Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Disrupting Uber

jacobinmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 230 posts

Re: Disrupting Uber

#141

Post by Kalium »

tanderson92 wrote: post #129
Kalium wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

I don't agree that this article and the existence of Vanguard rise to the level of evidence in this instance. I am suggesting that those interested in producing evidence should roll up their sleeves and go produce some in the marketplace.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#142

Post by davidf18 »

eistrati wrote: post #6

It looks like post-Austin exit of Uber and Lyft, smart guys jumped on the opportunity to fill the gap. I really hope Arcade City will be able to provide sustainable & scalable solution! P. S. I have no affiliation with either Arcade City or Christopher David. Read about this effort here: http://www.vocativ.com/327333/a-world-without-uber-dispatche...

Thanks! This article is very informative. DWIs are up thanks to Austin putting more stringencies on drivers than where I live, NYC, which is far more dangerous.

Uber/Lyft claimed that since their services began, DWIs in Austin had dropped by 23%. They have since risen about 7%.

Seems like Mothers Against Drunk Driving needs to get involved with Austin politics so that Uber and Lyft can again operate there. How many deaths will have to happen before Austin decides to not be more stringent than NYC, Boston, LA, Chicago, ....

Re: Disrupting Uber

#143

Post by davidf18 »

eistrati wrote: post #6

It looks like post-Austin exit of Uber and Lyft, smart guys jumped on the opportunity to fill the gap. I really hope Arcade City will be able to provide sustainable & scalable solution! P. S. I have no affiliation with either Arcade City or Christopher David. Read about this effort here: http://www.vocativ.com/327333/a-world-without-uber-dispatche...

Thanks! This article is very informative. DWIs are up thanks to Austin putting more stringencies on drivers than where I live, NYC, which is far more dangerous.

Uber/Lyft claimed that since their services began, DWIs in Austin had dropped by 23%. They have since risen about 7%.

Seems like Mothers Against Drunk Driving needs to get involved with Austin politics so that Uber and Lyft can again operate there. How many deaths will have to happen before Austin decides to not be more stringent than NYC, Boston, LA, Chicago, ....

Re: Disrupting Uber

#144

Post by tymm »

Even in the unlikely case that the co-op could temporally get more customers than Uber, Uber could just artificially lower the prices for customers/increase rates for drivers and win customers/drivers back. A co-op could not do that since they have no money in the bank.

Except when all this happens on an own blockchain where people can invest in the co-op via tokens on that blockchain? Maybe this could even be combined with a prediction market which decides how to counteract attacks (on prices) from Uber?!

Re: Disrupting Uber

#145

Post by thatsso1999 »

Kalium wrote: post #120
tanderson92 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * Function, scalable, and does not operate much like a co-op at the level of service delivery. REI falls into this category. No true scot? The definition of a co-op is a group organized to meet economic or social desires through jointly owned business. What does this have to do with any particular approach to service delivery? You appear to be defining cooperatives as some unworkable theoretical concept and then an…

Workers at REI get sub-$12/hr. REI is structurally and technically a co-op. They are just a co-op that does not exhibit the benefits of a co-op that Jacobin would suggest will flow from being a co-op. If it's structured like a co-op and exhibits none of the benefits of a co-op, what's been gained? I'm saying that co-ops generally have to sacrifice at least one of: structure, functionality, scalability.

REI is a consumer-owned co-op, not a worker-owned one. The entire co-op is designed around saving consumers money, not making the workers more.

So yes, REI does deliver the benefits of a co-op to its owners - high-quality goods at a lower price than they would be unable otherwise be able to get. This is the entire point of a consumer co-op. Workers can also be member-owners of the co-op, and frequently are, but the benefits are geared towards getting better discounts on the goods REI sells. This is in addition to the implicit benefits of being an owner of the company and having a say in its direction.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#146

Post by skybrian »

honkhonkpants wrote: post #138
rgbrgb wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> drivers feel like their services are worth a lot, and passengers simply don't believe it That's an interesting issue. We see the same thing in real estate -- seller's think their homes are worth way more than anyone will pay for them. I think this is one of the reasons For Sale By Owner (skipping realtor fees) hasn't taken off yet in the US. The FSBO seller will price too high, the home will sit on market for a whi…

But the problem with Uber is not that sellers are listing too high, it's that Uber keeps jacking up the spread. This is not a true functioning marketplace because the buyers and sellers don't have good information. Only the market maker itself has all the information. Also it isn't really true that Uber lowers prices for riders when they lower prices for drivers. Uber practices active price discrimination to discover…

Serious question: how do you know Uber's spread is increasing?

