Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess I don't see how liquidity effect and network effect are different here. If there aren't enough riders then there aren't enough drivers. If there aren't enough drivers then pickup times are too high and the service dies. It really comes down to how important pickup times are.
The ultimate test for a monopoly is if the monopolist could raise prices significantly and not lose significant business to competitors. I don't think Uber could pass that test.
In Silicon Valley Now, It’s Almost Always Winner Takes All
21–30 of 80 posts
Re: In Silicon Valley Now, It’s Almost Always Winner Takes All
#22The article is not convincing that these are natural monopolies. What happened to AOL and AIM? What happened to MySpace? There is also this recent article about Chinese innovation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10806386 Natural monopoly in the Information Age may turn out to have been natural, but it feels unnatural. There are explanations, but I, personally, do not find them to be convincing.
Agree. “Natural monopoly” is a very lazy term. It’s mostly about looking around at a moment and declaring that it must be so. Utilities don’t need to be monopolies, necessarily. It’s just that they were designed that way at a point in time. It’s a path of history, but not a natural law. Wintel too. Which was a monopoly, until it wasn’t. It’s not that their position in the market changed, but the definition of the mar…
Re: In Silicon Valley Now, It’s Almost Always Winner Takes All
#23I think this gets down to the network effect (aka Metcalfe's Law). Like the author notes, Coke isn't going to drive Pepsi out of business. Because fundamentally if either gets an additional point in market share, that doesn't compound into larger and larger gains. But in marketplaces (Uber, Lyft, Ebay) or pure network plays (Skype, Facebook), having one additional user creates N new potential connections. Out of thos…
Hal Varian has gone on to be the chief economist at Google.
Re: In Silicon Valley Now, It’s Almost Always Winner Takes All
#24I think this gets down to the network effect (aka Metcalfe's Law). Like the author notes, Coke isn't going to drive Pepsi out of business. Because fundamentally if either gets an additional point in market share, that doesn't compound into larger and larger gains. But in marketplaces (Uber, Lyft, Ebay) or pure network plays (Skype, Facebook), having one additional user creates N new potential connections. Out of thos…
Re: In Silicon Valley Now, It’s Almost Always Winner Takes All
#25A decentralized ride solicitation tool with a reputation system, maybe blockchain-based, could kill off Uber and Lyft almost overnight. Especially if existing taxi companies embraced it. I want to know if a driver is licensed, insured, etc. Uber doesn't provide that, and I don't like the rent-seeking aspect of their service. If it's winner-takes-all, it's only a matter of time until another winner takes all. I don't…
* Overnight is a bit too quick. Uber's service has grown so quickly partly because they have an organization behind it to fight against regulations which is part of what made their rapid growth possible.
* Implementing a standardized "blockchain" protocol to guarantee all of those things is a non trivial task
* Go outside of SF Bay, whip out your phone with a group and tell them that you're about to order a "distributed reputation system cab" and they're just going to look at you like "wat" then open the Uber app and get an Uber that already works with their credit cards and lets them split the fare. They maybe have heard of Lyft, and most likely have Uber, not the blockchain app.
* Uber has hordes of information available that lets them tell drivers where to be and when, it also prices the rides based on demand. The block chain app has none of that.
* Traditional cab drivers are terrible, the cars smell, they don't show up on time, they drive you in circles to up the fare, sometimes they take off when they hear where you want to go. An app is not going to change this overnight, though eventually the reputation system might change it.
* Rent seeking is annoying but they are still much cheaper than traditional cabs, at least everywhere I have used them.
Maybe it's winner takes all, maybe not. It remains to be seen whether the legal system has just been slow to react to Uber and its ilk or if it will not react at all. I think the end of this in the short run is that Uber takes > 90% of the market, Lyft takes the majority of the rest, and the cab companies continue to operate at a smaller scale with less profits. This is after local and state governments wake up and impose more modern, but less restrictive taxi-style regulations on these companies to enforce some level of accountability for when the shit hits the fan or whatever.
The end of this market in the much longer term seems to be self driving cars and some form of shared ownership. I could see premium ride sharing clubs where you pay more to ride in an Audi or something with common ride sharing clubs where you ride in a van. It is this much longer term that I see Uber having more potential competition.
