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

181–190 of 230 posts

Re: Disrupting Uber

#181

Post by x2398dh1 »

artrlee wrote: post #180
pfarnsworth wrote: post #63

Good luck with the co-op idea. The problem is that drivers feel like their services are worth a lot, and passengers simply don't believe it. The reason why Uber is a success is that they created new demand by dropping prices. Everyone I know, including myself, would never have taken an Uber as frequently as we do if the prices were as high as taxis. You can't replicate this unless you keep pushing prices down, and th…

In Hong Kong taxi drivers operate private networks known as "80% taxi's". You'll see many taxi's with multiple phones in them with different drivers operating on a few networks. http://hk-magazine.com/article/inside-hk/mr-know-it-all/1145...

I have seen that and I never knew that was the reason for the tons of phones stuck to the windshield.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#182

Post by morgante »

I know it's Jacobin, but where do they come up with the leading thesis that Uber "underpays its drivers." Relative to what? Even after expenses, Uber drivers make well above minimum wage.

Ultimately, it's impossible to satisfy all parties, particularly drivers. They want to be paid more, but most reports say Uber is not profitable. A co-op cannot rely on VC money to finance its expenses, so to pay drivers more they'd either have to charge more than Uber or avoid most of the expenses Uber incurs. I don't see either scenario leading to a competitive option: either you're the expensive option, or you offer a subpar experience.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#183

Post by fineIllregister »

imh wrote: post #163

This prompted me to try to understand what a co-op really is. I read the wikipedia page, and still don't really get what keeps it separate from a regular business, except for ideals. At a co-op like this, they would still need programmers to fix inevitable bugs in the app, marketing/logistics people to figure out how to get traction (because that doesn't just happen by itself) and expand to new cities, and managers t…

The employees would own the company, including any programmers, etc. There would be no shareholders to pay out to, so the money that would have been paid out as dividends could be saved by consumers and/or given to employees.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#184

Post by morgante »

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…

> If you get ten people together on the same street corner and everyone calls for an UberX, you'll get ten different prices.

That would be a huge story and would be much more interesting than the typical Uber hit job. If it were true, I have to imagine that it would have been covered by a journalist intent on attacking Uber.

Care to share some actual evidence?

Re: Disrupting Uber

#185

Post by Consultant32452 »

neves wrote: post #174

The greatest problem of coops is that they don't have any incentive of getting rid of riders. With the feedback in Uber, an abusive driver would be kicked off soon. I'm tired of taxi drivers that don't take me where I want. I never had this problem with Uber.

Have you tried being white?

Re: Disrupting Uber

#186

Post by morgante »

svanderbleek wrote: post #68
pfarnsworth wrote: post #63

Good luck with the co-op idea. The problem is that drivers feel like their services are worth a lot, and passengers simply don't believe it. The reason why Uber is a success is that they created new demand by dropping prices. Everyone I know, including myself, would never have taken an Uber as frequently as we do if the prices were as high as taxis. You can't replicate this unless you keep pushing prices down, and th…

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.

> 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.

How?

What is the "bloat" of Uber that this taxi co-op would avoid. Uber's primary spending is on marketing and developer salaries. Without marketing, how do you expect anyone to use the co-op app?

Ultimately, I think it comes down to drivers (and leftists) not valuing developers. You're not going to build and maintain an app which competes with Uber if you're not paying for the "bloat" of developers.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#187

Post by rahimnathwani »

Avshalom wrote: post #133
Spooky23 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much of Uber is the ability to burn down the massive investments made into the company? As they transition to a more normal company that needs to make money, can they afford those incentives?

Well some of it is from them ignoring business regulation that taxis had been held too. When there's no medallion over head you can charge less and that applies to a hypothetical dispatch co-op too.

"When there's no medallion over head you can charge less and that applies to a hypothetical dispatch co-op too."

This is wrong for two reasons:

1) In general, overheads don't directly affect how much you choose charge for something. By definition, overheads are fixed (i.e. don't change with the output), so don't affect your marginal decision about whether to drive or not.

2) In the specific case of taxis, prices are set via a combination of lobbying and regulation. Taxi tariffs are not set by the market in response to the market value of medallions.

In summary, you have it backwards. Taxis tariffs aren't high due to the cost of medallions. Medallions are worth a lot because taxi tariffs are high.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#189

Post by morgante »

rdiddly wrote: post #31
dotBen wrote: post #24

> "competing with Uber might seem intimidating, but in many respects the company is a paper tiger. Its massive valuation, which stood at $62.5 billion in January, comes from intellectual property — its brand and data — rather than from tangible assets." Right... except that the brand is what creates the demand side of the market, the data is what makes the platform efficient and the IP provides strong defense against…

Uber's brand did not and does not create the demand for catching a ride. The 400-year continuous existence of some form of ride service, starting with horse-drawn hackneys, tends to indicate a pre-existing demand, as does the fact that "taxi" is the same word in different languages all over the world.

You were able to pay a stranger to drive you around long before Uber came out. Even today if you loiter around any major airport you'll have plenty of people approaching you to offer a ride.

The difference is that I have 0 trust in a random person offering me a ride. I trust the Uber brand though.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#190

Post by neffy »

Kalium wrote: post #102
svanderbleek wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how economic reality should be treated. Our own reality is primary. We will take back our lives. What Jacobin is working towards is admirable. We believe in progress, that a better way is possible, and that the current state of affairs is suboptimal. We should encourage alternative economic thinking.

I am in favor of encouraging plausible, workable economic thinking. Jacobin is better described as leftist fever-dreams with roughly that level of connection to any reality. Could things work differently? Absolutely. Are they going to work differently because some hack gets off fantasizing about how in abstract theory, the services Uber performs could be better performed by a co-op that pays workers more? No. All the…

and then there's John Lewis.

and a few others.

Post reply on HN