27 ms·

How a 30K-member Facebook group filled the void left by Uber and Lyft in Austin

162 points by abhi3 10y ago

zitterbewegung 10y ago
Looking at this post if Arcade City can provide a background check for people who use the service and also insurance then they would actually have the people who drive for the service be closer to contractors instead of the faux one that Uber/Lyft try to pull off.
jdrock 10y ago
The title and content of this article couldn't be farther from the truth. 1. Uber and Lyft's absence has created a huge void that remains to this day. There are crazy long lines at the airport. 2. There are multiple ridesharing companies that have sprung up in the meantime. Arcade City is just one of them. 3. I'm pretty sure Arcade City will disappear once either (a) U/L return or (b) one of the newer companies (Fare, Fasten, etc.) get more drivers. Transportation in Austin is terrible right now. Arcade City hasn't changed that fact.
- joeblau 10y ago
  Are the residents of Austin doing anything to let their state representatives know that the situation is as bad as you're painting it? From what I've read (not sure if it's factual or not), it seems people impacted by the loss of U/L either didn't turn up to vote or were potentially confused by the language on the ballot.
  - jdrock 10y ago
    The consensus is that U/L's aggressive political campaigning prior to the vote backfired big time. They really screwed up on messaging by not understanding their audience. Had they made it about losing 10,000 jobs, they might have won. Hell, if they had just not called people multiple times without consent, they might have won. There are multiple efforts going on as a result of the vote. Former U/L drivers are trying to put together a rally. A non-profit group (Ride Austin) has sprung up to replace U/L. Certain council members are trying to fight the rest of the council. The state legislature is consider a bill that would pre-empt city legislation.
    - joeblau 10y ago
      Thanks for the summary of what's going on. I remember when the news broke, but I haven't seen much about what's going on since then.
    - tn13 10y ago
      That is absolutely right. Uber most certainly needs to fire their PR people. If I had to design a campaign to ensure Uber loses the vote, that is how I would designed the PR. It was unbelievably bad. Asking for votes is essentially an emotional argument and you need to play on people's emotions just the way Coke sells their soda or Axe sells deodorants. Uber should have shown "we are creating well paying jobs". "We are helping women", "we are helping environment" type of emotional arguments showing babies, blondes, mothers and cats. Just to give an example how horrible Uber is at PR: Uber's surge pricing is an excellent feature. But why on earth would you name it "surge pricing"? It is like BMW calling its cars "Overpriced Metal". Both "surge" and "pricing" are bad words and combined they are the worst possible naming for a feature. The correct naming for surge pricing should have been "Uber Urgent" or "Uber VIP". The way it should have been designed is that: 1. Drivers opt in for Uber Urgent. Whenever there is a surge in demand driver goes into Urgent Only mode. 2. Let the passengers wait for the usual low fares or select Uber Urgent and get their rides quickly. In fact asking passengers to bid in 3-4 levels would make a lot of sense. Uber Urgent could have been advertised as: 1. Empowers drivers to earn more by helping those in urgent need. 2. Helps people in need get the cars faster 3. Reduces traffic on road during rush hour. 4. Skip the line as if you are VIP. No more waiting.
      - zaidf 10y ago
        You're underestimating the value of being a company that always has a cab for you within minutes. With your approach, the default in the public's mind would be "there is no uber till 3am!" vs. "Uber is the on the way...btw it's 25% extra due to the rush." A name like VIP is bad because it discourages regular use. It sounds like something you use once a year on special occasions.
        eric_h 10y ago
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - dbg31415 10y ago
    Unfortunately not much. The people who used Uber are up-in-arms, but the people who voted against it were people who didn't use the service and don't know / care. Our city council is stocked to the brim with people who hate any form of progress. Those dipshits are the reason we have such horrible traffic here in the first place... for years and years and years their mantra was, "If we don't build it, they won't come." And they purposefully made roads much much smaller than they ought to be -- and continue to make roads much much smaller than they ought to be to accommodate growth. Uber / Lyft played their hand so poorly. Instead of talking about jobs, and the reduction of drunk driving (a huge issue), they let the city and taxi union play them. The campaign, to suburbanites who probably don't use rideshare services anyway, became about safety and how Uber / Lyft drivers would rape you because there was one guy one time who had statutory raped someone before becoming a driver and Uber / Lyft let him drive anyway... The old mayor came on, drummed up fear in the old folks... so then the nursing home vote thought there were these roving rapists being paid billions of dollars by SF tech companies and driving up their taxes. I wish I was making it up. Oh, and the ballot language was confusing. So yeah, nobody really knew what they were voting for. Of course the crazy guy shooting people up north didn't help... but anyway now we're back to being fucked. Ways we are fucked: * Taxis... are 2-3x more expensive than Uber, if they even show up at all. When I need a ride to the airport I'm back to asking neighbors since I can't rely on taxis showing up on time. * Since Taxis don't have to show a GPS of where they are going, they take you round-about ways. It took me a minute but yeah, after getting picked up by the airport, I should have been taken down 71 to Mopac to get to Circle C. The guy literally took me to 35 then across Slaughter... stoplights galore. Intentionally driving slow the whole way... speed limit was 75, he was driving 55. * Taxis aren't clean. They're filthy in fact. No water either. * Taxi drivers aren't from here. So I get this is racist, but at least with Uber / Lyft we knew it was our neighbors. They spoke like we did. There were no communication issues around where you wanted to go. Ways we can get unfucked: * At the moment, unclear. We need a new city government... but because the nursing home / Luddites vote and the tech / younger crowd doesn't... we can't reverse the decision. And Uber and Lyft seem unwilling to pay for the background checks the city now requires. Anything else that pops up... it'll be a temp thing until the city cracks down on it and imposes the same sort of shit they tried to push on Uber / Lyft. (I fucking hate the "old guard" so much, and all the people who got to vote on rideshares who never even used them... it's such bullshit. Hooray.)
