4 ms·

Uber has actually created the market for new competition to enter. Since they can't stop their drivers from driving for a new competitor, all any new competitor

Uber has actually created the market for new competition to enter. Since they can't stop their drivers from driving for a new competitor, all any new competitor needs to enter the market is an app and a lower price / bigger split with the drivers. Given any new competitor will not be carrying the capital costs of building the network in the first place they will be able to outcompete uber. The eventual winner is going to be the consumer as the market becomes a profitless commodity service. I have to say that I am surprised that uber didn't use the driver lawsuits to lock up their network. If the drivers were employees then they could have prevented them from driving for other services.

skewart 11y ago
> If the drivers were employees then they could have prevented them from driving for other services. This. I feel like this doesn't come up often enough in discussions about whether drivers should be considered employees or not. A lot of people seem to think that making drivers employees would be better for the drivers and have no effect on passengers. But as soon as drivers become employees it's game over for Lyft or any future competitor, and Uber's monopoly will let them push driver comp as low as possible. As long as Uber and other companies have to work to attract drivers and passengers they'll take a lower cut for themselves.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  It certainly seems unusual from my perspective to create a network that others can use at no cost to compete against you. The drivers’s lawsuits could have been a great opportunity to negotiate employment contracts with excellent terms for Uber. There must be more to this than I can see, but it does look strange.
- mavhc 11y ago
  Surely Uber's reason to exist is to be ready to take over as soon as robocars are good enough. In a world where taxis are cheaper than owning a car, the winner is the one with the software and userbase that can organise the most journeys efficiently, offering discounts to merge rides, running buses and trains when enough people want to go from the same A to the same B
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    This explanation presupposes that running a ride share business is a good entry point for running a robocar business. On the face of it the requirements for running these two business appear to not have much in common.
rtpg 11y ago
The reason they weren't made employees is pretty simple: there'd be a bunch of payroll taxes to pay. Either the already meager driver split would need to go down even more, or they'll have to raise prices that users have to pay... Knowing Uber, they'd probably push down employee wages and then run into minimum wage issues...
- danieltillett 11y ago
  Aren't the payroll taxes just shifted onto the driver anyway? The wages of the drivers would go down, but their take home pay would stay the same.
  - rtpg 11y ago
    I think that's true for the most part, though I bet a lot of people under-report. But there are things like health insurance which Uber would have to provide (and in the contractor case, are instead subsidised through Obamacare provisions) that I think would end up with take home being less...
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      It would have to be risky as a driver to under-report as they would be one pull of Uber's data away from an audit by the IRS. Health insurance might be more of a problem, but this is really only a US issue. I am wondering if a franchise model (say like McDonald's) might get you to a model where you have the benefits of employees, but without all the associated issues.
      - infinite8s 11y ago
        It doesn't even require a pull of Uber's data. Unless the driver is making less than $600/yr from Uber, Uber is required to file a 1099-MISC with the IRS for that driver.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
maehwasu 11y ago
I'm guessing that extremely smart people have had this discussion internally and come to the opposite conclusion.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  I would love to know what this thinking is. Uber's business model is an enigma - at least to me.
  - alecbaldwinlol 11y ago
    They probably don't feel their drivers are valuable assets worth retaining, much like how tech companies treat their telesales staff. You want to quit? Go nuts, we have 50 people who will work for less ASAP, and we think we can onboard them easily. We're also developing technology that will let us have robo drivers (or robo sales staff). So we won't really miss you, even if you compete with us.
  - enjo 11y ago
    I believe that Ubers ultimate goal is to become a logistics company. They want to move people around. They also want to be the last mile on delivering that express Amazon package to your door, or getting your food order to your house (they're already experimenting with that), and just generally being the company responsible for transporting everything around a city. From the perspective of managing their drivers, they're not to worried about other folks taking "their" drivers as ultimately they're going to have FAR more work for drivers to do than companies merely in the cab business. As a driver you're going to rely on Uber because the quantity of the work will be so much higher on their network. That's the long game for them and I suspect that's how they see things right now. * note: I'm 100% speculating here, I have no real special insight into what they're up to.
- devanti 11y ago
  "extremely smart people" also caused the 2007 mortgage crisis, and 2000 tech bubble
kordless 11y ago
Given competitors are experiencing lower and lower friction entering the market, the desire to "compete" isn't limited in normal rates. The amount of competition will increase and drive (and break) economies at scale. Bubbles bursting. Markets collapsing. Faster and faster because the compute and network are lowing capital costs to enter market. Think candle vs. LED cost/light output. This is why we must rethink how we build infrastructure software.

