151–160 of 196 posts
The problem is simply that a couple weeks ago Uber started sending UberX fares to Uber black car drivers. Which was a dumb move, because they are unprofitable and undercut the value of the premium car service. They've now reversed that dumb move.
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/
~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.
- As a 'driver' I get a car that let's me free up large chunks of my time - As a company like Uber the driver 'input' to my model is now far more consistent, predictable, and inexpensive - As an insurance company I can start undercutting my competition by charging less to insure this substantially safer means of transportation while still pocketing a nice margin - As a car manufacturer I now have an extremely compelling reason to sell cars to people that would otherwise wait between 4-6 years in between car purchases - As a government I can (if I'm smart) try and pass laws that will result in drastic reductions in accidents, deaths, etc... I'll also likely be bringing in a lot of business and money by being on the leading edge of this (less traffic and congestion, new opportunities for businesses that leverage these cars, etc...). Whatever revenue I lose in traffic tickets I can make up for in other ways (like a reduced need for traffic enforcement).
As soon as any of the above are able to make/save money this is going to snowball.
The lobbying power and influence of the teamsters and taxi unions is probably the single largest hurdle but if self driving cars are as safe and cheap as it appears they will be this will be a speed bump, not a roadblock.
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/
~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.
- As a 'driver' I get a car that let's me free up large chunks of my time - As a company like Uber the driver 'input' to my model is now far more consistent, predictable, and inexpensive - As an insurance company I can start undercutting my competition by charging less to insure this substantially safer means of transportation while still pocketing a nice margin - As a car manufacturer I now have an extremely compelling reason to sell cars to people that would otherwise wait between 4-6 years in between car purchases - As a government I can (if I'm smart) try and pass laws that will result in drastic reductions in accidents, deaths, etc... I'll also likely be bringing in a lot of business and money by being on the leading edge of this (less traffic and congestion, new opportunities for businesses that leverage these cars, etc...). Whatever revenue I lose in traffic tickets I can make up for in other ways (like a reduced need for traffic enforcement).
As soon as any of the above are able to make/save money this is going to snowball.
The lobbying power and influence of the teamsters and taxi unions is probably the single largest hurdle but if self driving cars are as safe and cheap as it appears they will be this will be a speed bump, not a roadblock.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That may be the case at first, but I can guarantee you will not still need a driver forever.
Of course, but that kind of shift isn't going to happen within 6 years (as parent comment suggests)
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you say that?
Just managing disputes between rider and driver would cost more than that. Since you're the one running the credit cards, you're going to be on the hook for all chargebacks and fraud. And are you going to vet drivers at all? Check that they have a license and insurance?
Who says you have to run credit cards? Users could pay the drivers cash, or the drivers could have their own Stripe readers or similar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 de…
It's state-by-state/region-by-region. IIRC, California specifically disallows non-compete clauses in general [citation needed]. Seattle outlaws driving for more than one service.
This is a much more specific issue than most of the comments here are making it. People are talking about capitalism, competition, etc... The problem is simply that a couple weeks ago Uber started sending UberX fares to Uber black car drivers. Which was a dumb move, because they are unprofitable and undercut the value of the premium car service. They've now reversed that dumb move.
The article surprisingly doesn't really spin this into generalized pontificating and really talks about this specific grievance at length. HN commenters however are responding as if this was a general piece on Uber's failings as a whole... Strange.