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

Uber enters dockless bike wars with Jump acquisition

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 315 posts

Re: Uber enters dockless bike wars with Jump acquisition

#61

Post by clairity »

fataliss wrote: post #46
maherbeg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you may underestimate the impact e-bikes are going to have on major (non-car centric) cities. They'll likely reshape cities significantly as infrastructure gets improved for biking. You can get significant traffic density improvements by pushing bikes instead of cars, and e-bikes make this more accessible.

That would take a lot of political will to do something like that though and it would take YEARS! I don't think the US is a great market (right now) for city-bikes. Outside of maybe Manhattan & SF I can't think of any major city where a bike would take you places faster/better than another way of transportation would. When you consider all the hassles that biking as a transportation comes with, I doubt this has any l…

los angeles is perfect for bike transport. it's sunny and doesn't get too hot or too cold most of the year (in the LA basin proper, the san fernando and inland valleys are a different story). the city government is pro bike path and installing more bike lanes every day. biking is faster during the 6 hours of rush hour a day. most amenities are within 2-3 miles (~15 minutes) of where you live. you can take your bike on buses and trains for the daily commute.

the biggest challenge is bike security (not getting it stolen). bike racks and locks are a poor solution if unattended. if we could put bike racks right in front of the gate attendant booths that most public parking garages have, it would be a much better deterrent to theft. and for residential buildings, you could have lockers or a locked bike storage room (possibly with security cameras too).

Re: Uber enters dockless bike wars with Jump acquisition

#62

Post by JohnnyConatus »

hunter23 wrote: post #49
maherbeg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you may underestimate the impact e-bikes are going to have on major (non-car centric) cities. They'll likely reshape cities significantly as infrastructure gets improved for biking. You can get significant traffic density improvements by pushing bikes instead of cars, and e-bikes make this more accessible.

Yes, but is the US the area where the product will have the most revolutionary impact? In my view, I would target high density cities like Hong Kong, Tokyo, Singapore, Delhi, Paris, etc. Europe and Asia seem like the most important markets for the technology rather than the US which is littered with sprawled out cities.

Also winter. Most of the dense cities in the U.S. also have significant winter weather that makes biking less ideal.

Re: Uber enters dockless bike wars with Jump acquisition

#63

Post by jwilliams »

Just signed up for this in San Francisco -- Only to find that Russian Hill, Nob Hill, and North Beach are excluded. Plus Fort Mason, the Presidio, and anything west of the Panhandle.

"San Francisco" it is not. Which I guess is fine, but they make you pay up-front, so I found that a bit of cheek.

Admittedly it's only $2, but even on principle it's annoying. They should be much more transparent in the signup process. They even geolocate you, so they'd be aware you're out of their coverage zone.

Edit: This is the coverage map: https://www.evernote.com/l/ACu5gnYkvnNKq6r8MPguZAczRDuT1B7p6...

Re: Uber enters dockless bike wars with Jump acquisition

#64

Post by KerrickStaley »

Analemma_ wrote: post #43
ggregoire wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The consumer benefits seem great How so? We have dockless bikes here (the Chinese Mobike) but it seems like you never know where to pick them up. At less with the public bikes, I know where is the closest docking station to my house.

> but it seems like you never know where to pick them up. That's a major design failure on their part then. Seattle's dockless bikes all have GPS trackers so you can see them on a map on the phone app.

I actually like the consistency of knowing where the bikes will be without having to check an app. I have a dock less than a block from my apartment that is consistently stocked with bikes. It's convenient and less mental overhead than checking an app.

Re: Uber enters dockless bike wars with Jump acquisition

#65

Post by s5fs »

electricEmu wrote: post #48
fataliss wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would take a lot of political will to do something like that though and it would take YEARS! I don't think the US is a great market (right now) for city-bikes. Outside of maybe Manhattan & SF I can't think of any major city where a bike would take you places faster/better than another way of transportation would. When you consider all the hassles that biking as a transportation comes with, I doubt this has any l…

Seattle? Portland? Minneapolis/St. Paul? You might consider bicycling while you travel more. In Seattle alone, OFO, LimeBike, and Spin are all competing. American bicycle infrastructure is behind, but it exists. I don't own a car. I get around those cities on bike without issue. It's as fast or faster than a car in many cases and I'm peddling the old fashioned way (with legs).

Regarding Seattle and Portland, while it's true there are bike share programs, I don't see them used very often. The few who are using the bikes are either tourists (minority) or the homeless on stolen bikes. Additionally, just about half the limebikes that I see are abandoned under bridges or broken and unusable.

