31–40 of 80 posts
A decentralized ride solicitation tool with a reputation system, maybe blockchain-based, could kill off Uber and Lyft almost overnight. Especially if existing taxi companies embraced it. I want to know if a driver is licensed, insured, etc. Uber doesn't provide that, and I don't like the rent-seeking aspect of their service. If it's winner-takes-all, it's only a matter of time until another winner takes all. I don't…
A decentralized ride solicitation tool with a reputation system, maybe blockchain-based, could kill off Uber and Lyft almost overnight. Especially if existing taxi companies embraced it. I want to know if a driver is licensed, insured, etc. Uber doesn't provide that, and I don't like the rent-seeking aspect of their service. If it's winner-takes-all, it's only a matter of time until another winner takes all. I don't…
An interesting problem of working with "real" cabs is that you have to compete with street hails (that is, people doing the traditional stand-on-the-curb-and-wave-their-arms deal). This is a surprisingly big issue. During slow times, it's not a big deal. But during slow times, you also aren't providing very many rides to the cabbies. And also pricing, which I'll come back to. During peak times, it's very likely in a…
I would envision a decentralized system including both "real cabs", whose parent company vouches for a driver's licensing, as well as independent drivers, whose insurance company does. But if any driver participated in a transparent network, their reputation would be important to them, and I would assume that would be a deterrent to taking fares you don't actually intend to pick up.
A decentralized ride solicitation tool with a reputation system, maybe blockchain-based, could kill off Uber and Lyft almost overnight. Especially if existing taxi companies embraced it. I want to know if a driver is licensed, insured, etc. Uber doesn't provide that, and I don't like the rent-seeking aspect of their service. If it's winner-takes-all, it's only a matter of time until another winner takes all. I don't…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ultimate test for a monopoly is if the monopolist could raise prices significantly and not lose significant business to competitors. I don't think Uber could pass that test.
If you can get rides with Uber instantly versus waiting 20-30mins with the competition, then Uber can raise prices a bit and not lose many customers. People are impatient and Uber has already trained a vast audience that you click a button and get a car in 10mins or less. Once you get used to it, you won't settle for an inferior network where you have to wait 2x or 3x for a couple bucks less.
Speaking anecdotally, I know for sure that I'd use a cheaper alternative to save $5 even if it took an extra 10 min.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree. “Natural monopoly” is a very lazy term. It’s mostly about looking around at a moment and declaring that it must be so. Utilities don’t need to be monopolies, necessarily. It’s just that they were designed that way at a point in time. It’s a path of history, but not a natural law. Wintel too. Which was a monopoly, until it wasn’t. It’s not that their position in the market changed, but the definition of the mar…
The threat of possible disruption from an uncertain direction 10 years down the line is of a very different nature than the threat posed by direct, immediate competition. Why do you think it's "lazy" to find one type of competition less desirable and then notice and complain when certain markets seem to consistently gravitate towards it?
E.g. our municipal broadband monopolies trace back to a belief that wireline phone and TV can only be monopolies. And maybe it’s true! But we might have chosen differently, had we not assumed it a natural outcome.
We might have assumed that wireless is a natural monopoly. Gladly, we didn’t. (Though spectrum policy can be more competitive.)
A decentralized ride solicitation tool with a reputation system, maybe blockchain-based, could kill off Uber and Lyft almost overnight. Especially if existing taxi companies embraced it. I want to know if a driver is licensed, insured, etc. Uber doesn't provide that, and I don't like the rent-seeking aspect of their service. If it's winner-takes-all, it's only a matter of time until another winner takes all. I don't…
I'm not the one who downvoted, but I would imagine this is why. * Overnight is a bit too quick. Uber's service has grown so quickly partly because they have an organization behind it to fight against regulations which is part of what made their rapid growth possible. * Implementing a standardized "blockchain" protocol to guarantee all of those things is a non trivial task * Go outside of SF Bay, whip out your phone w…
If your friends trust you, they'll humour you; when your order comes through, your friends will ask you what app you used. I remember when I first saw the "Google" name and logo, I also went 'wat'. But then I used it and I never looked back. Reputation matters but reputations are made by delivering the goods.
A decentralized ride solicitation tool with a reputation system, maybe blockchain-based, could kill off Uber and Lyft almost overnight. Especially if existing taxi companies embraced it. I want to know if a driver is licensed, insured, etc. Uber doesn't provide that, and I don't like the rent-seeking aspect of their service. If it's winner-takes-all, it's only a matter of time until another winner takes all. I don't…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good point about utilities. Plus, with decentralized (solar) power generation, utility companies are really starting to show some cracks too. As soon as distributed energy storage is economically viable, they're going to need to adapt even further.
What does energy generation have to do with the monopoly power of the folks who own the wires, buy from the bulk electricity market, and sell to consumers?
This actually causes a lot of issues, since the long-term fixed costs for the utility get spread across fewer paying customers. You're starting to see this problem in locales with heavy solar penetration (eg. Hawaii).
The article is not convincing that these are natural monopolies. What happened to AOL and AIM? What happened to MySpace? There is also this recent article about Chinese innovation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10806386 Natural monopoly in the Information Age may turn out to have been natural, but it feels unnatural. There are explanations, but I, personally, do not find them to be convincing.
MySpace got shittier and shittier even as Facebook expanded and there was visible mind-share searching for new things.
Yahoo has gotten similarly worse despite being in a space where people wanted a Google alternative.
The impression I get is that also-rans basically aim to cash-out rather than continuing. The big thing seems to be few investors actually want to think long term and there's money only in being a market leader or in being ad-driven, self-discrediting crap-site - and it costs lots of money running a big website despite it seems like it should be cheap.