5 ms·

I don’t think you can charge Monopoly prices when the barrier to entry is so low. Without robot cars anyone can compete locally with Uber. With robot cars they

I don’t think you can charge Monopoly prices when the barrier to entry is so low. Without robot cars anyone can compete locally with Uber. With robot cars they win, but again not sure they can raise prices much.

ashtonkem 7y ago
The barrier of entry appears to be billions of dollars worth of VC cash, so I’m a bit less optimistic. But regardless of whether they can pull it off, I’ve always viewed Uber as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Sure, they’re pro-consumer now, but they absolutely intend to go anti-consumer the moment they’re given a chance.
- feanaro 7y ago
  > The barrier of entry appears to be billions of dollars worth of VC cash, so I’m a bit less optimistic. The barrier of entry to what? Sure, the barrier of entry to autonomous cars without drivers is extremely high, but even if Uber is the only one in the market that possessed the technology, they wouldn't be able to drive market prices for taxis higher than the cost of a drive in a manned car. I don't know about you, but I have no real preference for driving in an unmanned car if the manned option is significantly cheaper.
  - ashtonkem 7y ago
    The barrier to entry into the market, not the barrier of entry to self driving cars. Uber raised $24B, and Lyft raised $5B (and they’re not even making a self driving car). To my eye these are the only two that’ve ever gained any significant success, as I couldn’t name any other options, and googling produced a small smattering of apps that don’t even work where I live.
    - feanaro 7y ago
      I entered into the discussion with the context that Uber slashed local taxi market prices to a fraction of what they were previously so that might be where we had different assumptions. I'm saying that even if Uber turns anti-consumer, the situation can hardly get worse than it was so it is probably a consumer win.
      - RobertKerans 7y ago
        [I can speak only from a UK perspective] surely it's convenience, not price? It's a generally good, convenient service built around an extremely slick and extremely usable app. Maybe it's slightly cheaper than local, but saying it's slashed local taxi prices? The only time Uber seems drastically cheaper is when it's entering an area and is operating at a much-higher-than-normal loss in an attempt to drive out competition. Once that period is over, it seems to use surge pricing very heavily, so often ends up more expensive (to their credit, they're normally quite good about refunding overcharges if they happen) It is a consumer win, I'd agree with that, but I'd argue that's not to do with cost. Same as Amazon.
        xvector 7y ago
        Taxis were super expensive before Uber.
        RobertKerans 7y ago
        This seems an incredibly general statement. Where? As I say, maybe this is just UK? Maybe taxis are more expensive or Uber is much cheaper outside the UK? But in the UK Uber isn't drastically cheaper except when they're attempting to crush competition in an area by burning cash. Which is great for consumers! But that doesn't go on for very long, the prices creep back up because it's not sustainable.
        feanaro 7y ago
        In my European country, taxi prices were exorbitant and taxi usage was very low. You only used taxis on very special occasions, like getting to your destination from an airport or train station. Once Uber came, taxi prices dropped drastically and several new local companies formed to try to compete, many of them with their own (less slick, but still very usable) apps. Overall, Uber seems to have introduced healthy competition and taxi usage has changed from rare to commonplace.
        jbn 7y ago
- thatguy0900 7y ago
  Isn't that only the barrier to entry worldwide? If they started charging monopoly prices with our robots then local taxi services would start coming back
  - ashtonkem 7y ago
    I don’t know what it would cost to enter local markets only, but I suspect that has less utility than being national or international. I don’t want a taxi app per city, I want the same app to get me to/from LAX to get me to/from JFK, and I doubt that’s my particular quirk. On the latter, I don’t know what would happen if they charged monopoly prices. I suspect you’re right, cabs might come back.
    - bowersbros 7y ago
      But _most_ of the time you'd be using the one in your city. If you are from Manchester, UK and you live there, how often do you need a taxi app that works in Bangkok, or NY, or Oslo?
      - ashtonkem 7y ago
        Maybe I’m unusual, but use of Uber is overwhelmingly travel related. The only time I use it in my own city is transit to/from my airport, because I can’t easily use public transit.