I'm not even sure if it's positive or negative, given that they subsidize markets (running a loss) sometimes.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#147

Post by random3 »

valhalla wrote: post #86
svanderbleek wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the article more carefully, "they might be willing to switch to a co-op model that offers a cheaper price and solid service". A co-op can have lower prices and pay it's members more because they don't have to funnel profits to support the bloat of a central corporation like Uber.

That may be true. I'd imagine that a cheap median price and solid service will depend on the scale of Swift's supply side. Assuming there's plenty of demand (lots of Uber, Lyft customers switching over) then Uber's drivers would be more than willing to switch over to Swift. The co-op model would be a great incentive. The issue is though how does one get drivers to switch from a reliable (though possibly imperfect, in…

> The issue is though how does one get drivers to switch from a reliable (though possibly imperfect, inefficient) source of regular income with a well-known brand to an upstart at a large enough scale to pose a direct threat to Uber,

Incrementally, starting to use the second for a small percent and then gradually more

Re: Disrupting Uber

#148

Post by honkhonkpants »

skybrian wrote: post #146
honkhonkpants wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the problem with Uber is not that sellers are listing too high, it's that Uber keeps jacking up the spread. This is not a true functioning marketplace because the buyers and sellers don't have good information. Only the market maker itself has all the information. Also it isn't really true that Uber lowers prices for riders when they lower prices for drivers. Uber practices active price discrimination to discover…

Serious question: how do you know Uber's spread is increasing? I'm not even sure if it's positive or negative, given that they subsidize markets (running a loss) sometimes.

Again it's hard to tell because only Uber knows. Prices for UberX have gone up a lot in San Francisco. The minimum fare went from $5 to $6.55 in the space of only four months leading March 2016, and the service fee went from $1 to $1.55 in the same time. Meanwhile the drivers keep complaining their rates are going down, so I have to conclude that Uber's share increases.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#149

Post by rajacombinator »

skybrian wrote: post #146
honkhonkpants wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the problem with Uber is not that sellers are listing too high, it's that Uber keeps jacking up the spread. This is not a true functioning marketplace because the buyers and sellers don't have good information. Only the market maker itself has all the information. Also it isn't really true that Uber lowers prices for riders when they lower prices for drivers. Uber practices active price discrimination to discover…

Serious question: how do you know Uber's spread is increasing? I'm not even sure if it's positive or negative, given that they subsidize markets (running a loss) sometimes.

Ask your drivers. I know if SF and Vegas they will all complain about how Uber increased their take. (Around the same time we saw a lot of articles about "unit economics" at startups.)

Re: Disrupting Uber

#150

Post by thatsso1999 »

abannin wrote: post #55
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,…

1) There is an assumption that Uber is not only profitable, but wildly profitable. There is no data to support this claim outside of Uber's press releases (obviously biased) stating "oh, yeah we just raised another billion but I promise we're profitable in a few markets". To argue that Uber is withholding profit from drivers, one would first have to prove that Uber is making profit, not just a positive contribution m…

1) Regardless of whether or not Uber is making an actual profit, which is not the point of the article, it is quite easy to show that Uber is withholding more revenue from drivers than theoretically necessary - on all rides, Uber takes a percentage cut of the overall fare, along with ~$1 or so in fees. You could argue that Uber's cut goes to running Uber itself, but the whole point of the article is that there is no need for a monolithic company running the platform in the first place - the software running it is fairly easy to create (given that there are hundreds of ridesharing apps worldwide) and the server costs are minimal - if the average Uber fare is $10 and it takes a 20% cut, it is ludicrous to suggest each ride costs $2 in server time. $0.02c might be more accurate (or even $0.20, if you add in other operational expenses), but that's a delta of $1.98 or $1.80 not going to the drivers for every fare.

2) Yes, to a company that is owned by the drivers and gives them back the maximal share of the revenue, taking into account the (minimal) operating costs.

3) To call Uber a "mediator" when both the customer and the driver have no say in the cost of the fare is laughable. Uber unilaterally sets the price, and if you don't like it, you're shit out of luck.

4) Like the point I made in 1), Uber takes a much larger cut than what is truly necessary. Even if the hypothetical ridesharing co-op had the exact same fares as Uber, a much larger proportion of the fare goes to the driver. And I would disagree that riders are the only constrained variable - there is almost zero switching cost between different ridesharing services for not only the rider but the driver as well. If only Uber and the ridesharing co-op are the only options for ridesharing in a given city, and they have the exact same fares for customers, but the co-op pays the drivers better than Uber, any driver would logically switch to the co-op since they would be paid more, and the customers would quickly switch to using the co-op's app as well, since the waiting times would be shorter compared to Uber.

Post reply on HN