6 ms·
Uber’s IPO means higher fares for rides
- Mistri 7y agoI've always used Uber because I've assumed that it's cheaper than Lyft and other rideshare services. I just realized I have no idea how much it is compared to others. Does anyone have a formal comparison up online?
- tectonic 7y agoLyft is often cheaper for me.
- WrtCdEvrydy 7y agoIn the ultimate 'fuck you' to customers, you will get cheaper rides on Uber under Android if you have the Lyft app installed...
- omeid2 7y agoBecause on iOS they can't detect apps, as far as I know.
- bigiain 7y agoNot using App Store legal APIs anyway. But its not like they've let _that_ stop them in the past...
- arcticbull 7y agoAFAIK what they do on iOS is track 'behaviors' -- i.e. you get to the quote screen, app-switch, then come back a few seconds later, they know you're price-shopping and can re-quote and lower their prices.
- masonic 7y agoIf Uber has access to file storage, can't it look for file names specific to Lyft?
- omeid2 7y agoUber does not, iOS apps are sandboxed. Further more, if you use `canOpenURL` trick to check for anything but trying to fallback when you're actually trying to open the url/app, they will flag you during the review.
- ac29 7y agoIt depends on the market, time of day, and other factors. In my experience, Lyft is actually generally cheaper, but the two are usually within 5-10% of each other in cost.
- minimaxir 7y ago...which will then push Uber customers to Lyft/Cabs. Uber doesn’t have monopoly leverage.
- quickthrower2 7y agoAs well as walk, bus, train, using own car and not drinking, etc.
- omeid2 7y agoDefs, I used to use Uber until it become cheaper to drive and pay for carpark, and mind you, parking in Australia is extortionist.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- xatechnologies 7y agoProtect your PC and Login Credentials from hackers and malware online. XA Secuflex and XA Troop are the best antivirus and privacy protection software 2019. For more details visit: http://xatechnologies.com http://xatechnologies.com and download trial version for free.
- sna1l 7y agoI forgot where I read the article, but someone mentioned that the Softbank strategy seems to be to geared towards having 2 major players in ridesharing/delivery in each market. The idea was that when these companies go public, they will stop subsidizing rides as much in order to show profit, and will become viable businesses. Because these companies have a new war chest of money, if any new upstarts come into the game, they can have a short-term price war to drive these players out. The US seems to be the first market where this strategy will play out.
- Moxdi 7y agois that sustainable though?
- sna1l 7y agoHonestly, I have no idea. Lots of people have gotten very used to taking Uber/Lyft places. Once the prices go up, will that behavior change? The original iPhone sold at 500 to 1500 for the XSMax 512 GB. Obviously it isn't an apples to apples comparison, but I think the crux of the strategy depends on how inelastic ridesharing is.
- neonate 7y agohttp://archive.is/WfBip http://archive.is/WfBip
- satellitec4t 7y agoHopefully the increase goes to the drivers...
- Lazare 7y ago...the article is very, very clear that it absolutely will not.
- mattigames 7y agoUber's competition is quickly growing and people is realizing is just a matter of downloading an app and you get cheaper alternative, in Latin America a service called beat is giving cheaper car rides, a service called pickup is usin motorbikes instead of cars and is cheaper for both driver and users, all in all Uber doesn't have a leg to stand on and is becoming clear all it is is piramid scheme in a gigantic scale.
- latchkey 7y agoLess expensive does not mean those other competitors are making money. For example, Grab is burning through billions of investors cash, just like Uber [1]. Uber has motorbikes in other countries. It had a huge presence in Vietnam, until Grab took over their un-profitable business. It is just that it isn't popular in the US to take a ride from someone on a motorbike. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/05/grab-vision-fund/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/05/grab-vision-fund/
- ubercow13 7y agoGrab is already more expensive than conventional taxis in some places I've been recently.
- bayes_days 7y agoMmmm... unlikely. Here is where the growth helps. More drivers => more passengers => more productive use of car miles. The more time where a passenger is in the car the better, and when you factor in shared rides it gets better. Even if you factor in competition by "branding" as they say, the increase in growth is a benefit even if promotions are scaled back. If there is any place you will see increases in prices, it will probably be medium sized cities where Uber/Lyft have not achieved a great driver count and don't care to invest as much anymore. Otherwise I would be surprised to see any major metropolitan areas ever be more expensive in the future than they are now.
- Scoundreller 7y agoThat and any upstart will have a tough time getting enough Pool-type fares to keep everyone happy.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- sschueller 7y agoIn the end you will have a service costing the same as a regular Taxi but without all the benefits of them being licensed. Taxi licensing may be screwed up and unfair in the US but in many parts of the world it works well.
- marsRoverDev 7y agoCost was not the only driver for the push towards Uber. The fact that the licensing scheme was ineffective at providing a safe, positive experience in almost every market I visited was the major driver. If I'm paying the same as a cab it doesn't matter, as long as the driver is accountable for their behaviour, state of their vehicle and driving it is and always will be a superior experience to traditional cabs. I also find it doubtful that the Uber experience will ever cost as much, unless they completely kill off all competition (not going to happen). They have no moat - the network effect does not enable them to have a true monopoly, or even duopoly because the concept is simple enough to implement with an app and a team.
