9 ms·
Lyft and Uber Won’t Be Happy Until They’re Your One-Stop Transit Guide
- mlthoughts2018 8y agoBut their lines of business have inherently low barriers to entry and inherent economic disincentives to artificially keep supply as high as these services do in outlying regions. The minute they either pay drivers less, charge riders more, or reduce supply, it’s an immediate opportunity for another entrant. Diversifying into e-bikes won’t change that. It’s just an inherent property of the entire concept of a regional taxi service. Self-driving cars won’t change anything either, as they will just be yet another commodity device that all those would-be entrants can lease and use all the same. The extreme sensitivity to price competition would remain. The real reason for these auxiliary transportation acquisitions by Lyft or Uber and all the fluff about being “the Amazon of transportation” is simple: they don’t have anything close to a profitable business model. It’s wholly reliant on keeping ride supply artificially high in outlying areas and prices artificially low, through VC subsidy. In the meantime, they need splashy new stories to tell to keep the hype train going. First it was going to be Uber Eats and other gig economy extensions. Not profitable either? OK, let’s do something with bikes or city travel guides.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- 0xB31B1B 8y ago“Ridesharing isn’t a profitable business” - this isn’t true. Uber and Lyft both have many cities that have positive unit economics. IIRC the North American market as a whole is profitable for both companies. Both companies are losing money because they are plowing into more and more growth (a la amzn), not because the business is bunk.
- subway 8y agoBoth Uber and Lyft punt massive operating costs onto their semi-disposable drivers.
- mlthoughts2018 8y agoAll available data so far has not shown what you claim, except I believe for the borough of Manhattan (not even all of NYC), and even that is questionable because of all the widely reported accounting shenanigans Uber has pulled with including full prices in their revenue numbers instead of subtracting out large fare discounts or government fares, etc., from top line revenue. But regardless, nobody would question if a taxi operation is profitable in a small region with correctly calibrated ride supply in outlying areas. Even if a single company banded together a few such profitable regions around the world, it wouldn’t be surprising. However, it would be surprising if you claimed that company had a valuation of tens of billions of dollars while operating on annual losses of ~7 billion dollars. That would make no sense at all.
- princeb 8y agoi sure wouldn't mind some vc-subsidized underground trains. maybe if they became competitive rapid transit operators as well, the world could become a better place
- perfmode 8y agomy dream is to buy the NYC metro system and take drastic measures to revive it.
- peterwwillis 8y agoAt this point, with a sufficient fortune, the simplest, most drastic thing would be to buy all new infrastructure, hire 10,000 workers, and install it all over a couple months. The current system includes just over 6,000 trains, on 36 lines, traveling through 472 stations, on 245 miles of route track (not counting the other 597 miles of track), though the upgrade only requires a small percentage of those. A total shutdown would interrupt over 135 Million rides per month.
- pyrophane 8y agoI'm sure it would be great until they captured the market then raised prices and started sharing your data with 3rd parties as an additional way to monetize.
- guhidalg 8y agoAt which point people would outrage and the government buys it out for political capital. Still sounds like a win win to me.
- filesystem 8y agoSorry but when has this happened? Which government?
- optimuspaul 8y ago
- cozzyd 8y agoI wonder how Lyft and Uber have avoided ADA requirements.
- usaar333 8y agoBoth offer wheelchair accessible cars. I'm not sure what the formal ADA rule should be on them, but offering these services seems to work out for everyone.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- gnicholas 8y agoThe people who are suing Uber would disagree: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/nyregion/uber-disabilities-lawsuit-new-york-city.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/nyregion/uber-disabili...
- seanmcdirmid 8y agoI would guess that no matter what they did they would be sued.
- Spivak 8y agoNope, the ADA requirement for transportation is that a company must provide "equivalent service." https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/civil-rights-ada/part-37-transportation-services-individuals-disabilities#sec.37.105 https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/civil-r... The relevant requirements are that the following must be equivalent for everyone regardless of disability. (2) Response time (if the system is demand responsive); (f) Reservations capability (if the system is demand responsive); (g) Any constraints on capacity or service availability; (h) Restrictions priorities based on trip purpose (if the system is demand responsive).
