8 ms·

That's like saying the horse meat scandal doesn't matter because horse meat tastes just as good as beef. If you purposely deceive consumers in a calculated way

by beejiu 10y ago

That's like saying the horse meat scandal doesn't matter because horse meat tastes just as good as beef. If you purposely deceive consumers in a calculated way to skim off profit, you will have problems as a business. Consumers need to trust the product or service they are buying.

ballenf 10y ago
Consumers pay the exact amount they are shown upfront. I'd much rather pay a slight premium than not know upfront how much a ride will cost. For me, the fixed upfront cost is one of the biggest selling points for Uber over taxis. Uber gets from point A to point B and charges me exactly what they quoted. How is this horse meat substituted for beef?
- ohyes 10y ago
  Yeah it isn't a problem for the rider, the driver is the one getting defrauded. Suppose I'm a farmer and I've authorized you as a reseller of my beef, and you're making 5% commission on whatever you sell, and I give you some price flexibility. If you sell my beef for $10 a pound, then report to me you sold it for $8 a pound, and pocket that $2 in addition to your 5% commission, you've stolen from me.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - zaroth 10y ago
    Well, it depends entirely on the contract between the farmer and the reseller. If the contract states you get the retail price minus 5% and I lie to you about the retail price, certainly this is fraud. But if the contract states you get $X/pound, and that's exactly what I pay you, the retail price never enters into it. If later on the farmer complains that they were paid according to the contract terms, but their meat is retailing for a higher markup than they expected because of its enticing packaging, I don't see how the farmer is entitled to any relief on that.
  - dnautics 10y ago
    (having been an uber/lyft driver) I would say this is exactly wrong. The person being "cheated" is the rider - because if the rider is not knowledgeable enough to know that the ride could be less if they went with the "not-estimated" rate, then they could have not paid upfront instead letting the ride roll. The driver gets paid for miles and minutes. Moreover, if say something unexpected happens, say traffic, Uber will eat the difference. I mean if uber loses the lawsuit, they are simply going to change the T&C with the driver so that all rides are preset, and the driver will be paid the estimated rates, and drivers will get screwed when there's lots of traffic.
    - ohyes 10y ago
      With the estimated rate, the product sold to the customer is the trip, not the time/mileage. As the driver is a contractor and not an employee of uber, they are an intermediary in the transaction. They are reselling the trip for me for a significant cut. If they sell it for more and don't give me my fair cut, that's theft. In any case, technically everyone is getting screwed and they likely end up sharing whatever the markup is. (Driver loses wages, user pays more).
      - dnautics 10y ago
        it's not theft. The driver contract says you get paid back for the time and mileage that you incur, NOT "whatever the customer gets paid". Besides, if the trip goes over the amount that the customer pays (beacause, say, for traffic, or an unmarked road closure) then uber pays out the full amount to the driver for the actual time/mileage incurred. let's say that Uber posted really unreasonably fast times for the given route instead. Would you then argue that uber could systematically pay the drivers a lower rate, because that's the fare they pitched to the passenger?
- fredophile 10y ago
  The impression I get from the comments here isn't that people are upset that customers could have gotten a slightly better deal. The bigger issue seems to be that Uber is keeping a greater percentage of the money then they would otherwise have been entitled to.
- alistairSH 10y ago
  It's the drivers who are being defrauded. Uber tells passenger the ride will cost $5.00 Uber tells driver the ride will cost $4.00 (from which Uber takes a cut) Uber pockets the entire $1 difference.
  - travisp 10y ago
    On the other hand, if the ride ends up paying the driver $6 because the driver has to change routes because of construction/traffic/etc, I believe Uber eats the $1 difference
    - linkregister 10y ago
      I didn't gather that from the article; if you are right then it will be apparent in the court case.
  - inverse_pi 10y ago
    I think you're misinformed. Uber tells the rider the ride will cost $5. Uber doesn't tell the drivers how much the ride will cost until the trip is finished. Then the fare is calculated based on miles and minutes. If the fare ended up > $5 then Uber will pay for the difference. If the fare ended up < $5 then Uber will take the difference. Seems reasonable to me.
    - rhizome 10y ago
      How often would you think Uber undershoots the estimate?
      - inverse_pi 10y ago
        well they're losing billion of dollars every quarter so I'd say pretty often.
        rhizome 10y ago
        I meant: how often do they lose the spread?
- s73ver 10y ago
  Because the driver is not paid based on that rate. That is fraud.

