4 ms·

The problem I see with Uber is that, at the end of things, all they provide is some software running on some servers. While not an easy weekend project, it wou

The problem I see with Uber is that, at the end of things, all they provide is some software running on some servers. While not an easy weekend project, it would not be impossible for a distributed system to replace it, making whatever life they have almost certainly temporary. Every action they take to extract more profit will only increase the pressure toward development and move towards a distributed system. As long as it can present an app to a customer that can hook them up with a driver without being obtrusive, it seems like a service destined to become a commodity and certainly not something likely to be a cash cow for long.

pfranz 7y ago
> The problem I see with Uber is that, at the end of things, all they provide is some software running on some servers. That's true, and this isn't an argument for the bad things they do, but they did force the taxi industry forward a few decades. Prior to Uber/Lyft, taxis in most areas were outright hostile. I had called to schedule a taxi ride the day before and had them no-show. It was so common for taxis to feign their credit card machine didn't work that it was outlawed (but still done)--they preferred cash to avoid reporting and fees. Hailing taxis in most cities isn't permitted. Minimum distance requirements have caused me problems (been refused or been treated hostilely even when offered to overpay or overtip). Those things are never an issue anymore. In addition, they've also made it much easier to track down lost items left behind or to dispute incorrect fares or taking longer routes. The incentives in place with taxis alone didn't address these things. Those things, in addition to having consistency when traveling between cities and countries, sounds like a reason to have stickiness to one service. McDonalds is popular even though it's not a great meal and people could eat anywhere.
- otakucode 7y ago
  I didn't mention anything about other things they've done, I'm just looking at what the organization actually provides to the market. While it is true that they did all of the things you mentioned, that is unfortunately what's known as First Mover Disadvantage. They pave the way, and now anyone can crop up and make use of the tough road they laid down. McDonald's is popular, at least this is what I was told in business courses, because people like familiarity and they know when they get a meal at a McDonald's it's going to be mostly the same everywhere. Uber doesn't really enjoy that. They do enjoy that it is a unified app and service no matter where you are, they have that going for them for a certainty, but they do not have control over their drivers to the level at which McDonald's has control over their franchisees. That's down to the fact their drivers are independent contractors, although it likely couldn't work any other way. It might be moot since the service is the same, getting from point A to B, so the part people want stays the same. I would almost be inclined to see it as Uber being more valuable for their management of driver reputations than the software they provide, really. They set a standard, and hold drivers somewhat accountable to that standard, which is something that a more 'open' solution would make very difficult or impossible to do.
  - pfranz 7y ago
    Admittedly, I was venting over inaction of the taxi industry to innovate. While I do think other competitors, like Lyft, can do those things I'm skeptical if the legacy industry could catch up even if the way has been paved. I imagine the ideal would be a "platform" that gets sold regionally. Like McDonalds, at least for travelers (or, well, me) having the app already installed and setup with a form of payment is huge. I've visited cities, like Austin, when they didn't have Lift/Uber and figuring out their "local service" was rough. You've landed at an airport and likely don't have great service. To seek and download and register a new app is a big burden. It's also why using a credit card internationally is much less hassle than getting local currency. "Apps" and "services" are ubiquitous, but incumbents are pretty terrible at them. Large organizations like Apple, Playstation, or Obamacare have had rocky launches of services--they had more incentives to polish things later. Often those services would go down completely Christmas morning. Many apps like my local bank or library, have terrible apps. That's how I imagine legacy or regional taxis responding to Uber. It's been over a decade and a lot of those features weren't that novel at the time. I've heard of a few cities internally having decent apps, but it hasn't been that wide spread. Maybe that will change?

pfranz 7y ago

> The problem I see with Uber is that, at the end of things, all they provide is some software running on some servers. That's true, and this isn't an argument for the bad things they do, but they did force the taxi industry forward a few decades. Prior to Uber/Lyft, taxis in most areas were outright hostile. I had called to schedule a taxi ride the day before and had them no-show. It was so common for taxis to feign their credit card machine didn't work that it was outlawed (but still done)--they preferred cash to avoid reporting and fees. Hailing taxis in most cities isn't permitted. Minimum distance requirements have caused me problems (been refused or been treated hostilely even when offered to overpay or overtip). Those things are never an issue anymore. In addition, they've also made it much easier to track down lost items left behind or to dispute incorrect fares or taking longer routes. The incentives in place with taxis alone didn't address these things. Those things, in addition to having consistency when traveling between cities and countries, sounds like a reason to have stickiness to one service. McDonalds is popular even though it's not a great meal and people could eat anywhere.

otakucode 7y ago
I didn't mention anything about other things they've done, I'm just looking at what the organization actually provides to the market. While it is true that they did all of the things you mentioned, that is unfortunately what's known as First Mover Disadvantage. They pave the way, and now anyone can crop up and make use of the tough road they laid down. McDonald's is popular, at least this is what I was told in business courses, because people like familiarity and they know when they get a meal at a McDonald's it's going to be mostly the same everywhere. Uber doesn't really enjoy that. They do enjoy that it is a unified app and service no matter where you are, they have that going for them for a certainty, but they do not have control over their drivers to the level at which McDonald's has control over their franchisees. That's down to the fact their drivers are independent contractors, although it likely couldn't work any other way. It might be moot since the service is the same, getting from point A to B, so the part people want stays the same. I would almost be inclined to see it as Uber being more valuable for their management of driver reputations than the software they provide, really. They set a standard, and hold drivers somewhat accountable to that standard, which is something that a more 'open' solution would make very difficult or impossible to do.
- pfranz 7y ago
  Admittedly, I was venting over inaction of the taxi industry to innovate. While I do think other competitors, like Lyft, can do those things I'm skeptical if the legacy industry could catch up even if the way has been paved. I imagine the ideal would be a "platform" that gets sold regionally. Like McDonalds, at least for travelers (or, well, me) having the app already installed and setup with a form of payment is huge. I've visited cities, like Austin, when they didn't have Lift/Uber and figuring out their "local service" was rough. You've landed at an airport and likely don't have great service. To seek and download and register a new app is a big burden. It's also why using a credit card internationally is much less hassle than getting local currency. "Apps" and "services" are ubiquitous, but incumbents are pretty terrible at them. Large organizations like Apple, Playstation, or Obamacare have had rocky launches of services--they had more incentives to polish things later. Often those services would go down completely Christmas morning. Many apps like my local bank or library, have terrible apps. That's how I imagine legacy or regional taxis responding to Uber. It's been over a decade and a lot of those features weren't that novel at the time. I've heard of a few cities internally having decent apps, but it hasn't been that wide spread. Maybe that will change?