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- mc32 10y ago
  This is the perfect time for an upstart to provide a service which does conform with city regulation and it or they will be able to swoop in when or if other cities institute similar requirements to the dismay of the incumbents.
  - asquabventured 10y ago
    Perfect! More bifurcation in the industry due to regulatory overreach. What a great time to be alive!
    - mc32 10y ago
      What? This is like saying requiring iodine created bifurcation in the salt industry? Salt, never the less is a commodity (exceptions for pink Himalayan salt, etc.) Taxi services are similar. Just for context, we used to have thousands of local taxi operations, so it's not like we don't have experience with bifurcation and further, these "platform" taxi services were an additional distinct bifurcation into the traditional industry.
    - rodgerd 10y ago
      So just to be clear you think the ideal outcome is a monopoly by Uber?
      - briandear 10y ago
        Better than the existing taxi monopoly. The taxi monopoly used regulation to support a monopoly. That's wrong. Less regulation means more competition. Re: ISPs.
        mc32 10y ago
        But taxis are not a monopoly. There are thousands of cab companies. If you mean they were regulated into some kind of uniform service whose results were suboptimal, ok, but that's not what people tend to call a "monopoly".
- sna1l 10y ago
  I recently visited Austin, and I completely agree with you. Getting around was a nightmare. All the apps felt way jankier than Uber and Lyft.
- andrewfromx 10y ago
  wow you are really calling out https://twitter.com/fitztepper https://twitter.com/fitztepper as a reporter. He got the story just completely wrong?
- abhi3 10y ago
  Can someone explain why Uber had to shut down? Couldn't they have just complied with the regulation?
  - briandear 10y ago
    I would rather they shut down to protest the regulation. Consenting adults should be entitled to their own risk assessment. The government need not regulate everything. Over regulation is what led to the taxi monopolies. If people didn't feel safe in Uber, they weren't forced to use it. It isn't like school buses or teachers where there aren't other easy alternatives. If an Uber driver was unsafe, the market would correct for that. Are AirBnB hosts fingerprinted? Are hotel employees required to be fingerprinted? Hotel employees could enter your room and kill you while sleeping -- how is that any different than the risk posed by a rogue Uber driver?
    - bsder 10y ago
      > If people didn't feel safe in Uber, they weren't forced to use it. Except that Uber is using venture capital money to subsidize rides to undercut the price of rides. That's great, until they drive the properly compliant ride services out of business and become their own monopoly. Keeping the ridesharing services market share fractured instead of monopoly is what really benefits the consumer.
      - studentrob 10y ago
        You're not wrong. Uber operates where I live in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, and rides are dirt cheap. They cost $2-$3 when a taxi is $3-$5. Both Uber and AirBNB have been ruled illegal in Taiwan. Uber continues to operate and pays the fines of drivers and passengers when they are caught. If a driver is caught 5 times, their license is permanently revoked [1] I like the idea of ride sharing apps, and I can respect Uber's attempts to try some civil disobedience. I don't think this investment will pan out for them. Taiwan just elected a new government that is even more focused on Taiwan-centric businesses than the last government. Uber would need to generate a lot of public support to become an exception. I don't see that happening. I see VC money flowing in and staying here. And like Austin, a legal competitor will pop up eventually with services that satisfy the public enough that they forget about Uber. I could be wrong. It seems to me Uber doesn't have much left up its sleeves. They seem primed to accept that there are many viable competitors. [1] http://international.thenewslens.com/article/36548 http://international.thenewslens.com/article/36548
- natrius 10y ago
  Multiple ridehailing companies have sprung up, but that's not a solution. It's the problem. As long as multiple networks split the market, wait times and prices will always be worse than Uber was. Arcade City has a chance to work around this problem by building a network no one controls. The network effects of decentralization are strong—perhaps strong enough to compete even when Uber returns.
- brianbarker 10y ago
  Arcade City has worked really well via the FB group. You post a ride request, multiple drivers respond. Many link their uber/lyft profiles. Then the client chooses their driver (big key to AC's premise) and a ride is arranged. AC is also launching an app to replace the FB group and be directly p2p, which will be fascinating to watch. Also, as of this last weekend, Fare has tons of cars and had cheaper-than-uber prices like Lyft. Very good, very stable app. The RideAustin app also is showing cars, but Fare looks better. I'd recommend Fare. It sucks that visitors won't know, but maybe Fare can get a sign at the airport?
mpeg 10y ago
I love how the only effective way to market an Ethereum dapp seems to be to create a Facebook group and let people pay with good old cash. Maybe I'm being a bit too harsh, but the decentralised model just presents way too many risks for both riders and drivers, and the lack of fees means AC is not incentivised to protect either.
- zanny 10y ago
  Muggles don't care about decentralization or freedom or privacy. They want to press a button on their phone and something happens, no matter the consequences. There are risks in everything. The only thing any ridesharing app at the end of the day can truly offer consumers of any meaningfulness in terms of driver / rider security are public ratings on both from all their previous customers and clients. Anything else is some artificial gating metric that tries to break people down into historic footnotes. I hope that AC has such a feature, but even if it does not if its an Ethereum app you can very easily include ratings per contract.
- natrius 10y ago
  Decentralization does not add risks. It just unbundles consumer protection from the marketplace itself. If you want a customer advocate to mediate your purchases, you can hire anyone to do it. Sellers will increasingly depend on good relationships with consumer advocates for customer acquisition. Advocates will blacklist sellers that don't meet their criteria or have screwed their customers over in some way.
ars 10y ago
