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

Ride-hailing’s NYC dominance, and the impact of DeleteUber

toddwschneider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 83 posts

Re: Ride-hailing’s NYC dominance, and the impact of DeleteUber

#21

Post by x_throwaway80bf »

beagle3 wrote: post #18
x_throwaway80bf wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to make a throwaway as well just because I couldn't believe this comment. This is so utterly false. You're essentially claiming that the value of these services is all based on the innovation of the _hailing_ functionality, but there are countless apps that recreate this functionality _exactly_ whether for 'regular' taxis or separately licensed cars. If what you want is for a driver to come to your exact locati…

There is one more issue: Uber and Lyft massively increased supply. It is not clear, as you mention, whether this could have happened without investor aubsidy - but it is likely. Medallion allocation is a political subject which does not necessarily correlate with demand; and the established way medallion owners rent them out results in it being uneconomical for drivers to do more than a given amount of rides per shif…

This isn't very relevant for discussions about NYC, since all drivers have to be licensed, and many drivers work for fleet owners who rent out the cars for shifts. Few (if any) NYC drivers user their personal vehicle, and it is very likely they lose money spending that time as drivers when they do.

So this issue is extremely complicated. Yes, medallion politics are inefficient. Are they as bad as overtly scammy practices to leverage up supply by exploiting poor economic judgement of the class of people who consider being an Uber driver?

Honestly, it's not clear to me, but certainly should not be seen as some type of free enterprise victory over the medallion system.

Re: Ride-hailing’s NYC dominance, and the impact of DeleteUber

#22

Post by ropans808 »

cletus wrote: post #4
lkrubner wrote: post #2

This is one of the more interesting things that I learned from the article: " Uber’s share of all ride-hailing trips has generally declined since 2015 as more competitors entered the NYC market, even as its total number of trips has increased dramatically. " That would have me worried, if I was an investor in Uber.

There are plenty of reasons to worry if you're an investor in Uber but (IMHO) this isn't one of them. NYC is big. Really big (like space). It can support a number of wannabes. But you need a certain number of drivers to be able to serve users and the value of Uber is in the areas where you can't support half a dozen wannabes. For example, I was in Australia recently and discovered that not even Lyft works there (in P…

I believe Lyft only operates in the US.

Re: Ride-hailing’s NYC dominance, and the impact of DeleteUber

#23

Post by fenwick67 »

jbob2000 wrote: post #8
jdlyga wrote: post #6

In NYC, Juno is cheaper in most circumstances, and you get better drivers. Otherwise, Via or Lyft. There are so many options instead of cludgey old Uber.

Thankfully, Uber exists. Otherwise I'd have to download and register on all sorts of dinky city-specific apps any time I travel. Uber, for all of its faults, is the only one that works in every city I've traveled to.

Yes god forbid you install two apps

Re: Ride-hailing’s NYC dominance, and the impact of DeleteUber

#24

Post by throwaway_80bf3 »

x_throwaway80bf wrote: post #13
throwaway_80bf3 wrote: post #7

7 years ago you'd have to jump into a yellow cab before telling the rider if you were going from Manhattan to Brooklyn or Brooklyn to Brooklyn. If you told them before you got in, they'd speed off. You used to have to walk to arterial roads in hopes of finding a yellow cab (in the outer boroughs). That is if you lived in neighborhoods that the article points out now skews towards Lyft. Well to do, post gentrification…

I had to make a throwaway as well just because I couldn't believe this comment. This is so utterly false. You're essentially claiming that the value of these services is all based on the innovation of the _hailing_ functionality, but there are countless apps that recreate this functionality _exactly_ whether for 'regular' taxis or separately licensed cars. If what you want is for a driver to come to your exact locati…

> This is so utterly false. You're essentially claiming that the value of these services is all based on the innovation of the _hailing_ functionality, but there are countless apps that recreate this functionality _exactly_ whether for 'regular' taxis or separately licensed cars.

There wasn't before Uber showed up. Last time I took a Juno, the driver asked me if he could text me a promo code so I could send it to me friends, that's when I stopped shopping around

> Separately from this, it ignores the fact that there are cost-based reasons for these kinds of behaviors. Drivers, for example, have to think about round-trip cost. If you ask me to drive you from Washington Sq. Park to Astoria, I have to think about what fare to charge you such that it covers my expenses on the longer trip _as well as_ the likely problem of not picking up a return fare that takes me back to a high-traffic area.

