold water, to be sure. Chief among them is the sheer cost of a new car. Data from Kelley Blue Book indicates that as of April the average new automobile in the United States was being sold for a hefty $48,699. That puts the monthly payment well over $700, and subsequently, out of reach for most would-be buyers. Used cars are considerably more affordable though. Kelley Blue Book reports April's used car sales rolled in at an average price of $25,547 apiece, roughly halving the monthly payment as well. There's an important footnote to add to this dynamic, however. That is, the car business is incredibly cyclical. Once the current wave of updates and replacements has run its course, don't be surprised to start seeing Carvana underperform. Making matters even more challenging is the lack of new cars manufactured and sold in the U.S. between 2020 and 2022. As Edmunds points out, a three-year-old car (plus or minus a year) is Carvana's sweet spot, so to speak, where affordability and value intersect. Available inventory of these vehicles now stands at more than a decade low though, making it difficult for Carvana to offer what most consumers want. Never say never, of course. It's possible Carvana will continue to consolidate the country's highly fragmented and largely inefficient used car business, achieving growth through greater scale. There's certainly plenty of room for it. As it stands right now, Carvana estimates it only accounts for about 1% of the used car business. It's also possible Uber will run into an unexpected headwind sooner rather than later, even if it's not clear what that headwind might be. Be realistic though. Increasingly crowded urban and metropolitan streets and parking lots paired with car prices that aren't apt to abate anytime soon works in Uber Technologies' favor. Meanwhile, Carvana's recent sales strength doesn't reflect a new long-lived norm as much as it reflects the fact that the average vehicle being driven on U.S. roads is now 12.6 years, according to S&P Global Mobility, an age at which replacing it makes more sense than repairing it. The resulting demand for quality used cars isn't apt to last forever though. Now throw in the fact that Carvana's shares are currently trading 14% above analysts' consensus price while Uber's stock is 16% below analysts' (most of whom rate Uber as a strong buy at this time) average price target of $97.39, and there's little doubt that the ride-hailing powerhouse is a better stock to buy right now than the used car dealership chain's. Before you buy stock in Uber Technologies, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Uber Technologies wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $669,517!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $868,615!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 792% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 171% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 James Brumley has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Uber Technologies. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Best Stock to Buy Right Now: Uber vs. Carvana was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Waymo is winning in San Francisco
The self-driving car service Waymo has been active in San Francisco for 20 months and has already captured 27% of the city's rideshare market, according to new research compiled by Mary Meeker's Bond venture capital firm. That rapid progress suggests the mainstreaming of self-driving car service could happen faster than once thought. Why you're catching the 'ick' so easily, according to science Waymo is winning in San Francisco Supersonic air travel gets green light in U.S. after 50-year ban lifted 'What we've done in San Francisco is prove to ourselves—and to the world—that not only does autonomy work, but it works at scale in a market and can be a viable commercial product,' Waymo Co-CEO Dmitri Dolgov told Fast Company in March. In my experience as a frequent Waymo user, the service can cost up to a third more than Uber, depending on demand. But in some ways it's worth it. While Uber was originally meant to make ridesharing a friendlier and more social experience than taxi service, being alone can have its perks, too. A Waymo One ride can be a time of quiet contemplation, or even meditation, slotted in between meetings or other tasks. With Uber or a taxi service, you also get a different experience each time. The quality, condition, and odor of the vehicle varies from ride to ride, as does the driver's level of sociability, attitude, behavior, and language. Waymo service, by contrast, is largely the same every time: same Jaguar SUV, same neutral smell, same mellow, ambient music (which you can shut off if you want to). Note that Waymo's Jaguar I-PACE SUVs, after being decked out in computers and sensors, probably cost between $130,000 and $150,000, Motor Trend estimates. So Waymo could adopt less-expensive, and less-posh, vehicles as it scales to drive down costs. Riders may feel more in control in a self-driving car (sounds counterintuitive, I know). In an Uber, 'my car, my rules' governs a number of aspects of the ride. I wouldn't ask an Uber driver to change or turn off the music in his own car, for example. In a Waymo 'you control the music and don't feel judged by being on a call or whatever you do,' Das tells Fast Company. And while Waymo rides may take a little longer than Uber rides to get to their destination, there's evidence that Waymo rides are safer than human-driven cars. Waymo researchers studied more than 56.7 million miles of driving and found that by removing the human driver Waymo achieves a 92% reduction in crashes involving injuries among pedestrians, an 82% reduction in crashes with cyclists, and an 82% reduction in crashes involving motorcyclists. Yes, Waymo might have captured a quarter of the market here because San Francisco is a tech city. 'This may be due to a combination of the region's tech-focused culture, busy workers staying heads-down on work or sensitive calls, or simply a preference for fewer social interactions,' Jeremiah Owyang of Blitzscaling Ventures tells Fast Company. 