101–110 of 196 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Sidecar lets each driver set their own rate. It would take a whole lot more than 1% of the fare to keep the system running though.
Why would you say that?
And are you going to vet drivers at all? Check that they have a license and insurance?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone will still need to manage the fleet of self driving cars. Who is going to fill them with gas, do routine maintenance, clean them after some drunk dude puked all over the back seat, etc?
If they're electric vehicles, they'll charge on their own based on closest charging station and the cost of electricity at the time they need their charge. Also, the only maintenance you'd require would be tire rotations/changes every ~5K miles, and a new battery every 150K-200K miles (Tesla automated the battery pack swap, I'm sure they could automate pulling four wheels off and bolting four new ones back on). I agr…
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…
But in a future where a large percent of rides are shared by 3 passengers on average, or maybe even more via SUV(for cost savings of course), being the dominant provider is tied directly achieving optimal routes and average share ratios.
In such a future , the network effects over riders is much stronger , and it's probably a "winner takes most" market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. 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 gam…
You know what would be interesting is that municipalities should see this as an opportunity. What if the city were to start their own modern municipal taxi services, and compete directly with Lyft/Uber.... Then they get revenues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. 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 gam…
Consequently, the cost of a ride will approach the level of direct costs like fuel and maintenance. There won't be much left for driver compensation or vehicle depreciation, much less a durable surplus for the network operator. Paradoxically for the disruptors, the way out of this trap is for Uber and Lyft to lobby for greater regulation, stringent requirements for insurance and liability, background checks, safety i…
Taxi drivers have lobbied for years to build up the kind of economic protections they have from disappearing margins in a competitive marketplace, and consequently being a taxi driver meant you could make a middle class living without tortuous hours.
Uber comes along and operates without the limitations of those protections and drivers earn less. Ultimately without intervention it puts a whole industry of people on a trajectory towards poverty, and this is before we even get to self driving cars.
What are we going to do with everyone who gets forced out of their middle class jobs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why am I being modded down?
I don't yet have down vote privilege, but I have to imagine The GP (your original comment) got nuked because it is both needlessly inflammatory and also lacks a substantive argument. As for your response to dragonwriter, you appear to be talking past one another; of course markets are matchmaking services for buyers and sellers by definition, but what you've done here is mistake this specific case of relatively frict…
I'll try to clarify my point: before Uber/Lyft, we had taxis. Just taxis. Then, the argument went: "Well yes, for taxis we need state intervention because if the government doesn't regulate cabs then anyone can charge fare and conditions will deteriorate and it will be inherently less safe and..."
Then Uber/Lyft comes around and all of a sudden the taxi market is "relatively frictionless" and has other "unique characteristics" that make it so beneficial to employees.
I'm trying to point out that there is nothing special about taxis. It is not a special market. I can't deny that one to one business relationships allow for faster change in the market, as the employee can simply up and leave at any point.
The taxi market was the furthest thing from frictionless until competition started. The power will always be in the employees' hands so long as anyone is free to start competition. We see this with this selfsame example - before Uber, taxi drivers were basically employees to medallion owners (and taxis were supposed to be a regulated system for the free enterprise of starting a one-man cab company, not for the rich to buy all medallions and rent them). This is an example of failed regulation that allowed the current exploitation of taxi drivers. Competition is now allowing better conditions for those same drivers, even though there's no pretense that Lyft drivers own their business. It's an above-board operation and more moral than before, and not surprising that it works better for both parties engaged in this.
So what I'm arguing is that whenever we say "but it doesn't apply to roads/this/that", it's usually because of the blind spots we have from looking at the system the way it is and being unable to imagine how else it could be. The roads example is a classic one.
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.
* Unless you have enough money to change regulations in your favor, skirt regulations, and so on, in which case it's survival of the financially-backed.