3 ms·
> That's stupid and wrong, just like you are. I think your inability to have a civil discussion without needlessly throwing insults around speaks for itself.
by avar 10y ago
> That's stupid and wrong, just like you are.
I think your inability to have a civil discussion without needlessly throwing insults around speaks for itself.
> Users have a desire to get from point a to
> point b. There's no incentive to cancel.
> People don't do that.
There are trivial no-brainer cases where the potential for free cancellations allows you to offload costs on someone else.
E.g. you and your 4 friends need to get from A->B together, you each order an Uber for the ride, but you only intend to use one car. The ETAs are in the range of 15-25 minutes, you all have the "Fake Battery Status" app installed & cancel 3 of the cars when the first one has an ETA of < 2 minutes.
Now you're able to get where you need to go 5-10 minutes earlier than you otherwise would have, at no extra cost, but you've incurred a cost on Uber & lost opportunity (& real fuel costs) on the driver.
- pacificleo11 10y agoEdge case
- ianamartin 10y agoI apologize for being a jerk to you. You're right. That wasn't cool at all. But nothing about the case you just described is trivial or no-brainer. Getting into that situation takes a lot of work, planning, and collusion. I would need to see some serious data to believe that this kind of thing actually happens often enough for it to be a problem. In a place like NYC, getting places just takes time. An extra 10 minutes to get from point a to b just isn't a thing that people care about. If you're going to assert that cases like these are common enough to cause Uber to have a default policy of cancelling a ride when a rider's phone runs out of juice, I think the burden of proof is on you to show it. Otherwise, I'm not going to buy into that. And again, I apologize for calling you stupid.