'Standardized quality in a private setting is outperforming a variable, faster human driver—a physical representation of automation.' And don't get me wrong. I've had my share of problems with Waymo. On at least two occasions, in less-traveled parts of the city, a Waymo car has dropped me off several blocks from my destination. And, at least in San Francisco, you still can't take a Waymo to the airport (the company started servicing its first airport, Phoenix Sky Harbor, in 2022). Still, the differences that matter between the self-driving and human-driven experiences are becoming clearer to more consumers. And some of the ones that really matter seem to favor Waymo. Waymo currently offers rides in the San Francisco Bay Area and down the peninsula and Silicon Valley. The state of California just gave it permission to offer rides in San Jose. The company, which spun off from parent Google 10 years ago, also operates in Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Austin. Across these markets, Waymo says its cars have covered more than 33 million miles. In Austin, Waymo operates through a partnership with Uber. Riders hail a self-driving car through the Uber app. Within its 37-square-mile service area in Austin, Waymo accounts for nearly 20% of Uber rides. Waymo was valued at $45 billion after its most recent funding round of $5.6 billion last October. The company reports its revenue under parent company Alphabet's 'Other Bets' category, which showed $450 million in revenue and an operating loss of $1.2 billion for the first quarter of 2025. This post originally appeared at to get the Fast Company newsletter: Sign in to access your portfolio
Gizmodo
a day ago
- Gizmodo
Uber's New Shuttle Is Basically a Bus, but Worse
Beyond the jokes about Uber inventing bus lines are serious questions about what its shuttle service will mean for struggling transit systems, air quality, and congestion. Every few years, a Silicon Valley gig-economy company announces a 'disruptive' innovation that looks a whole lot like a bus. Uber rolled out Smart Routes a decade ago, followed a short time later by the Lyft Shuttle of its biggest competitor. Even Elon Musk gave it a try in 2018 with the 'urban loop system' that never quite materialized beyond the Vegas Strip. And does anyone remember Chariot? Now it's Uber's turn again. The ride-hailing company recently announced Route Share, in which shuttles will travel dozens of fixed routes, with fixed stops, picking up passengers and dropping them off at fixed times. Amid the inevitable jokes about Silicon Valley once again discovering buses are serious questions about what this will mean for struggling transit systems, air quality, and congestion. Uber promised the program, which rolled out in seven cities at the end of May, will bring 'more affordable, more predictable' transportation during peak commuting hours. 'Many of our users, they live in generally the same area, they work in generally the same area, and they commute at the same time,' Sachin Kansal, the company's chief product officer, said during the company's May 14 announcement. 'The concept of Route Share is not new,' he admitted — though he never used the word 'bus.' Instead, pictures of horse-drawn buggies, rickshaws, and pedicabs appeared onscreen. CEO Dara Khosrowshahi was a bit more forthcoming when he told The Verge the whole thing is 'to some extent inspired by the bus.' The goal, he said, 'is just to reduce prices to the consumer and then help with congestion and the environment.' But Kevin Shen, who studies this sort of thing at the Union of Concerned Scientists, questions whether Uber's 'next-gen bus' will do much for commuters or the climate. 'Everybody will say, 'Silicon Valley's reinventing the bus again,'' Shen said. 'But it's more like they're reinventing a worse bus.' Five years ago, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a report that found ride-share services emit 69 percent more planet-warming carbon dioxide and other pollutants than the trips they displace — largely because as many as 40 percent of the miles traveled by Uber and Lyft drivers are driven without a passenger, something called 'deadheading.' That climate disadvantage decreases with pooled services like UberX Share — but it's still not much greener than owning and driving a vehicle, the report noted, unless the car is electric. Beyond the iffy climate benefit lie broader concerns about what this means for the transit systems in New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia, Dallas, Boston, and Baltimore — and the people who rely on them. 'Transit is a public service, so a transit agency's goal is to serve all of its customers, whether they're rich or poor, whether it's the maximum profit-inducing route or not,' Shen said. The entities that do all of this come with accountability mechanisms — boards, public meetings, vocal riders — to ensure they do what they're supposed to. 'Barely any of that is in place for Uber.' This, he said, is a pivot toward a public-transit model without public accountability. Compounding the threat, Philadelphia and Dallas have struggling transit systems at risk of defunding. The situation is so dire in Philly that it may cut service by nearly 45 percent on July 1 amid a chronic financial crisis. (That, as one Reddit user pointed out, would be good news for Uber.) Meanwhile, the federal government is cutting support for public services, including transit systems — many of which still haven't fully recovered from COVID-era budget crunches. Though ridership nationwide is up to 85 percent of pre-pandemic levels, Bloomberg News recently estimated that transit systems across the country face a $6 billion budget shortfall. So it's easy to see why companies like Uber see a business opportunity in public transit. Khosrowshahi insists Uber is 'in competition with personal car ownership,' not public transportation. 'Public transport is a teammate,' he told The Verge. But a study released last year by the University of California, Davis found that in three California cities, over half of all ride-hailing trips didn't replace personal cars, they replaced more sustainable modes of getting around, like walking, public transportation, and bicycling. And then there's the fact cities like New York grapple with chronic congestion and don't need more vehicles cluttering crowded streets. During Uber's big announcement, Kansal showed a video of one possible Route Share ride in the Big Apple. It covered about 3 miles from Midtown to Lower Manhattan, which would take about 30 minutes and cost $13. But here's the thing: The addresses are served by three different subway lines. It is possible to commute between those two points, avoid congestion, and arrive sooner, for $2.90. So, yes, Uber Route Share is cheaper than Uber's standard car service (which has gotten 7.2 percent pricier in the past year) — but Route Share is far from the most efficient or economical way to get around in the biggest markets it's launching in. 'If anything,' Shen said, 'it's reducing transit efficiency by gumming up those same routes with even more vehicles.' This article originally appeared in Grist at Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at