by beejiu 10y ago

ballenf 10y ago

Consumers pay the exact amount they are shown upfront. I'd much rather pay a slight premium than not know upfront how much a ride will cost. For me, the fixed upfront cost is one of the biggest selling points for Uber over taxis. Uber gets from point A to point B and charges me exactly what they quoted. How is this horse meat substituted for beef?

ohyes 10y ago
Yeah it isn't a problem for the rider, the driver is the one getting defrauded. Suppose I'm a farmer and I've authorized you as a reseller of my beef, and you're making 5% commission on whatever you sell, and I give you some price flexibility. If you sell my beef for $10 a pound, then report to me you sold it for $8 a pound, and pocket that $2 in addition to your 5% commission, you've stolen from me.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- zaroth 10y ago
  Well, it depends entirely on the contract between the farmer and the reseller. If the contract states you get the retail price minus 5% and I lie to you about the retail price, certainly this is fraud. But if the contract states you get $X/pound, and that's exactly what I pay you, the retail price never enters into it. If later on the farmer complains that they were paid according to the contract terms, but their meat is retailing for a higher markup than they expected because of its enticing packaging, I don't see how the farmer is entitled to any relief on that.
- dnautics 10y ago
  (having been an uber/lyft driver) I would say this is exactly wrong. The person being "cheated" is the rider - because if the rider is not knowledgeable enough to know that the ride could be less if they went with the "not-estimated" rate, then they could have not paid upfront instead letting the ride roll. The driver gets paid for miles and minutes. Moreover, if say something unexpected happens, say traffic, Uber will eat the difference. I mean if uber loses the lawsuit, they are simply going to change the T&C with the driver so that all rides are preset, and the driver will be paid the estimated rates, and drivers will get screwed when there's lots of traffic.
  - ohyes 10y ago
    With the estimated rate, the product sold to the customer is the trip, not the time/mileage. As the driver is a contractor and not an employee of uber, they are an intermediary in the transaction. They are reselling the trip for me for a significant cut. If they sell it for more and don't give me my fair cut, that's theft. In any case, technically everyone is getting screwed and they likely end up sharing whatever the markup is. (Driver loses wages, user pays more).
    - dnautics 10y ago
      it's not theft. The driver contract says you get paid back for the time and mileage that you incur, NOT "whatever the customer gets paid". Besides, if the trip goes over the amount that the customer pays (beacause, say, for traffic, or an unmarked road closure) then uber pays out the full amount to the driver for the actual time/mileage incurred. let's say that Uber posted really unreasonably fast times for the given route instead. Would you then argue that uber could systematically pay the drivers a lower rate, because that's the fare they pitched to the passenger?
fredophile 10y ago
The impression I get from the comments here isn't that people are upset that customers could have gotten a slightly better deal. The bigger issue seems to be that Uber is keeping a greater percentage of the money then they would otherwise have been entitled to.
alistairSH 10y ago
It's the drivers who are being defrauded. Uber tells passenger the ride will cost $5.00 Uber tells driver the ride will cost $4.00 (from which Uber takes a cut) Uber pockets the entire $1 difference.
- travisp 10y ago
  On the other hand, if the ride ends up paying the driver $6 because the driver has to change routes because of construction/traffic/etc, I believe Uber eats the $1 difference
  - linkregister 10y ago
    I didn't gather that from the article; if you are right then it will be apparent in the court case.
- inverse_pi 10y ago
  I think you're misinformed. Uber tells the rider the ride will cost $5. Uber doesn't tell the drivers how much the ride will cost until the trip is finished. Then the fare is calculated based on miles and minutes. If the fare ended up > $5 then Uber will pay for the difference. If the fare ended up < $5 then Uber will take the difference. Seems reasonable to me.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    How often would you think Uber undershoots the estimate?
    - inverse_pi 10y ago
      well they're losing billion of dollars every quarter so I'd say pretty often.
      - rhizome 10y ago
        I meant: how often do they lose the spread?
s73ver 10y ago
Because the driver is not paid based on that rate. That is fraud.