Oh that's too funny. So instead of having fingerprints of all drivers, now they don't even have verified names, but simply completely anonymous people. Great going lawmakers! Some things you just can't legislate.
- f0urtyfive 10y ago
  The Austin City council members that promoted the ban had received campaign contributions from the Texas Taxi Lobby. It was never about having verified names, it was about making money for Taxis.
  - lovemenot 10y ago
    Don't mess with Taxis.
- placeybordeaux 10y ago
  This wasn't just lawmakers, there was a chance at the polls.
- chirs 10y ago
  Sure there are some things you can't legislate, but this isn't one of them. Uber and Lyft simply don't want to do this because it threatens their profit margins. It makes just as much sense to blame the companies for this situation.
  - f0urtyfive 10y ago
    > Uber and Lyft simply don't want to do this because it threatens their profit margins. You do understand how silly that sounds right? They want to protect their profit margins because... they're businesses! Uber and Lyft both said beforehand that they'd leave if they were forced abide by the silly measures put in place by the Austin silly council, so no, it does not make sense to blame them.
    - kuschku 10y ago
Animats 10y ago
I'm amazed that anybody can organize anything via Facebook groups. It's like pounding a screw.
- cheeze 10y ago
  I use FB groups all the time and have never had an issue. Something like lyft/uber seems difficult, but they fit many other use cases just fine. You're basically saying "I'm amazed that anybody can organize anything via <every forum software ever>
aembleton 10y ago
I heard this the other day on the Radio Motherboard podcast. You can listen to it here: https://soundcloud.com/motherboard/when-uber-left-austin https://soundcloud.com/motherboard/when-uber-left-austin
cperciva 10y ago
So, to steal a line... capitalism interprets regulations as damage and routes around them?
- chirs 10y ago
  Completely withdrawing from a location is not really "routing around." This is a case where capitalism is attempting to dominate the political realm.
  - cperciva 10y ago
    Uber and Lyft completely withdrew, but capitalism didn't. To the contrary, capitalism routed around the lack of Uber and Lyft, by spawning a (poor) alternative.
Spooky23 10y ago
This brings the empire building nature of Uber into question. If a group of people on a Facebook group can replace its functions for a significant group of people in a few days, why is this company valued in the billions again?
- misingnoglic 10y ago
  Because Uber/Lyft can scale, a Facebook group can't. The group is just a last minute fix.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    The FB group is an MVP. If a bunch of people pissed off at the loss of Uber/Lyft can cobble together a half-assed replacement, what is stopping Facebook from making a baked product?
- droopybuns 10y ago
  I think you are being abusing the meaning of "replace." Uber is not an austin-only operation. These austin solutions don't currently work in any other city. Also- I have heard misery from austin users of the uber replacements. They may be attempting to fill the void, but I don't hear anyone saying they're satisfied with the solutions that are currently festering. They're valued in the billions because they just work, and the solution could be extended in numerous directions that could rejigger everyone's daily lives.
- cortesoft 10y ago
  I love Uber, and I would never use this facebook group. Uber is awesome because I hit one button and a ride shows up. I don't have to call anyone, I don't have to type out a message, or delete a thread, or negotiate a deal with a driver. I don't have to wonder which drivers are close to me, or even think at all. I hit button, car shows up. People are using this sub-optimal solution because it is the only option at the moment. It is not a replacement for Uber.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
jalami 10y ago
I've always wondered how necessary something like Uber or Lyft really was. Centralized networks lead to critical mass and that's what I always saw as the appeal. No one wants to hunt for something manually. I feel like something like craigslist, but with an ebay-like "95% driver approval rating" would do the job well enough. Sure, there are people that won't use it for security reasons and lack of standards, but if that's the case an alternative should prop up that ensures these things with standards for their drivers. One being cheaper as all funds go between driver and driven, the other providing a middle man that spends some of these funds to filter bad actors. In my opinion, the mandatory regulation isn't really necessary if competition is healthy. If there's enough demand for finger-printed drivers, a service should crop up to provide it. Facebook though sounds like a terrible medium for this kind of thing. People will use what's familiar I guess.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  > I've always wondered how necessary something like Uber or Lyft really was. Not necessary at all. Austin got by for nearly a century of automobile use without one. > I always felt like something like craigslist, but with an ebay-like "95% driver approval rating" would do the job well enough. Sure there are people that won't use it for security reasons and lack of standards, but if that's the case an alternative should prop up that ensures these things with standards for their drivers. One being cheaper as all funds go between driver and driven, the other providing a middle man that spends some of these funds to filter bad actors. So a private tax to not be murdered? Makes sense. We could also move to regulating our food supply like this - you could buy your food through a service that would vet it for evidence that it hasn't been poisoned or adulterated with broken glass. In the spirit of consumer choice, maybe have a different service for each type of food, with no standardization or regulation to compare the assurances that every service claims to give you. Then, there would be a great opportunity for a meta-service to vet services to vet each type of food you choose to eat. Since all of those services would add layer upon layer of middle-men and bureaucracy, having lots of layers with an easily verifiable reputation would cost more, and people who chose ala carte, or with fewer guarantees of safety would pay less. A meta-service for the wealthy, and total lack of regulations or minimum guarantees for people who couldn't afford them - sounds like a perfect libertarian dystopia to me. Not that this Facebook thing isn't even worse. All this to avoid the pretend horror of taxis.
frakkingcylons 10y ago