Portland itself is a very bikeable city and a lot of time/energy is spent to improve and grow this infrastructure. Traffic is getting to the point where cycling is faster for inner-city trips, but as I live outside of the city it's a non-starter because public transportation from my end of town is severely limited.

Seattle doesn't seem nearly as bike friendly, and while it's certainly faster to bike or walk during rush hour, it doesn't seem nearly as safe as Portland. I certainly have no interest in cycling in Seattle, driving is bad enough.

Re: Uber enters dockless bike wars with Jump acquisition

#66

Post by sagichmal »

jwilliams wrote: post #63

Just signed up for this in San Francisco -- Only to find that Russian Hill, Nob Hill, and North Beach are excluded. Plus Fort Mason, the Presidio, and anything west of the Panhandle. "San Francisco" it is not. Which I guess is fine, but they make you pay up-front, so I found that a bit of cheek. Admittedly it's only $2, but even on principle it's annoying. They should be much more transparent in the signup process. T…

This is a result of NIMBYism in those neighborhoods, not any Jump bike policy.

Re: Uber enters dockless bike wars with Jump acquisition

#67

Post by joeblau »

saudioger wrote: post #6

Does anyone know if going dockless increases ridership in any significant way? The consumer benefits seem great but it seems like such a nightmare to maintain compared to a docking system.

Another data point of one, but when I was in Arizona in March, I tried Ofo bikes. The fact that I could ride to exactly where I wanted to go without having to find a dock was the only reason I thought it was viable. I rode to an açaí restaurant, "docked my bike" then rode the bike to work. My office was no where near where the company would have put a dock so I would say that dockless was an extremely value feature.

As far as Ofo picking up the bikes on their end... that's probably a nightmare. That being said, there is a Data Skeptic - Bike Share Rebalancing[1] episode so I'm sure there are data scientists optimizing the pickup and distribution algorithm to make deckles cheaper or as cheap as docked bikes.

[1] - http://podbay.fm/show/890348705/e/1476457200

Re: Uber enters dockless bike wars with Jump acquisition

#68

Post by notatoad »

wpietri wrote: post #7

This is a puzzle to me. Uber faces some critical issues ahead. If they can solve them, the bikes will be a rounding error. If they can't, the bike business won't be enough to save them. Why add the complexity when they could buy or build something later? I especially can't figure out why the Jump CEO would do it. The odds of their work surviving to the 10 year mark seems so small. It reminds me of something like Dodg…

This seems like a defensive play against google maps. The most likely future for Uber is to be a route option in Google maps or some other app, where the user chooses the app first, and the transport method first, and Uber will just be an option with a price tag and time beside it, alongside Lyft and waymo and whatever other services are operating.

Bringing other transport methods under the Uber umbrella seems like a play to keep you opening the Uber app when you want to go somewhere, rather than opening somebody else's app and selecting Uber.

Re: Uber enters dockless bike wars with Jump acquisition

#69

Post by subpixel »

valj wrote: post #37
wpietri wrote: post #7

This is a puzzle to me. Uber faces some critical issues ahead. If they can solve them, the bikes will be a rounding error. If they can't, the bike business won't be enough to save them. Why add the complexity when they could buy or build something later? I especially can't figure out why the Jump CEO would do it. The odds of their work surviving to the 10 year mark seems so small. It reminds me of something like Dodg…

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I imagine the key is in how you build defensibility around the core ride-sharing business. Ride-sharing suffers from the problem of clustered networks - you can be a global player like Uber and still lose the entire city of SF to a competitor like Lyft, or feel a minnow like Juno tear into your margins in NYC. Having bike sharing in your pocket helps you build a wider moat…

So Uber will use no-margin bike rides to market loss-leader car rides. As ridiculous as this sounds you may be correct.

Re: Uber enters dockless bike wars with Jump acquisition

#70

Post by jwilliams »

sagichmal wrote: post #66
jwilliams wrote: post #63

Just signed up for this in San Francisco -- Only to find that Russian Hill, Nob Hill, and North Beach are excluded. Plus Fort Mason, the Presidio, and anything west of the Panhandle. "San Francisco" it is not. Which I guess is fine, but they make you pay up-front, so I found that a bit of cheek. Admittedly it's only $2, but even on principle it's annoying. They should be much more transparent in the signup process. T…

This is a result of NIMBYism in those neighborhoods, not any Jump bike policy.

Do you have any evidence of that? Just looks like they've excluded areas with more tourists.

Irrespective, would still be easy (and overall nicer) if they made that transparent.

Post reply on HN