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

The Anti-Uber Way of Disrupting Transportation, Politely

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 66 posts

Re: The Anti-Uber Way of Disrupting Transportation, Politely

#41

Post by wutbrodo »

foobarqux wrote: post #37
wutbrodo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, imagine if normal grocery stores (or restaurants) were consistently out of stock at normal high-demand times (i.e. sacrificed predictable availability for predictable price), and a new grocery store opened up whose selling point was predictable availability instead of predictable pricing. It's absolute nonsense to categorically state that variable pricing interferes with planning more than variable availability d…

I think the right solution is to fix an easy to remember price schedule in advance.

All that does is shift Uber along the spectrum of predictable availability vs predictable price. You have the cognitive load of remembering/having to check a schedule, plus no guarantee of availability, since the schedule will be a highly imperfect predictor of demand, as well as not accounting for unforeseen surges in demand.

That seems like it would be more stressful and a worse solution than either of the other options (taxis' fully fixed-price or Uber's fully-floating price), since you don't even know what part of the spectrum you'll end up on at any given point!

Re: The Anti-Uber Way of Disrupting Transportation, Politely

#43

Post by michaelochurch »

nemothekid wrote: post #13
michaelochurch wrote: post #2

First of all, it doesn't cost $267 to get from Manchester to London. That's an order of magnitude high. Even Amtrak isn't that bad ($0.65 per person per hour) and Europe has cheaper, faster, and better rail service than the US by far . That said, I think it's really amusing and interesting that the only thing it's going to take in order to beat Uber, in the long term, is: not be Uber . Just having a more likable CEO…

What isn't transparent about surge pricing? The app straight up tells you "you will be paying more for this ride." If you don't like it, get a regular cab. I don't know why people act as if Uber is twisting their arm when it comes to surge pricing.

It's not transparent about how it models the supply curve and how much demand there is. If they didn't want to be hated, they'd establish enough data that one who wanted to could prove that it was fair market pricing (and that Uber wasn't making additional profit during surge pricing, silencing doubt about perverse incentives).

Re: The Anti-Uber Way of Disrupting Transportation, Politely

#44

Post by michaelochurch »

martinald wrote: post #24
michaelochurch wrote: post #2

First of all, it doesn't cost $267 to get from Manchester to London. That's an order of magnitude high. Even Amtrak isn't that bad ($0.65 per person per hour) and Europe has cheaper, faster, and better rail service than the US by far . That said, I think it's really amusing and interesting that the only thing it's going to take in order to beat Uber, in the long term, is: not be Uber . Just having a more likable CEO…

Nope, it does. It's £321 for a peak return, or £160.50 single. Or, alternatively, £459 rtn in first class ($767). However, an off peak return (dept after 9am, basically), and it drops to under £80 rtn.

Virgin Trains apparently offers £12.50 (one-way) service to London every 20 minutes. http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/go-by-train/manchester/

Re: The Anti-Uber Way of Disrupting Transportation, Politely

#45

Post by potatolicious »

baddox wrote: post #40
gmisra wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FTA: Like Uber, BlaBlaCar takes a cut of the fare, but crucially, prevents its drivers from trying to turn this into a job. In each of the countries it operates in, BlaBlaCar uses government guidelines on driving costs to set a cap on the fare. These calculations account for fuel costs, insurance and tax. The rule helps to avoid giving the impression that the app poses a challenge to cab drivers' livelihood. "Because…

Yeah, I read that. I don't see how that makes the BlaBlaCar sharing any more actual than the Uber sharing.

The typical notion of the sharing economy is that you're allowing more efficient usage of activity that would exist with or without your interference.

For example, car pooling is part of the sharing economy - the car was already going in that direction anyways, but now you've saved a bunch of gas by putting multiple people in the same car. Without your carpool, that driver would still be going that way - like BlaBlaCar.

Ditto if you and your neighbors got together and shared a lawnmower. You were all going to buy one anyways, but in this scheme you get to save money, and the lawn mower is sitting idle a lot less. Good of the environment, good for you, and maybe you can afford a better mower as a group. Score.

Uber isn't part of the sharing economy, since the drivers are only on the road because of you. It's a pretty typical merchant-client relationship that doesn't fit any common notion of the word "sharing", unless you consider your coffee shop to be "sharing" their coffee with you.

In Uber/Lyft's case, the supply (rides) wouldn't exist without you. The key tenet of the sharing economy is that you're piggy-backing on activity that would be happening regardless. I think it's a pretty tough case to argue that all these Ubers and Lyfts would be on the road anyways if it weren't for the people hailing them.

This is true for (most of) AirBnb as well. If you're renting out your apartment while you're away, that's a part of the sharing economy, since you'd own the space even if AirBnb didn't exist - it would just be sitting empty. If you're maintaining a room or apartment strictly for the purpose of renting out, it really isn't, and now you're looking at a much more traditional merchant-client relationship.

Re: The Anti-Uber Way of Disrupting Transportation, Politely

#46

Post by foobarqux »

wutbrodo wrote: post #41
foobarqux wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the right solution is to fix an easy to remember price schedule in advance.

