5 ms·

Another big point that he didn't make, which helps his argument a bit, is that Uber is no longer novel. It's spread and network effect have stopped, and gone a

by bbarn 10y ago

Another big point that he didn't make, which helps his argument a bit, is that Uber is no longer novel. It's spread and network effect have stopped, and gone are clean cars and a positive experience, replaced with mostly beat up city cars and drivers with no practical professional driving experience. It's akin to delivering pizzas now, the only people doing it are not realizing the negative value proposition it offers and are desperate for fast money. I was a big fan of it at first, but now I've gone back to using cabs because A. I know in this city at least (Chicago) cab drivers have to pass a basic exam showing they know how to drive people around in the city, and roughly that they know where they are going. B. It's the same price. C. It's not hard to find a cab any time but very off peak where I live and work and socialize. Too many drivers that were stuck staring at the GPS in the car, not knowing where to go, what route to take. Too many filthy cars, smelling like cigarette smoke. Too many insinuations that I needed to tip. Too many times I've been cut off or hit by or gotten stuck behind an illegally parked Uber when I was driving. The list goes on.

IshKebab 10y ago
I think a more important factor is that Google Maps shows competitor taxi services. I guess they have to pay a fair bit to get that advertising, but probably not that much and it means there is not much value to being a well-known brand. Still, this article claims customers pay 41% of the true cost which doesn't seem right - there's no way 'normal' taxis are more than double the price of Uber, at least in the UK.
- morti 10y ago
  Depends where you are I guess. Where I live, it seems about right, assuming there is no surge tax. At 1.0x it usually costs at least a third less. The hard thing is getting the regular rate
- serge2k 10y ago
  Seattle I'd say it's probably 1.5 times as much for a taxi. Based on last time I actually took one. It's hard to say, Uber pricing has become so opaque. :/
- vkou 10y ago
  Taxi companies operate cheap, easy-to-maintain vehicles, like Priuses. It's not uncommon for a cab to have ~250,000 miles on it, and be held together by duct tape and prayers. Observe how many people on Hacker News complain about old, crappy, run-down cabs. Uber customers expect their drivers to operate nice, fancy, comfortable vehicles (And are very good at punishing a driver operating a cardboard box with 4 wheels, via the driver review system). While you may enjoy the ride in the Lexus or Lincoln a lot more then the one in the 250,000-mile Prius, depreciation and overall per-mile maintenance costs for the former will be much higher then for the latter. The same story can be said for full-time driver wages. Uber will always be more expensive then its competitors (And have to subsidize it with VC money) - or will offer an equally crappy service. It's only major competitive advantage is how easy it is to onboard part-time drivers.
Hydraulix989 10y ago
Except cab dispatchers have been universally rude to me on the phone whenever I tried to schedule rides. For that reason alone, I am glad karma kicked in and Uber emerged because they used to be near-monopolies, and they knew it.
- bbarn 10y ago
  Except when this service that was supposed to "disrupt" gets proven to be largely a failure, where does that leave the cab companies then? With their monopolies even more solidified - because billions in VC funding couldn't stop them. Maybe the industry doesn't need disrupting as much as the use of it does. Cabs are largely a luxury item. Improved (or even more utilized) public transit is the answer in most places, and in the places it isn't the answer, the answer isn't Uber either - it's owning a car.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    I guess I'm just not the primary target market for these services. I use Uber from time to time when I travel and it's often a bit easier/cheaper than taking a cab. But, if Uber didn't exist I'd just take a cab. And I've never taken Uber where, in the absence of Uber, I'd take a bus/train/etc. But I maybe take Uber a handful of times a year when I travel. I have no use for it on a day to day basis.
  - Hydraulix989 10y ago
    Indeed, when I lived in Seattle, I _only_ used public transit, but the Puget Sound's transportation is fantastic. The buses come every 10 minutes, and you can go just about anywhere. They even have a modernized light rail that s all over BART. The public transit here in the Bay Area is absolutely terrible. Privatized transit means that the people who have deep enough pockets to actually effect change here are completely complacent riding their luxury Van Hools to Hooli.
    - serge2k 10y ago
      > but the Puget Sound's transportation is fantastic Not really. It's not awful, but I'd not call it fantastic.

by bbarn 10y ago

IshKebab 10y ago

I think a more important factor is that Google Maps shows competitor taxi services. I guess they have to pay a fair bit to get that advertising, but probably not that much and it means there is not much value to being a well-known brand. Still, this article claims customers pay 41% of the true cost which doesn't seem right - there's no way 'normal' taxis are more than double the price of Uber, at least in the UK.

morti 10y ago
Depends where you are I guess. Where I live, it seems about right, assuming there is no surge tax. At 1.0x it usually costs at least a third less. The hard thing is getting the regular rate
serge2k 10y ago
Seattle I'd say it's probably 1.5 times as much for a taxi. Based on last time I actually took one. It's hard to say, Uber pricing has become so opaque. :/
vkou 10y ago
Taxi companies operate cheap, easy-to-maintain vehicles, like Priuses. It's not uncommon for a cab to have ~250,000 miles on it, and be held together by duct tape and prayers. Observe how many people on Hacker News complain about old, crappy, run-down cabs. Uber customers expect their drivers to operate nice, fancy, comfortable vehicles (And are very good at punishing a driver operating a cardboard box with 4 wheels, via the driver review system). While you may enjoy the ride in the Lexus or Lincoln a lot more then the one in the 250,000-mile Prius, depreciation and overall per-mile maintenance costs for the former will be much higher then for the latter. The same story can be said for full-time driver wages. Uber will always be more expensive then its competitors (And have to subsidize it with VC money) - or will offer an equally crappy service. It's only major competitive advantage is how easy it is to onboard part-time drivers.

Hydraulix989 10y ago

Except cab dispatchers have been universally rude to me on the phone whenever I tried to schedule rides. For that reason alone, I am glad karma kicked in and Uber emerged because they used to be near-monopolies, and they knew it.

bbarn 10y ago
Except when this service that was supposed to "disrupt" gets proven to be largely a failure, where does that leave the cab companies then? With their monopolies even more solidified - because billions in VC funding couldn't stop them. Maybe the industry doesn't need disrupting as much as the use of it does. Cabs are largely a luxury item. Improved (or even more utilized) public transit is the answer in most places, and in the places it isn't the answer, the answer isn't Uber either - it's owning a car.
- ghaff 10y ago
  I guess I'm just not the primary target market for these services. I use Uber from time to time when I travel and it's often a bit easier/cheaper than taking a cab. But, if Uber didn't exist I'd just take a cab. And I've never taken Uber where, in the absence of Uber, I'd take a bus/train/etc. But I maybe take Uber a handful of times a year when I travel. I have no use for it on a day to day basis.
- Hydraulix989 10y ago
  Indeed, when I lived in Seattle, I _only_ used public transit, but the Puget Sound's transportation is fantastic. The buses come every 10 minutes, and you can go just about anywhere. They even have a modernized light rail that s all over BART. The public transit here in the Bay Area is absolutely terrible. Privatized transit means that the people who have deep enough pockets to actually effect change here are completely complacent riding their luxury Van Hools to Hooli.
  - serge2k 10y ago
    > but the Puget Sound's transportation is fantastic Not really. It's not awful, but I'd not call it fantastic.