6 ms·

Oh - why it always needs to be so one-sided? When we don't like something than everything in the article needs to be a condemnation if we like the subject than

by zby 5y ago

Oh - why it always needs to be so one-sided? When we don't like something than everything in the article needs to be a condemnation if we like the subject than there is only prise. In this particular article: if Uber is losing money by subsidising rides - then people get cheaper rides than they could otherwise have. But that also article suggests that Uber victimizes riders. That does not compute. Yes - it is anticompetitive and possibly without Uber we would have something else that could potentially be better - but also without it we would not have all those cheap rides and all those valuable things that the riders did because of the cheap transportation. That all subsidising in bad in the sense of disrupting normal market forces - but it is a stretch to declare the riders to be victims here.

runawaybottle 5y ago
The riders are the only ones that won hand over fist. I can get a cab anywhere within minutes. This used to not be the case. Will Uber be profitable? I don’t really care, they improved society, period.
- oarsinsync 5y ago
  > I can get a cab anywhere within minutes. This used to not be the case... they improved society, period. They added an extra convenience to your life, and made your life better. This may or may not be true for a lot of passengers. It may or may not be true for a lot of drivers. It’s a stretch to call that an improvement to society, when the only example cited is a minor convenience improvement, that only the upper 50% of the society you live in can afford to use regularly.
  - zanellato19 5y ago
    On the long run, they helped put laws in place that eroded even more labor power, they setback public transit, they increased traffic in a lot of places, because why ride with friends when you can take an Uber? They added a small convenience to a bunch of peoples lives, but they certainly didn't make society better.
    - anchpop 5y ago
      > they setback public transit In what way did they set back public transit? My understanding is that every american city except one or two has had abysmal public transit for decades. And the only alternative was walking/biking/driving yourself (often not possible) or taking a taxi (which as stated elsewhere in the thread has a terrible UX). Uber provided an alternative, which I guess technically reduces the demand from voters for better public transport, but so far the strategy of “everything will be terrible all the time until voters get fed up with it to the point that they demand better public transit” hasn’t seemed to work very well to actually improve public transit.
- asdff 5y ago
  >I can get a cab anywhere within minutes. This isn't the case anymore. There is a shortage of drivers and no one wants to work for the prices offered by uber and lyft anymore. I had a friend try and visit me who lived like 5 miles away. 5 million people living in my city so its no slouch in terms of ridership and size of the uber and lyft networks. Three drivers cancelled rides on him before they picked him up, it took him like 45 minutes before a driver finally appeared. You pretty much have to reserve a ride in advance if you have something important, there is no telling how long it will take before drivers pick up your ride or finally show up.
- _fat_santa 5y ago
  > I don’t really care, they improved society, period. This is one reason it's so hard for me to rag on Uber. On the one hand this thread describes many of the horrible things about Uber but I have to say, my life has improved since Uber came out.
Daishiman 5y ago
The article was super clear why it victimizes riders: it hides the real total cost of ownership of a vehicle for commercial purposes and targets potential drivers who are not savvy enough to understand that.
- vntok 5y ago
  Surely after a few months of driving you get a pretty good sense of actual costs and revenue. Yet many drivers keep driving for much longer than a few months, even when they lease their cars. Maybe they find a benefit in the relationship?
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > Surely after a few months of driving you get a pretty good sense of actual costs and revenue. The wear and tear on a new car may not become apparent for years.
  - Daishiman 5y ago
    In my experience even small-scale commercial fleets have a really bad understanding of their cost of ownership. Cost of ownership has huge variance. A surprisingly large number of people have no idea when to do an oil or brake or battery change. Small accidents can change your cost equation dramatically. Random crap like hitting a pot hole, a hailstorm or someone scratching your car while parallel parking can trivially drain a month's salary. It is very difficult to foresee these expenses unless you have an extremely consistent driving experience, and given that most of the drivers are not doing this professionally and don't have great numeracy skills, many will be in trouble.
- zby 5y ago
  I thought riders mean passengers - what you elaborate on is divers?
ceejayoz 5y ago
The rider victimization part comes later, when they've knocked the sustainably-priced competitors out of the market.
- underseacables 5y ago
  WHAT sustainably priced competitors? Taxis? Great. Back to running up the meter, ignoring me when it rains, and have mercy if you are disabled or have a dog. Taxis are what created Uber. When regulators run Uber out of business it’s back to Taxis.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    As an example, there's a meal app called ChowFun that charges restaurants a monthly fixed service fee instead of UberEats/Grubhub's abusive 30% commissions. It's just as user-friendly and I don't feel like shit for using it. There's room for a sustainable middle ground, IMO.
    - jquery 5y ago
      What makes you assume ChowFun is a sustainable and scalable business model? How do you know Uber's 30% commissions haven't changed significantly since you last read about them? What makes you so sure Uber isn't constantly trying to innovate in that space to create the most sustainable business possible? That would align the users and and the stockholders, so I'd be surprised if they were pursuing anything so short term as "abusive 30% commissions" (which maybe were just a quick bootstrap idea).
  - asdff 5y ago
    What is ironic is I've had uber drivers do just about all of that in recent history. Want to go to the airport? The 15 drivers circling nearby on the map ignore you since its too long of a drive, the one driver going the opposite direction on the freeway 10 miles away from you snipes your ride, and now you wait 25 minutes for them to circle almost blindly around the city and hope they don't cancel on you and make you have to repeat the entire process while trying to make a flight on time. Then airport rides are apparently special and now cost $80.
vineyardmike 5y ago
I think the claim is that it victimizes them by suppressing demand for public transit and other services (bike lanes, etc) that might form to fill in the needs. (i don't necessarily agree, but i understand the argument)
- mullingitover 5y ago
  At least in the case of LA Metro, using public transit suppresses demand for public transit.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
  > might This is the key word. If it hasn't formed already, there's a good chance it won't, so anything that reduces the pain now instead of a hypothetical in the sky is a win in my book.

