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

Uber Drivers “Strike” and Switch to Lyft Over Fares and Conditions

buzzfeed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 196 posts

Re: Uber Drivers “Strike” and Switch to Lyft Over Fares and Conditions

#111

Post by samstave »

hnal943 wrote: post #105
samstave wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not optimistic about municipalities running anything efficiently. However, this would provide great opportunities to get rid of public transit as we know it. Private sector rides could simply be subsidized for low income users. How much more convenient would this be vs taking the bus?

Sure, but maybe some scrappy startup could go to municipalities and try to offer it as a service to them under contract.

Then use that to grow out and manage it for other cities a well.

Re: Uber Drivers “Strike” and Switch to Lyft Over Fares and Conditions

#112

Post by aeturnum »

mkal_tsr wrote: post #110
SEJeff wrote: post #3

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.

> This is how capitalism works, survival of the fittest* * 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.

Access to capital and the political world are part of "fitness" in this environment. Generally, the companies that are seen as most likely to survive have easier access to funding than companies that are seen as riskier. The same can be said of companies that are likely to succeed v.s. simply survive.

Re: Uber Drivers “Strike” and Switch to Lyft Over Fares and Conditions

#113

Post by mkal_tsr »

aeturnum wrote: post #112
mkal_tsr wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is how capitalism works, survival of the fittest* * 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.

Access to capital and the political world are part of "fitness" in this environment. Generally, the companies that are seen as most likely to survive have easier access to funding than companies that are seen as riskier. The same can be said of companies that are likely to succeed v.s. simply survive.

Don't forget that even if you have a stellar implementation and great service, you may not be able to secure financing for marketing/lawyers/etc. or other "gate-keepers" that would enable financing ... thus there's the "who you know / who you can influence" aspect. I guess that's kind of my issue when I see people talk about how great a free-market is, when the reality is that our "free"-market has numerous levels and types of gatekeepers which prevent those "genetically"-strong startups/companies from disrupting. Hmm, my explanation on that was absurdly bad, I apologize, but hopefully you kinda get what I'm saying, hehe.

Re: Uber Drivers “Strike” and Switch to Lyft Over Fares and Conditions

#114

Post by aetherson »

pinkyand wrote: post #104
jefflinwood wrote: post #14

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…

Maybe the networks now are quite weak. 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.

That's true, IF passengers are interested in sharing a ride with two other passengers (and if they're interested in trading cost savings for the delays involved in that).

I kind of doubt that there will ever be a day when rides have an average of 3 passengers. Figure that if your base fare is $20, the first person you share with saves you $10 (or maybe $9 or something if you have to shore up the profits of the hailing app). Second person you share with saves you... $3. Third person saves you $2.

The returns to the passengers for additional passengers falls off fast, and the costs to the passengers (in terms of time, of discomfort, etc.) are linear or even more than linear. So probably not three passengers.

But two passengers is possible and would make for a real network effect... if ultimately there's enough demand for shared rides at all. There might be! Hard to say.

Re: Uber Drivers “Strike” and Switch to Lyft Over Fares and Conditions

#115

Post by lxmorj »

aetherson wrote: post #48
toomuchtodo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you say self-driving vehicles fit into this? Supposedly they're rolling out in ~3-5 years, and with self-driving vehicles, you no longer need the middle man managing a fleet of contractors. EDIT: I'm willing to me a Long Bet [1] with anyone regarding fully autonomous self driving vehicles in regular use in 6 years. [1] http://longbets.org/ ; http://longbets.org/rules/

Self-driving vehicles are the final commoditization of the rides-for-hire business. Personally, I'd be very skeptical about the 3-5 year time frame, but clearly they're coming at some point. When they do, I can't see any rides-for-hire business having gross margins higher than 5% (though the size of the rides-for-hire market may well expand greatly). Barrier for entry is basically nonexistent.

