Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Update on AB5

uber.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 343 posts

Re: Update on AB5

#311

Post by xivzgrev »

That is a clever argument that they are in business of lead generation. But if that was true then the consumer wouldn’t know Uber, they would know x ride share service. The problem with Uber is they also control the end user experience and pricing, so it’s a real stretch to argue they are not in the business of providing rides to customers.

Honestly I think their argument could be bolstered a lot if they made a simple change. Imagine you call an Uber, then your app tells you billy wants your job. You can see he is 4.5 star rated with 1000 rides, he is est 3 min away, and he wants $15. Do you accept? If so Uber connects you. If not Uber goes back to finding someone else.

With that change Uber removes itself from being in the business of rideshare, and now is in business of connecting drivers with riders (as they’ve claimed all along). They need to let drivers dictate prices and ask users to choose.

Re: Update on AB5

#312

Post by pishpash »

FireBeyond wrote: post #108
dawhizkid wrote: post #31

Uber's defense is that it is licensing lead generation software to drivers, and that it just takes a commission from each trip as payment for use of its software. In many ways, I can see it. I think the issue lies in a lot of Uber's current policies around drivers e.g. very strict rules around cancellations. If Uber was just a lead generation provider then it shouldn't care or intervene if a driver decides they don't…

> and that it just takes a commission from each trip as payment They don't just take a commission, they set the entire price. They set the rules, about the types of vehicles, about cleanliness, about myriad other things. The route. "Lead generation" is obtuse.

Setting the "entire price" just means being a marketmaker. I'm sure you are familiar with the concept. The "commission" would therefore refer to the spread or the take. There is real risk in this and competition, and anyone can feel free to get in there making a market with a tighter spread if they feel they can do so. Bet they can't. Lead generation is not a phrase used by anyone but the idiotic press, so that part is a strawman.

Re: Update on AB5

#313

Post by Lucadg »

xivzgrev wrote: post #311

That is a clever argument that they are in business of lead generation. But if that was true then the consumer wouldn’t know Uber, they would know x ride share service. The problem with Uber is they also control the end user experience and pricing, so it’s a real stretch to argue they are not in the business of providing rides to customers. Honestly I think their argument could be bolstered a lot if they made a simpl…

It could work. Airbnb does that and still kind of manages to control prices by favouring listings which conform to Pricing Tips in the search results.

Re: Update on AB5

#314

Post by pishpash »

evil-olive wrote: post #309
solidasparagus wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice drivers do set their prices by only driving when the price is what they're willing to pay (e.g. only during surge pricing). In contrast to an employee that works specific hours and has to take every ride while on the clock.

> In practice drivers do set their prices by only driving when the price is what they're willing to pay So your argument is that drivers really set the price... > (e.g. only during surge pricing) And your example of drivers setting the price is...algorithms running at Uber and Lyft that set prices. Algorithms which Uber and Lyft would surely regard as proprietary trade secrets and resist disclosing to drivers, passen…

What are you saying? Uber matches you to a willing driver to pick you up for $X, it's a competitive market so whatever "algorithm" you think they use it's the market that decides the price, but the driver "should" get $Y? Well you are free to tip $Y-$X to the driver then. Why don't you try that next time?

Re: Update on AB5

#315

Post by TeMPOraL »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #153
bscphil wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Part of me thinks Uber could get away with this if they just relaxed some of their current driver policies (e.g. more limited penalties for cancellations). The issue is whether doing so would drastically deteriorate the quality of the service for riders. I'm going to go with yes. The only times I use ride sharing services (Lyft, not Uber) are in high-density situations like getting to and from the airport. Dependin…

Doesn’t Uber in the USA just assign rides automatically? Or do drivers opt into the rides they want? But what you describe is how didi works in China when interfacing with taxis (you could get a taxi or ride share through the app, drivers will simply ack any rides they want to take, payment is handled normally, didi doesn’t get a cut).

Wouldn't surprise me if both were true, and they A/B-tested it by region.

Re: Update on AB5

#316

Post by pishpash »

spookthesunset wrote: post #214
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then the driver is at the mercy of the aggregator App. It's the same problem as working with Uber or Lyft directly, really.

Setting aside the rider... in my world Uber and lyft would have open apis so third party apps could somehow aggregate the two services. These apps would be pretty basic and just let the driver accept rides from either service from within the same app. Dunno if this is actually a problem though...

Aggregation already exists for both riders and drivers. For riders there is Google Maps. For drivers there is Mystro and the like.

Re: Update on AB5

#317

Post by pishpash »

stefan_ wrote: post #79
ajkjk wrote: post #17

I feel like it's pretty clear that gig economy jobs don't neatly fit in either of the existing categories of workers: they're not quite employees (you can clearly work or not work whenever you want) or contractors (you clearly have very little negotiating power or information in choosing your work or guaranteeing your wages). Attempts to munge them into one of those categories are just doomed; a new category is neede…

You are just repeating the Uber party line that somehow "employment" is antithetical to flexible work hours. It's frightening to see people just lap that up because it happens to coincide with their day job. But nothing in labor law prevents a company like Uber from "disrupting work" and offering that flexibility to employees .

"Nothing" you say? It's called market forces that will remove flexibility from employees, because that's less costly.

Re: Update on AB5

#318

Post by [deleted] »

cryptoz wrote: post #295
ma2rten wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming that Uber has a competitive advantage because of their brand, and both Uber and Lyft are rational actors who want to maximize their profits, they will end up in a state where Uber has higher margins than Lyft.

> Assuming that Uber has a competitive advantage because of their brand Woah - I see Lyft as the one with the competitive advantage due to Uber's brand. Uber is toxic while Lyft is seen as friendly.

[deleted]

Re: Update on AB5

#319

Post by SomeOldThrow »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #157
8ytecoder wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, I'd argue that's the primary reason why Uber/Lyft got popular in the first place. At least for me that's the only reason I use Uber. If they are, as they claim, just a lead-gen platform, I'd rather call a taxi. At least taxis are legally bound to provide me a certain level of service. If Uber can't enforce something similar, why should I use Uber?

> At least for me that's the only reason I use Uber. If they are, as they claim, just a lead-gen platform, I'd rather call a taxi. At least taxis are legally bound to provide me a certain level of service. Most of us don’t have such great experiences with taxis as you do. “Legally bound” still leaves a lot of wiggle room for really crappy experiences.

> Most of us don’t have such great experiences with taxis as you do.

What kind of negative experiences did you have with taxis that you didn’t get with the ride hailing apps?

Re: Update on AB5

#320

Post by SomeOldThrow »

pishpash wrote: post #169
8ytecoder wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, I'd argue that's the primary reason why Uber/Lyft got popular in the first place. At least for me that's the only reason I use Uber. If they are, as they claim, just a lead-gen platform, I'd rather call a taxi. At least taxis are legally bound to provide me a certain level of service. If Uber can't enforce something similar, why should I use Uber?

Because rideshare carefully uses economic incentives to generate outcomes by market means, not by "enforcing" through the heavy hand that only the government understands.

A) it’s not clear the outcomes are desirable in the first place and b) why are market means better? The market is good at deriving efficient prices in certain circumstances but it really depends on whether the desired outcome aligns with efficient pricing. Personally the problem Uber solves is a nice app to hail the taxi with, which doesn’t appear to have anything to do with market effects, whereas the material effects of Uber mostly seem to be exploitation of employees.
Post reply on HN