I don't see why meta-Uber has to hitch on the backs of Uber and Lyft. Just have an app (I'd suggest "Ride") that knows all these local co-ops and contacts an appropriate one. Ride Austin when you're in Austin, Ride Shanghai when you're there. Make it trivial for anyone to start such a co-op in a new city, and the drivers will come. There's no need to first book on Uber.
Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me
51–60 of 128 posts
Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
In all friendliness let me offer a counterpoint to your post: You guys are so funny! Afraid of negotiating a price? Really? Perhaps it's time we became grown ups? To me uber is just an extension of the habit of calling your parents to pick you up after soccer practise. Also soon there won't be any cash at all, and so no anonymity in any financial transaction, thanks for promoting that!
What exactly is the counterpoint here?
* An argument against the disneyfication of everyday life where all the risk is taken out of face to face interactions with other people. To me this reduces us all to the level of automatons in a machine controlled by large companies.
* An argument that a cashless society will remove all anonymity in financial transactions.
Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't want to have a stand-up argument with someone about money, thanks. Why not? It's not so bad. I prefer to negotiate my own contracts. To rely on some third party to do so is infantilizing. If I got into the habit of avoiding stuff like that, I wouldn't be able to travel and live like a local. You know when I travel it's sans apps. I use paper maps road signs and no GPS, I take local cabs, even collective cab…
It sounds like you want to enjoy talking to people, experiencing a culture of negotiation, taking part in local services, handle local money. I just want to get from A to B with as little hassle as possible so I can concentrate on things I think actually matter.
I do a bit of both, as I'm sure you do.
I'm just advocating for the full contact approach to living which I think is being subtly eroded by disney, cruises, resorts, cashless restaurants and uber and so on.
I don't know if you read travel writing, but imagine trying to read a good travel writer like Paul Theroux, except by first transposing everything into the mediated realm.
Instead of taking a cab and then staying at a small local hotel and eating at a market stall what if the writer took an uber then stayed in a resort and ate at the buffet?
Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me
#54Citymapper is meta-Uber (in London at least).
It also throws in bike sharing companies in the comparison.
Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like you want to enjoy talking to people, experiencing a culture of negotiation, taking part in local services, handle local money. I just want to get from A to B with as little hassle as possible so I can concentrate on things I think actually matter.
I do a bit of both, as I'm sure you do. I'm just advocating for the full contact approach to living which I think is being subtly eroded by disney, cruises, resorts, cashless restaurants and uber and so on. I don't know if you read travel writing, but imagine trying to read a good travel writer like Paul Theroux, except by first transposing everything into the mediated realm. Instead of taking a cab and then staying…
I understand your point of view, but an argument about a taxi fare, and paying a restaurant bill with cash instead of a card just don't seem like high quality life experiences worth cherishing to me.
Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me
#56Yes, it's true that by essentially hacking Uber and Lyft's systems, you could create an app that siphons away business from them. But what would happen if such a technique were to become legal and ubiquitous? Suddenly, no one wants to invest in a company that requires significant capital, because they know that as soon as the company becomes successful enough to become a target, there will be other companies that wil…
> Suddenly, no one wants to invest in a company that requires significant capital
But this is the point: the reason Uber is successful isn't particularly because of their technical excellence or innovation, it's because they've used massive amounts of capital to very knowingly buy the market.
This is an example of one of the nefarious sides of capitalism -- a flaw -- not a celebration of how great it is at solving problems (which is genuinely is in a lot of circumstances).
If Uber didn't have as much capital, smaller distributed co-ops may well have prospered.
Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a long line of people willing to subsidize cab service. A white label app can not compete with them. After investors decide it's a sure way to lose money, it may happen.
I keep reading that Uber uses VC and other cash to subsidise rides. But if 25%, 30%, or whatever is Uber's cut then I feel like the VC cash is less about subsidising rides and more about subsidising the Uber infrastructure. It might be a nitpick, but if a $10 ride already feels cheap and the driver only gets $7, then to some extent the driver is part of the chain of people subsidising the ride.
>to some extent the driver is part of the chain of people subsidising the ride
That's almost certainly true in many cases. I don't know if it's some drivers or most drivers, but it's almost certainly fair to say that many drivers underestimate the cost they're incurring by driving for Uber/Lyft. (Or they understand the costs but don't feel they have a choice because they need the cash in hand today and they'll deal with getting new tires next year.)
Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me
#58Doctorow, per usual, writes with the certainty of an out of shape sportswriter playing Monday morning quarterback. He just doesn't know what he's talking about. For example, he says "Uber...allows them to illegally discriminate against people with disabilities" Does he really not know the long history of cab drivers not stopping for black passengers? This has been frontpage news on multiple occasions, most famously w…
The racist cab pickup issue occurred to me too, but it’s not in conflict with his overall argument. Doctorow allows that the ride hailing app experience (not to be mistaken with to the “ride sharing” business model) is, in most respects, a foundational improvement upon the old taxi pickup experience. This is not mutually exclusive with the claim that Uber, et al.’s business practices (i.e. circumvention of any and al…
You may be right about the tax issues. My criticism was of his attempt to hang all of society's ills on Uber/Lyft/etc... It's inaccurate at best.
Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like you want to enjoy talking to people, experiencing a culture of negotiation, taking part in local services, handle local money. I just want to get from A to B with as little hassle as possible so I can concentrate on things I think actually matter.
I do a bit of both, as I'm sure you do. I'm just advocating for the full contact approach to living which I think is being subtly eroded by disney, cruises, resorts, cashless restaurants and uber and so on. I don't know if you read travel writing, but imagine trying to read a good travel writer like Paul Theroux, except by first transposing everything into the mediated realm. Instead of taking a cab and then staying…
But most people aren't travel writers. I travel on business. I want to get safely from one place to another, with as little drama as possible.
Fine, Uber isn't for you but other people's preference for that style of transaction has nothing to do with infantilisation.
Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a long line of people willing to subsidize cab service. A white label app can not compete with them. After investors decide it's a sure way to lose money, it may happen.
I keep reading that Uber uses VC and other cash to subsidise rides. But if 25%, 30%, or whatever is Uber's cut then I feel like the VC cash is less about subsidising rides and more about subsidising the Uber infrastructure. It might be a nitpick, but if a $10 ride already feels cheap and the driver only gets $7, then to some extent the driver is part of the chain of people subsidising the ride.
Around where I live, people are abandoning Uber everywhere because there is a cheaper competitor (with smaller cuts for the drivers, and smaller prices for the rider). And Uber still didn't have any profits here.