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

How Uber Got Lost

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 144 posts

Re: How Uber Got Lost

#61

Post by ghaff »

clairity wrote: post #20
dumbfoundded wrote: post #15

I think NYT misses the point. The problem with Uber isn't some cultural issue, it's that they're in an extremely tough and competitive business. It's really a race to the bottom. The logic I kept hearing repeated is ride-sharing is a winner take all market. Like once you have a network of drivers setup giving people the lowest times for rides, you can force other competitors out and raise prices. Time has proven how…

also the value chain of driver->dispatcher->rider just doesn't have a lot of extra margin to squeeze out of the ride-hailing business to make it really profitable (this should have been obvious from the beginning to VCs). once uber/lyft cut out the dispatcher, reduce no-shows a tiny bit, increase utilization a bit, off-loaded cap ex/risk to drivers, where do the killer profits come from? when you do a five forces ana…

I don't suppose we'll ever really know, if only because people are so good at adjusting their memories as needed but...

One does wonder if the self-driving promise here was:

1. A cynical con job to get investors on board from the beginning

2. Not quite so cynical but nonetheless recognized by management as a hail mary pass

3. Uber just got swept up in the overall industry overoptimism/groupthink around self-driving dates and capabilities

Re: How Uber Got Lost

#62

Post by ghaff »

kpennell wrote: post #60
jen20 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was in Austin many times over the period that Uber and Lyft were not there. One of my takeaways was that building a mobile app which feels polished and actually works as advertised is _hard_ - not one of the local competitors managed it. Most of them didn’t even bother to distribute their app outside the US App Stores (a common issue with American companies) making it next to impossible to use for international vis…

random data point from Berlin...multiple US friends cannot use JUMP bikes (owned by Uber) using their USA uber apps. Something just doesn't work. So I think this must be hard for companies to get right.

Probably hard. And the general rules about the effort to handle all the edge cases.

It's also reasonable, especially if you're prioritizing time to market and especially if you know you may have a small window, you may decide that a lot of the edge cases just aren't very important. How much does JUMP really care if US visitors to Berlin can use their bikes or not?

Re: How Uber Got Lost

#63

Post by mantas »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #55
goatinaboat wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a key bit of psychology that is often overlooked. People who get Ubers exclusively think that a car is a metal box on wheels that goes from A to B. But most people who own cars see them as a self-propelled room of their apartment or house, a personal space in other words. Like if you have a kid and drive your kid to places in your car then you probably leave loads of kid stuff in your car, and if the kid spil…

I've thought a lot about this. I think, if the price is right, it could work for families in lieu of a second car. In a "traditional" family there's two vehicles. One is a commuter car and the other is a family-mobile (Van/SUV) which holds all the stuff. In this case, the commuter car could theoretically be replaced by a car service in many cases. The other problem is that people would have to stop seeing cars as a s…

At least in my whereabouts all (solo or both) cars have same role. One for mom and another for dad. Likely one is coming in later to drop kid off and other is leaving job early to pick him up. Or maybe multiple kids go to different institutions. There's no clear separation between kids-ok and no-kids car in family.

IMO the fantasy of car sharing is naive and I'd even say it's counterproductive for the supposed goals. Just a few bits to consider:

- empty cars are going to drive a lot of junk miles. More resources to be burned, more wear on cars.

- car-sharing companies will try to keep brand-new fleets. Reliability, image and whatnot. What are we going to do with used-but-drivable cars?

Re: How Uber Got Lost

#64

Post by slfnflctd »

jrockway wrote: post #57
cactus2093 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evil is a little extreme. The drivers are still doing it, so they clearly prefer giving you a ride to not. To add in some more anecdotal stories — the only times I really take a lot of Ubers and talk to the drivers are when traveling, and I’ve found the opposite. In Austin and Portland recently I talked to quite a few drivers that were happy with the job. And they all mentioned the flexible hours as a perk. One guy w…

> The drivers are still doing it, so they clearly prefer giving you a ride to not. I'm not sure they've thought it through all the way. They're not sick today, so they don't need health insurance. Their car is new and doesn't need any major work, so the finances of eventually having to replace their car don't matter. Basically, I fear that we're getting the low prices we get by mortgaging the future. One day, your dr…

I'm a driver. Honestly, it pays the bills just fine where I am. All you need is a modicum of financial sense and it works.

Drive a low-maintenance, fuel efficient car (say, a Prius). Consciously curtail putting miles on that you aren't being paid for. Keep it clean, have water/chargers on hand for passengers, and be nice. Learn when the app/passenger is screwing you, and get better at avoiding those situations.

I can go out on nearly any weekday, spend roughly $12 on gas, and make $140 in fares after a tolerable amount of time. Weekend nights are even better, if I feel up for dealing with drunks. This pays my bills (including my car payment). By the time my car needs to be replaced, it will most likely have been paid off for a while. So I'll buy another. Rinse and repeat.