Scale and perks will drive that 5% up, I imagine. Sure, Joe Average can buy a Tesla Model A (for automatic, obviously) and have it operate as a AI-Uber Driver, but Uber can buy a fleet of thousands, allowing them better pricing, better access to charging stations, better data about which rides are most valuable and where to position their cars. With a bit better margins comes things like bottled water in the cars. This differentiates them further, etc.

Re: Uber Drivers “Strike” and Switch to Lyft Over Fares and Conditions

#116

Post by mncolinlee »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #87
mncolinlee wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heck, they won't even need to plug in once we get wireless, inductive charging stations or inductive roads. Both are coming. You could outsource the car cleaning with an agreement at any full service car wash. One doesn't even need a physical presence anywhere to make the business work.

They already have wireless charging for electric vehicles: http://www.pluglesspower.com/ While high-capacity electric vehicles like a Tesla wouldn't be able to wirelessly charge, it should be trivial to build a physical dock they can connect to with no human intervention (similar to how SpaceX designed the DragonEye mating connector for autonomous mating to the ISS).

I'm well aware. I was referring to public charging infrastructure using wireless charging. This is almost non-existent due to the lack of compatible vehicles today. I understand that some electric buses are already using wireless charging in major trials.

Re: Uber Drivers “Strike” and Switch to Lyft Over Fares and Conditions

#117

Post by pbhjpbhj »

panarky wrote: post #96
yumraj wrote: post #30

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…

Surely they want to take the money now and use that to fund being first to market with the self-driving vehicles. Then they retain the customers but drop the drivers and build a new lake in which to swim in their money.

They can ride the transition period then at least before any serious challenger can take the market.

In theory .. I don't see them lasting long enough to meet the new tech before they implode.

Re: Uber Drivers “Strike” and Switch to Lyft Over Fares and Conditions

#118

Post by jackpirate »

aeturnum wrote: post #112
mkal_tsr wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is how capitalism works, survival of the fittest* * 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.

Access to capital and the political world are part of "fitness" in this environment. Generally, the companies that are seen as most likely to survive have easier access to funding than companies that are seen as riskier. The same can be said of companies that are likely to succeed v.s. simply survive.

If you're willing to redefine fitness like that, then any economic system is by definition "survival of the fittest."

Re: Uber Drivers “Strike” and Switch to Lyft Over Fares and Conditions

#119

Post by ghaff »

Dolimiter wrote: post #78
esMazer wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

~3-5 years is way too soon. The technology might be ready but the governments (think regulations, traffic laws, car insurance companies, car manufacturers, etc etc etc ) in addition to the public (which is not ready either). Is going to take at least 10+ years for it to resemble something like you imagine it.

The technology is not nearly ready. Not in a city. It's like flying drone delivery. Easy to demonstrate in a single controlled setting, but nearly impossible to actually implement in the real world.

It's hard for me to even imagine how a self-driving car could manage somewhere like large swaths of Manhattan where a certain amount of, umm, aggression is needed to make any forward progress. Though it will likely happen some day (probably multiple decades from now).

As it is, I'd even settle for voice control on my phone that could reliably understand me.

Re: Uber Drivers “Strike” and Switch to Lyft Over Fares and Conditions

#120

Post by avalaunch »

jkestner wrote: post #65
smacktoward wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure a middleman service is even really necessary. There's plenty of drivers right now driving for multiple services. The more services there are, the more competition there is for drivers' time, which means drivers have more leverage. 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 do…

> There's plenty of drivers right now driving for multiple services. The more services there are, the more competition there is for drivers' time, which means drivers have more leverage. We're gonna need an Uber for Ubers. But of course a middleman is necessary - who's going to match customers and available drivers? But if drivers have the leverage, it could resemble more of an agent relationship. Why haven't Uber/Ly…

Best guess: Uber/Lyft can't demand exclusivity from their drivers without crossing a line clearly delineated by the IRS. Doing so would be considered an "inappropriate degree of control" and the drivers would no longer be considered independent contractors, but instead employees. Neither Uber nor Lyft would want that. Penalizing drivers that don't accept a high percentage of rides offered them is Uber's attempt to demand exclusivity without demanding it.
Post reply on HN