I live in Austin, and at this time there is still a void, but it's being filled faster than I expected. Fasten launched last week and I've used it four times already and there's not much to say other than it works just like Uber and Lyft. The price is $1-2 more per ride and a I have to wait a few more minutes, but it does the job. The drivers I've talked to also prefer the compensation structure more than Uber and Lyft. Fasten's cut is fixed at $1 per ride (vs 20-28%), or $12 for the day. And like Uber, they get paid every Wednesday. It's not available at the airport, but there's a city bus that drives from the airport to downtown (where getting a rideshare is easy) in 30 minutes for $1.75. EDIT: Clarified Fasten's commission.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  > compensation structure Do you mean fee structure?
  - frakkingcylons 10y ago
    No the compensation structure for drivers. I'll edit my post for clarity.
    - jessriedel 10y ago
      Ah yes, much clearer now.
- ericabiz 10y ago
  I flew out of the Austin airport 2 weeks ago, and used Wingz to get a driver to drive us there. He gave me his cell # and I just texted him for the ride back home when we got back last week, and paid cash. Super easy. I think it's pretty amazing, as an Austin resident, how fast the void is getting filled with comparable apps.
  - mrcodedude 10y ago
    Wingz works for getting to the airport. But the two hour advanced reservation system doesn't work well for a regional airport like Austin where the majority of flights are routed through a major hub. If my connecting flight is delayed an hour, I'm SOL because my original reservation is no longer valid, but I can't make another reservation because I'm within two hours of my (new) expected arrival time.
yohoho22 10y ago
Here's a Texas Tribune article from today detailing other Austin ridesharing developments in the wake of the Uber/Lyft withdrawal: https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/07/austin-post-prop-1/ https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/07/austin-post-prop-1/
abhi3 10y ago
Can someone explain why Uber had to shut down? Couldn't they have just complied with the regulation by fingerprinting drivers?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- betojuareziii 10y ago
  They argued it as a supply-side issue. They see quick onboarding as a key feature to supplying the demand in a given city. They argued that with the fingerprint requirement, they would not have enough drivers on the road quickly and thus create an inferior user experience.
xur17 10y ago
I live in Austin, and it's really the other apps like Fare, Fasten, and Get Me that are filling the void. Fasten ends up being the best price (they also have the best app coincidentally), coming out to a few dollars more than Uber or Lyft. I ended up buiding a web app that keeps track of what apps work where (for example, Fasten currently doesn't work from the airport), along with the relative pricing this past weekend: https://ridefinder.io https://ridefinder.io
- mjagiello 10y ago
  Thanks for your app, will share it!
- frakkingcylons 10y ago
  Hey I saw your post on the Austin subreddit last week. Thanks for building it, it's been useful.
- rosege 10y ago
  If you get the driver's number from the app could you just book the car for just outside the airport zone then call them and ask for airport pickup?
bsder 10y ago
> 1. Uber and Lyft's absence has created a huge void that remains to this day. There are crazy long lines at the airport. It's been, what? FOUR WEEKS. Sheesh. Quit being a shill. Uber and Lyft thought they could negotiate by pointing a gun at people's heads. Austin is the worst possible city to try this in with the possible exception of San Francisco. Austin will work it out. And, when Austin has it worked out, it can be ported to other cities. So, if Lyft or Uber try this again, those cities will be ready on Day 1. I hope this bites Uber and Lyft in the ass by producing a strong competitor.
- theli0nheart 10y ago
  > Uber and Lyft thought they could negotiate by pointing a gun at people's heads. Austin is the worst possible city to try this in with the possible exception of San Francisco. Yep, completely agree. I think what most people outside Austin don't realize is that Uber/Lyft ran this campaign almost as if they wanted to lose. We received almost a pound of junk mail every week, constant texts, three phone calls, canvassers at our door after 7pm, signs plastered throughout the city. It was just completely dirty and really soured people's opinions. Most people I know who voted against the proposition did it because of Uber's campaign.
  - newacct23 10y ago
    and now they are screwed. I think you are onto something btw with the Uber and Lyft wanted to lose thing. Now they can point to Austin and say, this is what happens when you don't comply.
- michael_storm 10y ago
  > Quit being a shill. Please don't name-call on HN. It ruins one of the reasons I like it here.
- dang 10y ago
  michael_storm is right, but I want to add that accusing other users of shillage and astroturfing without evidence is particularly disallowed here. Someone's holding an opposing view doesn't count as evidence. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11857854 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11857854 and marked it off-topic.
guelo 10y ago
FB normally starts choking off group notifications after a group reaches a certain size. I wonder if Arcade City is paying to keep the group up and running.
- natrius 10y ago
  The group doesn't rely on notifications to work. Drivers watch the stream of posts and riders post into it.
TheHolyLancer 10y ago
When you enact prohibition, people don't stop drinking, you get moonshine and stills blowing up.
caseysoftware 10y ago
There's some dirtiness and shenanigans around the whole thing too.. including the Mayor holding a secret meeting with the Uber/Lyft competitors and the City Council investing taxpayer money in them. I've dug up some of the details but more to come: https://medium.com/@CaseySoftware/mayor-steve-adler-is-scamming-the-austin-tech-community-399d12b976e9 https://medium.com/@CaseySoftware/mayor-steve-adler-is-scamm...
- modfodder 10y ago
  That's just the Mayor and the City Council "disrupting" the current ride sharing duopoly.
rockarage 10y ago
Few journalist know that UBER & Lyft are operating under more restrictive regulations in NYC. These regulation include fingerprinting, drug test, medical test and a couple of classes. The cost to comply is at least $600 per driver to start. There are other cost like special license plates. Essentially you have to be a professional to drive an Uber/Lyft in NYC, legally. They comply in NYC so I'm not sure what Uber & Lyft are complaining about. At least one of them should have stayed, especially Lyft this a missed opputunity for Lyft.
- csours 10y ago
  I wonder if they formed a coalition for this to ensure No Separate Peace.
- studentrob 10y ago
  Wow I didn't know that. This whole news cycle seems pointless now. It's been proven other cities operate with Uber this way, and other companies can fill the void.

