21–30 of 196 posts
Update -- Uber reverses policy: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/09/12/uber_drivers_...
Edit: Also, the strike is going forward - not all of their demands were met. Maybe this is just so Uber can say "hey, we tried to do what they asked?"
Statists, take notice of how improvements in work conditions come from competition and not from regulation. They're better off now than through the monopoly of taxi medallions.
What would it take for somebody to just build a free, open-source matchmaking service for drivers and riders? It doesn't seem like what Lyft or Uber offer is very technically demanding (perhaps doing it at scale is), and presumably you could attract a lot more drivers by offering them the chance to keep ~99% of the fare. The existence of Lyft demonstrates that Uber's first-mover advantage isn't insurmountable, so who…
If someone were to build a Stellar-like decentralized market that matched drivers with riders who pay with the market's internal currency, the incentive to build and improve upon the service would be the appreciation of the currency. People who thought it could succeed would buy some of the currency cheaply, build applications that make the market easy to use, and profit from the gains their improvements cause.
It could happen.
The really interesting story here is that if drivers are so willing to switch networks for better opportunities, there isn't a compelling reason for Uber to have the valuation that they do. The value of Uber isn't really in the tech or the app - it's in the networks of riders and drivers in each city. If each of those can be aggregated into some other kind of service, where Uber, Lyft, etc. are just providers of paym…
One could read Uber's insistence on canning drivers who turn down too many rides as an attempt to reduce this leverage, since the only way drivers can exercise it is to turn down Uber rides in order to drive for somebody else. Requiring them to accept a certain volume of Uber rides effectively ties them to Uber.
This is how capitalism works, survival of the fittest. If someone comes along that allows the drivers to make more money, prudent drivers will likely switch to that service. It is a no brainer.
The really interesting story here is that if drivers are so willing to switch networks for better opportunities, there isn't a compelling reason for Uber to have the valuation that they do. The value of Uber isn't really in the tech or the app - it's in the networks of riders and drivers in each city. If each of those can be aggregated into some other kind of service, where Uber, Lyft, etc. are just providers of paym…
There are two sides to the story: If customers are so enamored with Uber that they wouldn't consider Lyft or the other services, Uber will still be in control.
EDIT TO CLARIFY: Did not mean to suggest that customers are indeed enamored with Uber. Only wanted to point out that driver promiscuity does not necessarily threaten Uber so long as customers flock to them.
Statists, take notice of how improvements in work conditions come from competition and not from regulation. They're better off now than through the monopoly of taxi medallions.
There were also missteps with insurance that companies like Uber and Airbnb made, which were corrected, but, I suspect, wouldn't have been addressed as quickly without a legal/regulatory framework for liability. They're essentially hidden risks/costs to the consumer and employees.
So aspects of this market need more than a simplistic "Yay competition, boo regulation..." And, I think in general we need to move public & political discussion beyond that point an get a better understanding of where competitive markets work, and where they fail.
So they were fine and dandy until a better competition came around. When Lyft has its rival, same thing will happen.
I thought the whole point of Uber and Lyft was that didn't have to be full-time occupations.
I'm sure the system works better with stability so the incentives push towards full-timers.
The really interesting story here is that if drivers are so willing to switch networks for better opportunities, there isn't a compelling reason for Uber to have the valuation that they do. The value of Uber isn't really in the tech or the app - it's in the networks of riders and drivers in each city. If each of those can be aggregated into some other kind of service, where Uber, Lyft, etc. are just providers of paym…
Basically while there are network effects in the sense that any provider (Uber, Lyft etc.) will need to have some critical mass before there are enough drivers and enough riders, both can subscribe to multiple providers and there is no long-term stickiness at the moment.
In other words, this is not a winner take all market with FB/LinkedIn/Twitter type network stickiness and the overall market is still fair game. The driver's rating is the only sticky data, and it is unclear in this context as to how valuable that is as riders are not going to wait an extra 30mins to get a 5-star driver vs. a 4-star driver.
This should not come as a surprise to anyone since right now most metros have multiple competing taxi service providers, so it makes sense that that may be replaced by a similar multiple mobile-app taxi providers.
Also, it is difficult to re-paint your taxi when you move from one traditional provider to another, in the Uber/Lyft/etc. world, that is no longer required, so provider switching or aligning with multiple providers is trivial which will imply that in future the providers' margins will be squeezed out and riders and drivers will keep the most benefit.