skewart 11y ago

> If the drivers were employees then they could have prevented them from driving for other services. This. I feel like this doesn't come up often enough in discussions about whether drivers should be considered employees or not. A lot of people seem to think that making drivers employees would be better for the drivers and have no effect on passengers. But as soon as drivers become employees it's game over for Lyft or any future competitor, and Uber's monopoly will let them push driver comp as low as possible. As long as Uber and other companies have to work to attract drivers and passengers they'll take a lower cut for themselves.

danieltillett 11y ago
It certainly seems unusual from my perspective to create a network that others can use at no cost to compete against you. The drivers’s lawsuits could have been a great opportunity to negotiate employment contracts with excellent terms for Uber. There must be more to this than I can see, but it does look strange.
mavhc 11y ago
Surely Uber's reason to exist is to be ready to take over as soon as robocars are good enough. In a world where taxis are cheaper than owning a car, the winner is the one with the software and userbase that can organise the most journeys efficiently, offering discounts to merge rides, running buses and trains when enough people want to go from the same A to the same B
- danieltillett 11y ago
  This explanation presupposes that running a ride share business is a good entry point for running a robocar business. On the face of it the requirements for running these two business appear to not have much in common.

rtpg 11y ago

The reason they weren't made employees is pretty simple: there'd be a bunch of payroll taxes to pay. Either the already meager driver split would need to go down even more, or they'll have to raise prices that users have to pay... Knowing Uber, they'd probably push down employee wages and then run into minimum wage issues...

danieltillett 11y ago
Aren't the payroll taxes just shifted onto the driver anyway? The wages of the drivers would go down, but their take home pay would stay the same.
- rtpg 11y ago
  I think that's true for the most part, though I bet a lot of people under-report. But there are things like health insurance which Uber would have to provide (and in the contractor case, are instead subsidised through Obamacare provisions) that I think would end up with take home being less...
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    It would have to be risky as a driver to under-report as they would be one pull of Uber's data away from an audit by the IRS. Health insurance might be more of a problem, but this is really only a US issue. I am wondering if a franchise model (say like McDonald's) might get you to a model where you have the benefits of employees, but without all the associated issues.
    - infinite8s 11y ago
      It doesn't even require a pull of Uber's data. Unless the driver is making less than $600/yr from Uber, Uber is required to file a 1099-MISC with the IRS for that driver.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

maehwasu 11y ago

I'm guessing that extremely smart people have had this discussion internally and come to the opposite conclusion.

danieltillett 11y ago
I would love to know what this thinking is. Uber's business model is an enigma - at least to me.
- alecbaldwinlol 11y ago
  They probably don't feel their drivers are valuable assets worth retaining, much like how tech companies treat their telesales staff. You want to quit? Go nuts, we have 50 people who will work for less ASAP, and we think we can onboard them easily. We're also developing technology that will let us have robo drivers (or robo sales staff). So we won't really miss you, even if you compete with us.
- enjo 11y ago
  I believe that Ubers ultimate goal is to become a logistics company. They want to move people around. They also want to be the last mile on delivering that express Amazon package to your door, or getting your food order to your house (they're already experimenting with that), and just generally being the company responsible for transporting everything around a city. From the perspective of managing their drivers, they're not to worried about other folks taking "their" drivers as ultimately they're going to have FAR more work for drivers to do than companies merely in the cab business. As a driver you're going to rely on Uber because the quantity of the work will be so much higher on their network. That's the long game for them and I suspect that's how they see things right now. * note: I'm 100% speculating here, I have no real special insight into what they're up to.
devanti 11y ago
"extremely smart people" also caused the 2007 mortgage crisis, and 2000 tech bubble

kordless 11y ago

Given competitors are experiencing lower and lower friction entering the market, the desire to "compete" isn't limited in normal rates. The amount of competition will increase and drive (and break) economies at scale. Bubbles bursting. Markets collapsing. Faster and faster because the compute and network are lowing capital costs to enter market. Think candle vs. LED cost/light output. This is why we must rethink how we build infrastructure software.