ashtonkem 7y ago

The barrier of entry appears to be billions of dollars worth of VC cash, so I’m a bit less optimistic. But regardless of whether they can pull it off, I’ve always viewed Uber as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Sure, they’re pro-consumer now, but they absolutely intend to go anti-consumer the moment they’re given a chance.

feanaro 7y ago
> The barrier of entry appears to be billions of dollars worth of VC cash, so I’m a bit less optimistic. The barrier of entry to what? Sure, the barrier of entry to autonomous cars without drivers is extremely high, but even if Uber is the only one in the market that possessed the technology, they wouldn't be able to drive market prices for taxis higher than the cost of a drive in a manned car. I don't know about you, but I have no real preference for driving in an unmanned car if the manned option is significantly cheaper.
- ashtonkem 7y ago
  The barrier to entry into the market, not the barrier of entry to self driving cars. Uber raised $24B, and Lyft raised $5B (and they’re not even making a self driving car). To my eye these are the only two that’ve ever gained any significant success, as I couldn’t name any other options, and googling produced a small smattering of apps that don’t even work where I live.
  - feanaro 7y ago
    I entered into the discussion with the context that Uber slashed local taxi market prices to a fraction of what they were previously so that might be where we had different assumptions. I'm saying that even if Uber turns anti-consumer, the situation can hardly get worse than it was so it is probably a consumer win.
    - RobertKerans 7y ago
      [I can speak only from a UK perspective] surely it's convenience, not price? It's a generally good, convenient service built around an extremely slick and extremely usable app. Maybe it's slightly cheaper than local, but saying it's slashed local taxi prices? The only time Uber seems drastically cheaper is when it's entering an area and is operating at a much-higher-than-normal loss in an attempt to drive out competition. Once that period is over, it seems to use surge pricing very heavily, so often ends up more expensive (to their credit, they're normally quite good about refunding overcharges if they happen) It is a consumer win, I'd agree with that, but I'd argue that's not to do with cost. Same as Amazon.
      - xvector 7y ago
        Taxis were super expensive before Uber.
        RobertKerans 7y ago
        This seems an incredibly general statement. Where? As I say, maybe this is just UK? Maybe taxis are more expensive or Uber is much cheaper outside the UK? But in the UK Uber isn't drastically cheaper except when they're attempting to crush competition in an area by burning cash. Which is great for consumers! But that doesn't go on for very long, the prices creep back up because it's not sustainable.
      - feanaro 7y ago
        In my European country, taxi prices were exorbitant and taxi usage was very low. You only used taxis on very special occasions, like getting to your destination from an airport or train station. Once Uber came, taxi prices dropped drastically and several new local companies formed to try to compete, many of them with their own (less slick, but still very usable) apps. Overall, Uber seems to have introduced healthy competition and taxi usage has changed from rare to commonplace.
        jbn 7y ago
thatguy0900 7y ago
Isn't that only the barrier to entry worldwide? If they started charging monopoly prices with our robots then local taxi services would start coming back
- ashtonkem 7y ago
  I don’t know what it would cost to enter local markets only, but I suspect that has less utility than being national or international. I don’t want a taxi app per city, I want the same app to get me to/from LAX to get me to/from JFK, and I doubt that’s my particular quirk. On the latter, I don’t know what would happen if they charged monopoly prices. I suspect you’re right, cabs might come back.
  - bowersbros 7y ago
    But _most_ of the time you'd be using the one in your city. If you are from Manchester, UK and you live there, how often do you need a taxi app that works in Bangkok, or NY, or Oslo?
    - ashtonkem 7y ago
      Maybe I’m unusual, but use of Uber is overwhelmingly travel related. The only time I use it in my own city is transit to/from my airport, because I can’t easily use public transit.