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

Uber’s IPO means higher fares for rides

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 88 posts

Re: Uber’s IPO means higher fares for rides

#51

Post by Gibbon1 »

ivalm wrote: post #36
randyrand wrote: post #28

"Uber's success has been based on two unsustainable tactics: subsidizing fares and exploiting drivers" Considering Uber loses a billion dollars a quarter, I think the only people that are being 'exploited' are investors. Investor money is going straight to drivers and riders.

Investors presumably know the risks involved. On the other hand, many drivers are inexperienced and do not know the full cost of driving for Uber (vehicle depreciation and increased liability).

> Investors presumably know the risks involved.

Except for working stiffs who are going to end up with Uber stock stuffed in their retirement accounts by unscrupulous portfolio managers.

Re: Uber’s IPO means higher fares for rides

#52

Post by gnopgnip »

randyrand wrote: post #31
sschueller wrote: post #19

In the end you will have a service costing the same as a regular Taxi but without all the benefits of them being licensed. Taxi licensing may be screwed up and unfair in the US but in many parts of the world it works well.

Taxis had artificially restricted supply. I think you're forgetting how expensive taxis were. https://www.theawl.com/2012/07/how-much-more-do-taxi-fares-c... 2012 $2.50 first 1/5 mi. $2.50 per mile. $0.50 per 1 min. uberX 2019 (without counting inflation - ~10% since 2012): Per Minute: $0.66 Per Mile: $1.46 Minimum Fare: $7.19 Taxis are competitive for very short trips, but 3+ miles they're almost double (175%)!

Uber pricing is not actually based on the distance and time for most trips, it is a set amount decided ahead of time, usually much more than that base cost.

Re: Uber’s IPO means higher fares for rides

#53

Post by beejiu »

zaarn wrote: post #27
icebraining wrote: post #24

I won't, since I can already use Bolt, Kapten or Cabify. The idea that Uber will somehow manage to keep people from building an app and competing is silly. There's almost no barrier of entry.

There is a barrier to entry: building a network of drivers. If there is no drives, nobody will buy a ride over your app, drivers will then not install it because nobody is buying rides.

Uber has shot itself in the foot here because the network is not a moat. It is in fact easier to enter the market BECAUSE of the network. For most non-Uber cabs I take, the driver also drives for Uber.

Re: Uber’s IPO means higher fares for rides

#54

Post by masonic »

kuzehanka wrote: post #35
zaarn wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my country, a taxi driver is legally required to drive you to your destination unless it exceeds reasonable distances (around 50km, which far above what anyone would use a taxi for here). Drivers with broken cashier machines or taxameters aren't allowed to take passengers, especially a broken taxameter might mean that passenger will pay a very much reduced fare. Most of them have GPS, and if they don't they can be…

In my country, the driver is also legally required to drive you to your destination. It doesn't stop them from making random excuses like 'oh sorry my gps is broken'. That is an actual excuse I got from not one but two cab drivers in a row when travelling between offices in the city.

But such violations result in sanctions against the medallion holder via a transparent process.

For example (last time I was there, and I doubt that it has changed much), if you get in a cab at JFK, he had to take you anywhere in Manhattan / Queens / Brooklyn / Bronx, regardless of time of day, likelihood of a return fare, disabilities, etc. Otherwise, the medallion faced sanctions.

A rideshare can simply decline.

Re: Uber’s IPO means higher fares for rides

#55

Post by icebraining »

arcticbull wrote: post #39
dia80 wrote: post #21

The last time I had this feeling was when shorting groupon. The emperor has no clothes, I can't see how UBER ends up being materially different from a donut.

The only thing I can see being successful for them is JUMP. It's an awesome service, there's no better way to get around San Francisco -- and Seattle! I assume it's as effective in other cities too. On the other hand scaling and acceptance seem pretty far off.

It might be hard to compete with municipal systems; the one in my city already has electric bikes, and it costs €25/year (~$30). The advantage of JUMP is being able to leave them anywhere, but that probably won't last once cities get enough complaints. The bikes are nicer too, but not enough to justify the massive price difference.

Re: Uber’s IPO means higher fares for rides

#57

Post by swang »

kuzehanka wrote: post #26
sschueller wrote: post #19

In the end you will have a service costing the same as a regular Taxi but without all the benefits of them being licensed. Taxi licensing may be screwed up and unfair in the US but in many parts of the world it works well.

