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

Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

locusmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 128 posts

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#61

Post by gerbilly »

chrisseaton wrote: post #55
gerbilly wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, but I think removing the possibility of those experiences introduces too much intermediation into daily life for everyone else.

I cherish those possibilities, like I cherish freedom.

I may not exercise my full freedom every day, but I do cherish it.

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#62

Post by otikik »

gerbilly wrote: post #41
mprev wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool. I have to say, though, that not having to negotiate a price is a key benefit of Uber. The price is the price, no quibbling, no bait and switch. Similarly, paying by cash feels like a step back.

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!

I am not afraid. But I don't enjoy it either and I'd rather not do it. The same way you tell others "time to grow up" I can tell you "time to get civilized".

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#63

Post by evrydayhustling »

> An investor in the audience stood up to tell me how full of shit I was: I had no idea just how complicated Uber’s app and infrastructure were, and there was no way a bunch of grubby drivers would ever be able to match its expert coding and administration.

Silicon Valley's technical skills and ethos are good at discovering disruptive business models. It is incredibly hard to pivot operations at scale until you get the market properly sorted out. Investors would love to believe that this also imploes a moat for replicating and administrating the system... but there is no reason one flows from the other.

Of course, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton Sinclair

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#64

Post by jawns »

WhiteMonkey wrote: post #56
jawns wrote: post #33

Yes, 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 pr…

I am no cheerleader for capitalism, but for any business whose core offering is a marketplace (as with Uber/Lyft, who connect buyers of rides with sellers of rides), then building out that marketplace requires solving the chicken-and-egg problem, and typically that is done through advertising, marketing, pricing, customer loyalty, etc.

Much of that requires capital, and the asset you end up with after investing that capital is a large user/subscriber base, which can lead to other competitive advantages. It is true that having a large user/subscriber base does not imply technical excellence or innovation, but it is a business asset nonetheless.

But if that asset can be easily siphoned off, then there is less of an incentive to build it out to begin with.

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#65

Post by defertoreptar »

gerbilly wrote: post #52
defertoreptar wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ok there are no doubt people who value those things. There are an equal or greater number of consumers who value the opposite position:

1) "My time is more important to me than haggling over a price with a shopkeeper." Or, "I don't find the process of bargaining interesting, and I'd rather save that time and energy for other creative or human-connection type activities."

2) "Avoiding the time/inconvenience overhead of dealing with cash and change holds more utility to me than the promise of anonymity, and the credit card rewards are a plus."

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#66

Post by tomp »

sigmaris wrote: post #18
officemonkey wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was appalled that the the existing taxi system (essentially a protected monopoly) wouldn't immediately create an Uber/Lyft app when ride-sharing first appeared. Then I realized that building such a thing would only benefit drivers and customers, and those are the two constituents that the existing taxi system doesn't care about.

In the UK there's an app available, https://gett.com/ , which is very similar to Uber but hails regular, licensed taxis.

But I don't want to ride regular, licenced taxis. They're still a cartel. They charge a premium for having to learn all the streets of London by heart, but that's not a premium I'm willing to pay (or that I consider valuable) in the modern day'n'age of Google Maps and the likes.

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#67

Post by Retra »

gerbilly wrote: post #52
defertoreptar wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>where all the risk is taken out of face to face interactions with other people

All of the risk is not in taxi fare negotiation, nor is that the source of all face-to-face interactions with other people. Seems like you're trying to argue a mountain out of a mole hill.

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#69

Post by Retra »

Kiro wrote: post #17
em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #11

This article is a good time to plug LibreTaxi: "Free and open source alternative to Uber/Lyft connecting passengers and drivers. LibreTaxi makes ridesharing affordable by getting rid of the third party between passengers and drivers. Negotiate the price before the ride is confirmed, pay cash upon arrival. 1-minute hiring for all drivers." https://libretaxi.org/

Who has cash nowadays though?

Gas station ATMs, mostly. And anybody who uses them.

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#70

Post by ghaff »

gerbilly wrote: post #52
defertoreptar wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not going to argue for a cashless society. (Which I agree would be bad even though I primarily use credit cards for the convenience.)

I actually don't use taxis/Uber/Lyft all that much when I travel. If there are good transit options, I usually do that. Or I just walk around a city. However, when I do need to, making the ride higher friction, requiring me to have local currency, potentially being overcharged, etc. are not really a source of exciting travel experiences for me.

I'm somewhat with you on disneyfication and I don't do cruises, rarely go to a resort, and haven't been to a Disney theme park in many decades. But taxi rides seem an odd hill to die on with respect to this question.

Post reply on HN