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

Ride-hailing’s NYC dominance, and the impact of DeleteUber

toddwschneider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 83 posts

Re: Ride-hailing’s NYC dominance, and the impact of DeleteUber

#11

Post by mattmanser »

cletus wrote: post #4
lkrubner wrote: post #2

This is one of the more interesting things that I learned from the article: " Uber’s share of all ride-hailing trips has generally declined since 2015 as more competitors entered the NYC market, even as its total number of trips has increased dramatically. " That would have me worried, if I was an investor in Uber.

There are plenty of reasons to worry if you're an investor in Uber but (IMHO) this isn't one of them. NYC is big. Really big (like space). It can support a number of wannabes. But you need a certain number of drivers to be able to serve users and the value of Uber is in the areas where you can't support half a dozen wannabes. For example, I was in Australia recently and discovered that not even Lyft works there (in P…

I don't know, every local market has always supported loads of private hire firms. It's a very price sensitive market. And Uber's support for cities isn't great anyway, from my experience.

Like here in Nottingham Uber doesn't support the suburbs 2 years after arrival. You can go there with Uber, just not come back, no-one's around.

A local app with better suburb support is ultimately going to win, as if you can only go one way, Uber becomes annoying.

Re: Ride-hailing’s NYC dominance, and the impact of DeleteUber

#12

Post by badestrand »

godzillabrennus wrote: post #3
lkrubner wrote: post #2

This is one of the more interesting things that I learned from the article: " Uber’s share of all ride-hailing trips has generally declined since 2015 as more competitors entered the NYC market, even as its total number of trips has increased dramatically. " That would have me worried, if I was an investor in Uber.

I think in general investors are aware that Uber will need self driving cars to stay relevant. Transportation is going to become a monthly flat rate like a cable bill for local travel via autonomous vehicles and the winners will be the companies that own the fleets and get to charge the tolls. Owning your own car will be a luxury item. Owning a gasoline powered car will be an extremely niche luxury item. Obviously th…

> Transportation is going to become a monthly flat rate > Owning your own car will be a luxury item.

Sorry, but I hate it when people talk about the future like a certainty. It has yet to unfold and many predictions turn out to be wrong. I definitely would not bet against car ownership, especially in the country side.

And maybe there will be an open renting framework where everyone can buy a few cars and put them into the system for anybody to rent for a drive. If Uber does not make the self driving software, what would be their role and strength in 20 years?

Re: Ride-hailing’s NYC dominance, and the impact of DeleteUber

#13

Post by x_throwaway80bf »

throwaway_80bf3 wrote: post #7

7 years ago you'd have to jump into a yellow cab before telling the rider if you were going from Manhattan to Brooklyn or Brooklyn to Brooklyn. If you told them before you got in, they'd speed off. You used to have to walk to arterial roads in hopes of finding a yellow cab (in the outer boroughs). That is if you lived in neighborhoods that the article points out now skews towards Lyft. Well to do, post gentrification…

I had to make a throwaway as well just because I couldn't believe this comment. This is so utterly false. You're essentially claiming that the value of these services is all based on the innovation of the _hailing_ functionality, but there are countless apps that recreate this functionality _exactly_ whether for 'regular' taxis or separately licensed cars. If what you want is for a driver to come to your exact location very quickly, you can get that _anywhere_. This, as a business model alone, is like Dennis on 30 Rock with his basement coffee business. It's so easy an ubiquitious that it's not worth mentioning as a differentiator _at all_.

Separately from this, it ignores the fact that there are cost-based reasons for these kinds of behaviors. Drivers, for example, have to think about round-trip cost. If you ask me to drive you from Washington Sq. Park to Astoria, I have to think about what fare to charge you such that it covers my expenses on the longer trip _as well as_ the likely problem of not picking up a return fare that takes me back to a high-traffic area.