I'm fine with Uber costing the same as a regular taxi. Riding in a taxi is a garbage experience compared to uber. Drivers making excuses not to take you after learning your destination, rude drivers, drivers who have no clue how to navigate, drivers who pretend the card machine is broken, or try to take you on winding routes to increase the fare. Despite all the supposed downsides of ridesharing, it continues to be i…

had this happen to me using ride-sharing. needed to be picked up at sfo. guy who was going to be my driver learned i wanted to go back in the city and he told me it was late and he was looking for down the peninsula. i just said fine since no point in driving with a dude who'd get mad at picking me up.

another time it was early in the morning and i needed to go to oakland airport and there were very few drivers available. the one who was suppose to pick me up took 20 minutes to get over there, and when he kept missing my intersection for some reason he just dropped the ride. i complained to the company and they didn't do shit. (think this one was lyft though).

Re: Uber’s IPO means higher fares for rides

#58

Post by Semaphor »

kuzehanka wrote: post #26
sschueller wrote: post #19

In the end you will have a service costing the same as a regular Taxi but without all the benefits of them being licensed. Taxi licensing may be screwed up and unfair in the US but in many parts of the world it works well.

I'm fine with Uber costing the same as a regular taxi. Riding in a taxi is a garbage experience compared to uber. Drivers making excuses not to take you after learning your destination, rude drivers, drivers who have no clue how to navigate, drivers who pretend the card machine is broken, or try to take you on winding routes to increase the fare. Despite all the supposed downsides of ridesharing, it continues to be i…

It really depends on where you are. My favorite comparison (because I experienced both) is Germany vs South Africa.

In Germany, the cabs belong to the company and drivers are employees (not going in debt for medallions like in the US). The cars are usually in good shape Mercedes and the system is 2-tiered: Taxis and Funkmietwagen (callable cabs). Taxis are allowed to use taxi only roads, can wait for walk-by passengers, are more expensive and pay higher licensing fees. Both can't just tell you "No" without very good reason.

Funkmietwagen have to follow normal car rules, can only be called in advance, usually have slightly cheaper cars, but are cheaper.

Uber tried disregarding the laws in Germany, was told "No" and now is only active in some very few cities and only with their higher end service, operating as normal Funkmietwagen.

The only thing they accomplished was improving the app situation.

In South Africa, it's very different. Taxis cost 3-5 times what you pay for an Uber, are often old, shoddy cars and certainly like to decide not to pick someone up (which I think is technically illegal).

Uber is thriving and mostly seems like a safer and better solution there.

Re: Uber’s IPO means higher fares for rides

#59

Post by alkonaut »

kuzehanka wrote: post #26
sschueller wrote: post #19

In the end you will have a service costing the same as a regular Taxi but without all the benefits of them being licensed. Taxi licensing may be screwed up and unfair in the US but in many parts of the world it works well.

I'm fine with Uber costing the same as a regular taxi. Riding in a taxi is a garbage experience compared to uber. Drivers making excuses not to take you after learning your destination, rude drivers, drivers who have no clue how to navigate, drivers who pretend the card machine is broken, or try to take you on winding routes to increase the fare. Despite all the supposed downsides of ridesharing, it continues to be i…

> Riding in a taxi is a garbage experience compared to uber. Drivers making excuses not to take you after learning your destination, rude drivers, drivers who have no clue how to navigate, drivers who pretend the card machine is broken, or try to take you on winding routes to increase the fare.

This may be true in some places, but where there is taxi competition this isn't true. You wouldn't ride with that taxi company again, and just pick another one (Where Uber might just be the other one as it's just another taxi company). I think it's a bad idea to try to argue whether Uber has a global market niche without looking at global circumstances. This varies in cities across the globe. The experiences in say London, Stockholm and Los Angeles are very different.

Re: Uber’s IPO means higher fares for rides

#60

Post by zaarn »

icebraining wrote: post #37
zaarn wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a barrier to entry: building a network of drivers. If there is no drives, nobody will buy a ride over your app, drivers will then not install it because nobody is buying rides.

Why wouldn't drivers install it, when it costs them nothing? And then if they're at the end of an uber ride and a notification for the other service pops up, they can take that.

Installing an app and entering your bank details for payouts is quite a burden on the driver. Not permanent and not physically but emotionally.
Post reply on HN