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

The Drivers Cooperative

drivers.coop

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 333 posts

Re: The Drivers Cooperative

#281

Post by shp0ngle »

Part of the problem is that developing and maintaining these applications is expensive. Not just the technical part, but also all the operations (all the customer care and lawyers and mapping and...)

Uber and Lyft are still losing money, VCs are pumping capital there daily. How can driver coop survive? Where do they take the money for all that?

Sure they don’t need to go all Uber and scale into 500 microservices, but still it’s not easy...

I wish them good luck, but I also don’t think they will succeed against Masa Son deep pockets.

Re: The Drivers Cooperative

#282

Post by novok »

dwater wrote: post #204
clarkevans wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cooperatives can expand by cooperating with other cooperatives -- a bunch of local cooperatives might nest to form a regional one, etc. Those regional ones could form a federation with a single identity for global operations. So, this problem can be addressed by cooperatives, it's just a different kind of structure that distributes power locally -- with centralized power deriving from the bottom up, by the membership…

I've noticed credit unions in the US are like this. They are generally locally operated, but they have formed networks so that you can e.g. go into a branch in Maryland and perform transactions on your account held in Georgia. They have also banded together to develop credit union apps, since banking apps are essentially universal in function. Reaching critical mass for these ride hailing apps would be a challenge, b…

We don't really see coop payment networks in wide use although, and Uber is more like a Visa or Ebay than they are a bank.

Re: The Drivers Cooperative

#283

Post by kube-system »

chaos_emergent wrote: post #239
sandworm101 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I applaud the effort, but the problem with a collective is that they are, legally speaking, a soft target. Uber can afford to break laws, run at a local loss, and generally throw its weight around a new market. Cooperatives don't have such deep pockets. They will leave town as soon as a some local interest resists. They aren't going to survive multi-year fights with cities or organizations like the London cabs.

Part of the design of Coops is that they are the local interest. It’s much less likely that they will encounter local resistance than a VC-backed Silicon Valley overlord.

The 'local interest' is more than just drivers. It's competing groups, regulators, land owners, etc.

Re: The Drivers Cooperative

#284

Post by Retric »

novok wrote: post #282
dwater wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed credit unions in the US are like this. They are generally locally operated, but they have formed networks so that you can e.g. go into a branch in Maryland and perform transactions on your account held in Georgia. They have also banded together to develop credit union apps, since banking apps are essentially universal in function. Reaching critical mass for these ride hailing apps would be a challenge, b…

We don't really see coop payment networks in wide use although, and Uber is more like a Visa or Ebay than they are a bank.

Fraud from either side of the transaction is the primary issue payment networks deal with and that makes them a poor fit for coops. Ride sharing apps are very different beasts.

Re: The Drivers Cooperative

#285

Post by jellicle »

njoubert wrote: post #180
kbos87 wrote: post #176

It's always surprised me that we haven't seem more attempts at co-op like models in spaces like this, and I'm happy to see it. Uber/Lyft strike me as thin businesses in the value that they actually provide both to riders and drivers. Yes, they were responsible for some initial innovation, but now the cat is out of the bag, and the concept could absolutely be applied in a business structure that is more profitable and…

The single benefit of Uber having a global presence likely already outweighs the value of these local coops. You can get off an airplane just about anywhere in the world and get an Uber. That’s huge value.

The thing you describe as valuable... isn't. The idea of someone who spends Monday in Madrid, Tuesday in NYC, Wednesday in Moscow and can't be bothered with too many apps is just an idea. That person doesn't actually exist. There is zero value to you for Uber serving other random cities around the world that you will never visit.

Serving NYC is easily a large enough market to be successful. Serving a borough would be.

Re: The Drivers Cooperative

#286

Post by dv_dt »

njoubert wrote: post #180
kbos87 wrote: post #176

It's always surprised me that we haven't seem more attempts at co-op like models in spaces like this, and I'm happy to see it. Uber/Lyft strike me as thin businesses in the value that they actually provide both to riders and drivers. Yes, they were responsible for some initial innovation, but now the cat is out of the bag, and the concept could absolutely be applied in a business structure that is more profitable and…

The single benefit of Uber having a global presence likely already outweighs the value of these local coops. You can get off an airplane just about anywhere in the world and get an Uber. That’s huge value.

But then Uber also has to setup the meta-structure operationally to actually legally and financially operate in all those jurisdictions and that incurs a higher cost overhead than a local coop.

Re: The Drivers Cooperative

#287

Post by gnopgnip »

njoubert wrote: post #180
kbos87 wrote: post #176

It's always surprised me that we haven't seem more attempts at co-op like models in spaces like this, and I'm happy to see it. Uber/Lyft strike me as thin businesses in the value that they actually provide both to riders and drivers. Yes, they were responsible for some initial innovation, but now the cat is out of the bag, and the concept could absolutely be applied in a business structure that is more profitable and…

The single benefit of Uber having a global presence likely already outweighs the value of these local coops. You can get off an airplane just about anywhere in the world and get an Uber. That’s huge value.

But can the drivers move to another country?

Re: The Drivers Cooperative

#288

Post by snicker7 »

itake wrote: post #280

I am curious how they tackle safety issues within the coop. Uber, Lyft, and other big players have teams of engineers improving the safety of the platform (e.g. banning duplicate accounts of bad actors, banning people from re-creating accounts, identifying and removing fraud). I'm skeptical that the team behind the drivers.coop could deliver a fair and scalable safe service for both the riders and drivers. For exampl…

A coop is just another corporation, just with a different ownership model. This means they will likely have to hire engineers, customer service, business analysts, lobbyists, an executive team, &c. None of your examples is unachievable with a coop. The main blocker is initial capital acquisition.

Re: The Drivers Cooperative

#289

Post by AbrahamParangi »

kbos87 wrote: post #176

It's always surprised me that we haven't seem more attempts at co-op like models in spaces like this, and I'm happy to see it. Uber/Lyft strike me as thin businesses in the value that they actually provide both to riders and drivers. Yes, they were responsible for some initial innovation, but now the cat is out of the bag, and the concept could absolutely be applied in a business structure that is more profitable and…

The reason we tend not to see this is that aggregating demand is much more critical to success than aggregating supply.

Re: The Drivers Cooperative

#290

Post by moduspol »

beefield wrote: post #245
lorenzhs wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're a large retailer and have been able to negotiate good rates with a payment processor and are in a country where interchange fees are capped (e.g., EU countries), then I can see it. But I doubt that it's the case in the US where those fees have to fund 2% cashback programmes etc.

Even for a small retailer, (i)zettle costs 1.75%[1] per transaction. No monthly fees. I honestly can't see how cash can compete with that. You need to spend time managing your change. You need to have some kind of register. You need to take your cash to the bank (which is far from free, and takes time). You need to manage your operations so that nobody steals or loses your money. Only "benefit" in cash is that tax av…

I think it's totally doable if you can avoid cash completely, but for most of the costs of handling it, they hit when you take your first dollar. If you're already buying a cash register, counting, making change, stocking cash/change, making a trip to the bank, etc., the incremental costs of additional cash transactions are minimal. Even with steps up for things like time-locked safes or pickups by armored cars.

I agree with the sentiment, though. I guess realistically if it were my business, I'd need some significant evidence that I wouldn't be losing money by not accepting cash. That's the extraordinary claim, after all, with the vast majority of businesses doing it.

I think I've seen a few food trucks in my area that don't take cash.

Post reply on HN