I don't see how this is any different from the majority of other entry level, lower wage jobs available out there-- except for how the working conditions are vastly superior, and how I can go home any time, how I can take vacation any time, and how I don't have to put up with jackass co-workers or managers. Oh yeah, and I can even block a passenger I don't like from future rides with me if I really need to (but after over 1,200 rides, I still haven't had the need yet). I think I can keep doing this for a while longer.

Re: How Uber Got Lost

#65

Post by ghaff »

dumbfoundded wrote: post #52
rokhayakebe wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it makes more sense for Uber to do so because the solution they would build “could” be an add on to different cars giving anyone with such car the ability to add it to Uber’s fleet. When BMW creates their solution, it will “probably” not work on an Audi or Ford.

That's just not how self-driving cars will emerge. There's not going to be level-5 for a really long time. Even longer to get the laws into place to manage it. The progress will be gradual. What's going to happen and is already happening is cars will offer certain self-driving features. Things like lane-keeping, brake assist, highway driving. Car companies will also put in all the necessary sensors to collect trainin…

>self-driving cars are a race between auto companies and these cash-flush tech giants.

The auto companies and their suppliers like Bosch. And, if Apple, for example, were to come up with a really good system for autonomous driving or a subset thereof, don't you think they would be happy to sell it to automakers who already buy a huge number of component systems. After all, they already do with CarPlay. (Which is better than any automaker system I've used.)

Re: How Uber Got Lost

#66

Post by szbalint »

gumby wrote: post #37
linkregister wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't necessarily "The NYT." It's an excerpt from the book that Mike Isaac ( https://twitter.com/MikeIsaac ) wrote about Uber for the past 3 years.

Still, they are making an editorial decision that the book is worth reviewing and/or excerpting.

Because Mike is the NYT beat reporter for a number of tech companies like Facebook or Uber.

Re: How Uber Got Lost

#67

Post by ghaff »

mantas wrote: post #63
Consultant32452 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've thought a lot about this. I think, if the price is right, it could work for families in lieu of a second car. In a "traditional" family there's two vehicles. One is a commuter car and the other is a family-mobile (Van/SUV) which holds all the stuff. In this case, the commuter car could theoretically be replaced by a car service in many cases. The other problem is that people would have to stop seeing cars as a s…

At least in my whereabouts all (solo or both) cars have same role. One for mom and another for dad. Likely one is coming in later to drop kid off and other is leaving job early to pick him up. Or maybe multiple kids go to different institutions. There's no clear separation between kids-ok and no-kids car in family. IMO the fantasy of car sharing is naive and I'd even say it's counterproductive for the supposed goals.…

All of these services and capabilities make a difference at the margins--which a second household car often is. But I suspect that a lot of the "people won't own cars" refrain comes from people who either don't own a car or live in a city and don't use it much.

In a lot of couples, people still own their "own" cars, keep their stuff in them, customize them for specific uses (am I going to get an Uber with kayak cradles?), and so forth. Even if the finances worked out, there's no way that I'm dumping my vehicle for a generic shared car.

Re: How Uber Got Lost

#68

Post by jfoster »

dumbfoundded wrote: post #15

I think NYT misses the point. The problem with Uber isn't some cultural issue, it's that they're in an extremely tough and competitive business. It's really a race to the bottom. The logic I kept hearing repeated is ride-sharing is a winner take all market. Like once you have a network of drivers setup giving people the lowest times for rides, you can force other competitors out and raise prices. Time has proven how…

If it's so easy to compete, why aren't there more competitors with a larger market share? I don't know of any ride share market with more than two major players.

US: Uber / Lyft

South East Asia: Grab / GoJek

Australia: Mainly just Uber (lots of smaller players but none with very significant market share)

Re: How Uber Got Lost

#69

Post by duxup »

dumbfoundded wrote: post #15

I think NYT misses the point. The problem with Uber isn't some cultural issue, it's that they're in an extremely tough and competitive business. It's really a race to the bottom. The logic I kept hearing repeated is ride-sharing is a winner take all market. Like once you have a network of drivers setup giving people the lowest times for rides, you can force other competitors out and raise prices. Time has proven how…

I rode in a cab in Chicago that was a regular cab, Uber, and Lyft. I was amused.

Re: How Uber Got Lost

#70

Post by bradleyjg »

jfoster wrote: post #68
dumbfoundded wrote: post #15

I think NYT misses the point. The problem with Uber isn't some cultural issue, it's that they're in an extremely tough and competitive business. It's really a race to the bottom. The logic I kept hearing repeated is ride-sharing is a winner take all market. Like once you have a network of drivers setup giving people the lowest times for rides, you can force other competitors out and raise prices. Time has proven how…

If it's so easy to compete, why aren't there more competitors with a larger market share? I don't know of any ride share market with more than two major players. US: Uber / Lyft South East Asia: Grab / GoJek Australia: Mainly just Uber (lots of smaller players but none with very significant market share)

In NYC Via is making a big dent, and is actual ride sharing to boot.
Post reply on HN