All that does is shift Uber along the spectrum of predictable availability vs predictable price. You have the cognitive load of remembering/having to check a schedule, plus no guarantee of availability, since the schedule will be a highly imperfect predictor of demand, as well as not accounting for unforeseen surges in demand. That seems like it would be more stressful and a worse solution than either of the other op…

I assume demand in major cities doesn't really change that much so that the schedule is announced and updated very rarely (similar to public transportation). Yes, you would occasionally sacrifice some availability but I think people prefer that trade-off.

Re: The Anti-Uber Way of Disrupting Transportation, Politely

#47

Post by foobarqux »

nostrademons wrote: post #38
foobarqux wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's transparent but variable pricing interferes with planning and requires repeated decision making, increasing stress. Imagine if grocery food doubled in price spontaneously several times a week.

Grocery food doubles in price all the time...it's called a sale. Soda goes for anywhere from $0.69/2liter to $1.29 at my local Safeway, for the same brands, just at different times. Groceries have just learned that people react better to high baseline prices and occasional labeled discounts than low baseline prices and occasional surcharges. Most people just get used to paying whatever the checkout bill is at the gro…

The stress is not the stress of poverty but of deciding whether you want to spend $X dollars on a non-essential product (the buy/not-buy decision).

As for groceries usually sales are advertised, in force for pre-defined period of time and, as you say, discounted from the price that is in force most of the time so that if you are surprised by a price it is in your favor.

Re: The Anti-Uber Way of Disrupting Transportation, Politely

#48

Post by baddox »

potatolicious wrote: post #45
baddox wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I read that. I don't see how that makes the BlaBlaCar sharing any more actual than the Uber sharing.

The typical notion of the sharing economy is that you're allowing more efficient usage of activity that would exist with or without your interference. For example, car pooling is part of the sharing economy - the car was already going in that direction anyways, but now you've saved a bunch of gas by putting multiple people in the same car. Without your carpool, that driver would still be going that way - like BlaBlaC…

> Uber isn't part of the sharing economy, since the drivers are only on the road because of you.

But most are using their personal cars (at least for Lyft and Sidecar, which are the ones I use), which they would own either way. It's not the driver's time and gas being "shared" under your definition, it's the car itself, which would otherwise be sitting in a garage and replaced with another taxi or rental car.

Also, I don't see how the person not making a profit somehow makes the service qualify under your definition of "sharing economy."

Re: The Anti-Uber Way of Disrupting Transportation, Politely

#49

Post by nemothekid »

foobarqux wrote: post #46
wutbrodo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All that does is shift Uber along the spectrum of predictable availability vs predictable price. You have the cognitive load of remembering/having to check a schedule, plus no guarantee of availability, since the schedule will be a highly imperfect predictor of demand, as well as not accounting for unforeseen surges in demand. That seems like it would be more stressful and a worse solution than either of the other op…

I assume demand in major cities doesn't really change that much so that the schedule is announced and updated very rarely (similar to public transportation). Yes, you would occasionally sacrifice some availability but I think people prefer that trade-off.

If I wanted to sacrifice availability, I would use a Taxi. Uber, first and foremost, an on-demand ride flagging application. If Uber can't find me a ride then the app is broken - I lose any incentive to pay any surge pricing if I am going to get the same availability from Uber that I would get from a Taxi cab.

Any savvy individual (who needs to be able to schedule their Uber rides in advance for whatever reason, instead of just using a Taxi to schedule rides like others have been doing for the last 50 years) will quickly learn when surge pricing is effect namely, Weekday mornings when people are going to work, Weekday evenings when people are leaving work, Weekend nights (sometimes), and any event where you can expect alot of people going home at the same time (concerts, sports games).

In any case, and back to my original point, Uber doesn't force you to use their service and they are not the only game in town. If availability is more important predictability get an Uber, otherwise just get a Taxi. It doesn't make sense for Uber to become more like Taxis because people are unaware they have choices.

Re: The Anti-Uber Way of Disrupting Transportation, Politely

#50

Post by nemothekid »

michaelochurch wrote: post #43
nemothekid wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What isn't transparent about surge pricing? The app straight up tells you "you will be paying more for this ride." If you don't like it, get a regular cab. I don't know why people act as if Uber is twisting their arm when it comes to surge pricing.

It's not transparent about how it models the supply curve and how much demand there is. If they didn't want to be hated, they'd establish enough data that one who wanted to could prove that it was fair market pricing (and that Uber wasn't making additional profit during surge pricing, silencing doubt about perverse incentives).

I honestly don't follow. I don't understand how their models would be useful to anyone except economics students. Even if they could say it was fair market pricing, I doubt complaining users who were too lazy/didn't care to read the "2x surge pricing" alert in big bold letters would be swayed by a white paper.

Not to say I'm against transparency - it would most likely be incredibly rich data and give more power to drivers, but it seems Uber's trip up from a public point of view is that users feel cheated due to surge pricing. I'm having trouble understanding how one can feel cheated when the prices are laid before you - maybe Uber should replace "4x" with the estimated amount (of course then you'd have the complaining if the estimate is a little bit off).

Post reply on HN