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

Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

locusmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 128 posts

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#101

Post by icebraining »

mcv wrote: post #91
icebraining wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason why Cory wants to hitch on Uber is because he knows people trust Uber more than a random app they've never heard; he says so himself, when he recounts his Shanghai experience. So you'd find the driver on Uber (borrowing its trust network) before switching to the other app. But that also shows why his argument against Uber is flawed: they can charge more money because they actually provide a better service…

But people who don't trust the other app are not going to use the other app anyway. If you want to hire a co-op driver, start with the co-op app first. Hoping Uber will accidentally send you a driver who also happens to be in the co-op seems like a pointless exercise.

As a rider, I need to trust the app to do two things: give me a decent driver and provide me with a reasonable estimate of the cost of the trip. By first making the reservation with Uber, I can get both of those from them, making me much more willing to use the local app to do the actual transaction.

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#102

Post by AnthonBerg »

wz1000 wrote: post #94
leereeves wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As Netflix and Spotify have shown, convenience trumps morality I don't understand what you mean. Is there a more moral alternative to Netflix and Spotify? It seems to me that Netflix and Spotify combine convenience and morality (or at least, legality), showing that the combination trumps free (pirated)?

> Is there a more moral alternative to Netflix and Spotify? Yes. If I had to rank the options in order of morality, they would go like this: Buy DRM free content > Abstain from consuming content > Pirate the content >>> Pay for DRMed content. Supporting DRM means supporting a world where you have to pay rent and seek permission from corporate overlords to use your own devices in the way you wish.

Where would “Pirate the content” lie if pirated content had advertising value which in itself led to sales?

And what if those sales were DRMed content?

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#103

Post by adisinom »

jelling wrote: post #35

Doctorow, per usual, writes with the certainty of an out of shape sportswriter playing Monday morning quarterback. He just doesn't know what he's talking about. For example, he says "Uber...allows them to illegally discriminate against people with disabilities" Does he really not know the long history of cab drivers not stopping for black passengers? This has been frontpage news on multiple occasions, most famously w…

As a deaf person, hailing a ride by phone is much better than a taxi. But I also have friends who use wheelchairs frustrated by Uber's unresponsiveness to addressing accessibility; Uber just claims the drivers are independent contractors and so it's not Uber's responsibility.

I felt Doctorow's piece addressed the nuance of Uber bringing both improvements and regressions.

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#104

Post by icebraining »

HillaryBriss wrote: post #90
icebraining wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be simply a combination of the specific information of the ride: username of rider + username of driver + origin + destination.

thank you for the response. i'm wondering how my meta-uber app would obtain my origin and destination. is Doctorow proposing that the user manually enter origin and destination into both the actual uber app and the proposed meta-uber app?

I believe the idea is that the meta-uber app would programmatically control the actual uber app, hence the CFAA and DRM concerns.

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#105

Post by r00fus »

mprev wrote: post #22
em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #11

This article is a good time to plug LibreTaxi: "Free and open source alternative to Uber/Lyft connecting passengers and drivers. LibreTaxi makes ridesharing affordable by getting rid of the third party between passengers and drivers. Negotiate the price before the ride is confirmed, pay cash upon arrival. 1-minute hiring for all drivers." https://libretaxi.org/

Cool. I have to say, though, that not having to negotiate a price is a key benefit of Uber. The price is the price, no quibbling, no bait and switch. Similarly, paying by cash feels like a step back.

That price can surge though. And some AI controls the surges to benefit Uber, not the cabbie not you.

Without some form of strong niche, it's going to be tough to break through the market. Perhaps an app like LibreTaxi can go directly to governments and get funding there.

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#106

Post by enjo »

wz1000 wrote: post #94
leereeves wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As Netflix and Spotify have shown, convenience trumps morality I don't understand what you mean. Is there a more moral alternative to Netflix and Spotify? It seems to me that Netflix and Spotify combine convenience and morality (or at least, legality), showing that the combination trumps free (pirated)?

> Is there a more moral alternative to Netflix and Spotify? Yes. If I had to rank the options in order of morality, they would go like this: Buy DRM free content > Abstain from consuming content > Pirate the content >>> Pay for DRMed content. Supporting DRM means supporting a world where you have to pay rent and seek permission from corporate overlords to use your own devices in the way you wish.

My moral system is very different. I see no problem (at all) with paying for DRMed content.

"Supporting DRM means supporting a world where you have to pay rent and seek permission from corporate overlords to use your own devices in the way you wish"

No. It means paying content creators for access to their content on my device. I'm using my device however I like, I just don't get access to the hard work of others on exactly my terms all of the time.

And that's ok.

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#107

Post by rip_netrunner »

csomar wrote: post #89
cs702 wrote: post #9

The main challenge to successful (i.e., market-dominating) cooperatively-owned platforms like the ones Cory wants is that usually there are no incentives that motivate individuals to dedicate their lives and souls in the creation, launching, running, and perpetual improvement of such platforms for the benefit of others. The exceptions, including successful projects like GNU and Linux, tend to be led by rather unique…

Maybe a crypto solution with tokens as fee for manipulating the application.

EOS? Staking your tokens to the system provides you compute power on the network.

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#108

Post by GauntletWizard »

jessaustin wrote: post #97
swiftcoder wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Particularly in Big Tech™, a lot of engineers tend to be motivated by the company mission. You don't build companies like Facebook without a cadre of true believers.

What do the FB "true believers" believe ? Is the belief the same one now as it was five or ten years ago?

They believe everything and nothing. To them, It doesn't matter - they just need belief. They are sad, lonely, and afraid people who are rightly afraid, they just don't have the understanding that they're afraid because they're in an abusive relationship with themselves. Facebook gives them the belief that they're doing something important, part of something bigger.

I left Google when I became disillusioned (when my own depression became too overwhelming - I left rather than be put on a PIP). Facebook seemed like a place where I could regain my purpose, but instead the illusion was shattered. I've let myself be taken in by that illusion since, but the reality is that the people who offer that illusion are predators, and should be treated with the suspicion that that entails.

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#109

Post by Fins »

IWeldMelons wrote: post #19
geofft wrote: post #2

The closest thing we have to a meta-service is Meta-Elsevier, more popularly known as Sci-Hub, which works so well simply because it doesn't care about legality. It's hosted outside the US on a slowly changing list of TLDs, and so it doesn't have to worry about any form of copyright law, not just the DMCA. I think if you wanted to build more services like this, you'd have to go this approach: instead of building an a…

Sci-Hub is Kazakhstani creation actually.

It's Putin's creation to much greater degree than Kazakhstani, Elbakyan is not Kazakh at all, she just happened to be born there.

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#110

Post by capitalsigma »

r00fus wrote: post #105
mprev wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool. I have to say, though, that not having to negotiate a price is a key benefit of Uber. The price is the price, no quibbling, no bait and switch. Similarly, paying by cash feels like a step back.

That price can surge though. And some AI controls the surges to benefit Uber, not the cabbie not you. Without some form of strong niche, it's going to be tough to break through the market. Perhaps an app like LibreTaxi can go directly to governments and get funding there.

Surge pricing is a feature. A taxi at noon on Tuesday is worth less than a taxi at 10 pm on New Year's Eve. The latter subsidizes the former.
Post reply on HN