It's illegal in NYC for a yellow cab to refuse a ride request to any of the five boroughs. As for the livery cabs, the pricing was inconsistent for the same trips, over and over. Doubt any of it had to do with anything other than maximizing fare, which is their prerogative, since there there are no checks in place for that kind of behavior.

> This is all discussed with much greater statistical depth in the Naked Capitalism articles on Uber, but the basic problem is that none of the ride hailing services have found a way to make this any cheaper, except through massive subsidy...

I understand this. It doesn't invalidate the sea change in the experience of moving around NYC, particularly in the evening and late night.

> And if it busts, you'll see that all the niceties you describe in this comment are mostly the product of either (a) massive investor subsidy, or (b) easy and cheap-to-copy innovations like a map and location-enabled hailing app.

Let's hope (b). I doubt these innovations would have spontaneously arose from the taxi commission or the livery cabs.

Re: Ride-hailing’s NYC dominance, and the impact of DeleteUber

#25

Post by yellowstuff »

x_throwaway80bf wrote: post #13
throwaway_80bf3 wrote: post #7

7 years ago you'd have to jump into a yellow cab before telling the rider if you were going from Manhattan to Brooklyn or Brooklyn to Brooklyn. If you told them before you got in, they'd speed off. You used to have to walk to arterial roads in hopes of finding a yellow cab (in the outer boroughs). That is if you lived in neighborhoods that the article points out now skews towards Lyft. Well to do, post gentrification…

I had to make a throwaway as well just because I couldn't believe this comment. This is so utterly false. You're essentially claiming that the value of these services is all based on the innovation of the _hailing_ functionality, but there are countless apps that recreate this functionality _exactly_ whether for 'regular' taxis or separately licensed cars. If what you want is for a driver to come to your exact locati…

I feel like you don't really disagree with the parent comment, you're looking at a separate issue.

From the lived experience of the consumer in NYC Uber was a revolution in convenience, reliability and overall experience. We already had car services, and Uber was functionally similar to a car service plus a hailing app, but it ended up being so good it competed with taxis as well. The quality has diminished and there are competitors now, but Uber is still better in most situations than taxis or traditional car services, and isn't significantly worse than Lyft or other apps.

From a business model perspective you can say that Uber is only competitive because it burns money, and eventually if SDCs don't come quickly enough they will be forced to jack up prices or go out of business. It's a valid argument, but doesn't have anything to do with how consumers experience Uber today.

Re: Ride-hailing’s NYC dominance, and the impact of DeleteUber

#26

Post by liveoneggs »

x_throwaway80bf wrote: post #13
throwaway_80bf3 wrote: post #7

7 years ago you'd have to jump into a yellow cab before telling the rider if you were going from Manhattan to Brooklyn or Brooklyn to Brooklyn. If you told them before you got in, they'd speed off. You used to have to walk to arterial roads in hopes of finding a yellow cab (in the outer boroughs). That is if you lived in neighborhoods that the article points out now skews towards Lyft. Well to do, post gentrification…

I had to make a throwaway as well just because I couldn't believe this comment. This is so utterly false. You're essentially claiming that the value of these services is all based on the innovation of the _hailing_ functionality, but there are countless apps that recreate this functionality _exactly_ whether for 'regular' taxis or separately licensed cars. If what you want is for a driver to come to your exact locati…

your reply is not at odds with the parent statement. Getting a cab, even in manhattan, often sucks.

When the subsidies stop the ride-hailing thing will be totally different but we don't know how it will look.

Re: Ride-hailing’s NYC dominance, and the impact of DeleteUber

#27

Post by x_throwaway80bf »

throwaway_80bf3 wrote: post #24
x_throwaway80bf wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to make a throwaway as well just because I couldn't believe this comment. This is so utterly false. You're essentially claiming that the value of these services is all based on the innovation of the _hailing_ functionality, but there are countless apps that recreate this functionality _exactly_ whether for 'regular' taxis or separately licensed cars. If what you want is for a driver to come to your exact locati…

> This is so utterly false. You're essentially claiming that the value of these services is all based on the innovation of the _hailing_ functionality, but there are countless apps that recreate this functionality _exactly_ whether for 'regular' taxis or separately licensed cars. There wasn't before Uber showed up. Last time I took a Juno, the driver asked me if he could text me a promo code so I could send it to me…

> It's illegal in NYC for a yellow cab to refuse a ride request to any of the five boroughs...

