111–120 of 333 posts
I'm not sure this is true. Neither Uber or Lyft makes any money. They lose money for Wall Street.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Ride-hailing apps always seemed like a model that was extremely conducive to a cooperative, worker-owned model. It's only the surface-level of an ride-hailing app that seems easy for worker-owned cooperatives to create. In reality, the extra expensive programming dollars required to tame the hidden complexity so that the app can present a seamless experience to the customers/passengers is a huge factor that works ag…
You're making some assumptions. Why can't programmers be workers in the coop and be part of the equation? Why can't forms of capital available to other startups be available to coops?
They can get different types of financing perhaps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having worked for a company with a similar model, the problem with not having rate parity is that companies will then use your site for lead generation but encourage people to book directly. Also, the industry I was in had more transparent pricing than is typical in hotels so the client would often realise they had been made to pay extra for using the intermediary and leave bad reviews about the price discrepancy. So…
> companies will then use your site for lead generation but encourage people to book directly Of course. That would be the whole point. In that case the OTAs would need to start figuring out how to actually produce value to both end customers and hotels instead of just rent seeking.
Hotels are of course free to decline a business relationship with the various OTAs and traditional travel agencies for that matter. So long as no one OTA has a monopoly I don't think there is a problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Ride-hailing apps always seemed like a model that was extremely conducive to a cooperative, worker-owned model. It's only the surface-level of an ride-hailing app that seems easy for worker-owned cooperatives to create. In reality, the extra expensive programming dollars required to tame the hidden complexity so that the app can present a seamless experience to the customers/passengers is a huge factor that works ag…
>present a seamless experience to the customers/passengers There does exist a segment of users who are willing to navigate a less-than-seamless experience if that lets them avoid dealing with a less-than-ethical business. (And probably there's at least some PR effort involved in making their voices not count.) Besides, the Uber/Lyft experience is far from "seamless", and developing a ride-sharing app that does _not_…
True; this is why I started using Uber: to avoid the “oh the credit card machine is broken, you need to pay cash” only to find out it did work AND I’d paid cash.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This mirrors the clauses VISA/MasterCard have that say that shops can't charge different prices for credit cards and cash which also solidifies rent seeking behavior. I wonder if you could create a similar law for both.
This one is very frustrating. If anything it should be obligatory to make payment processor fee to be a separate item. This way we would have fair competition with consumers choosing the cheapest/most convenient option.
One of the regulations that airlines in europe are required to adhere to is that they're not allowed to advertise up-front prices that come with additional non-optional fees. So the ticket price advertised up front has to include all mandatory fees and taxes. Optional fees (hand luggage now being the latest, priority boarding, checked luggage) can be extra.
Payment processor fees cannot be extra. At least one needs to be free. So in reality, it's not necessarily the cheapest processor that's free, but it's the least popular one that's free. That way, for all the common ones, you can now charge a fee and tick the regulatory box, while still screwing your customers out of more money.
E.g. Visa Electron is free, Visa Debit/Credit, Mastercard debit/credit and Amex all come with fees to use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> companies will then use your site for lead generation but encourage people to book directly Of course. That would be the whole point. In that case the OTAs would need to start figuring out how to actually produce value to both end customers and hotels instead of just rent seeking.
I for one consider that being able to compare prices and availability across a large segment of the market to be consumer friendly behaviour. Additional fees for the privilege, not so much. Hotels are of course free to decline a business relationship with the various OTAs and traditional travel agencies for that matter. So long as no one OTA has a monopoly I don't think there is a problem.
But you understand that as the end customer, you end up paying the fees anyway, even if they are not visible in the bill? If your customers were unhappy about the extra cost, maybe you were not open enough about them or maybe the customer did not think your service worth the extra fee? After all, if the end customer is the one paying the fee, hotel has no incentive to try to get the customer past the OTA. They get the same money anyway.
Here’s a recent interview with them https://youtu.be/VykTBPKwYnA I’ve been considering starting a software coop to build open source versions of these middleman gig work services for a while. Would anyone on here be interested in joining one? With so many well paid engineers I’m also surprised that there’s not more coop based tech startups in the states.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Ride-hailing apps always seemed like a model that was extremely conducive to a cooperative, worker-owned model. It's only the surface-level of an ride-hailing app that seems easy for worker-owned cooperatives to create. In reality, the extra expensive programming dollars required to tame the hidden complexity so that the app can present a seamless experience to the customers/passengers is a huge factor that works ag…
The overwhelming vast majority of reasons I've heard people give for preferring Uber/Lyft over regular taxis are (1) regular taxis could not be summoned via an app or web page, instead requiring a phone call or curbside hailing, and (2) their credit card terminals were often broken so that you had to pay cash. Both of those specific problem are solvable for most rides without going anywhere near the level of complexi…
That's a good example of driver-centric thinking instead of holistic thinking that considers the paying passengers. Consider: what if the customers/passengers actually prefer the convenience of not having to mess with an extra payment transaction step before exiting the car?!? With service like Uber, passengers can just get out of the car immediately when they arrive at their destination. No whipping out the credit-card to swipe. No exchanging of QR codes.
Always think of game theory and consumer behavior preferences.
Adding "Square payments" as a driver-platform "solution to avoid complexity for the programmers" is adding another reason for customers to avoid using it because you added complexity to the customers -- and therefore you have less revenue. There are always tradeoffs.
Whenever anyone thinks "Problem is trivial, and the solution is just to do ," ... you have to think a few chess moves ahead as to what the actual paying customers will do that may negate your "solution".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could say the same with Just-Eat. In Denmark, I know they have a markup up to 15%, even though they have a lot of competition. So honestly, I am a bit sceptical if we will see a much lower markup. One might hope though.
The dot-com bubble 1995-2000 included multiple delivery service companies. kozmo.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kozmo.com Webvan was once valued $4.8 billion.
I don't see that coming because it is 2020 and we have: smartphones in every pocket, easy payments from those smartphones, it is super convenient to order via such platform, in the end lock downs basically mandate food delivery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I for one consider that being able to compare prices and availability across a large segment of the market to be consumer friendly behaviour. Additional fees for the privilege, not so much. Hotels are of course free to decline a business relationship with the various OTAs and traditional travel agencies for that matter. So long as no one OTA has a monopoly I don't think there is a problem.
> Additional fees for the privilege, not so much. But you understand that as the end customer, you end up paying the fees anyway, even if they are not visible in the bill? If your customers were unhappy about the extra cost, maybe you were not open enough about them or maybe the customer did not think your service worth the extra fee? After all, if the end customer is the one paying the fee, hotel has no incentive to…
I'm sure you are aware that the entire travel industry, predating the advent of OTA, works on a commission basis.