191–200 of 263 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a seasoned New Yorker I've learned that the best response to "where to?" is to silently get in the cab.
Good pointer, but remember, as a general rule: The more savvy you have to be to avoid getting scammed, the more corrupt the system is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're simply wrong. Even if the healthcare system eats the cost (as it would in my country), it's not supposed to. That's akin to entering a health insurance contract and then demanding the insurer pays for the theft of your iPhone. Road traffic is insured by car insurers. The Uber driver doesn't have any, the car insurer therefore doesn't pay, so someone else pays. It doesn't matter if you rationalize it with "oh,…
So, I'm from Russia. In Russia, there's a great variety of cheap taxis, great mobile apps with reviews, gps location of taxis and stuff like that. Very good infrastructure. All simply because government doesn't regulate that. I am yet to meet a single person complaining that this is bad. There is no increase in road accidents. The service is great. The drivers are very polite and are always on time. One must wonder,…
And your "because" lacks any kind of supporting evidence.
Please stop derailing this subthread with your free market bullshit.
I don't really like Uber's business practices but they do fill an essential niche in New York City. A couple years ago, the city allowed independent car services to paint their cars green and take street hails. They previously did this, of course, but it wasn't legal. And of course, not every "black car" became a green cab, so this still happens. It's the standard way to get around the outer boroughs of New York. I w…
> A couple years ago, the city allowed independent car services to paint their cars green and take street hails. Does anyone else see the absurdity in that? Compare to: "In 2014, the city allowed people to wear green socks" If you want to transport people for a fee, what rational, moral justification is there for anyone to intervene in that? -To decide what colour your car should be, or where you can pick up customer…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. I'm native, born and raised, and learned about "gypsy cabs", "car service" and how to hail a yellow cab back when yellow cabs still had "jump seats". Uber has democratized what affluent people have always known, money can buy anything, including someone to drive you somewhere.
I would say monopolized rather then democratized.
Having a single state-sanctioned business (and therefore backed by the threat of violence) is somehow less monopolistic than having a free market where the best service provider is rewarded by becoming the most popular and profitable one?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First of all, if that was true it would be a failure of the healthcare system ("society paying the bill" is just insurance with economies of scale). But that's not true. A lot of people are not aware of recent developments with uber. Uber offers commercial comprehensive insurance on all rides. When there is a passenger in the car, there is full commercial insurance. When there are no pax, many insurance providers DO…
You're simply wrong. Even if the healthcare system eats the cost (as it would in my country), it's not supposed to. That's akin to entering a health insurance contract and then demanding the insurer pays for the theft of your iPhone. Road traffic is insured by car insurers. The Uber driver doesn't have any, the car insurer therefore doesn't pay, so someone else pays. It doesn't matter if you rationalize it with "oh,…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because some people are willing to pay for something, doesn't mean it's right. People in general are very happy to pay for things that have huge externalities not directly affecting them.
What externalities for uber are you referring to?
But my point is - willingness of some people to pay for something in no way makes something worth existing. People do pay for kidnapping and murder.
Or more day-to-day, mundane examples - why do we have spam, both electronic and the shitton of leaflets that go to trash every day in every city? Because someone paid for it. The Internet as a useful resource of knowledge is in constant battle with people paying for SEO. I could write hundreds of such everyday examples.
The point is, people are optimizing extremely locally when it comes to their decisions. Sometimes because they simply don't care, often because they don't know better. But just because they're willing to pay for something doesn't make it good or validate its existence.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay? And the data access was clearly more important to NYC than the cap. If you really think NYC can't step up at a moment's notice and drop the hammer, you're awfully optimistic. I mean, it's in the press release that the cap is not off the table. Unfortunately, this world cannot have win-wins, so I've got to find someone to hate in this situation!
> Unfortunately, this world cannot have win-wins, [...] Why not?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Again, how do you propose that a competitor would build a viably competitive network in an Uber city? I would pick mid-size markets and optimise for unit costs. I would settle on a single fuel efficient car model (or two) and then work on making my capital and servicing costs as low as possible. I would use trained and experienced employees and implement tracking technology to ensure that the drivers are polite, pro…
I don't think that's a viable strategy. If it were, Lyft would be successfully deploying it. Namely, I see 3 primary flaws: 1. A marginally lower price is not by itself enough to achieve market penetration. If it takes 5-10 minutes longer to get a ride on your platform (due to fewer drivers), I'm not going to use it—even if you are 20% cheaper (wiping out Uber's entire margin). 2. You're ignoring the pooling savings…
By having a large enough number of clean, reliable and uniform cars a competitor would provide a more consistent and predictable ride than Uber, which relies on its drivers subsidizing the cost of a variety of different vehicles.
Sure, you would be getting a McTaxi instead of an a la carte experience, but at least you would know what you order is what you get.