Yes, of course. But the reason you don't see Uber drivers doing the same thing (or outright avoiding these unprofitable trips) is that they are subsidized to provide that unprofitable ride stock in areas where it's intrinsically not economical to provide ride stock. When you compel a yellow cab to do it, it means the prices have to be higher. This is why it makes less sense to compare the Uber experience to the yellow cab experience. It's like saying, "Would you prefer if a celebrity donated their first class Emirates seat to you, or a coach seat with United?" It ignores the mechanism by which the experience can be afforded to the end user (in Uber's case, huge subsidy, with no sign that the prices could be sustained absent the subsidy).

Overall I understand your comment and I realize you are aware of the counterpoints I'm making. The thing for me is that highlighting the good experience actually _is not a useful point of comparison_ with older, crappier cab experiences, specifically because everything we experience with Uber right now is inherently part of this huge ambient subsidy-based perception distortion field.

Re: Ride-hailing’s NYC dominance, and the impact of DeleteUber

#28

Post by seanmcdirmid »

ghaff wrote: post #16
godzillabrennus wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think in general investors are aware that Uber will need self driving cars to stay relevant. Transportation is going to become a monthly flat rate like a cable bill for local travel via autonomous vehicles and the winners will be the companies that own the fleets and get to charge the tolls. Owning your own car will be a luxury item. Owning a gasoline powered car will be an extremely niche luxury item. Obviously th…

That would seem to be a very urbanite view of the world. A lot of people have good reasons for owning their own personalized vehicle. (Gear, kids, mobile storage locker, etc.) So long as you live somewhere with enough space that storing a vehicle isn't expensive/difficult, given that most of the costs are in mileage, it's hard to see most people giving up ownership. And, in any case, full door to door autonomy, in at…

Urbanization rates continue to rise, what is true yesterday might not be true tomorrow. Also, in much of the world this doesn’t hold even today. The USA (and to a lesser extent Canada and Australia) are unique in private car oriented culture.

Re: Ride-hailing’s NYC dominance, and the impact of DeleteUber

#29

Post by liveoneggs »

throwaway_80bf3 wrote: post #24
x_throwaway80bf wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to make a throwaway as well just because I couldn't believe this comment. This is so utterly false. You're essentially claiming that the value of these services is all based on the innovation of the _hailing_ functionality, but there are countless apps that recreate this functionality _exactly_ whether for 'regular' taxis or separately licensed cars. If what you want is for a driver to come to your exact locati…

> This is so utterly false. You're essentially claiming that the value of these services is all based on the innovation of the _hailing_ functionality, but there are countless apps that recreate this functionality _exactly_ whether for 'regular' taxis or separately licensed cars. There wasn't before Uber showed up. Last time I took a Juno, the driver asked me if he could text me a promo code so I could send it to me…

> It's illegal in NYC for a yellow cab to refuse a ride request to any of the five boroughs.

This is true and only a direct threat of report as they start to drive away will occasionally stop them.

"I had my Off-Duty light on, I don't have to take your anywhere at 5pm" is the normal reply

Re: Ride-hailing’s NYC dominance, and the impact of DeleteUber

#30

Post by specialist »

mattmanser wrote: post #11
cletus wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of reasons to worry if you're an investor in Uber but (IMHO) this isn't one of them. NYC is big. Really big (like space). It can support a number of wannabes. But you need a certain number of drivers to be able to serve users and the value of Uber is in the areas where you can't support half a dozen wannabes. For example, I was in Australia recently and discovered that not even Lyft works there (in P…

I don't know, every local market has always supported loads of private hire firms. It's a very price sensitive market. And Uber's support for cities isn't great anyway, from my experience. Like here in Nottingham Uber doesn't support the suburbs 2 years after arrival. You can go there with Uber, just not come back, no-one's around. A local app with better suburb support is ultimately going to win, as if you can only…

Forgive my ignorance...

How can Uber not support an area? If a both a driver and a passenger in Goldsport Wyoming both have their apps installed, they can't transact?

Post reply on HN