This is all discussed with much greater statistical depth in the Naked Capitalism articles on Uber, but the basic problem is that none of the ride hailing services have found a way to make this any cheaper, except through massive subsidy (to pay drivers to be the ride stock in low-profitability zones they others wouldn't be in). And even with an innovation like self-driving cars, it would only make a difference if it is not a commodity. If it is a commodity (which, IMO, is the overwhelmingly most likely outcome for self-driving cars), then either Ubers completely captures all relevant IP for end-to-end commercial solutions ahead of any competitiors, or else Uber is licensing out the cars just like everyone else, and for whatever cost reduction it buys them for getting rid of drivers, it just creates a new price war race to the bottom on who can charge the least for the self-driving based rides.

I'm just so tired of all the mental gymnastics defending them. It really is total ownership of all IP for commercial self-driving cars or bust for this business model.

And if it busts, you'll see that all the niceties you describe in this comment are mostly the product of either (a) massive investor subsidy, or (b) easy and cheap-to-copy innovations like a map and location-enabled hailing app.

Re: Ride-hailing’s NYC dominance, and the impact of DeleteUber

#14

Post by ghaff »

jbob2000 wrote: post #8
jdlyga wrote: post #6

In NYC, Juno is cheaper in most circumstances, and you get better drivers. Otherwise, Via or Lyft. There are so many options instead of cludgey old Uber.

Thankfully, Uber exists. Otherwise I'd have to download and register on all sorts of dinky city-specific apps any time I travel. Uber, for all of its faults, is the only one that works in every city I've traveled to.

I won't say it's vanishingly small but, relatively speaking, there aren't a huge number of people who have a problem with needing taxi services in a bunch of different cities. I travel about 100 days a year and I don't use these services very much and I don't think I've used Uber in a year or two. Worldwide availability of a brand just doesn't seem like a huge deal.

Re: Ride-hailing’s NYC dominance, and the impact of DeleteUber

#15

Post by [deleted] »

jbob2000 wrote: post #8
jdlyga wrote: post #6

In NYC, Juno is cheaper in most circumstances, and you get better drivers. Otherwise, Via or Lyft. There are so many options instead of cludgey old Uber.

Thankfully, Uber exists. Otherwise I'd have to download and register on all sorts of dinky city-specific apps any time I travel. Uber, for all of its faults, is the only one that works in every city I've traveled to.

[deleted]

Re: Ride-hailing’s NYC dominance, and the impact of DeleteUber

#16

Post by ghaff »

godzillabrennus wrote: post #3
lkrubner wrote: post #2

This is one of the more interesting things that I learned from the article: " Uber’s share of all ride-hailing trips has generally declined since 2015 as more competitors entered the NYC market, even as its total number of trips has increased dramatically. " That would have me worried, if I was an investor in Uber.

I think in general investors are aware that Uber will need self driving cars to stay relevant. Transportation is going to become a monthly flat rate like a cable bill for local travel via autonomous vehicles and the winners will be the companies that own the fleets and get to charge the tolls. Owning your own car will be a luxury item. Owning a gasoline powered car will be an extremely niche luxury item. Obviously th…

That would seem to be a very urbanite view of the world. A lot of people have good reasons for owning their own personalized vehicle. (Gear, kids, mobile storage locker, etc.) So long as you live somewhere with enough space that storing a vehicle isn't expensive/difficult, given that most of the costs are in mileage, it's hard to see most people giving up ownership.

And, in any case, full door to door autonomy, in at least most locations, is likely a long ways off. Certainly outside of the relevant horizon for Uber investors.

Re: Ride-hailing’s NYC dominance, and the impact of DeleteUber

#17

Post by kbenson »

x_throwaway80bf wrote: post #13
throwaway_80bf3 wrote: post #7

7 years ago you'd have to jump into a yellow cab before telling the rider if you were going from Manhattan to Brooklyn or Brooklyn to Brooklyn. If you told them before you got in, they'd speed off. You used to have to walk to arterial roads in hopes of finding a yellow cab (in the outer boroughs). That is if you lived in neighborhoods that the article points out now skews towards Lyft. Well to do, post gentrification…

I had to make a throwaway as well just because I couldn't believe this comment. This is so utterly false. You're essentially claiming that the value of these services is all based on the innovation of the _hailing_ functionality, but there are countless apps that recreate this functionality _exactly_ whether for 'regular' taxis or separately licensed cars. If what you want is for a driver to come to your exact locati…

> You're essentially claiming that the value of these services is all based on the innovation of the _hailing_ functionality

To me it just looked like an anecdote.