162 points by abhi3 10y ago

Looking at this post if Arcade City can provide a background check for people who use the service and also insurance then they would actually have the people who drive for the service be closer to contractors instead of the faux one that Uber/Lyft try to pull off.

jdrock 10y ago

The title and content of this article couldn't be farther from the truth. 1. Uber and Lyft's absence has created a huge void that remains to this day. There are crazy long lines at the airport. 2. There are multiple ridesharing companies that have sprung up in the meantime. Arcade City is just one of them. 3. I'm pretty sure Arcade City will disappear once either (a) U/L return or (b) one of the newer companies (Fare, Fasten, etc.) get more drivers. Transportation in Austin is terrible right now. Arcade City hasn't changed that fact.

joeblau 10y ago
Are the residents of Austin doing anything to let their state representatives know that the situation is as bad as you're painting it? From what I've read (not sure if it's factual or not), it seems people impacted by the loss of U/L either didn't turn up to vote or were potentially confused by the language on the ballot.
- jdrock 10y ago
  The consensus is that U/L's aggressive political campaigning prior to the vote backfired big time. They really screwed up on messaging by not understanding their audience. Had they made it about losing 10,000 jobs, they might have won. Hell, if they had just not called people multiple times without consent, they might have won. There are multiple efforts going on as a result of the vote. Former U/L drivers are trying to put together a rally. A non-profit group (Ride Austin) has sprung up to replace U/L. Certain council members are trying to fight the rest of the council. The state legislature is consider a bill that would pre-empt city legislation.
  - joeblau 10y ago
    Thanks for the summary of what's going on. I remember when the news broke, but I haven't seen much about what's going on since then.
  - tn13 10y ago
    That is absolutely right. Uber most certainly needs to fire their PR people. If I had to design a campaign to ensure Uber loses the vote, that is how I would designed the PR. It was unbelievably bad. Asking for votes is essentially an emotional argument and you need to play on people's emotions just the way Coke sells their soda or Axe sells deodorants. Uber should have shown "we are creating well paying jobs". "We are helping women", "we are helping environment" type of emotional arguments showing babies, blondes, mothers and cats. Just to give an example how horrible Uber is at PR: Uber's surge pricing is an excellent feature. But why on earth would you name it "surge pricing"? It is like BMW calling its cars "Overpriced Metal". Both "surge" and "pricing" are bad words and combined they are the worst possible naming for a feature. The correct naming for surge pricing should have been "Uber Urgent" or "Uber VIP". The way it should have been designed is that: 1. Drivers opt in for Uber Urgent. Whenever there is a surge in demand driver goes into Urgent Only mode. 2. Let the passengers wait for the usual low fares or select Uber Urgent and get their rides quickly. In fact asking passengers to bid in 3-4 levels would make a lot of sense. Uber Urgent could have been advertised as: 1. Empowers drivers to earn more by helping those in urgent need. 2. Helps people in need get the cars faster 3. Reduces traffic on road during rush hour. 4. Skip the line as if you are VIP. No more waiting.
    - zaidf 10y ago
      You're underestimating the value of being a company that always has a cab for you within minutes. With your approach, the default in the public's mind would be "there is no uber till 3am!" vs. "Uber is the on the way...btw it's 25% extra due to the rush." A name like VIP is bad because it discourages regular use. It sounds like something you use once a year on special occasions.
      - eric_h 10y ago
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- dbg31415 10y ago
  Unfortunately not much. The people who used Uber are up-in-arms, but the people who voted against it were people who didn't use the service and don't know / care. Our city council is stocked to the brim with people who hate any form of progress. Those dipshits are the reason we have such horrible traffic here in the first place... for years and years and years their mantra was, "If we don't build it, they won't come." And they purposefully made roads much much smaller than they ought to be -- and continue to make roads much much smaller than they ought to be to accommodate growth. Uber / Lyft played their hand so poorly. Instead of talking about jobs, and the reduction of drunk driving (a huge issue), they let the city and taxi union play them. The campaign, to suburbanites who probably don't use rideshare services anyway, became about safety and how Uber / Lyft drivers would rape you because there was one guy one time who had statutory raped someone before becoming a driver and Uber / Lyft let him drive anyway... The old mayor came on, drummed up fear in the old folks... so then the nursing home vote thought there were these roving rapists being paid billions of dollars by SF tech companies and driving up their taxes. I wish I was making it up. Oh, and the ballot language was confusing. So yeah, nobody really knew what they were voting for. Of course the crazy guy shooting people up north didn't help... but anyway now we're back to being fucked. Ways we are fucked: * Taxis... are 2-3x more expensive than Uber, if they even show up at all. When I need a ride to the airport I'm back to asking neighbors since I can't rely on taxis showing up on time. * Since Taxis don't have to show a GPS of where they are going, they take you round-about ways. It took me a minute but yeah, after getting picked up by the airport, I should have been taken down 71 to Mopac to get to Circle C. The guy literally took me to 35 then across Slaughter... stoplights galore. Intentionally driving slow the whole way... speed limit was 75, he was driving 55. * Taxis aren't clean. They're filthy in fact. No water either. * Taxi drivers aren't from here. So I get this is racist, but at least with Uber / Lyft we knew it was our neighbors. They spoke like we did. There were no communication issues around where you wanted to go. Ways we can get unfucked: * At the moment, unclear. We need a new city government... but because the nursing home / Luddites vote and the tech / younger crowd doesn't... we can't reverse the decision. And Uber and Lyft seem unwilling to pay for the background checks the city now requires. Anything else that pops up... it'll be a temp thing until the city cracks down on it and imposes the same sort of shit they tried to push on Uber / Lyft. (I fucking hate the "old guard" so much, and all the people who got to vote on rideshares who never even used them... it's such bullshit. Hooray.)