Disrupting Uber • Hacker News Board

Re: Disrupting Uber

#121

Post by tanderson92 » Sun, Jul 31, 2016, 6:38 PM UTC

Kalium wrote: post #116

tanderson92 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is an element missing in this article. I think in other places (The ABCs of Socialism by Jacobin) they have said that there will still be organizations and managers. More generally, I'd push back a little: socialism strives to have the workers own the business (broadly, the economy) but there is of course still management and a need for QA, R&D,etc. I like to point to Vanguard as an example of socialism tha…

There will still be organziations and managers and Q&A and R&D! We'll just starve them all of resources and wonder why we're being out-competed by corporations who use different economic models and structures. That's not an abstract hypothesis. That's what happened to the Yellow Cab Co-op in SF. Vanguard is a decent example, but it's in a unique market where information is shared very widely and customers are extreme…

Well their innovation was really the idea that costs matter and that market-cap index mutual funds can work better for investors. They created the market. It was not always the case that investors chose the lowest-priced fund. There is a reason the S&P 500 fund was originally considered to be "Bogle's Folly". It was even maligned as un-American! But it worked well, and non-cooperative businesses are now forced to compete on this factor. However, they do so as a loss-leader for their more profitable (for the managers) products.

http://www.vanguard.com/bogle_site/lib/sp19970401.html

Re: Disrupting Uber

#122

Post by Kalium » Sun, Jul 31, 2016, 6:40 PM UTC

tanderson92 wrote: post #121

Kalium wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will still be organziations and managers and Q&A and R&D! We'll just starve them all of resources and wonder why we're being out-competed by corporations who use different economic models and structures. That's not an abstract hypothesis. That's what happened to the Yellow Cab Co-op in SF. Vanguard is a decent example, but it's in a unique market where information is shared very widely and customers are extreme…

Well their innovation was really the idea that costs matter and that market-cap index mutual funds can work better for investors. They created the market. It was not always the case that investors chose the lowest-priced fund. There is a reason the S&P 500 fund was originally considered to be "Bogle's Folly". It was even maligned as un-American! But it worked well, and non-cooperative businesses are now forced to com…

OK. So how does a hack at Jacobin and a true believer HN commentor (yourself) go about disrupting Uber by doing better with a co-op which is more efficient by virtue of not overcompensating managers?

Re: Disrupting Uber

#123

Post by niuzeta » Sun, Jul 31, 2016, 6:41 PM UTC

paulddraper wrote: post #106

thrill wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody looks twice at the car the pizza is delivered in. Pick up a few riders in a car that smells like pizza, and you'll no longer be an Uber driver.

So keeping a clean car is one of the hidden expenses?

I'd say keeping a care desirable to warrant a 5-star rating is, or any upkeep cost you would have to pay that Uber does not subsidize. I'm not a driver so I can't comment on specifics, but I doubt Uber pays for fuel, unless you're a full-time driver.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#124

Post by davidf18 » Sun, Jul 31, 2016, 6:41 PM UTC

Kalium wrote: post #94

tanderson92 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The[y] appear to be complaining because Uber is lowering the cost of overly expensive taxi fares when they should be working on a system that provides rides for less money while still helping drivers get more pay (if that is important to them). This is a magazine for American Leftists, so they're really quite clear what they want: they want valuable services rendered to people with profits shared among the workers,…

Jacobin makes the core mistake of many economic radical leftists - they ignore that it's not just the good or service itself that's valuable. Quality assurance is valuable. Service discovery is valuable and so is rapid provisioning. In Jacobin's world, the only person providing value here is the driver. In the world the rest of us inhabit, things like the star-rating system and the dispatch system are valuable too.

It is very helpful to have a firm with deep pockets that has a huge incentive to ensure their drivers are safe.

So, that they can be sued or lose lots of profits to a competitor if they don't have a fully safe system.

Large US airlines have a huge incentive to ensure that flights are safe. It is not only that they are afraid of losing market share if there is a large accident (and of course the loss of reputation for loss of life) but the average payout per killed passenger is $4.5 million.

In Germany, Lufthansa, the main carrier of Germany, owned a discount carrier where the pilot deliberately drove the plane into the ground, killing all on board. But in Germany the liability is limited to something like $75,000 per passenger instead of the $4.5 million in the US.

Which makes me more interested in flying with US carriers than, say, German ones, But also Uber/Lyft rather than "co ops."

