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

201–210 of 230 posts

Re: Disrupting Uber

#201

Post by dzhiurgis »

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...

Somewhat similar in Sydney, you can only haul taxis from Uber app and then it filled with tons of devices, cameras, etc.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#202

Post by Spooky23 »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #187
Avshalom wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Overheads absolutely affect marginal decisions. For a Uber driver, their income is revenue - car payment - fuel - other expenses. To remain solvent, that formula needs to be > 0.

For a cab it's similar, except you have labor cost and medallion cost as well. With rates fixed by regulation, the only way to increase profit is to drive more.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#203

Post by fyhhvvfddhv »

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…

Why Cant there be a "meta" ride-app giving you the best rides from a whole host of different services big and small

Re: Disrupting Uber

#204

Post by cyan_atrus »

orblivion wrote: post #101
cyan_atrus wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you're betting that a facebook group is a scalable solution? arcade city is a great example of unintended consequences -- instead of safer rides, austin's regulations led to consumers choosing a much riskier ridesharing option (no GPS tracking, no recourse when something goes wrong, no background checks at all , etc) http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2016/06/21/austin-cra... http://countercurrentnews.com/2016/06…

> you're betting that a facebook group is a scalable solution? As I understand, they had an experimental phone application. They took down support for it, and are building a next version.

Ah, interesting, hadn't heard that -- is it the same as https://austinstartups.com/rideaustin-turns-tnc-lemons-into-... ?

Re: Disrupting Uber

#205

Post by stale2002 »

_delirium wrote: post #100
stale2002 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not playing the long game. Its playing the short game. Self driving cars are going to be here for consumers by 2020. What protects Uber is the network effect. Even if I had a million self driving cars right now, nobody has my app installed, and I don't have an optimized pricing and logistics set up yet. And if you have your own fleet of self driving cars, why would you build the whole setup yourself? Why not just…

> Self driving cars are going to be here for consumers by 2020. I doubt this is true, at least if you're talking about all-weather driving. Not even the optimistic researchers I've chatted with are that optimistic; this timeframe would require all-weather driving to be basically solid at the research level by 2018 or so, which is not totally impossible but unlikely. Maybe if it's limited to Uber Phoenix, though.

All weather no. But a partial roll-out still makes Uber a lot of money.

Self driving cars that work 90% of the day means Uber gets 90% of potential profits, and continues to use human drivers for the other 10% "surge" time period.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#206

Post by rdslw »

There is one big problem I have with uber: Uber takes PERCENT (20%) of ride value, while it has fixed cost associated with ride.

In fact it's a uber clever way to tax (sic!) workers.

I believe uber will be disrupted, either by nations (goverment must be ultra blind to allow burden its citizens by foreign corporation paying no corp taxes (EU case) plus having most of the cost in different country (all but US case) or by people themselves.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#207

Post by orblivion »

cyan_atrus wrote: post #204
orblivion wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you're betting that a facebook group is a scalable solution? As I understand, they had an experimental phone application. They took down support for it, and are building a next version.

Ah, interesting, hadn't heard that -- is it the same as https://austinstartups.com/rideaustin-turns-tnc-lemons-into-... ?

I think the company is actually based in New Hampshire.

http://arcade.city/

Re: Disrupting Uber

#208

Post by neves »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #185
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?

I'm an adult, white guy with lots of gray hair... but I live in Brazil.

BTW, other day I was talking to a black guy friend of mine. He was complaining that the taxis didn't even stopped for him. More than one he had to ask as policeman to stop a taxi for him. As a funny guy, he says that he asks the policeman: "Would you please stop a taxi for me. I'm not able to do it, maybe they are thinking I'm black!".

Re: Disrupting Uber

#209

Post by rahimnathwani »

Spooky23 wrote: post #202
rahimnathwani wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Overheads absolutely affect marginal decisions. For a Uber driver, their income is revenue - car payment - fuel - other expenses. To remain solvent, that formula needs to be > 0. For a cab it's similar, except you have labor cost and medallion cost as well. With rates fixed by regulation, the only way to increase profit is to drive more.

"With rates fixed by regulation, the only way to increase profit is to drive more."

That's the reason right there. The rates are totally set by regulation. The number of medallions is similarly set. If medallion rental cost were to go up or down by 20% this wouldn't affect whether the marginal ride would be worthwhile for the driver.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#210

Post by brokenmachine »

ktta wrote: post #199
Spooky23 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the future, we'll have unicorns towing magic carpets, so Uber won't matter.

I'd also like unicorns towing magic carpets and appreciate the sarcasm, self driving cars are not the 'unicorn' anymore. Uber is actively investing in prepping for a self-driving world.[0][1] https://newsroom.uber.com/mapping-ubers-future/ http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/31/12338268/uber-maps-investm...

When a ~$100k Tesla can't successfully avoid a stationary guardrail or a turning semi, even under the limited conditions that it's autopilot actually attempts to run under, I'd say it's massively premature to suggest that there's anything like a driverless future coming in even the medium-term for affordable vehicles. There's just too many variables on our roads and the stakes are too high.

If they are coming, it's more than 25 years away IMO. Remember 25 years ago, cars weren't super different from today. ABS was first in a production car in 1971. I think the average car on the road now is 11 years old, so there's bound to be unpredictable manually-driven cars still on the road for a long time that any driverless cars would still have to contend with as well.

Self driving cars are pretty much unicorns.

Post reply on HN