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
mc32 10y ago
This is the perfect time for an upstart to provide a service which does conform with city regulation and it or they will be able to swoop in when or if other cities institute similar requirements to the dismay of the incumbents.
- asquabventured 10y ago
  Perfect! More bifurcation in the industry due to regulatory overreach. What a great time to be alive!
  - mc32 10y ago
    What? This is like saying requiring iodine created bifurcation in the salt industry? Salt, never the less is a commodity (exceptions for pink Himalayan salt, etc.) Taxi services are similar. Just for context, we used to have thousands of local taxi operations, so it's not like we don't have experience with bifurcation and further, these "platform" taxi services were an additional distinct bifurcation into the traditional industry.
  - rodgerd 10y ago
    So just to be clear you think the ideal outcome is a monopoly by Uber?
    - briandear 10y ago
      Better than the existing taxi monopoly. The taxi monopoly used regulation to support a monopoly. That's wrong. Less regulation means more competition. Re: ISPs.
      - mc32 10y ago
        But taxis are not a monopoly. There are thousands of cab companies. If you mean they were regulated into some kind of uniform service whose results were suboptimal, ok, but that's not what people tend to call a "monopoly".
sna1l 10y ago
I recently visited Austin, and I completely agree with you. Getting around was a nightmare. All the apps felt way jankier than Uber and Lyft.
andrewfromx 10y ago
wow you are really calling out https://twitter.com/fitztepper https://twitter.com/fitztepper as a reporter. He got the story just completely wrong?
abhi3 10y ago
Can someone explain why Uber had to shut down? Couldn't they have just complied with the regulation?
- briandear 10y ago
  I would rather they shut down to protest the regulation. Consenting adults should be entitled to their own risk assessment. The government need not regulate everything. Over regulation is what led to the taxi monopolies. If people didn't feel safe in Uber, they weren't forced to use it. It isn't like school buses or teachers where there aren't other easy alternatives. If an Uber driver was unsafe, the market would correct for that. Are AirBnB hosts fingerprinted? Are hotel employees required to be fingerprinted? Hotel employees could enter your room and kill you while sleeping -- how is that any different than the risk posed by a rogue Uber driver?
  - bsder 10y ago
    > If people didn't feel safe in Uber, they weren't forced to use it. Except that Uber is using venture capital money to subsidize rides to undercut the price of rides. That's great, until they drive the properly compliant ride services out of business and become their own monopoly. Keeping the ridesharing services market share fractured instead of monopoly is what really benefits the consumer.
    - studentrob 10y ago
      You're not wrong. Uber operates where I live in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, and rides are dirt cheap. They cost $2-$3 when a taxi is $3-$5. Both Uber and AirBNB have been ruled illegal in Taiwan. Uber continues to operate and pays the fines of drivers and passengers when they are caught. If a driver is caught 5 times, their license is permanently revoked [1] I like the idea of ride sharing apps, and I can respect Uber's attempts to try some civil disobedience. I don't think this investment will pan out for them. Taiwan just elected a new government that is even more focused on Taiwan-centric businesses than the last government. Uber would need to generate a lot of public support to become an exception. I don't see that happening. I see VC money flowing in and staying here. And like Austin, a legal competitor will pop up eventually with services that satisfy the public enough that they forget about Uber. I could be wrong. It seems to me Uber doesn't have much left up its sleeves. They seem primed to accept that there are many viable competitors. [1] http://international.thenewslens.com/article/36548 http://international.thenewslens.com/article/36548
natrius 10y ago
Multiple ridehailing companies have sprung up, but that's not a solution. It's the problem. As long as multiple networks split the market, wait times and prices will always be worse than Uber was. Arcade City has a chance to work around this problem by building a network no one controls. The network effects of decentralization are strong—perhaps strong enough to compete even when Uber returns.
brianbarker 10y ago
Arcade City has worked really well via the FB group. You post a ride request, multiple drivers respond. Many link their uber/lyft profiles. Then the client chooses their driver (big key to AC's premise) and a ride is arranged. AC is also launching an app to replace the FB group and be directly p2p, which will be fascinating to watch. Also, as of this last weekend, Fare has tons of cars and had cheaper-than-uber prices like Lyft. Very good, very stable app. The RideAustin app also is showing cars, but Fare looks better. I'd recommend Fare. It sucks that visitors won't know, but maybe Fare can get a sign at the airport?

