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

Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 887 posts

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#451

Post by pageandrew »

Simulacra wrote: post #447
pininja wrote: post #166

I work at Uber outside of the rides/eats business and observed many feature releases to adjust the business after AB5. What I saw released: - Enabling drivers to see where a rider is going before accepting the trip [0] [2] - Removed a main penalty for declining rides, “No More 85% Acceptance Rate Requirement For Uber Pro” [2] - Drivers get set their own fare with a multiplier [1] (the article details screenshots and…

Could allowing the driver to see the destination before accepting the trip be used as a way to discriminate?

Yes, and taxi drivers have always been able to do that. As a consumer, it was nice using Uber because drivers couldn't do that.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#452

Post by kingnothing »

mrfusion wrote: post #418
pininja wrote: post #166

I work at Uber outside of the rides/eats business and observed many feature releases to adjust the business after AB5. What I saw released: - Enabling drivers to see where a rider is going before accepting the trip [0] [2] - Removed a main penalty for declining rides, “No More 85% Acceptance Rate Requirement For Uber Pro” [2] - Drivers get set their own fare with a multiplier [1] (the article details screenshots and…

Why can’t uber just position itself as a lead generation service for drivers?

Uber positions itself that way all over the place: Uber is a tech company that connects riders and drivers. It is not a taxi service.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#453

Post by pavel_lishin »

rubatuga wrote: post #446
pininja wrote: post #166

I work at Uber outside of the rides/eats business and observed many feature releases to adjust the business after AB5. What I saw released: - Enabling drivers to see where a rider is going before accepting the trip [0] [2] - Removed a main penalty for declining rides, “No More 85% Acceptance Rate Requirement For Uber Pro” [2] - Drivers get set their own fare with a multiplier [1] (the article details screenshots and…

This is horrible for customers, the worst part is when drivers don't want to pick you up.

I think it's going to depend by area. The last time I tried to use Uber to get a ride from the airport, I had several drivers accept, then call me - "I'm all the way in midtown, it'll take me 45 minutes to get to you, you probably want to cancel this."

The incentives for drivers have always been fucked. I'd rather the drivers not accept my ride than try to play a weird game of chicken to get me to cancel when I'm trying to get somewhere.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#454

Post by adrianN »

rubatuga wrote: post #446
pininja wrote: post #166

I work at Uber outside of the rides/eats business and observed many feature releases to adjust the business after AB5. What I saw released: - Enabling drivers to see where a rider is going before accepting the trip [0] [2] - Removed a main penalty for declining rides, “No More 85% Acceptance Rate Requirement For Uber Pro” [2] - Drivers get set their own fare with a multiplier [1] (the article details screenshots and…

This is horrible for customers, the worst part is when drivers don't want to pick you up.

Here in Germany proper Taxis have to pick you up (as far as I know, I almost never need one). That's apparently the main reason they offer why they should be protected against services like Uber.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#455

Post by floatrock »

kingnothing wrote: post #441
brendoelfrendo wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like it is bad for the customer experience of the rider, but is essential for the driver to be considered a contractor. It makes sense to me as a tradeoff: Uber can decide that the drivers are employees and dictate what routes and fares they must take, or they can decide that drivers are contractors who have the ability to review and decline those fares

My last point was that it's good for both riders and drivers. If riders come to expect an unreliable service, then they'll use a different method of transit, which leaves the drivers with less work overall.

> which leaves the drivers with less work overall.

...which is a positive feedback loop that should encourage them to pick up those previously declined routes. Or charge higher rates that better reflect their reluctance for those routes. Isn't that how supply & demand is supposed to work?

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#456

Post by adrianN »

londons_explore wrote: post #437
msoad wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work at Lyft. It is disgusting how Lyft and Uber treat drivers with their A/B testing etc. Those PMs have no sympathy for drivers. A driver can end up in an experiment group that totally screws his income. WRT to drivers not going to neighborhood I have a solution for you: let passengers offer higher pricers. This is not a new idea BTW

> It is disgusting how Lyft and Uber treat drivers with their A/B testing Society as a whole needs to answer the question "is it moral to roll a dice and offer a worse service to people who get an odd number?" In my view, it is. As far as that person is concerned, they can pretend your company doesn't exist and go to another company (and maybe roll another dice) Some other people would say "all businesses must treat…

I think companies run A/B tests because they don't know which option is the worse service.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#457

Post by bgorman »

pageandrew wrote: post #451
Simulacra wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could allowing the driver to see the destination before accepting the trip be used as a way to discriminate?

Yes, and taxi drivers have always been able to do that. As a consumer, it was nice using Uber because drivers couldn't do that.

However there is no penalty for drivers refusing to take your to the airport once they show up. It's an absolutely infuriating experience. Drivers should be banned from the platform if they are not able to take people from downtown to the closest airport.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#458

Post by [deleted] »

pageandrew wrote: post #451
Simulacra wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could allowing the driver to see the destination before accepting the trip be used as a way to discriminate?

Yes, and taxi drivers have always been able to do that. As a consumer, it was nice using Uber because drivers couldn't do that.

[deleted]

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#459

Post by jasode »

mrfusion wrote: post #418
pininja wrote: post #166

I work at Uber outside of the rides/eats business and observed many feature releases to adjust the business after AB5. What I saw released: - Enabling drivers to see where a rider is going before accepting the trip [0] [2] - Removed a main penalty for declining rides, “No More 85% Acceptance Rate Requirement For Uber Pro” [2] - Drivers get set their own fare with a multiplier [1] (the article details screenshots and…

Why can’t uber just position itself as a lead generation service for drivers?

>Why can’t uber just position itself as a lead generation service for drivers?

A rideshare company could theoretically be just a pure lead generation platform but the economic forces preventing that is the nature of multi-sided platforms: The drivers don't hold all the leverage. The other actor in the multi-sided platform are passengers/customers who _pay the money_.

If Uber was only lead gen, they would be outcompeted by another company that offered all the following conveniences:

+ predictable fixed price to prevent customer anxiety of overcharging

+ integrated payment processing so no worry of drivers playing games such as, "my Square credit card processor doesn't work so you need to pay cash"

+ driver ratings for reputation

... because customers/passengers value those features.

If you create a rideshare platform that's too advantageous to the drivers (e.g. no ratings, can charge variable fare per mile, etc), it would end up being hostile to potential customers and it won't attract enough paying fares to be financially sustainable.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#460

Post by newacct583 »

rubatuga wrote: post #446
pininja wrote: post #166

I work at Uber outside of the rides/eats business and observed many feature releases to adjust the business after AB5. What I saw released: - Enabling drivers to see where a rider is going before accepting the trip [0] [2] - Removed a main penalty for declining rides, “No More 85% Acceptance Rate Requirement For Uber Pro” [2] - Drivers get set their own fare with a multiplier [1] (the article details screenshots and…

This is horrible for customers, the worst part is when drivers don't want to pick you up.

I think that's absolutely true, and it's one of the reasons that society benefits from the idea of an "employee" relationship, where you can rely on a single corporation, beholden to some kind of public consensus, to enforce a uniform set of rules. A world where everyone is a "contractor" is one where everyone is subject to the tragedy of the commons. (e.g. "You can't get a ride in a poor neighborhood")

But part of the social contract is that employees, having given up that autonomy, need someone else to advocate for them collectively. Thus... labor rights and benefits legislation.

Frankly this whole thing seems silly. They knew where this was going when AB5 was passed. Those features aren't a good faith attempt to comply with the law, they were an attempt to evade it (something very much in keeping with Uber's culture).

The only real surprise here was that the final reckoning came sooner than expected via injunction.

Post reply on HN