Disrupting Uber • Hacker News Board

Re: Disrupting Uber

#221

Post by Spooky23 » Tue, Aug 02, 2016, 4:22 PM UTC

rahimnathwani wrote: post #209

Spooky23 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure it would. The market of people looking for a ride in price sensitive. If the medallion cost goes down, you need to drive less to breakeven and hit your target profit. If it goes up, you need to drive more to attract more rides.

Likewise, there are mental and affordability factors that influence passengers. When I was still going out to downtown clubs, I lived in a close suburb of my mid-sized city. Cabs were regulated by the city, but unregulated outside. That meant that predatory cab companies would charge as much as $50 for a 5 mile ride, and something like $10 for a 4.8 mile ride within the city.

In NYC, historically this has meant that many cabs are kept in motion 24x7, and are concentrated in specific areas in Manhattan to maximize the number of fares.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#222

Post by Spooky23 » Tue, Aug 02, 2016, 4:34 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #211

brokenmachine wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

It isn't about single accidents; its about statistics. Autodriven cars don't get tired, or drunk, or fool around with the playlist. There is so much low-hanging fruit that its entirely conceivable that autodrive is already safer (statistically) than human drivers. Add to this, that each time a special case comes along, the software can be patched and it won't happen again. Something humans are terrible at - learning…

No, it's about liability and risk. Uber is amazing, but offloads lots of risk and capital expense to the saps^H drivers and their judgement.

I associate self-driving Ubers with unicorns and flying carpets not because of self-driving car technology, but because of the total shift in business model for a future Uber.

Self driving cabs require, at a minimum:

- Owning or leasing capital assets (robot cars)

- Maintenance (from mechanical repair to removing puke and vandalism)

- Provide local infrastructure for them (real estate for storage, maintenance and charging)

- Own liability for all of the various mishaps that will naturally happen. (accidents, human-prompted mischief or criminal acts (Uber drive by shootings, prostitution, narcotics transport, etc)

Re: Disrupting Uber

#223

Post by rgbrgb » Tue, Aug 02, 2016, 5:52 PM UTC

aembleton wrote: post #132

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…

Sounds like another industry ripe for disruption.

Working on it :)

Re: Disrupting Uber

#224

Post by rahimnathwani » Wed, Aug 03, 2016, 7:44 AM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #221

rahimnathwani wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Sure it would. The market of people looking for a ride in price sensitive. If the medallion cost goes down, you need to drive less to breakeven and hit your target profit. If it goes up, you need to drive more to attract more rides. Likewise, there are mental and affordability factors that influence passengers. When I was still going out to downtown clubs, I lived in a close suburb of my mid-sized city. Cabs were reg…

You're assuming people have a "target profit", and will keep driving only until they reach it. That's not the way people make decisions.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#225

Post by Hydraulix989 » Wed, Aug 03, 2016, 2:42 PM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #130

Hydraulix989 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, that was a rather condescending explanation of concepts of which my post didn't necessarily imply I didn't already know about.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#226

Post by Hydraulix989 » Wed, Aug 03, 2016, 2:45 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #97

Frondo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waiting for driverless cars to make them profitable seems like one of the worst bets you could make. Even if they were content to wait, say, 20 years, when driverless cars hit the market, what's to stop anyone from buying a small fleet of them and tossing their own uber-like app up on the store? Heck, I can even see it in the distant future, turnkey Uber-like businesses, you get your choice of franchise to buy into.…

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…

Right, and by the time we get self-driving cars, whatever Uber is doing now will already be commoditized (cf. Arcade City).

Re: Disrupting Uber

#227

Post by Hydraulix989 » Wed, Aug 03, 2016, 2:47 PM UTC

_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.

To be fair, a lot of the self-driving car testing and research thus far has been done on rather linear freeways in immaculate California weather. It's pretty easy to become overoptimistic.

At least, Uber ATC is in Pittsburgh, where it can become more grounded in reality by potholes, haphazard construction, thin windy two-way roads without markings or lanes, and unexpected acute precipitation.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#228

Post by ianai » Wed, Aug 03, 2016, 8:00 PM UTC

davidf18 wrote: post #60

ianai wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While they're harmful to the economy, the economy really seems to favor them.

It is because special interests have a greater influence in lobbying for their good than the diffuse interests of the general population.

That's certainly part of it. But the economy rewards and enforces concentrations of power as a naturally emergent property. If you're Verizon you don't have to worry about too much about market entrance. If you create a highly demanded, new good or service then you'll quickly create all sorts of things empowering assets: market share, name recognition, and other 'incumbent powers'.

Re: Disrupting Uber

#229

Post by manigandham » Fri, Aug 05, 2016, 3:01 AM UTC

ma2rten wrote: post #30

skybrian wrote: post #16

What they're missing is that higher wages depend on some barrier to entry (there are many kinds) that protects the people who have jobs at the expense of anyone who is looking for a job. As someone who works for a company with high hiring standards and correspondingly high pay, I have mixed feelings about this. It seems like there should be some jobs that are easy to get without much training, and taxi driver is a go…

I think the most valid complain about Uber as an employer is that it is advertised as well a paying job but that there are hidden costs that most drivers won't consider. It's similar to how programmers often look at consulting rates, but don't factor in non-billable hours.

And there are just as many hidden benefits that many people don't seem to realize. I've taken hundreds of Uber rides and always chat with the driver on their experience with it: many of them love the flexibility, extra income (which is really what this is, not a FT job), and it keeps them busy when they otherwise have nothing else to do (lots of retired people).

Re: Disrupting Uber

#230

Post by brokenmachine » Mon, Aug 08, 2016, 1:03 AM UTC

ktta wrote: post #218

brokenmachine wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

>Tesla can't successfully avoid a stationary guardrail or a turning semi It can. The problem wasn't that. The problem was that it wasn't able to differentiate the color properly and thought nothing was there. There's more info in Tesla's blog post. And it's not like it is an unsurmountable problem that is leading to accidents everywhere. It was an edge case and will probably be sorted out. >massively premature to sug…

>>Tesla can't successfully avoid a stationary guardrail or a turning semi

>It can. The problem wasn't that. The problem was that it wasn't able to differentiate the color properly and thought nothing was there.

Really? You're arguing that it can avoid a guardrail if it was actually able to tell a guardrail was there?? lol.

>Funny how people predict things. Ray Kurzweil predicts AGI (general Artificial Intelligence) to arrive before the year 2045, 4 years after you say we get self driving cars.

Interesting. Who knows. I've heard people say that it will accelerate exponentially after the first AI is developed as the AI will be able to iterate itself.

>>Remember 25 years ago, cars weren't super different from today

>Please tell me you're kidding.

Sure, they're safer because of improvements in crumple zones/better brakes/steering/etc. I meant the basic technology of an internal combustion engine for power and a human in control. There have been incremental improvements but nothing like an autonomous car.

>>Self driving cars are pretty much unicorns

>At least those unicorns are achievable and people are trying towards achieving it rather than give up.

I think they're technically achievable with dedicated road infrastructure but on normal badly-maintained roads with non-autonomous cars to dodge, they're unicorns. Legal issues will be the biggest hurdle IMO.