mpeg 10y ago

I love how the only effective way to market an Ethereum dapp seems to be to create a Facebook group and let people pay with good old cash. Maybe I'm being a bit too harsh, but the decentralised model just presents way too many risks for both riders and drivers, and the lack of fees means AC is not incentivised to protect either.

zanny 10y ago
Muggles don't care about decentralization or freedom or privacy. They want to press a button on their phone and something happens, no matter the consequences. There are risks in everything. The only thing any ridesharing app at the end of the day can truly offer consumers of any meaningfulness in terms of driver / rider security are public ratings on both from all their previous customers and clients. Anything else is some artificial gating metric that tries to break people down into historic footnotes. I hope that AC has such a feature, but even if it does not if its an Ethereum app you can very easily include ratings per contract.
natrius 10y ago
Decentralization does not add risks. It just unbundles consumer protection from the marketplace itself. If you want a customer advocate to mediate your purchases, you can hire anyone to do it. Sellers will increasingly depend on good relationships with consumer advocates for customer acquisition. Advocates will blacklist sellers that don't meet their criteria or have screwed their customers over in some way.

ars 10y ago

Oh that's too funny. So instead of having fingerprints of all drivers, now they don't even have verified names, but simply completely anonymous people. Great going lawmakers! Some things you just can't legislate.

f0urtyfive 10y ago
The Austin City council members that promoted the ban had received campaign contributions from the Texas Taxi Lobby. It was never about having verified names, it was about making money for Taxis.
- lovemenot 10y ago
  Don't mess with Taxis.
placeybordeaux 10y ago
This wasn't just lawmakers, there was a chance at the polls.
chirs 10y ago
Sure there are some things you can't legislate, but this isn't one of them. Uber and Lyft simply don't want to do this because it threatens their profit margins. It makes just as much sense to blame the companies for this situation.
- f0urtyfive 10y ago
  > Uber and Lyft simply don't want to do this because it threatens their profit margins. You do understand how silly that sounds right? They want to protect their profit margins because... they're businesses! Uber and Lyft both said beforehand that they'd leave if they were forced abide by the silly measures put in place by the Austin silly council, so no, it does not make sense to blame them.
  - kuschku 10y ago

Animats 10y ago

I'm amazed that anybody can organize anything via Facebook groups. It's like pounding a screw.

cheeze 10y ago
I use FB groups all the time and have never had an issue. Something like lyft/uber seems difficult, but they fit many other use cases just fine. You're basically saying "I'm amazed that anybody can organize anything via <every forum software ever>

aembleton 10y ago

I heard this the other day on the Radio Motherboard podcast. You can listen to it here: https://soundcloud.com/motherboard/when-uber-left-austin https://soundcloud.com/motherboard/when-uber-left-austin

cperciva 10y ago

So, to steal a line... capitalism interprets regulations as damage and routes around them?

chirs 10y ago
Completely withdrawing from a location is not really "routing around." This is a case where capitalism is attempting to dominate the political realm.
- cperciva 10y ago
  Uber and Lyft completely withdrew, but capitalism didn't. To the contrary, capitalism routed around the lack of Uber and Lyft, by spawning a (poor) alternative.

Spooky23 10y ago

This brings the empire building nature of Uber into question. If a group of people on a Facebook group can replace its functions for a significant group of people in a few days, why is this company valued in the billions again?

misingnoglic 10y ago
Because Uber/Lyft can scale, a Facebook group can't. The group is just a last minute fix.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  The FB group is an MVP. If a bunch of people pissed off at the loss of Uber/Lyft can cobble together a half-assed replacement, what is stopping Facebook from making a baked product?
droopybuns 10y ago
I think you are being abusing the meaning of "replace." Uber is not an austin-only operation. These austin solutions don't currently work in any other city. Also- I have heard misery from austin users of the uber replacements. They may be attempting to fill the void, but I don't hear anyone saying they're satisfied with the solutions that are currently festering. They're valued in the billions because they just work, and the solution could be extended in numerous directions that could rejigger everyone's daily lives.
cortesoft 10y ago
I love Uber, and I would never use this facebook group. Uber is awesome because I hit one button and a ride shows up. I don't have to call anyone, I don't have to type out a message, or delete a thread, or negotiate a deal with a driver. I don't have to wonder which drivers are close to me, or even think at all. I hit button, car shows up. People are using this sub-optimal solution because it is the only option at the moment. It is not a replacement for Uber.
- Spooky23 10y ago

jalami 10y ago

I've always wondered how necessary something like Uber or Lyft really was. Centralized networks lead to critical mass and that's what I always saw as the appeal. No one wants to hunt for something manually. I feel like something like craigslist, but with an ebay-like "95% driver approval rating" would do the job well enough. Sure, there are people that won't use it for security reasons and lack of standards, but if that's the case an alternative should prop up that ensures these things with standards for their drivers. One being cheaper as all funds go between driver and driven, the other providing a middle man that spends some of these funds to filter bad actors. In my opinion, the mandatory regulation isn't really necessary if competition is healthy. If there's enough demand for finger-printed drivers, a service should crop up to provide it. Facebook though sounds like a terrible medium for this kind of thing. People will use what's familiar I guess.

pessimizer 10y ago
> I've always wondered how necessary something like Uber or Lyft really was. Not necessary at all. Austin got by for nearly a century of automobile use without one. > I always felt like something like craigslist, but with an ebay-like "95% driver approval rating" would do the job well enough. Sure there are people that won't use it for security reasons and lack of standards, but if that's the case an alternative should prop up that ensures these things with standards for their drivers. One being cheaper as all funds go between driver and driven, the other providing a middle man that spends some of these funds to filter bad actors. So a private tax to not be murdered? Makes sense. We could also move to regulating our food supply like this - you could buy your food through a service that would vet it for evidence that it hasn't been poisoned or adulterated with broken glass. In the spirit of consumer choice, maybe have a different service for each type of food, with no standardization or regulation to compare the assurances that every service claims to give you. Then, there would be a great opportunity for a meta-service to vet services to vet each type of food you choose to eat. Since all of those services would add layer upon layer of middle-men and bureaucracy, having lots of layers with an easily verifiable reputation would cost more, and people who chose ala carte, or with fewer guarantees of safety would pay less. A meta-service for the wealthy, and total lack of regulations or minimum guarantees for people who couldn't afford them - sounds like a perfect libertarian dystopia to me. Not that this Facebook thing isn't even worse. All this to avoid the pretend horror of taxis.

frakkingcylons 10y ago

I live in Austin, and at this time there is still a void, but it's being filled faster than I expected. Fasten launched last week and I've used it four times already and there's not much to say other than it works just like Uber and Lyft. The price is $1-2 more per ride and a I have to wait a few more minutes, but it does the job. The drivers I've talked to also prefer the compensation structure more than Uber and Lyft. Fasten's cut is fixed at $1 per ride (vs 20-28%), or $12 for the day. And like Uber, they get paid every Wednesday. It's not available at the airport, but there's a city bus that drives from the airport to downtown (where getting a rideshare is easy) in 30 minutes for $1.75. EDIT: Clarified Fasten's commission.

