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

Lyft Is Said to Seek New Funding as Its Rival Uber Stumbles

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 527 posts

Re: Lyft Is Said to Seek New Funding as Its Rival Uber Stumbles

#411

Post by rad88 »

untog wrote: post #63
rad88 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber's claim is that black people are known to tip poorly, and so drivers would be incentivized to cancel their rides in favor of fares they expect will tip better. Therefore they don't allow tipping to prevent racism. Supposedly...

That is in no way true. Suggesting that black people are somehow to blame for Uber not allowing in-app tips is one of the most out there things I've seen on HN, and that's saying something.

This is the claim made by Uber spokesmen. I also heard it directly from an Uber manager. It disgusted me too.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/04/27/uber-resists...

Re: Lyft Is Said to Seek New Funding as Its Rival Uber Stumbles

#412

Post by lqdc13 »

argonaut wrote: post #190
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if you're thinking about area or population, but by either metric London is bigger than any city in the US, and has a much better public transport system.

The New York and Los Angeles metropolitan areas are larger in area than the London metropolitan area The NY metro area is much more populous than London, and the LA metro area is very slightly less populous.

NYC transportation sucks even within areas where the population is very dense. It takes 2 hours to get from Bronx to Coney Island on subway. Plus there are almost daily service disruptions of all kinds.

San Francisco's Bart is hated by almost everyone but it is much faster[1]. In fact, I have never taken a slower subway than NYC subway.

[1] https://flic.kr/p/7LhwPz

Re: Lyft Is Said to Seek New Funding as Its Rival Uber Stumbles

#413

Post by baddox »

paulddraper wrote: post #219
baddox wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that would still be illegal, because a ban on Muslims is illegal. It is illegal to ban Muslims, and it is illegal to intend to ban Muslims. The latter reason is the one provided by the Ninth Circuit.

> Thoughtcrime, they called it. - George Orwell, 1984

I don't see the comparison. One is criminalizing citizens having negative thoughts about an oppressive government. The other is prohibiting rulers from promising to discriminate against a religion and then passing a thinly-veiled bill to do so.

Re: Lyft Is Said to Seek New Funding as Its Rival Uber Stumbles

#414

Post by dllthomas »

jhuckestein wrote: post #272
deusex_ wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Europe, your bus fare would be half of the price and probably you would need one or two connections. The public transport is much more developed and to me seems like a much better mass transportation alternative. More ecological, cheaper, less cars overall.

The thing is, the user experience of Uber, Lyft et al is strictly better than public transport. Some would even say it is 10x better (in the From Zero to One sense). It picks you up whenever you want, wherever you want and drops you off exactly where you need to go. I agree that buses are more ecological, but doesn't this just mean that we should combine Uber and public transport? In the future I see a fleet of large…

> the user experience of Uber, Lyft et al is strictly better than public transport

Taking the bus from my home to work, I get to skip the bridge toll plaza, I get a nicer view (being up higher than an individual car), and I can get a seat with space enough to comfortably get work done.

Taking BART home is substantially faster than waiting in traffic out of the city, whoever is driving.

Uber, Lyft, et al are often a better user experience on balance than public transit. Calling them "strictly better" is an exaggeration.

Re: Lyft Is Said to Seek New Funding as Its Rival Uber Stumbles

#415

Post by Insanity »

TheArcane wrote: post #364
Insanity wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar here, about 30euro per month for unlimited bus travel, but not just inside my city, it's for an area covering about half the country. (Bus- and tram lines)

Buzzypass?

Yup :D

Re: Lyft Is Said to Seek New Funding as Its Rival Uber Stumbles

#416

Post by naravara »

cmdrfred wrote: post #395
whafro wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps not for most of the country by surface area, but far more than 5-15% of the population could be effectively served by better public transportation.

I agree but the issue becomes any sweeping legislation or tax increase to fund such a program will negatively many millions of people without any benefit to them. These people are marginalized already and can't take a hit like that so their more wealthy counterparts in the cities can have a higher standard of living. It can only really be implemented at the city level in a fair manner, thus it isn't really a national…

>I agree but the issue becomes any sweeping legislation or tax increase to fund such a program will negatively many millions of people without any benefit to them.

