9 ms·

Ridiculous that it takes a legal battle for Uber to offer these customer and driver friendly features

• iooi 6y ago
  How is removing upfront pricing friendly to customers? It's horrible UX.
  • kirykl 6y ago
    getting charged exactly for what you use is great
    • donatj 6y ago
      I as a user would far rather know exactly what I'm getting charged ahead of time, on basically everything, even if it were more. I'm 100% certain most people would.
      • rramdin 6y ago
        I would rather be charged for what I'm using instead of an amount that's fudged to amortize unexpected incidental costs over all users. Maybe some kind of additional insurance against extra costs might be a feature that some users would use, but I prefer to self-insure than help others defray costs.
        • jedberg 6y ago
          The upfront pricing was just an estimate of the total based on previous data. I much prefer it, because it incentivizes the driver to take the most efficient route, since they get paid based on arrival and not the way they go. In the pay as you go system, you are at the mercy of the driver, and they are actually incentivized to take a longer route. I've definitely had drivers take longer routes under the pay as you go system. I would complain to Uber and they would refund the money, but it was still a hassle to complain.
          • doktorhladnjak 6y ago
            Interestingly, in places where Uber still has up front pricing for riders, drivers are paid on time and distance. Uber is taking the risk of the estimate being too high or too low.
    • zepto 6y ago
      Right, and removing upfront pricing removes that.
    • lebed2045 6y ago
      no, it's absolutely not. There is obvious incentive misalignment here: rider want to get to the destination as fast as cheap and possible, and the driver wants to earn as much and as little work as possible. Here is taking the longer route
    • valuearb 6y ago
      That’s how taxis stole from customers for decades, taking the long way there.
    • manigandham 6y ago
      The driver controls "what you use" based on the route and time taken to get you to the destination. Upfront pricing is still calculated based on usage, but it sets a fair amount without giving up control and the potential for overages.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• jamiequint 6y ago
  In what world is enabling drivers to see where a rider is going before accepting the trip, or removing requirements for Uber Pro, or removing features from the loyalty program, or removing upfront pricing, or removing the ability for customers to have favorite drivers "customer friendly"?
  • kirykl 6y ago
    driver and customer friendly, all are not necessarily both
  • sushid 6y ago
    Both sides are "customers." This is something Uber emphasizes (or at least used to) within as well.
  • ggggtez 6y ago
    I think it's just the opposite: Uber is trying to change the platform so they no longer fit the definition of "Employee". Three changes are so that the driver more closely models a taxi service which is a self employment. In other words: Uber wants the service to be worse so they don't have to give drivers with health insurance. If people complain, that's to Ubers benefit, because they want to keep their indentured workers.
• imperialdrive 6y ago
  Seems reasonable to me. Cause and effect. It's a compromise that gets mixed feedback from all sides... rather ideal, and a sign this industry is maturing. I still happily ride my bike but am thankful these services exist for my aging parents, and for the economy that could use any help it can get.
• kingnothing 6y ago
  I used to work at Uber. I'll focus on one particular point: allowing drivers to see where riders are going before they accept the trip. Uber, at least when I worked there, was heavily against this functionality as it allows drivers to discriminate against riders who are going to poor neighborhoods or from cities to suburbs where they may have difficulty in getting another rider. That feature is bad for the overall ecosystem. Because of it, you may not be able to get a ride to the airport during rush hour, or home from the bar when you live 30 minutes away from downtown. The overall service becomes less useful if there's doubt as to your ability to be able to use it when you need it.
  • brendoelfrendo 6y ago
    This sounds like it is bad for the customer experience of the rider, but is essential for the driver to be considered a contractor. It makes sense to me as a tradeoff: Uber can decide that the drivers are employees and dictate what routes and fares they must take, or they can decide that drivers are contractors who have the ability to review and decline those fares
    • kingnothing 6y ago
      My last point was that it's good for both riders and drivers. If riders come to expect an unreliable service, then they'll use a different method of transit, which leaves the drivers with less work overall.
      • floatrock 6y ago
        > which leaves the drivers with less work overall. ...which is a positive feedback loop that should encourage them to pick up those previously declined routes. Or charge higher rates that better reflect their reluctance for those routes. Isn't that how supply & demand is supposed to work?
        • raducu 6y ago
          But how can you then claim you're better and cheaper than a taxi company?
• jccooper 6y ago
  Those will probably be rolled back as result of the legal battle. With employees, you don't have to do any of that.