> I'm just so tired of all the mental gymnastics defending them.

Perhaps you're seeing people defending them when other people are just trying to share their experience? If so, I agree, that would get tiring.

Re: Ride-hailing’s NYC dominance, and the impact of DeleteUber

#18

Post by beagle3 »

x_throwaway80bf wrote: post #13
throwaway_80bf3 wrote: post #7

7 years ago you'd have to jump into a yellow cab before telling the rider if you were going from Manhattan to Brooklyn or Brooklyn to Brooklyn. If you told them before you got in, they'd speed off. You used to have to walk to arterial roads in hopes of finding a yellow cab (in the outer boroughs). That is if you lived in neighborhoods that the article points out now skews towards Lyft. Well to do, post gentrification…

I had to make a throwaway as well just because I couldn't believe this comment. This is so utterly false. You're essentially claiming that the value of these services is all based on the innovation of the _hailing_ functionality, but there are countless apps that recreate this functionality _exactly_ whether for 'regular' taxis or separately licensed cars. If what you want is for a driver to come to your exact locati…

There is one more issue: Uber and Lyft massively increased supply. It is not clear, as you mention, whether this could have happened without investor aubsidy - but it is likely. Medallion allocation is a political subject which does not necessarily correlate with demand; and the established way medallion owners rent them out results in it being uneconomical for drivers to do more than a given amount of rides per shift - a result of which is that supply at peak demand (rainy days) is significantly lower than even what the medallion system allows for.

Re: Ride-hailing’s NYC dominance, and the impact of DeleteUber

#19

Post by sschueller »

godzillabrennus wrote: post #3
lkrubner wrote: post #2

This is one of the more interesting things that I learned from the article: " Uber’s share of all ride-hailing trips has generally declined since 2015 as more competitors entered the NYC market, even as its total number of trips has increased dramatically. " That would have me worried, if I was an investor in Uber.

I think in general investors are aware that Uber will need self driving cars to stay relevant. Transportation is going to become a monthly flat rate like a cable bill for local travel via autonomous vehicles and the winners will be the companies that own the fleets and get to charge the tolls. Owning your own car will be a luxury item. Owning a gasoline powered car will be an extremely niche luxury item. Obviously th…

Uber will still be irrelevant even with self driving cars because the automakers will just run their own services without uber. Uber has an app and a user base, that's it.

Re: Ride-hailing’s NYC dominance, and the impact of DeleteUber

#20

Post by x_throwaway80bf »

kbenson wrote: post #17
x_throwaway80bf wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to make a throwaway as well just because I couldn't believe this comment. This is so utterly false. You're essentially claiming that the value of these services is all based on the innovation of the _hailing_ functionality, but there are countless apps that recreate this functionality _exactly_ whether for 'regular' taxis or separately licensed cars. If what you want is for a driver to come to your exact locati…

> You're essentially claiming that the value of these services is all based on the innovation of the _hailing_ functionality To me it just looked like an anecdote. > I'm just so tired of all the mental gymnastics defending them. Perhaps you're seeing people defending them when other people are just trying to share their experience? If so, I agree, that would get tiring.

> Perhaps you're seeing people defending them when other people are just trying to share their experience? If so, I agree, that would get tiring.

The context of when they choose to share experiences casting Uber as a catalyst for significant improvements provides a lot of evidence that it's not just an anecdote in a vacuum, but rather is meant to defend Uber.

I'm all for positive experiences, and I _really want_ ride hailing services to somehow be profitable, because it could add competition and create various experiences that I am willing to pay (the current subsidized prices) for.

What's tiring is seeing repetition of the positive anecdotes without the necessary accompanying asterisks that qualify it based on the _inherent_ profitability issues with any service that tried to solve these problems. Then we can at least acknowledge that the nice, upgraded experiences from these apps is purely a _donation_ from a group of investors, which means it's irrelevant as a comparison with prior taxi experiences unless those investors are willing to make it a permanent donation.

Post reply on HN