3 ms·

I think that decision to withhold the destination of the ride from drivers was a very bad idea they should repeal. They wanted to be sure that drivers don't ch

I think that decision to withhold the destination of the ride from drivers was a very bad idea they should repeal. They wanted to be sure that drivers don't choose convenient riders and leave less convenient ones unserved, but a) it didn't work, only introduced this "you cancel, no, you" game after destination becomes apparent, and b) opportunistic drivers can no longer give a ride to people who go in the same direction, because they can't tell; limiting driver base to semi-professionals who have nothing else to do.

galdosdi 10y ago
In order to do that, they'd have to increase the price for rides to less attractive (to drivers) destinations. A trip that ends somewhere unlikely to have another customer available (like an outlying residential area in the evening) is way less attractive than an identical time/distance trip to somewhere with lots of likely fares (a central business district, for example) So, if drivers can see the destinations, they will simply avoid ever picking up jobs for "bad" destinations, unless properly incentivized. Customers going to "unpopular" destinations are essentially being subsidized at the expense of drivers and customers going to "popular" destinations. If you remove the destination blinding AND don't bother to increase the price for "unpopular" destinations, people trying to go to "unpopular" destinations will find they can never get a car, even worse than now Anyway, I agree they shouldn't be distorting the price market like that, it just creates frustrations for both sides
- thriftwy 10y ago
  This assumes that rides outnumber drivers so that drivers can be picky. In practice tho, it should be the other way around: drivers should be choosing between a paid ride to "bad" destination, and no ride for some time while they're waiting. You can trivially teach the algorith to give better rides to less choosy drivers first. Second, if you still have amateur drivers on your platform who do ad-hoc carpooling, chances that they're looking for an one-way drive to the same "bad" destination because they have further non-cab business there. You can teach the algorithm to offer a selection of rides to such drivers for their first ride in a few hours. Or even let them to specify where they want to go. Maybe it's already implemented by someone? And yes - Uber price is always unpredictable for a rider, so why not just factor in destination desirability into it?
  - aianus 10y ago
    > Or even let them to specify where they want to go. Maybe it's already implemented by someone? Yes this is already implemented by Uber [1]. I have used it several times on my commute home. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2015/11/16/uber-drivers-can-now-pick-up-riders-headed-in-the-same-direction-as-them/ https://techcrunch.com/2015/11/16/uber-drivers-can-now-pick-...
DrScump 10y ago
This also means that if your destination is in a bad neighborhood, you are likely to go ignored (unless there is serious surge pricing in effect). This is the "loss leader" of the industry: long trips from city center to an area which is a) considered "dangerous", and/or b) unlikely to have a fare for the return trip. This is where licensing makes a difference: in New York, for example, a cab that picks you up at the airport was required to take you anywhere in the five boroughs you wanted to go as a condition of the medallion.
- thriftwy 10y ago
  They can surely price in the quasi-surge for such destinations. You'll have to pay an extra $5 but get there fast. Will never even know it, as prices appear to be fairly random anyway. Currently, you're going to be pushed to cancel the ride.

galdosdi 10y ago

In order to do that, they'd have to increase the price for rides to less attractive (to drivers) destinations. A trip that ends somewhere unlikely to have another customer available (like an outlying residential area in the evening) is way less attractive than an identical time/distance trip to somewhere with lots of likely fares (a central business district, for example) So, if drivers can see the destinations, they will simply avoid ever picking up jobs for "bad" destinations, unless properly incentivized. Customers going to "unpopular" destinations are essentially being subsidized at the expense of drivers and customers going to "popular" destinations. If you remove the destination blinding AND don't bother to increase the price for "unpopular" destinations, people trying to go to "unpopular" destinations will find they can never get a car, even worse than now Anyway, I agree they shouldn't be distorting the price market like that, it just creates frustrations for both sides

thriftwy 10y ago
This assumes that rides outnumber drivers so that drivers can be picky. In practice tho, it should be the other way around: drivers should be choosing between a paid ride to "bad" destination, and no ride for some time while they're waiting. You can trivially teach the algorith to give better rides to less choosy drivers first. Second, if you still have amateur drivers on your platform who do ad-hoc carpooling, chances that they're looking for an one-way drive to the same "bad" destination because they have further non-cab business there. You can teach the algorithm to offer a selection of rides to such drivers for their first ride in a few hours. Or even let them to specify where they want to go. Maybe it's already implemented by someone? And yes - Uber price is always unpredictable for a rider, so why not just factor in destination desirability into it?
- aianus 10y ago
  > Or even let them to specify where they want to go. Maybe it's already implemented by someone? Yes this is already implemented by Uber [1]. I have used it several times on my commute home. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2015/11/16/uber-drivers-can-now-pick-up-riders-headed-in-the-same-direction-as-them/ https://techcrunch.com/2015/11/16/uber-drivers-can-now-pick-...

DrScump 10y ago

This also means that if your destination is in a bad neighborhood, you are likely to go ignored (unless there is serious surge pricing in effect). This is the "loss leader" of the industry: long trips from city center to an area which is a) considered "dangerous", and/or b) unlikely to have a fare for the return trip. This is where licensing makes a difference: in New York, for example, a cab that picks you up at the airport was required to take you anywhere in the five boroughs you wanted to go as a condition of the medallion.

thriftwy 10y ago
They can surely price in the quasi-surge for such destinations. You'll have to pay an extra $5 but get there fast. Will never even know it, as prices appear to be fairly random anyway. Currently, you're going to be pushed to cancel the ride.