251–260 of 430 posts
Keep in mind that this may not change when driverless cars become widely available. Maintaining a fleet thousands of driverless cars may prove to be more expensive than crowdsourcing a vehicle fleet.
And to get to the point where it's cheaper might take decades. With Uber's burn rate there's no way it gets there.
I'm not quite sure everyone discussing this, including the economist article author, is in the loop with why Lyft and Uber are getting valued the way they are. Wall Street is not paying for a taxi company, they are betting that Uber and Lyft are the best poised to first rollout driverless ride sharing, i.e. one of them will own and monopolize patentable tech that the mass public wants to use. The existing experience…
Driverless ride sharing isn’t coming, in a meaningful way*, in the next ten years, I’m willing to bet my house on that. Meaningful such that it actually delivers monetarily
There is literally no way for a mass-market taxi service to make money unless they have a monopoly, or some unexpected disruptive technology comes along that gives one company an unassailable advantage in lowering costs. The Uber app was the original innovation, but it's not particularly innovative anymore. Besides Lyft, traditional taxi companies have similar apps in some markets. Skirting regulation and good labor…
> The Uber app was the original innovation No it wasn't. There were a ton of taxi related apps and startups before Uber and nothing about Uber's app was particularly impressive IP-wise - it's basically just distance search. What Uber did that was unusual for a tech startup was to invest in lobbying - https://www.theverge.com/2014/12/14/7390395/uber-lobbying-st... - it allowed them to play across regulated markets whe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Combine that with the fact that the drivers often don't know the neighborhood I used to travel to Houston quite a lot. Not sure if this is representative of taxis in general in the US, but the taxi drivers never knew the neighbourhood. I couldn't say "I want to go to Acme Stuff in X district", I had to give a "Cross road" (a very US thing, that) and the driver would use satnav based on that. It did seem that a lot…
That's because in the UK they have to know the area before they can get a taxi license. No such requirement exists in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much of that benefit is purely short-term though? In a hypothetical world where Uber and Lyft's current pathway to profitability never pans out, what are the ramifications. The most obvious one is that their fares will increase by 25-50% depending on the market, pricing them well above the legacy taxi services that existed before the arrival of these VC-backed companies. The second most obvious ramification is th…
I don't really understand the point you're making. Why do small taxi companies have any more right to exist than Uber/Lyft? Or what exactly are they better at than Uber/Lyft that would justify keeping them around? Any driver who was formerly driving for a small taxi company could simply drive for Uber/Lyft. So what is the benefit of having management be local vs centralized?
Local artisnal petite bourgeoisie businesses only available to middle class people living in downtown urban areas are the only moral form of capitalism! That and when you get tired of the city and decide to start a farm in rural Oregon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Combine that with the fact that the drivers often don't know the neighborhood I used to travel to Houston quite a lot. Not sure if this is representative of taxis in general in the US, but the taxi drivers never knew the neighbourhood. I couldn't say "I want to go to Acme Stuff in X district", I had to give a "Cross road" (a very US thing, that) and the driver would use satnav based on that. It did seem that a lot…
That's probably because becoming a taxi driver in places like London is extremely hard ( https://www.theknowledgetaxi.co.uk ), while becoming a taxi driver in Houston is probably as simple as "do you have a license?"
EDIT: If it sets a standard then why has that standard not been adopted nationwide? Your argument is dead in the water and I can only assume you’re speaking as a person who has never visited the UK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's probably because becoming a taxi driver in places like London is extremely hard ( https://www.theknowledgetaxi.co.uk ), while becoming a taxi driver in Houston is probably as simple as "do you have a license?"
Yes, London is the whole UK. EDIT: If it sets a standard then why has that standard not been adopted nationwide? Your argument is dead in the water and I can only assume you’re speaking as a person who has never visited the UK.
The US has no such equivalent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Uber's criteria for what qualifies as an acceptable car has dramatically declined to the point where even Taxis are sometimes "nicer" In my travels to the US, which almost exclusively meant Houston, the taxis were always very basic, "boxy" cars; not sure about make/model, but they always felt "cheap". Meanwhile in Europe, a lot of taxis are Mercedes E class saloons, or high-spec saloons from other makers.
A taxi in Europe is akin to an "airport limo" in North America. The differences are astounding.
In comparison the cost of the car itself isn't as important, so drivers put some effort into it. And they're more professional. I've never once in my life talked to a taxi driver in France besides entering and leaving the car.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As it stands the price you pay for a ride in an uber is unfairly low. Driving it even lower would be irresponsible.
Call me a snob, but Uber's criteria for what qualifies as an acceptable car has dramatically declined to the point where even Taxis are sometimes "nicer". Combine that with the fact that the drivers often don't know the neighborhood and rely exclusively on GPS (so tend to be worse drivers than a taxi). I'm left feeling like the fare - strictly from the perspective of a consumer - is actually too high.
You're a snob.
I wish they'd relax their policy on vehicles. I would have no problem riding in 90s shitboxes. I would find it novel. As long as it's been vacuumed that week I don't care what condition it's in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why couldn't the same logic work in the post-self-driving future? If I own a self-driving car that sits in my garage from 8 PM to 8 AM, why not just put it on the Uber network and have it make money while I sleep? As long as people still own cars, why does Uber ever need to own their own fleet? If anything without the actual pain-in-the-ass of actually having to be a driver, I'd think a lot more people would crowdsou…
Who needs a ride from 8pm to 8am? Nobody except drunks. Sure you can send your car out, but you need to plan to get up early every morning to clean the puke out. Most people follow similar schedules: they go to work at rush hour, ride with co-workers to lunch around noon and then home during the second rush hour. If you are willing to let your car out 6am to 8pm you got some possibilities - but this is when you need/…