jessriedel 10y ago
> compensation structure Do you mean fee structure?
- frakkingcylons 10y ago
  No the compensation structure for drivers. I'll edit my post for clarity.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    Ah yes, much clearer now.
ericabiz 10y ago
I flew out of the Austin airport 2 weeks ago, and used Wingz to get a driver to drive us there. He gave me his cell # and I just texted him for the ride back home when we got back last week, and paid cash. Super easy. I think it's pretty amazing, as an Austin resident, how fast the void is getting filled with comparable apps.
- mrcodedude 10y ago
  Wingz works for getting to the airport. But the two hour advanced reservation system doesn't work well for a regional airport like Austin where the majority of flights are routed through a major hub. If my connecting flight is delayed an hour, I'm SOL because my original reservation is no longer valid, but I can't make another reservation because I'm within two hours of my (new) expected arrival time.

yohoho22 10y ago

Here's a Texas Tribune article from today detailing other Austin ridesharing developments in the wake of the Uber/Lyft withdrawal: https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/07/austin-post-prop-1/ https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/07/austin-post-prop-1/

abhi3 10y ago

Can someone explain why Uber had to shut down? Couldn't they have just complied with the regulation by fingerprinting drivers?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
betojuareziii 10y ago
They argued it as a supply-side issue. They see quick onboarding as a key feature to supplying the demand in a given city. They argued that with the fingerprint requirement, they would not have enough drivers on the road quickly and thus create an inferior user experience.

xur17 10y ago

I live in Austin, and it's really the other apps like Fare, Fasten, and Get Me that are filling the void. Fasten ends up being the best price (they also have the best app coincidentally), coming out to a few dollars more than Uber or Lyft. I ended up buiding a web app that keeps track of what apps work where (for example, Fasten currently doesn't work from the airport), along with the relative pricing this past weekend: https://ridefinder.io https://ridefinder.io

mjagiello 10y ago
Thanks for your app, will share it!
frakkingcylons 10y ago
Hey I saw your post on the Austin subreddit last week. Thanks for building it, it's been useful.
rosege 10y ago
If you get the driver's number from the app could you just book the car for just outside the airport zone then call them and ask for airport pickup?

bsder 10y ago

> 1. Uber and Lyft's absence has created a huge void that remains to this day. There are crazy long lines at the airport. It's been, what? FOUR WEEKS. Sheesh. Quit being a shill. Uber and Lyft thought they could negotiate by pointing a gun at people's heads. Austin is the worst possible city to try this in with the possible exception of San Francisco. Austin will work it out. And, when Austin has it worked out, it can be ported to other cities. So, if Lyft or Uber try this again, those cities will be ready on Day 1. I hope this bites Uber and Lyft in the ass by producing a strong competitor.

theli0nheart 10y ago
> Uber and Lyft thought they could negotiate by pointing a gun at people's heads. Austin is the worst possible city to try this in with the possible exception of San Francisco. Yep, completely agree. I think what most people outside Austin don't realize is that Uber/Lyft ran this campaign almost as if they wanted to lose. We received almost a pound of junk mail every week, constant texts, three phone calls, canvassers at our door after 7pm, signs plastered throughout the city. It was just completely dirty and really soured people's opinions. Most people I know who voted against the proposition did it because of Uber's campaign.
- newacct23 10y ago
  and now they are screwed. I think you are onto something btw with the Uber and Lyft wanted to lose thing. Now they can point to Austin and say, this is what happens when you don't comply.
michael_storm 10y ago
> Quit being a shill. Please don't name-call on HN. It ruins one of the reasons I like it here.
dang 10y ago
michael_storm is right, but I want to add that accusing other users of shillage and astroturfing without evidence is particularly disallowed here. Someone's holding an opposing view doesn't count as evidence. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11857854 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11857854 and marked it off-topic.

guelo 10y ago

FB normally starts choking off group notifications after a group reaches a certain size. I wonder if Arcade City is paying to keep the group up and running.

natrius 10y ago
The group doesn't rely on notifications to work. Drivers watch the stream of posts and riders post into it.

TheHolyLancer 10y ago

When you enact prohibition, people don't stop drinking, you get moonshine and stills blowing up.

caseysoftware 10y ago

There's some dirtiness and shenanigans around the whole thing too.. including the Mayor holding a secret meeting with the Uber/Lyft competitors and the City Council investing taxpayer money in them. I've dug up some of the details but more to come: https://medium.com/@CaseySoftware/mayor-steve-adler-is-scamming-the-austin-tech-community-399d12b976e9 https://medium.com/@CaseySoftware/mayor-steve-adler-is-scamm...

modfodder 10y ago
That's just the Mayor and the City Council "disrupting" the current ride sharing duopoly.

rockarage 10y ago

Few journalist know that UBER & Lyft are operating under more restrictive regulations in NYC. These regulation include fingerprinting, drug test, medical test and a couple of classes. The cost to comply is at least $600 per driver to start. There are other cost like special license plates. Essentially you have to be a professional to drive an Uber/Lyft in NYC, legally. They comply in NYC so I'm not sure what Uber & Lyft are complaining about. At least one of them should have stayed, especially Lyft this a missed opputunity for Lyft.

csours 10y ago
I wonder if they formed a coalition for this to ensure No Separate Peace.
studentrob 10y ago
Wow I didn't know that. This whole news cycle seems pointless now. It's been proven other cities operate with Uber this way, and other companies can fill the void.