Google Takes on Uber with New Ride-Share Service • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Takes on Uber with New Ride-Share Service

#341

Post by pfarnsworth » Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 4:40 AM UTC

secure wrote: post #38

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talk to your drivers about it. So far they've all told me that they get more passengers thanks to the app, and the pay from Uber's base rate outweighs unpredictable tips. [edit] NYC, and the drivers are pretty candid about still picking up rides from black car dispatchers and competitors. I have no reason to question their honesty.

All drivers I’ve talked to (mostly in the London area) told me they are very unhappy with their pay, but because Uber is so cheap, they can’t drive for their old cab companies anymore (all business moved to Uber).

I've had the exact opposite experience. 90% of my drivers love Uber, and I've taken ~100 rides so far.

Re: Google Takes on Uber with New Ride-Share Service

#342

Post by dingdongding » Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 4:44 AM UTC

rjbwork wrote: post #231

ianamartin wrote: post #206

Am I the only one who laughs when I see, "Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc., . . . ."? Umm, who reading this article doesn't know who Google is? That construction is almost always there to let you know who some no-name subsidiary or division of a much more well-known company is. In this case it functions in the reverse if at all--reminding people that Alphabet is a thing, in case you didn't know. Anyway, I just think t…

WSJ's primary audience is folks in business or finance. From my understanding, they have automated aggregators and algorithms that consume those articles, and look for constructs like that for tagging/categorization.

Well algorithms can be advanced enough to reference Google with Alphabet automatically without putting need to write Alphabet in article itself. I don't think what you're saying is the reason to write it in the article

Re: Google Takes on Uber with New Ride-Share Service

#343

Post by toomanybeersies » Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 4:45 AM UTC

LordHumungous wrote: post #172

ghurtado wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this is a bit of a chicken and egg problem, isn't it? You could just as easily argue that the wages are so low because tipping is pretty much a given.

Seattle recently passed $15 minimum wage and now a lot of restaurants are charging a "service fee" and putting up signs that discourage you from tipping. A much better system imo.

What's the point of a service fee on top of the cost of your meal though? Why not incorporate it into your meal, since it's non-optional.

I noticed they did this in Singapore. You'd be charged a service fee on top of your bill, I can't remember if they popped tax on top of that too. If it's non-optional, it should be included in the cost.

Re: Google Takes on Uber with New Ride-Share Service

#344

Post by icebraining » Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 5:22 AM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #237

icebraining wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually enshrined into law - restaurants are allowed to pay less than minimum wage because of tipping. It's a perversion of the whole norm, since it effectively turns tipping into a subsidy to the restaurant owner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipped_wage_in_the_United_Stat...

As your link says, they are not allowed to pay less than minimum wage. They are allowed to set hourly wages for tipped employees lower than minimum wage, but they have to ensure that the total compensation of the employee averages out to minimum wage.

Exactly - so any tip just reduces how much the owner has to pay to cover minimum wage, making it a subsidy to them, not to the server, who gets minimum wage either way.

Re: Google Takes on Uber with New Ride-Share Service

#345

Post by euyyn » Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 5:33 AM UTC

vegabook wrote: post #297

euyyn wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they've shown no staying power in any of their other long term initiatives You actually can't find even one? :)

Well clearly they're brilliant at creating free platforms for advertising. They just seem to be poor at doing anything that requires explicit payment.

I knew you could do it.

Re: Google Takes on Uber with New Ride-Share Service

#346

Post by loic_sf » Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 5:35 AM UTC

Quanttek wrote: post #130

mortenjorck wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, this is probably the first prominent "ride sharing service" that is actually intended as a ride sharing service.

BlaBlaCar?

https://www.blablacar.com is present in more than 20 countries, mostly in Europe (where it started), bu also including countries like India, Brazil and Mexico...

Re: Google Takes on Uber with New Ride-Share Service

#347

Post by ddeck » Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 5:48 AM UTC

toomanybeersies wrote: post #343

LordHumungous wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seattle recently passed $15 minimum wage and now a lot of restaurants are charging a "service fee" and putting up signs that discourage you from tipping. A much better system imo.

What's the point of a service fee on top of the cost of your meal though? Why not incorporate it into your meal, since it's non-optional. I noticed they did this in Singapore. You'd be charged a service fee on top of your bill, I can't remember if they popped tax on top of that too. If it's non-optional, it should be included in the cost.

>What's the point of a service fee on top of the cost of your meal though?

For the same reason airlines don't include mandatory charges in their fares - humans are not particularly good at rational pricing evaluation.

It's known as partition pricing and generally results in higher revenues - from "The Effects on Perceived Restaurant Expensiveness of Tipping and Its Alternatives": [1]

"Furthermore, participants ordered more expensive meals when automatic gratuities were added to the bill than when the costs of service were built into menu prices"

[1] http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...

Re: Google Takes on Uber with New Ride-Share Service

#348

Post by petra » Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 6:08 AM UTC

dano wrote: post #330

This ought to be a boon for vanpool's where demand in terms of source and destination can be matched to drivers and 6+ passenger vehicles. Researching the necessary correlations would be fascinating work.

It's exactly @ridewithvia

Re: Google Takes on Uber with New Ride-Share Service

#349

Post by dawson » Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 6:32 AM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #66

jonahx wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as a practical matter, i don't believe it's possible to have "optional" tipping that doesn't create obligation (even if that would be desirable). either you create a cultural norm where tipping isn't allowed or expected, which Uber has effectively done, or you have a situation like restaurants, where the tip may as well be part of the price, unless you're cool being the asshole who doesn't tip, which most people aren…

> if tipping is an option, through a kind of cultural game-theoretic pressure, the situation will always devolve into the restaurant norm. at least that's how it is in the states In the UK tipping in restaurants is optional and, while it sounds really weird to say this, I don't think the waiters and waitresses seem to care either way. I don't get a different reaction from them if I tip or if I don't. They don't seem…

Optional only in so much that you will find 'Service is included' on your bill, at least in London it's common practice.

Re: Google Takes on Uber with New Ride-Share Service

#350

Post by Sacho » Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 6:35 AM UTC

hourislate wrote: post #98

ethanbond wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's not obligatory to tip then it should be obligatory to pay people a living wage, in any context.

I think the USSR tried a living wage. After 80 years of a living wage they had to line up every morning for their stipend of a loaf of Bread and a Bar of Soap. While I believe people should be paid fairly, it would be difficult to implement and carry out successfully as history has proven.

Russian people were dirt poor because the USSR spent a majority of their economic fruits to subsidize strategic communist allies in order to keep them loyal. A lot of the other communist bloc countries were pretty well off until this subsidy stopped.