4 ms·
> The business model doesn't work if the workforce is not also on-demand. Have they tried it to confirm it 'doesn't work'? Maybe rideshare companies need to re
by JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
> The business model doesn't work if the workforce is not also on-demand.
Have they tried it to confirm it 'doesn't work'? Maybe rideshare companies need to reduce their cut, and start putting more of that money into the driver's pocket. Doesn't mean it can't be a profitable business, though possibly low-margin. Have they tried paring back development costs, marketing costs, etc?
- graerg 6y agoThey're already losing money as is...
- nemothekid 6y agoConverting someone to an employee means a lot more than just paying them more. There is entirely new infrastructure that has to exist now.
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y agoLyft already has the infrastructure in place, as they already have employees.
- nemothekid 6y agoAre you implying that Lyft is going to give every driver a salary, or are you intentionally being obtuse? This is like saying "you should be able to make dinner for a restaurant, as you already have a kitchen"
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- gridlockd 6y agoUber and Lyft aren't profitable, never have been and may never be. The idea is that if only you build a strong enough brand and network, somehow there will be money in it. In the meantime, they'll operate at a loss. If they leave the California market, they'll simple lose money slower.
- davrosthedalek 6y agoI never understood the way Uber wanted to win. There is essentially zero moat, especially because the drivers are not employees in their model. So even a small competitor can just slightly pay more to the drivers, and cost slightly less to the riders, to grow. The only way out is replacing the driver, and protecting that technology. I don't see either of that happening. If technology gets good enough, Tesla/GM/VW will have it too. And they have a cheaper access to cars.