5 ms·

I don't like Uber, but it became popular because of convenience, not because of costs. Pre-Uber/Lift in my city you'd have taxi companies that were operating l

by belval 5y ago

I don't like Uber, but it became popular because of convenience, not because of costs. Pre-Uber/Lift in my city you'd have taxi companies that were operating like a cartel and giving a shitty service. Drivers were borderline rude. You had to call a dispatcher that was also usually rude and then wait 20 mins for a cab to show up. Uber changed that process for the best by actually allowing me to get a taxi from an app in 30 seconds, they usually showed up much faster and the driver, fearing a 4-stars review, is usually incentivized to at least keep their car clean. It's a game changer and I wouldn't go back. So no, the magic of Uber is not passing those hidden cost to the driver, it's actually offering a service that I want to use after +40 years of a corrupt industry that couldn't give a shit about improving. Now that Uber gave them a big scare, they actually improved, but the idea that they would have evolved without an existential threat is madness.

MrMan 5y ago
the previous poster makes a very important point - Uber re-externalized the costs for fleet maintenance and many other costs and push them outside their balance sheet.
- signatoremo 5y ago
  The flip side? They open up the pool of drivers substantially. Where I am it was impossible to get a taxi in the evening before Uber. Had I have access to Uber back then I wouldn’t need a car given my travel need. But I didn’t, so I had to get a car instead
- belval 5y ago
  I don't deny the externalities of Uber, but the previous poster wrote: > Uber if anything makes taxis less productive and efficient Which is blatantly false. Taxi companies were pretty terrible and only got better because of competition. Getting in a taxi and having no idea how much it's going to cost me was a bad customer experience.
  - giaour 5y ago
    It's undeniably more efficient to maintain a motor pool with a centralized mechanic shop. I get that the taxi experience was not ideal for you, but Uber did introduce a lot of inefficiency into the livery market by decentralizing maintenance, procurement, and financing. Uber was able to do this while undercutting incumbents on price through a combination of fare subsidies, consuming external capital resources (i.e., asking industry outsiders with "excess capacity" (cars that weren't on the road 24/7) to wear down their own private vehicles), and having investors willing to tolerating large, upfront losses.
- SilasX 5y ago
  Yes, it’s just a bad point. Uber was popular even when just the black car service, which wasn’t externalizing anything that didn’t already work like that. No magic accounting there, no exploitation of confused drivers.
  - giaour 5y ago
    > Uber was popular even when just the black car service Where was this true? This doesn't match my recollection at all, though I did live in a market with dense preexisting taxi and black car services (NYC and SF).
bagacrap 5y ago
Uber was undeniably a lot cheaper than a taxi for me in 2013. I don't use Uber much any more but I assume the same is true. They were able to undercut not just due to shafting the drivers but also all the VC money pouring in. The cost certainly did help with the popularity. It shifted the calculus from "eh, I'll drive and park" (at the airport or other destination) to "let's just get a ride" in a huge number of cases. So for me, it did not just displace taxi rides, it created new demand.

by belval 5y ago

MrMan 5y ago

the previous poster makes a very important point - Uber re-externalized the costs for fleet maintenance and many other costs and push them outside their balance sheet.

signatoremo 5y ago
The flip side? They open up the pool of drivers substantially. Where I am it was impossible to get a taxi in the evening before Uber. Had I have access to Uber back then I wouldn’t need a car given my travel need. But I didn’t, so I had to get a car instead
belval 5y ago
I don't deny the externalities of Uber, but the previous poster wrote: > Uber if anything makes taxis less productive and efficient Which is blatantly false. Taxi companies were pretty terrible and only got better because of competition. Getting in a taxi and having no idea how much it's going to cost me was a bad customer experience.
- giaour 5y ago
  It's undeniably more efficient to maintain a motor pool with a centralized mechanic shop. I get that the taxi experience was not ideal for you, but Uber did introduce a lot of inefficiency into the livery market by decentralizing maintenance, procurement, and financing. Uber was able to do this while undercutting incumbents on price through a combination of fare subsidies, consuming external capital resources (i.e., asking industry outsiders with "excess capacity" (cars that weren't on the road 24/7) to wear down their own private vehicles), and having investors willing to tolerating large, upfront losses.
SilasX 5y ago
Yes, it’s just a bad point. Uber was popular even when just the black car service, which wasn’t externalizing anything that didn’t already work like that. No magic accounting there, no exploitation of confused drivers.
- giaour 5y ago
  > Uber was popular even when just the black car service Where was this true? This doesn't match my recollection at all, though I did live in a market with dense preexisting taxi and black car services (NYC and SF).

bagacrap 5y ago

Uber was undeniably a lot cheaper than a taxi for me in 2013. I don't use Uber much any more but I assume the same is true. They were able to undercut not just due to shafting the drivers but also all the VC money pouring in. The cost certainly did help with the popularity. It shifted the calculus from "eh, I'll drive and park" (at the airport or other destination) to "let's just get a ride" in a huge number of cases. So for me, it did not just displace taxi rides, it created new demand.