Except, you know. Less drunk driving, less traffic, less pollution, fewer road fatalities, and less tax money spent on road maintenance. Those little things.

And what "many millions of people?" Public transit is mostly paid for by municipal taxes, not federal. Federal taxes paid for a bloated highway system that negatively impacts many people even though we have long since hit the point of diminishing returns on more highway infrastructure.

Re: Lyft Is Said to Seek New Funding as Its Rival Uber Stumbles

#417

Post by tzakrajs »

Karunamon wrote: post #363
subpixel wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replace "poor" with "black" and you have the reason public transportation has been suppressed in large parts of the US. When I lived in Atlanta a suburban city official explained that "we all know the sort of people who hang around bus stops" while killing plans to expand bus service.

I'm sorry but that official's statement does not even kinda imply race. Like it or not, bus stops and train stations accessible by everyone are hotbeds of panhandling, pickpockets, and sometimes worse. An area where people just pass through on their way to somewhere else far away, distracted and in a hurry, is a great place for criminal behavior.

It's a dog whistle for racists. Please don't apologize for racists.

Re: Lyft Is Said to Seek New Funding as Its Rival Uber Stumbles

#418

Post by naravara »

jhuckestein wrote: post #272
deusex_ wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Europe, your bus fare would be half of the price and probably you would need one or two connections. The public transport is much more developed and to me seems like a much better mass transportation alternative. More ecological, cheaper, less cars overall.

The thing is, the user experience of Uber, Lyft et al is strictly better than public transport. Some would even say it is 10x better (in the From Zero to One sense). It picks you up whenever you want, wherever you want and drops you off exactly where you need to go. I agree that buses are more ecological, but doesn't this just mean that we should combine Uber and public transport? In the future I see a fleet of large…

>The thing is, the user experience of Uber, Lyft et al is strictly better than public transport. Some would even say it is 10x better (in the From Zero to One sense).

A bus can transport about 60 people in footprint of 2-3 cars (which would transport about 15). There is no way a transportation system that revolves around everyone getting into cabs is going to match that sort of efficiency. The "user experience' of such a service that ignores externalities like forcing people to sit in traffic (raising travel times and prices) is not a good analysis.

Also, many people don't think that having to walk a few blocks as part of a journey is some kind of crazy physical burden.

Re: Lyft Is Said to Seek New Funding as Its Rival Uber Stumbles

#419

Post by make3 »

foxfired wrote: post #127

Here is how I see it. I rely on those rides to go to work every single day and here what it (would) costs me. Uber: $250 a month.(Majority) Lyft: $500 a month (Whenever Uber is too expensive) Bus : $100 a month (1h:15 for 6 miles and 3 buses... No) Politics and all internal conflicts aside, there is a need for these services whether we like it or not. When I need to make a decision in the morning I take whatever is t…

bike there! live longer.

Re: Lyft Is Said to Seek New Funding as Its Rival Uber Stumbles

#420

Post by naravara »

yunti wrote: post #134
foxfired wrote: post #127

Here is how I see it. I rely on those rides to go to work every single day and here what it (would) costs me. Uber: $250 a month.(Majority) Lyft: $500 a month (Whenever Uber is too expensive) Bus : $100 a month (1h:15 for 6 miles and 3 buses... No) Politics and all internal conflicts aside, there is a need for these services whether we like it or not. When I need to make a decision in the morning I take whatever is t…

The answer is that, you are using a service that is unsustainably too cheap. In the longer term the price will have to increase, probably quite significantly and you'll have to choose whether you think it's still worth it or take the bus. Unfortunately you, and many others are the ones benefitting from drivers being underpaid.

>The answer is that, you are using a service that is unsustainably too cheap. In the longer term the price will have to increase, probably quite significantly and you'll have to choose whether you think it's still worth it or take the bus. Unfortunately you, and many others are the ones benefitting from drivers being underpaid.

Uber is already hiring lobbyists with the goal of boondoggling municipalities into providing Uber subsidies in lieu of investing in public transit. They talk a big game about how self-driving cars are what's going to make Uber profitable, but that's just marketing to earn some 'cool points' because that tech won't be ready before the VC funding runs dry. They're banking on public subsidies.

Post reply on HN