Live data from Hacker News

Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

locusmag.com

91–100 of 128 posts

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#91
post #51

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.

The reason why Cory wants to hitch on Uber is because he knows people trust Uber more than a random app they've never heard; he says so himself, when he recounts his Shanghai experience. So you'd find the driver on Uber (borrowing its trust network) before switching to the other app. But that also shows why his argument against Uber is flawed: they can charge more money because they actually provide a better service…

But people who don't trust the other app are not going to use the other app anyway. If you want to hire a co-op driver, start with the co-op app first. Hoping Uber will accidentally send you a driver who also happens to be in the co-op seems like a pointless exercise.

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#93
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sci-Hub also works because it is convenient. As Netflix and Spotify have shown, convenience trumps morality and to a lesser extent pricing. Users jailbreaking their device and getting a specific app from a non-official/non-preinstalled app store is not convenient.

> As Netflix and Spotify have shown, convenience trumps morality I don't understand what you mean. Is there a more moral alternative to Netflix and Spotify? It seems to me that Netflix and Spotify combine convenience and morality (or at least, legality), showing that the combination trumps free (pirated)?

[deleted]

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#94
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sci-Hub also works because it is convenient. As Netflix and Spotify have shown, convenience trumps morality and to a lesser extent pricing. Users jailbreaking their device and getting a specific app from a non-official/non-preinstalled app store is not convenient.

> As Netflix and Spotify have shown, convenience trumps morality I don't understand what you mean. Is there a more moral alternative to Netflix and Spotify? It seems to me that Netflix and Spotify combine convenience and morality (or at least, legality), showing that the combination trumps free (pirated)?

> Is there a more moral alternative to Netflix and Spotify?

Yes. If I had to rank the options in order of morality, they would go like this: Buy DRM free content > Abstain from consuming content > Pirate the content >>> Pay for DRMed content.

Supporting DRM means supporting a world where you have to pay rent and seek permission from corporate overlords to use your own devices in the way you wish.

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#95
post #9

The main challenge to successful (i.e., market-dominating) cooperatively-owned platforms like the ones Cory wants is that usually there are no incentives that motivate individuals to dedicate their lives and souls in the creation, launching, running, and perpetual improvement of such platforms for the benefit of others. The exceptions, including successful projects like GNU and Linux, tend to be led by rather unique…

Creating a federated platform is technically quite feasible. E-mail, the Web, Usenet (before it was overrun by spam anyway), IRC... plus these days, stuff like PeerTube and Mastodon. Sure, not every one of these is "successful", but the trend is there.

Creating and maintaining something are entirely different problems. People need to be paid for electricity and internet costs. People need to eat.

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#96
post #51

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.

This. If the co-ops exist, the meta-app is not a difficult app to build.

Geolocation to match you with the local collective and an API to send the booking request to them (unlike Uber they want to work with metasearch companies). Done. Let the collectives handle the certification, pricing and local routing. (I know someone who founded a business effectively doing meta-search for a ride with local minicab companies via nationwide telephone enquiries, so it's not like the basic idea wasn't possible even with yesterday's technology).

Trouble is, for the most part these cooperatives don't exist. Which makes the meta-app less useful than Uber in most parts of the world. Uber has every incentive to discourage people from using a meta-app as their first port of call for ridesearch, and so even if their TOC were completely unenforceable they'd just find ways of blocking a meta-app from accessing Uber data. Blocking people and drivers who are obviously hacking Uber's service to co-locate each other, not paying for the ride via Uber but both ending up in the destination anyway is even easier. A non-profit meta-app isn't going to win an arms race with a multibillion dollar enterprise whose business depends on being a more reliable way of booking rides. Legal restrictions on reverse engineering their software isn't their moat.

The problem is that Austin is an edge case. Drivers got together and formed it and raised money to build the app and set up a vetting process the city govt approved because they'd lose their livelihood if it didn't exist. RideAustin doesn't exist in most other cities because drivers and passengers aren't really set up for collective action, particularly not against the company sending them rides, the costs of getting the service working aren't trivial and any nascent startup would have the problem that Uber was more recognised (and would likely try to kill their app stone dead by subsidising Uber rides with VC money). If you want more local cooperatives, you need to bring down the software development and vetting costs to run a service like RideAustin, not reverse engineer Uber's iPhone app. Or lobby more local governments to find reasons to bar Uber and Lyft from more city centres. And the market will see more cooperatives happen organically if/when Uber tries to squeeze more profit out of rides...

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no incentives that motivate individuals to dedicate their lives and souls in the creation, launching, running, and perpetual improvement of such platforms for the benefit of others. Except this is not just a problem with the owners (and to some extent you are wrong, there are CEOs motivated by that, they still by and large fail). Because ... There are no workers motivated like that either. People do not want this .…

Particularly in Big Tech™, a lot of engineers tend to be motivated by the company mission. You don't build companies like Facebook without a cadre of true believers.

What do the FB "true believers" believe? Is the belief the same one now as it was five or ten years ago?

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#98

He's making a very important point here about the free market. In what sense is it free? What is a reasonable thing to hold someone to, contractually? There's a real lack of thinking about what the free market should actually mean. It's almost always couched in industrial era terms when it does come up, esp in relation to Uber and the gig economy. "Labour" has a very different meaning now to what it meant back in the…

I'm glad you warned us that the something that happens is really bad. I wouldn't have guessed from the episode title... b^)

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#99

I find it ironic that the one problem w/ the cooperative model in Austin is that it doesn't serve the fancy shindig (SXSW) that shows up once a year and then blows out of town. Meeting the needs of Austinites is a more sustainable business because you don't need to handle the burst capacity. Somehow the market of people who are flying around all the time seems to get a disproportionate amount of attention from market…

For the most part, for airport to hotel and back, Uber/Lyft are mostly interesting relative to cabs because they tend to be cheaper (sometimes substantially). For one trip I do a number of times a year where I need to take a cab from and to the airport at my destination, the only reason I tend to use Lyft is that it's about $15 cheaper than a cab ride.

In general though I don't use Uber/Lyft or cabs all that much when I travel (which is frequently). But, anecdotally, a lot of people seem to have gotten into the habit of pulling their phone out of their pocket whenever they need to go more than a couple of blocks.

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#100
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He never said taxis were great- did you miss this:

> Uber (and its Peter-Thiel-backed rival Lyft) are not good companies. They’re not forces for good. But the system they killed? Also not good.

Post reply on HN