11 ms·

> They serve different needs, is that so hard to understand? Yes, because they serve the same need -- to get you from one place to another. They have different

by yladiz 10y ago

> They serve different needs, is that so hard to understand? Yes, because they serve the same need -- to get you from one place to another. They have different uses, sure, one being for something time sensitive and one for something potentially not, but they do not serve different needs. It's not fair to conflate need with want, because while humans generally need to get from one point to another, they don't need to use Uber. There are other options. > Somebody should turn that into a business and make money. That business model exists already, it's called a taxicab/livery service.

wvenable 10y ago
> Yes, because they serve the same need -- to get you from one place to another. By that argument, you don't need airplanes either because we have greyhound. They don't serve the same need, they serve similar needs. > They don't need to use Uber. There are other options. So what? We don't need transit either, everybody could just take 2-4 hours to walk to work. What's the difference? I'm taking your poor argument and extending to the absurd conclusions that result from it. Why must we have fewer poorer options when we could have more better options? Is that not progress? > That business model exists already, it's called a taxicab/livery service. Unfortunately, in Vancouver, that service is a monopoly that has too few vehicles to serve the population. It has poor customer service that more often than not fails to deliver. If this were a free market environment, competition would come in and solve the problem but it is not. Uber could be a better business model, could it not?
- yladiz 10y ago
  Again, from walking to buses to airplanes, they serve the same need, to get you from one point to another. How those methods do it is independent of their purpose, even if one is demonstrably better at serving the need. Arguably the only major difference in need is that it's not physically possible to get to some places with some methods of transportation, e.g. you cannot get from San Francisco to England using a bus. I'm also not saying that there must be fewer options, and I'm saying there are other options, not one single option (e.g. walking). I'm saying that it's not necessary for Uber to exist because other options currently exist that fill the exact same niche, even if those other options are potentially not as efficient.
  - Malician 10y ago
    Then most anything is not necessary. In theory, we could replace restaurants and kitchens with Soylent. I wouldn't want to do that, because food tastes good and I like having that option. On the list of things that are useful, Uber is very high.

by yladiz 10y ago

wvenable 10y ago

> Yes, because they serve the same need -- to get you from one place to another. By that argument, you don't need airplanes either because we have greyhound. They don't serve the same need, they serve similar needs. > They don't need to use Uber. There are other options. So what? We don't need transit either, everybody could just take 2-4 hours to walk to work. What's the difference? I'm taking your poor argument and extending to the absurd conclusions that result from it. Why must we have fewer poorer options when we could have more better options? Is that not progress? > That business model exists already, it's called a taxicab/livery service. Unfortunately, in Vancouver, that service is a monopoly that has too few vehicles to serve the population. It has poor customer service that more often than not fails to deliver. If this were a free market environment, competition would come in and solve the problem but it is not. Uber could be a better business model, could it not?

yladiz 10y ago
Again, from walking to buses to airplanes, they serve the same need, to get you from one point to another. How those methods do it is independent of their purpose, even if one is demonstrably better at serving the need. Arguably the only major difference in need is that it's not physically possible to get to some places with some methods of transportation, e.g. you cannot get from San Francisco to England using a bus. I'm also not saying that there must be fewer options, and I'm saying there are other options, not one single option (e.g. walking). I'm saying that it's not necessary for Uber to exist because other options currently exist that fill the exact same niche, even if those other options are potentially not as efficient.
- Malician 10y ago
  Then most anything is not necessary. In theory, we could replace restaurants and kitchens with Soylent. I wouldn't want to do that, because food tastes good and I like having that option. On the list of things that are useful, Uber is very high.