- 8y ago
- dominotw 8y ago> Won't Be Happy Why so negative. I like how Europeans/Chinese/Everyone stands behind their companies and expect them to succeed globally. USA on other hand is bent on destroying/defaming their own.
- subway 8y agoThere are plenty of companies worth standing behind in the US. The ones that are known to engage in behavior detrimental to their workforce don't fit in that class.
- kevin_b_er 8y agoBecause these companies show a disdain for the law. And in this case, "succeed" is "fully control the market and reduce your choices". Maybe European/Chinese/Everyone has plenty of companies that flout the law and others are happy with it, but I would not be.
- dominotw 8y ago> Because these companies show a disdain for the law. A disdain supported by people, i don't think they would have survived this long if they did something that people at large didn't approve. People who supported and fought for uber to be legal in their cities are to blame too for showing disdain for the law.
- mikece 8y agoTo quote the great philosopher Herm Edwards: "You play to win the game!" Right now it's unclear who will win between Lyft and Uber... and their investors certainly don't want to lose.
- 394549 8y ago> Why so negative. I like how Europeans/Chinese/Everyone stands behind their companies and expect them to succeed globally. USA on other hand is bent on destroying/defaming their own. Companies aren't national sports teams. You shouldn't "stand behind them" unless they deserve it.
- jdlyga 8y agoThey're still very expensive compared to subways and buses. In New York, subways are pretty dirty, but a good bus is usually better and faster than an Uber.
- usaar333 8y agoThe article is talking about bikes though. Bike shares are definitely cheaper than subways and buses. Case-in-point: in SF, Ford GoBike (by Motivate, soon to be part of Lyft) costs $15/month. A monthly bus (MUNI) pass runs at $73, clearly more expensive even if you use pre-tax money to pay it.
- cwal37 8y agoIn the DC area, an annual Capital Bikeshare membership is only $85. I recently started mixing some biking into my commute and thought about purchasing a bike, but the $400-500 I was looking at for something durable and well reviewed was hard to justify for my fairly chill, all-trails, 1-4 times a week biking home from the office. Particularly when I compared it to the dramatically lower personal overhead associated with the bikeshare. Of course, my living and working situations are fortuitously situated with respect to existing docks, but I really enjoy not worrying at all about "my" bike.
- treis 8y agoI'm pretty sure I already have my one-stop transit guide in Google Maps.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoWhich coincidentally just removed the ability to book Uber trips in app.
- kbyatnal 8y agoNot sure what you're seeing, it still works for me.
- maxyme 8y agoYou used to be able to book rides without leaving the Maps app, now it launches the Uber app as it always has with Lyft
- elvirs 8y agothey are making space for 'request Waymo van'
- samstr 8y agoI can't wait this. Totally should have been named 'Google Ride' though.
- huac 8y agoI doubt Google removed that ability; Uber probably decided that it was worth the increased friction to require users go to their app (and thus collect better data).
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ForHackernews 8y agoCityMapper is much better, especially at multi-modal trips.