This is real value provided. An especially important to women and the elderly who are most at risk from a problem driver.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#125

Post by xseven » Sun, Jul 31, 2016, 6:51 PM UTC

cbHXBY1D wrote: post #87

zer0gravity wrote: post #49

Uber has all the cards here. They came with a system that enables the drivers to use their time more efficiently, which dropped the price for the end user. Also lowered the entry barrier. Almost anyone with a car, smartphone and a driving licence can do it, which is why they afford the high turn over. Is it worth it trying to compete with them? Definitely . Will this lead to increased drivers profit ? Not really. Bec…

They truly don't. They own the best technology but no driver OR customer loyalty. If a cooperative treats their employees better and with higher wages then why should the best, most active drivers stick with Uber?

because that is where the customers are

Re: Disrupting Uber

#126

Post by thanatropism » Sun, Jul 31, 2016, 6:53 PM UTC

guaka wrote: post #3

It's a bit silly to leave out any mention of self driving cars in an article called "Disrupting Uber". Driving around cars around all day is a silly job, ideally a job that should not exist in 5 years from now. We'd better discuss basic income instead of co-op taxi companies.

The more interesting problem being, of course, how to build a co-op anything that really works within a market economy. The Leftist Uber Killer may well be the killer app for socialism.

If you a mange to do it, of course.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#127

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jul 31, 2016, 6:53 PM UTC

guaka wrote: post #3

It's a bit silly to leave out any mention of self driving cars in an article called "Disrupting Uber". Driving around cars around all day is a silly job, ideally a job that should not exist in 5 years from now. We'd better discuss basic income instead of co-op taxi companies.

[deleted]

Re: Disrupting Uber

#128

Post by zaroth » Sun, Jul 31, 2016, 6:55 PM UTC

flylib wrote: post #118

zaroth wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this is an interesting thought -- will the general public even be able to own their own self driving car? Or will self-driving functionality be locked down with DRM to such a degree, will the developers of the technology hoard it / control it to the point that they are the ultimate arbiters of what you can even do with a self driving car? What scares me is that there is absolutely precedence for companies to act l…

Here is tesla's comment on it, but it seems like they will be fully in control of the fleet/app software and could potentially favor their own cars in cities where they are running their own fleets over your own cars you have added into the fleet as it benefits them financially more. Potentially "jailbreaking" and building your own fleet/app would be an option, not sure how legal but if tesla issues a critical securi…

I think Tesla has shown that jailbreaking the car is definitely not an option -- they will remotely brick your vehicle if they catch you.

So I think this a great example where you can add your Tesla to Tesla's own on demand service, but if you don't like the rates Tesla offers, and you want to put it in rotation with someone else's service, you likely run afoul of the ToS and risk bricking your car.

This probably helps explain why so many different companies, including Uber, are racing to develop their own self driving platforms. Because it won't be a bolt on feature by a supplier that anyone can build on, it will be a highly controlled and locked down service funneling the profits to the platform owners.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#129

Post by tanderson92 » Sun, Jul 31, 2016, 6:55 PM UTC

Kalium wrote: post #122

tanderson92 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well their innovation was really the idea that costs matter and that market-cap index mutual funds can work better for investors. They created the market. It was not always the case that investors chose the lowest-priced fund. There is a reason the S&P 500 fund was originally considered to be "Bogle's Folly". It was even maligned as un-American! But it worked well, and non-cooperative businesses are now forced to com…

OK. So how does a hack at Jacobin and a true believer HN commentor (yourself) go about disrupting Uber by doing better with a co-op which is more efficient by virtue of not overcompensating managers?

Fascinating. I'm merely commenting on misconceptions and discussing what I think the intent of the article is. Your hostility to these ideas is directed at the writer ("hack") and those honestly discussing the article ("true believer" -- did I ever claim to be or even agree with the article?).

As for my personal knowledge at implementing this: I don't know how it can be done since I'm a scientist and not a business analytics person. But I know that a cooperative could compete well against the taxi cab industry. Perhaps not against Uber which broke lots of regulations to become an entrenched force in the industry.

Disengaging, I don't like to discuss with those who attack others while ignoring the evidence brought forward.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#130

Post by zaroth » Sun, Jul 31, 2016, 6:57 PM UTC

Hydraulix989 wrote: post #12

jsemrau wrote: post #4

I still believe that Uber artificially creates a market by subsidizing a price point that is attractive to the drivers.

Definitely. Even as a consumer, I am able to order food from UberEats, and the total costs less than the cost of the food on the menu at the restaurant because of Uber's promotions.

Key word, promotions. CAC is a thing, so is CLTV. But negative gross margins are something different.