Re: In Silicon Valley Now, It’s Almost Always Winner Takes All
#26I would argue that Uber's dominance is the intentional strategic choice to seek monopoly in their space. We saw the same things during the growth of mechanization.
Re: In Silicon Valley Now, It’s Almost Always Winner Takes All
#27A decentralized ride solicitation tool with a reputation system, maybe blockchain-based, could kill off Uber and Lyft almost overnight. Especially if existing taxi companies embraced it. I want to know if a driver is licensed, insured, etc. Uber doesn't provide that, and I don't like the rent-seeking aspect of their service. If it's winner-takes-all, it's only a matter of time until another winner takes all. I don't…
During slow times, it's not a big deal. But during slow times, you also aren't providing very many rides to the cabbies. And also pricing, which I'll come back to.
During peak times, it's very likely in a dense urban environment that a taxi driver will see a prospective customer and want to bail on your ride.
It's hard to make drivers not do this. You can easily get bogged down in a war of you trying to prevent them from bailing on people during peak hours (but remain hailable) and them trying to game you back.
Passengers will only use you if you can reliably get them a ride during peak hours, quickly. Also, taxis have mandated rate structures, and they will likely be more expensive than UberX or Lyft during non-peak hours, so the only time that you'll be able to really get a lot of passengers is during peak hours, and that's the time when all your drivers are at their most flakey.
Source: I spent two years as the lead engineer of Flywheel's server team. Flywheel being an Uber competitor that works with real cabs. Disclaimer: I've been away from Flywheel for more than a year, so my experiences are not current.
Re: In Silicon Valley Now, It’s Almost Always Winner Takes All
#28A decentralized ride solicitation tool with a reputation system, maybe blockchain-based, could kill off Uber and Lyft almost overnight. Especially if existing taxi companies embraced it. I want to know if a driver is licensed, insured, etc. Uber doesn't provide that, and I don't like the rent-seeking aspect of their service. If it's winner-takes-all, it's only a matter of time until another winner takes all. I don't…
I'm not the one who downvoted, but I would imagine this is why. * Overnight is a bit too quick. Uber's service has grown so quickly partly because they have an organization behind it to fight against regulations which is part of what made their rapid growth possible. * Implementing a standardized "blockchain" protocol to guarantee all of those things is a non trivial task * Go outside of SF Bay, whip out your phone w…
* Any software may be branded - no one needs to know the word "blockchain" when they use a well-designed app. If a driver may have more take-home pay from an open network, there is no reason they wouldn't list themselves there in the same way many drivers are on both Uber and Lyft.
* The blockchain would record all transactions in a manner that any software could get something similar to Uber's intelligence, with some allowances for the privacy of the rider.
* I've taken Uber rides that reek of cigarette smoke. If anything, many cab companies have standards that you can't guarantee with the closest Uber. But like you say, reputation systems could address those issues.
I agree, though, that the technical challenges are real and not trivial. In particular, the privacy concerns seem very real. I just find it difficult to believe that a multi-billion dollar industry will allow a middleman to take all their customers away when really the only thing that Uber sells is UX.
Re: In Silicon Valley Now, It’s Almost Always Winner Takes All
#29Read the article and try to replace every description of computer technology with mechanization. You'll find that in many instances you'll see the same thing. I don't disagree with the piece, but I think its chief error is failing to identify what's coming from network effects vs. pure economies of scale. I would argue that Uber's dominance is the intentional strategic choice to seek monopoly in their space. We saw t…
Re: In Silicon Valley Now, It’s Almost Always Winner Takes All
#30I don’t see much network effect with Uber. I see a liquidity effect, to a degree, but the barriers of entry are low on both supply and demand side. To the extent Uber has a network effect it’s O(n) at best. I don’t have a connection to other Uber users. I like that there are enough users to make it worth the drivers’ while – again, liquidity, not network. On Facebook, network effect is probably O(n^2). The connection…
Uber Pool and Lyft Line are now the majority of rides in SF, not sure about other cities - but there is definitely a network affect there