- PaulRobinson 8y agoThe headline reminded me of once reading the McDonald's investor relations website, where they claimed there was so much upside to investing in them because they were hoping to eventually deliver "just one meal per day" to each of the World's 7 billion inhabitants. Now to be fair, they claim to feed 68 million people each day right now, so they are on their way. But there is a reason that in a free market, they are unlikely to ever create the pseudo-monopoly they desire. And with public transport, Uber and Lyft have even more of a hurdle to clamber over. Firstly, in many parts of the World the public transport system is government-owned in some capacity. You can buy Citibike, sure, but it's not actually possible to buy the London equivalent: it's operated by the Mayor through the public sector entity Transport for London (TfL). And this is in in the UK where there is extensive privatisation in the bus and train markets, so you'd think there would be opportunity there. Maybe now: the free market experiment on these quasi-monopolies has been widely considered at least a partial failure and the appetite for nationalisation of the train network has never been higher. Developing cycle networks is reasonable. I despise the "leave anywhere" bikes, because they are already cluttering up London in reaction to the government owned scheme. However, I can see how this is super attractive for some classes of customer, and the cost base is low enough it wouldn't surprise me to see the mayor follow suit and mimicking their platforms. But a wholly integrated stack? I'm sceptical. A system where I could book a point-to-point journey from say my home to my girlfriend's mothers (180 miles away) that incorporated car from my home to the train station, the train itself and then a car at the other end would appeal, but only if it was significantly price competitive with me doing that myself right now, which ideally requires advance booking, a model that Uber is specifically uninterested in. It's also not obvious Uber/Lyft needs to own or operate most of that stack, and owning it may actually make it less attractive. Given an Uber or Lyft app that did this, and a third-party app that used APIs to integrate and give me wider options and more competitive pricing, I'm not likely to go with Uber or Lyft. Uber's & Lyft's only option then is to try and eliminate in its entirety any sense of competition. This rarely ends well. So you then end up with a race to the bottom on price, and that's unlikely to lead to profitable businesses, unless they try and borrow budget airline business models, which again, models itself on advance booking price/yield management, a model Uber and Lyft seem to be trying to avoid. I don't quite see the big picture here. CityMapper might be the people to watch in this space...
- kennydude 8y ago> There are already apps like Citymapper that help commuters figure out the best way to navigate between two points in a city. But Lyft and Uber have the advantage of actually running some of the transport networks that can be used to make those trips happen, and would like users to never leave their platforms. Citymapper is starting to run it's own transport in London. It has/had a smart bus and now operates a smaller version
- mmahemoff 8y agoIndeed and it's a great experience, comes up as a recommendation when searching for a route and acts like a hybrid between a bus and an Uber. CityMapper also shows dockless bikes now and it would be extremely surprising if they didn't get into the bike/scooter space too. The convergence is fascinating.
- jacknews 8y agoI get the pitch. Customer wishes to go from A to B. Ride-sharing app will plan the trip and charge for each leg, because they own them all. Personally, I don't think it's ever going to work that way, at least not on a single locked-in platform, and I think this is all hot air, fed by hot quantitative-easing cash.
- woolvalley 8y agoCan't you see the dream of automated synchronized carpool pickups from metro train stations? I don't think uber will ever make it's own metro lines, but I can really see how it could be made to work well together.
- nathanaldensr 8y agoHumans are good at dreaming and imagining things. We're not so good at understanding the nitty-gritty details, especially if they deal with possible future states.
- magicnubs 8y agoYeah, I think it's more likely to work like there's some psuedo-integration and more standard data-sharing between Uber/Lyft and transport hub owners. An added check-box to schedule an Uber or Lyft when you're purchasing your train/plane ticket, with U/L paying a percentage of each ride to the rail company/airport. That also allows U/L to better predict how many vehicles they would need to have on standby for arriving passengers, even being able to update on the fly as they receive info on delays and routing changes. I doubt they're at all interested in owning a airline.
- wybiral 8y agoI live in a city with a decent bus system, bike lanes, and where it's never too cold to walk. Never used Uber but I have on occasion hailed a taxi or taken a local ride share alternative in a pinch.
- oftenwrong 8y agoI have taken nice walks at -20 degrees. You just need adequate clothing. At that temperature, you should avoid exposed skin.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- thebradbain 8y agoIf I could book a trip through Uber that was Walk 5 min to BART Station --> Ride to Montgomery Station --> Catch a timed transfer via Uber Pool to work with all of the details figured out at the time of booking, I'd consider replacing the last leg of my journey with Uber rather than waiting for a MUNI bus or train like I currently do. The draw for me would be in the convenience of solving the variables of my commute for me.