3 ms·

>For most US cities you could cover the payment needs of most riders with something from Square installed in the car. That's a good example of driver-centric t

by jasode 6y ago

>For most US cities you could cover the payment needs of most riders with something from Square installed in the car. That's a good example of driver-centric thinking instead of holistic thinking that considers the paying passengers. Consider: what if the customers/passengers actually prefer the convenience of not having to mess with an extra payment transaction step before exiting the car?!? With service like Uber, passengers can just get out of the car immediately when they arrive at their destination. No whipping out the credit-card to swipe. No exchanging of QR codes. Always think of game theory and consumer behavior preferences. Adding "Square payments" as a driver-platform "solution to avoid complexity for the programmers" is adding another reason for customers to avoid using it because you added complexity to the customers -- and therefore you have less revenue. There are always tradeoffs. Whenever anyone thinks "Problem <X> is trivial, and the solution is just to do <Y>," ... you have to think a few chess moves ahead as to what the actual paying customers will do that may negate your "solution".

maxerickson 6y ago
I mean, I take your point, but I'd choose a higher friction payment every single time I thought it favored the driver vs Uber or Lyft or whatever. It's the driver providing the valuable part of the the service, not the wholistic user experience in the app.
tzs 6y ago
I think you are overestimating the inconvenience of paying at or near the destination. Most passengers will have smart phones with them, most of which support NFC payments. Double tap the side button on your iPhone (or whatever is equivalent on non-Apple phones), hold it near the reader for two seconds, and you are done. Heck, a large fraction of the passengers won't even have to reach into their pocket to get their phone because they'll have been doing stuff on it during the ride. Even for those who have to use an actual physical credit card I don't think it would be enough of a barrier to make a noticeable difference because they are also using that card for nearly everything else. It's so routine that they don't think about it or notice it. I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about the complexity of paying by credit card at a non-waited restaurant, a grocery store, a hardware store, or any other retail place. Also, note that with this approach the co-op would not have to make riders create accounts and associate payment information with them. That removes some complexity for the user, and is one less thing to deal with when the user gets a new credit card.
- jasode 6y ago
  >I think you are overestimating the inconvenience of paying at or near the destination. Most passengers will have smart phones with them, most of which support NFC payments. And I think you're falling into the same trap of believing other economic actors will happily agree to your proposed "solutions". Disadvantages of NFC payments: 1) economic friction which lowers supply of drivers: drivers have to buy $50 NFC terminal from Square. $50 is not a lot of but it's extra financial friction which deters potential drivers 2) trust issues which lowers supply of paying customers: NFC payments puts the payment amount in control of the driver which makes potential customers fear getting scammed. In the Uber/Lyft model, this doesn't happen which is a significant psychological advantage because drivers are notorious for playing games with payment (especially with foreigners and travelers). By letting the "service in the cloud" pay the drivers on behalf of the passengers, it adds accountability. I'm not claiming it's impossible to create a car-on-demand service that uses NFC and/or credit-card swipes. I'm saying it would be a disadvantage to other platforms that work more conveniently. This means less paying customers which leads to less capital to continuously improve the software -- which could then lead to more customers abandoning the co-op rideshare app for the more polished Uber/Lyft apps. Again, see the failed non-profit RideAustin losing riders as somewhat analogous case study. And see the other comment about the apparent low quality of this thread's app (Drivers.coop): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26592354 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26592354 The co-op needs capital to improve the app software and you need a virtuous cycle of paying customers that don't avoid (or abandon) the platform to provide that ongoing capital. >co-op would not have to make riders create accounts and associate payment information with them. That removes some complexity for the user, This wouldn't be an advantage for commuters that use Uber/Lyft daily.
- comex 6y ago
  I'm confused. Who benefits from using a physical credit card terminal instead of an app in the first place? If you don't want to implement all the payment methods Uber does, and you're willing to settle with only credit cards... why not just have in-app payment that only supports credit cards? The obvious answer would be "so that the user doesn't have to have the app", but if the user doesn't have an app, how is that different from an old fashioned taxi service? Beyond the fact that the credit card terminal isn't broken... but it's not like the rider would know that ahead of time.

by jasode 6y ago

maxerickson 6y ago

I mean, I take your point, but I'd choose a higher friction payment every single time I thought it favored the driver vs Uber or Lyft or whatever. It's the driver providing the valuable part of the the service, not the wholistic user experience in the app.

tzs 6y ago

I think you are overestimating the inconvenience of paying at or near the destination. Most passengers will have smart phones with them, most of which support NFC payments. Double tap the side button on your iPhone (or whatever is equivalent on non-Apple phones), hold it near the reader for two seconds, and you are done. Heck, a large fraction of the passengers won't even have to reach into their pocket to get their phone because they'll have been doing stuff on it during the ride. Even for those who have to use an actual physical credit card I don't think it would be enough of a barrier to make a noticeable difference because they are also using that card for nearly everything else. It's so routine that they don't think about it or notice it. I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about the complexity of paying by credit card at a non-waited restaurant, a grocery store, a hardware store, or any other retail place. Also, note that with this approach the co-op would not have to make riders create accounts and associate payment information with them. That removes some complexity for the user, and is one less thing to deal with when the user gets a new credit card.

jasode 6y ago
>I think you are overestimating the inconvenience of paying at or near the destination. Most passengers will have smart phones with them, most of which support NFC payments. And I think you're falling into the same trap of believing other economic actors will happily agree to your proposed "solutions". Disadvantages of NFC payments: 1) economic friction which lowers supply of drivers: drivers have to buy $50 NFC terminal from Square. $50 is not a lot of but it's extra financial friction which deters potential drivers 2) trust issues which lowers supply of paying customers: NFC payments puts the payment amount in control of the driver which makes potential customers fear getting scammed. In the Uber/Lyft model, this doesn't happen which is a significant psychological advantage because drivers are notorious for playing games with payment (especially with foreigners and travelers). By letting the "service in the cloud" pay the drivers on behalf of the passengers, it adds accountability. I'm not claiming it's impossible to create a car-on-demand service that uses NFC and/or credit-card swipes. I'm saying it would be a disadvantage to other platforms that work more conveniently. This means less paying customers which leads to less capital to continuously improve the software -- which could then lead to more customers abandoning the co-op rideshare app for the more polished Uber/Lyft apps. Again, see the failed non-profit RideAustin losing riders as somewhat analogous case study. And see the other comment about the apparent low quality of this thread's app (Drivers.coop): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26592354 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26592354 The co-op needs capital to improve the app software and you need a virtuous cycle of paying customers that don't avoid (or abandon) the platform to provide that ongoing capital. >co-op would not have to make riders create accounts and associate payment information with them. That removes some complexity for the user, This wouldn't be an advantage for commuters that use Uber/Lyft daily.
comex 6y ago
I'm confused. Who benefits from using a physical credit card terminal instead of an app in the first place? If you don't want to implement all the payment methods Uber does, and you're willing to settle with only credit cards... why not just have in-app payment that only supports credit cards? The obvious answer would be "so that the user doesn't have to have the app", but if the user doesn't have an app, how is that different from an old fashioned taxi service? Beyond the fact that the credit card terminal isn't broken... but it's not like the rider would know that ahead of time.