Homejoy's competition is Yelp and Google local search. Both of them do roughly the same job for less money. Homejoy just isn't needed.
As Pando Daily keeps pointing out, the only Uber-like business that works is Uber. Uber has an incredible valuation, but their revenue and profit numbers are lousy. Their revenue is about $450m/yr, but they are not profitable. They are, however, building a fancy new headquarters, always a bad sign.
Startup valuations are a function of how much they needed to be valued at to raise their last round. It's entirely projected future value; it bares no relation whatsoever to their current position in terms of revenue and profit.
Sorry? How can a taxi service (uber) be running at three times the size of the taxi market?
Is this dodgy accounting, grey market taxi services previously (understating size of market) or has uber genuinely expanded the market by reducing friction?
> uber genuinely expanded the market by reducing friction?
Absolutely, particularly in places like SF (where getting a cab was a giant hassle and very unreliable). By making on-demand transportation viable in way more places, Uber has definitely expanded the market. There are tons of times and places where I never would have tried to get a cab but happily order an Uber.
I started using Sidecar, and more recently Uber, because I couldn't get a cab ride.
There were plenty of times I tried calling for a cab in SF's SOMA district, only to be disappointed when either no one answered the phone and/or no one showed up. If you happen to live in an area where one can realistically have a chance of hailing a cab, and you call for a cab, it's probably more like ordering a pizza. Place the call, and it'll show up eventually.
> uber genuinely expanded the market by reducing friction?
Based on personal experience, I would have no trouble believing this (particularly for SF, Seattle, or other cities which lack a dense taxi presence). Prior to Uber's arrival in Seattle I walked most places or took a bus. I had never personally used a cab in my life until I went on a corporate trip at age 29, had no rental car, and there was nothing more convenient between the airport and my hotel. I think since then I've used traditional cabs ~four more times, two of which were in NYC.
On the other hand, I take Uber 2-3 times a week because it dramatically cuts down on time spent in transit and is essentially zero hassle.
It's an anecdote, but I expect I am not alone in dramatically upping my use of this sort of service due to Uber.
They could very easily be profitable if they wanted to slow down their growth. Instead they're investing all their funds back into expansion into new cities and fighting the regulatory battles in order to win the biggest markets - which is exactly what their investors want/need them to do.
Uber is a highly disciplined company. I'd completely expect their new HQ plans to be focused on optimising the company's performance, not extravagance.
"Uber is a highly disciplined company. I'd completely expect their new HQ plans to be focused on optimising the company's performance, not extravagance."
I'd argue that Homejoy's real competition is Handy, which seems to be alive and well. I'm surprised the article didn't mention Handy at all, because it is the most relevant comp for Homejoy.
The real story here is that Handy outcompeted Homejoy and disrupted their business. Both companies define ladders for professionals to climb by claiming and servicing more bookings and receiving high ratings. Pay for pros at the top of the Homejoy ladder was the same as starting pay at the bottom of the Handy ladder. Pros quickly started to favor Handy starting with the top performers. This is an effective demonstration of the utility of a rather small change to the balance toward quality as discussed in the article.
2014 was 450. On target for 6x this year and 3x next year. Also, most of the early markets are profitable. Investing in growth > profitability at this point.
As Pando Daily keeps pointing out, the only Uber-like business that works is Uber. Uber has an incredible valuation, but their revenue and profit numbers are lousy. Their revenue is about $450m/yr, but they are not profitable. They are, however, building a fancy new headquarters, always a bad sign.