3 ms·

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

by 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).

by 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).