3 ms·

In this case, a union doesn't make much sense. If a strong union was formed, the drivers would then be organized enough to form their own co-op. Uber doesn't re

In this case, a union doesn't make much sense. If a strong union was formed, the drivers would then be organized enough to form their own co-op. Uber doesn't really own the means of production here. The drivers do. It's not like a Walmart or something where the drivers would need a lot of capital to start a co-op. Wouldn't the capital they need be pretty minimal?

ForHackernews 7y ago
> Wouldn't the capital they need be pretty minimal? Hard to say. Uber seems to employ large numbers of extremely expensive silicon valley engineers doing god-knows-what. Maybe those are necessary to run a successful ride dispatching app? On the other hand, groups like Lyft, Ride Austin, and Curb seem to have cloned Uber's main app.
- mft_ 7y ago
  Interesting, isn't it. I get that huge scale is very hard, and I'm sure the iterative small optimisations become increasingly difficult... but the MVP of an Uber-like app wouldn't seem to be hugely complex?
- jjwhitaker 7y ago
  If other firms are started like a co-op with an app clone like Ride Austin, it could lead to drivers wearing a dozen hats or "employers" and flipping between platforms depending on pricing which may benefit Uber/Lyft who can subsidize costs to undercut competition. Investors may then choose to go with an established firm like Uber as they already are in this cycle and may projects in the works that become the real money maker like self driving technology.
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    AFAIK, many (most?) drivers already do this. They carry two or more phones for Uber + Lyft + Curb...
- malandrew 7y ago
  Obligatory every time someone makes the same comment: https://danluu.com/sounds-easy/ https://danluu.com/sounds-easy/
jitl 7y ago
The problem with a co-op is that it lacks deep venture capital money bags to fund prices cheap enough to compete with rich companies. Lyft and Uber are both okay loosing money on each ride to maintain market dominance. A co-op doesn’t have that luxury.
CydeWeys 7y ago
Uber owns and controls access to their platform, which is effectively the means of production. If you just own a car, it's hard to hire that out on your own to make money. Every Uber driver is dependent on rides being funneled to them through the Uber platform.
- greenyoda 7y ago
  > Every Uber driver is dependent on rides being funneled to them through the Uber platform. A driver can easily switch to Lyft (many already drive for both Uber and Lyft), or to whatever new platform comes along tomorrow and offers better terms to the driver than Uber does.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    Lyft owns and controls access to their own platform in precisely the same way that Uber does theirs. The "means of production" here are never owned by the actual drivers, but rather, by the companies that own and operate the platforms.
    - hakfoo 7y ago
      The platform is not hard, at least from a software standpoint. Moreover, they can take advantage of several years of the market leaders having done a lot of the UX refinement work and making mistakes. Realistically, I could see a MVP-grade ordering/dispatch/registration/billing/accounting platform costing well less than a million dollars. Hell, open source it and each community's drivers can spin up its own locally-owned Lyft/Uber clone. It makes sense as a geographical natural monopoly, and building at that level may avoid some scale-to-infinity technical problems. The New York co-op can build clever features and share them with Chicago without worrying that undermines their viability.

ForHackernews 7y ago

> Wouldn't the capital they need be pretty minimal? Hard to say. Uber seems to employ large numbers of extremely expensive silicon valley engineers doing god-knows-what. Maybe those are necessary to run a successful ride dispatching app? On the other hand, groups like Lyft, Ride Austin, and Curb seem to have cloned Uber's main app.

mft_ 7y ago
Interesting, isn't it. I get that huge scale is very hard, and I'm sure the iterative small optimisations become increasingly difficult... but the MVP of an Uber-like app wouldn't seem to be hugely complex?
jjwhitaker 7y ago
If other firms are started like a co-op with an app clone like Ride Austin, it could lead to drivers wearing a dozen hats or "employers" and flipping between platforms depending on pricing which may benefit Uber/Lyft who can subsidize costs to undercut competition. Investors may then choose to go with an established firm like Uber as they already are in this cycle and may projects in the works that become the real money maker like self driving technology.
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  AFAIK, many (most?) drivers already do this. They carry two or more phones for Uber + Lyft + Curb...
malandrew 7y ago
Obligatory every time someone makes the same comment: https://danluu.com/sounds-easy/ https://danluu.com/sounds-easy/

jitl 7y ago

The problem with a co-op is that it lacks deep venture capital money bags to fund prices cheap enough to compete with rich companies. Lyft and Uber are both okay loosing money on each ride to maintain market dominance. A co-op doesn’t have that luxury.

CydeWeys 7y ago

Uber owns and controls access to their platform, which is effectively the means of production. If you just own a car, it's hard to hire that out on your own to make money. Every Uber driver is dependent on rides being funneled to them through the Uber platform.

greenyoda 7y ago
> Every Uber driver is dependent on rides being funneled to them through the Uber platform. A driver can easily switch to Lyft (many already drive for both Uber and Lyft), or to whatever new platform comes along tomorrow and offers better terms to the driver than Uber does.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  Lyft owns and controls access to their own platform in precisely the same way that Uber does theirs. The "means of production" here are never owned by the actual drivers, but rather, by the companies that own and operate the platforms.
  - hakfoo 7y ago
    The platform is not hard, at least from a software standpoint. Moreover, they can take advantage of several years of the market leaders having done a lot of the UX refinement work and making mistakes. Realistically, I could see a MVP-grade ordering/dispatch/registration/billing/accounting platform costing well less than a million dollars. Hell, open source it and each community's drivers can spin up its own locally-owned Lyft/Uber clone. It makes sense as a geographical natural monopoly, and building at that level may avoid some scale-to-infinity technical problems. The New York co-op can build clever features and share them with Chicago without worrying that undermines their viability.