5 ms·

I guess if Uber and Lyft had to compete fairly, RideAustin might have stuck around.

• hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  What do you mean "compete fairly". I don't see how they competed unfairly when they came back. There is no way a small, single-locale-focused ride share company can provide the levels of service and quality people have come to expect from Uber and Lyft.
  • learc83 6y ago
    They mean Uber and Lyft use investor money to subsidize ride costs, so they are able to beat the local alternatives on price. It’s the classic, big company opens a store in a small town and sells at a loss until the local mom and pops are driven out of business, then raises the prices once they are the last man standing.
    • satya71 6y ago
      That and not drive costs lower by shifting risk onto "contractors"
• noirbot 6y ago
  I'm not actually sure. I lived in Austin during the time, and it was nice, but it also meant I needed to have 2-3 Austin-specific rideshare apps, Uber and Lyft, and then Juno for when I was in NYC. It was just cumbersome. I wasn't using any of them regularly, mostly just on trips/to and from the airport, so a lot of the time when I tried to open any of them, they'd need me to re-enter my payment info. It's just not a good UX to have 5 different apps that all do the same thing, because you can't be sure exactly which ones will work when you need them.
• eschaton 6y ago
  This would likely have been the case.