131–140 of 263 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even the yellow cabs within Manhattan would not take me places within Manhattan when hailed. They would stop and ask where to-- when I told them where (touristy areas) they'd just drive off.
As a seasoned New Yorker I've learned that the best response to "where to?" is to silently get in the cab.
The more savvy you have to be to avoid getting scammed, the more corrupt the system is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As others have said, if the cab has the "on duty" light on, just get in. If, and the happens a lot late at night, the cab does not have the on duty light on you can negotiate. I've gotten steep discounts or even free rides for agreeing to do stuff like pick up the drivers wife off the clock on the way home. Like everything in New York, everything is negotiable.
I thought the light was tied to the meter in order to prevent stuff like that?
One more thing, if you pick up a yellow cab, or a "car service", when they are off the clock, you don't have to tip.
In the last few years NYC has closed stretches of Broadway (a significant north-south corridor) to traffic, squeezed vehicle lane widths to add bike lanes and introduced several measures to slow or impede traffic so the city is safer for pedestrians. These are all very good things, but they come with a cost. Reducing the surface area of roads does not magically remove cars from the roads, it just creates congestion a…
The main issue seems to be that Uber isn't replacing taxis but augmenting them: before there were about 2000 taxis in the core of Manhattan during peak hours, and there are now 2000 taxis and about 1900 Ubers. The trips per taxi seem to be slightly reduced, but overall there's still an increase in the total number of taxi-like vehicles circulating, and the total number of trips made by automobile vs. other modalities (subway, walking, etc.). Thereby making it easier to get a taxi, but making traffic congestion worse.
Most of my exposure to Uber has been negative articles about them. I've used them a handful of times, but not for a couple of years, until just this week. I used them to get to and from the airport for a trip this week, and it was pretty interesting to compare with what I've been reading. First, of course, the experience as a user was great. This is no surprise, but it sure does cement my desire to use them over any…
> They charged him $150/day to drive for them no matter what. Not that I particularly want to defend taxi companies, but they also own and maintain the cars. Purchasing a newish vehicle and maintaining it isn't free - while not being charged daily, it's still a sizeable invoice you have to pay, no matter what. $150/day does seem extortionate, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is rare to see, of not impossible, a real monopoly in a free market. Uber has to compete to win customers, if they artificially raise their prices to where people will not pay, people will choose a different form of transportation.
I think Ubers monopoly will be at least as strong as Ebay's in online auctions. There's a humongous liquidity advantage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes I know what pools are. I was referring to the cutting prices in half to drive out competitors.
They don't cut prices. Since there are 2 or 3 parties they split the fare. Huge liquidity advantage.
I was referring to a business model where Uber cut prices in a small market when a new competitor enters to kill them before they can get going. This model works really well once you are an established business (the Standard Oil model) hence why it is illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also don’t think it is very likely either, I was just assuming the best case scenario for Uber and I can’t see how they can make money in the long term even if they achieve this. Competition is great for consumers, but not so good for investors. Edit. Thanks for the updates to your post Ben. Given Uber’s cost of capital and current valuation how do you see Uber earning enough of a return with a differentiation busi…
Winning all the legal battles might not be their best case. They are getting good at fighting legal battles, and a permanent state of lawfare might be to their advantage (because they are better at fighting it than competitors).
I wonder if any business has ever used this model successfully before?
The thing about Uber I don’t understand is how they are going to defend their monopoly once they acquire it. Assuming they eventually win all the legal battles and drive all other taxi and taxi-like services out of business then how are they going to stop anyone else from entering their market? Each transport market is effectively isolated (you don’t hail a driver from SF to get around NYC). This means any new entran…
[deleted]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you under-estimate the power of network effects and also the cost of entry to set up an on-demand transportation company. If it really was as easy and low cost as you assert I would suggest you would have seen many other players enter the market already by now.
Maybe, but if each market is isolated then the network effect is small. To dominate a market you just need enough drivers available to meet the market expectations. If you have two businesses in a market supplying an equal quality service, but where one is 20% cheaper, then the cheaper service will capture the majority of the market. An alternative hypothesis might be that nobody can think of a way to make money by i…
Each market isn't isolated.
I think the core difference of our perspectives is that I don't think we have a commoditized business, which you clearly think we do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In most of their cities they are already a monopoly or near monopoly. Liquidity is a hugely massive advantage for both drivers and riders.
Both riders and drivers can use multiple apps without too much hassle.