- function_seven 7y agoIf Uber cost the same as a taxi, I would still use Uber. They're much quicker to show up, have an app (vs. calling a dispatch center and trying to explain where you are), and the quality has been much better than taxis in my experience. Taxis have the "broken" card machines, the ads playing on the little screen, and the 30 minute wait for a ride if you're not in a high-density urban center.
- jjoonathan 7y agoA 30 minute wait... to find that the taxi decided to take someone else's fare 20 minutes ago.
- distances 7y agoI've been using MyTaxi app in Germany, and it seems to provide the same major upsides (map for pickup and destination, fare approximation known beforehand, pay via app). Feels more trustworthy too.
- 7y ago
- dia80 7y agoThe last time I had this feeling was when shorting groupon. The emperor has no clothes, I can't see how UBER ends up being materially different from a donut.
- arcticbull 7y agoThe only thing I can see being successful for them is JUMP. It's an awesome service, there's no better way to get around San Francisco -- and Seattle! I assume it's as effective in other cities too. On the other hand scaling and acceptance seem pretty far off.
- icebraining 7y agoIt might be hard to compete with municipal systems; the one in my city already has electric bikes, and it costs €25/year (~$30). The advantage of JUMP is being able to leave them anywhere, but that probably won't last once cities get enough complaints. The bikes are nicer too, but not enough to justify the massive price difference.
- malandrew 7y agoGo to Berlin and see how amazing dockless bikes are for getting around when the city doesn't artificially limit their availability. It's trivial to find them when you need them. The problem here isn't the product. It's governance.
- twelve40 7y agoyou're kidding, right? I gave up on using jump bikes for my own travel needs long time ago, better off just walking and getting some exercise instead of hunting down some random thing in some random direction. But I try to use the bikes (the actual ride is pretty good, if you manage to get one) to show my friends around SF when they visit. In my experience, it's almost impossible to get two (or more, god forbid) bikes without spending up to an hour dragging through the dirties parts of Tenderloin just to hunt down the thing. By the time we manage to line up two bikes, everyone is fed up and sick of shitty neighborhoods, too - easier to just uber and go where we actually need to go.
- icebraining 7y agoI won't, since I can already use Bolt, Kapten or Cabify. The idea that Uber will somehow manage to keep people from building an app and competing is silly. There's almost no barrier of entry.
- zaarn 7y agoThere is a barrier to entry: building a network of drivers. If there is no drives, nobody will buy a ride over your app, drivers will then not install it because nobody is buying rides.
- TheSpiceIsLife 7y agoWouldn't this also have prevented Uber and others from getting started? I believe there may be a missing element here, namely marketing.
- omeid2 7y agoDrivers are not exactly emotionally attached to Uber, you will be surprised how often they have multiple apps. I regularly see cars with at least two of Uber, Taxify, Ola signs in Sydney.
- icebraining 7y agoWhy wouldn't drivers install it, when it costs them nothing? And then if they're at the end of an uber ride and a notification for the other service pops up, they can take that.
- randyrand 7y ago"Uber's success has been based on two unsustainable tactics: subsidizing fares and exploiting drivers" Considering Uber loses a billion dollars a quarter, I think the only people that are being 'exploited' are investors. Investor money is going straight to drivers and riders.
- ivalm 7y agoInvestors presumably know the risks involved. On the other hand, many drivers are inexperienced and do not know the full cost of driving for Uber (vehicle depreciation and increased liability).
- Gibbon1 7y ago> Investors presumably know the risks involved. Except for working stiffs who are going to end up with Uber stock stuffed in their retirement accounts by unscrupulous portfolio managers.
- solveit 7y agoThat is absolutely a known risk of investing in anything other than very low-risk investments (and index funds I guess?).
- arcticbull 7y agoIn a way, everyone's being exploited except the rider. The drivers are barely making minimum wage once all expenses are factored in, the investors money is being set ablaze. The riders, on the other hand, get to enjoy taxi-like service for about half what it costs to deliver.
- Lazare 7y agoThat doesn't follow. It's absolutely possible for drivers to be net losers. Imagine than in some quarter Uber collected $3 billion of fares, received $5 billion in services from drivers, paid the drivers $4 billion, and made up the $1 billion shortfall with investment. Obviously drivers are making the free decision to drive for Uber, but it's no more implausible to think that some are working on mistaken assumption or will come out behind in the end than to think the same of investors. (Actually, if anything, it's more plausible, given the disparity in information and resources between the average Uber investor and the average Uber driver.) And certainly it's clear that some drivers are not coming out ahead here once you take account vehicle deprecation, running costs, opportunity costs, etc. I'm not saying that's true, but to suggest that a company that is losing money can't also be exploiting their suppliers or employees seems obviously wrong. :)
- temp129038 7y agoI mean higher fares happened a long time ago on both Uber and Lyft. I used to take regular UberX all around SF for <$10. Now I never see a regular Uber for less than $15 and regularly more than $20.