by zby 5y ago

runawaybottle 5y ago

The riders are the only ones that won hand over fist. I can get a cab anywhere within minutes. This used to not be the case. Will Uber be profitable? I don’t really care, they improved society, period.

oarsinsync 5y ago
> I can get a cab anywhere within minutes. This used to not be the case... they improved society, period. They added an extra convenience to your life, and made your life better. This may or may not be true for a lot of passengers. It may or may not be true for a lot of drivers. It’s a stretch to call that an improvement to society, when the only example cited is a minor convenience improvement, that only the upper 50% of the society you live in can afford to use regularly.
- zanellato19 5y ago
  On the long run, they helped put laws in place that eroded even more labor power, they setback public transit, they increased traffic in a lot of places, because why ride with friends when you can take an Uber? They added a small convenience to a bunch of peoples lives, but they certainly didn't make society better.
  - anchpop 5y ago
    > they setback public transit In what way did they set back public transit? My understanding is that every american city except one or two has had abysmal public transit for decades. And the only alternative was walking/biking/driving yourself (often not possible) or taking a taxi (which as stated elsewhere in the thread has a terrible UX). Uber provided an alternative, which I guess technically reduces the demand from voters for better public transport, but so far the strategy of “everything will be terrible all the time until voters get fed up with it to the point that they demand better public transit” hasn’t seemed to work very well to actually improve public transit.
asdff 5y ago
>I can get a cab anywhere within minutes. This isn't the case anymore. There is a shortage of drivers and no one wants to work for the prices offered by uber and lyft anymore. I had a friend try and visit me who lived like 5 miles away. 5 million people living in my city so its no slouch in terms of ridership and size of the uber and lyft networks. Three drivers cancelled rides on him before they picked him up, it took him like 45 minutes before a driver finally appeared. You pretty much have to reserve a ride in advance if you have something important, there is no telling how long it will take before drivers pick up your ride or finally show up.
_fat_santa 5y ago
> I don’t really care, they improved society, period. This is one reason it's so hard for me to rag on Uber. On the one hand this thread describes many of the horrible things about Uber but I have to say, my life has improved since Uber came out.

Daishiman 5y ago

The article was super clear why it victimizes riders: it hides the real total cost of ownership of a vehicle for commercial purposes and targets potential drivers who are not savvy enough to understand that.

vntok 5y ago
Surely after a few months of driving you get a pretty good sense of actual costs and revenue. Yet many drivers keep driving for much longer than a few months, even when they lease their cars. Maybe they find a benefit in the relationship?
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > Surely after a few months of driving you get a pretty good sense of actual costs and revenue. The wear and tear on a new car may not become apparent for years.
- Daishiman 5y ago
  In my experience even small-scale commercial fleets have a really bad understanding of their cost of ownership. Cost of ownership has huge variance. A surprisingly large number of people have no idea when to do an oil or brake or battery change. Small accidents can change your cost equation dramatically. Random crap like hitting a pot hole, a hailstorm or someone scratching your car while parallel parking can trivially drain a month's salary. It is very difficult to foresee these expenses unless you have an extremely consistent driving experience, and given that most of the drivers are not doing this professionally and don't have great numeracy skills, many will be in trouble.
zby 5y ago
I thought riders mean passengers - what you elaborate on is divers?

ceejayoz 5y ago

The rider victimization part comes later, when they've knocked the sustainably-priced competitors out of the market.

underseacables 5y ago
WHAT sustainably priced competitors? Taxis? Great. Back to running up the meter, ignoring me when it rains, and have mercy if you are disabled or have a dog. Taxis are what created Uber. When regulators run Uber out of business it’s back to Taxis.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  As an example, there's a meal app called ChowFun that charges restaurants a monthly fixed service fee instead of UberEats/Grubhub's abusive 30% commissions. It's just as user-friendly and I don't feel like shit for using it. There's room for a sustainable middle ground, IMO.
  - jquery 5y ago
    What makes you assume ChowFun is a sustainable and scalable business model? How do you know Uber's 30% commissions haven't changed significantly since you last read about them? What makes you so sure Uber isn't constantly trying to innovate in that space to create the most sustainable business possible? That would align the users and and the stockholders, so I'd be surprised if they were pursuing anything so short term as "abusive 30% commissions" (which maybe were just a quick bootstrap idea).
- asdff 5y ago
  What is ironic is I've had uber drivers do just about all of that in recent history. Want to go to the airport? The 15 drivers circling nearby on the map ignore you since its too long of a drive, the one driver going the opposite direction on the freeway 10 miles away from you snipes your ride, and now you wait 25 minutes for them to circle almost blindly around the city and hope they don't cancel on you and make you have to repeat the entire process while trying to make a flight on time. Then airport rides are apparently special and now cost $80.

vineyardmike 5y ago

I think the claim is that it victimizes them by suppressing demand for public transit and other services (bike lanes, etc) that might form to fill in the needs. (i don't necessarily agree, but i understand the argument)

mullingitover 5y ago
At least in the case of LA Metro, using public transit suppresses demand for public transit.
tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
> might This is the key word. If it hasn't formed already, there's a good chance it won't, so anything that reduces the pain now instead of a hypothetical in the sky is a win in my book.