3 ms·

The thing that bugs me about this is how he just dismisses Uber as providing nothing. I guess the thousands of rides I've taken so far were just... nothing? I'

by ctoth 3y ago

The thing that bugs me about this is how he just dismisses Uber as providing nothing. I guess the thousands of rides I've taken so far were just... nothing? I'll tell you what. I remember the world before Uber. It fundamentally improved my life. If I were one of the shrill victim types, I would call this take ableist against blind people who have objectively gotten value out of Uber. Instead, I'll just call it silly.

com2kid 3y ago
Uber is weird. On one hand, it destroyed the livelihoods of many people. On the other, it made ordering a taxi so easy that a lot of people stopped driving home from parties drunk. Uber has also made getting around in a lot of cities much safer. I've gotten into taxi's with drunk drivers before (seriously wtf), not a problem with Uber, or at least not for very long. (When I reported the drunk taxi driver, turns out the medallion owner wasn't working that night and had lent his cab to someone else, there was not trace of my ride or of the driver...)
- chpatrick 3y ago
  I think you can kind of have both. For example in Budapest Uber is banned and I miss it, but Bolt provides the exact same user experience for ordering a regulated city taxi (with fixed pricing as well). I can get one quickly any time of day. In American cities I often found I had to wait 20 minutes to get an Uber or Lyft, if one even came. Is that because the economics of it fundamentally don't work and no one wants to drive for them any more?
  - com2kid 3y ago
    > I think you can kind of have both. For example in Budapest Uber is banned and I miss it, but Bolt provides the exact same user experience for ordering a regulated city taxi (with fixed pricing as well). I can get one quickly any time of day. The American taxi companies screwed up, tl;dr by maintaining a low supply of taxi medallions cities and cab companies maintained wealth for people who had already acquired one. This meant taxi companies could never fulfill demand during peak hours. Also city councils had to bow to pressure to not have streets clogged 24/7 with taxis. > In American cities I often found I had to wait 20 minutes to get an Uber or Lyft, if one even came. Is that because the economics of it fundamentally don't work and no one wants to drive for them any more? Depends on the time of day, the city, and where you are at. I've not had a problem getting an Uber in Seattle, but the prices in Seattle are extravagant.
    - JambalayaJim 3y ago
      And now we just have cities clogged up with Ubers.
- jcalvinowens 3y ago
  > Uber has also made getting around in a lot of cities much safer. This has been the complete polar opposite of my experience in NYC. The professional taxi drivers are pretty consistent, like 1/4 uber/lyft drivers barely know how to drive at all. I distinctly remember one driver so terrifyingly incompetent I made him pull over and let me out of the car five miles from where I was going...
  - com2kid 3y ago
    By safer I meant that by reducing the friction of ordering a driver, more people just go ahead and have someone else drive them home instead of getting behind the wheel while drunk. Drunk people are stupid. A giant "get me home now" button is more likely to get utilized versus stumbling around trying to wave down a taxi. Also the cash thing, knowing that a card is 100% going to be accepted is huge, compared with Taxis and "oops the card reader is broken today".
    - jcalvinowens 3y ago
      Flagging a cab on a busy road in NYC is always faster than waiting for an Uber, at least in my experience. I prefer to pay cash, personally. Denying finance parasites their 2% fee is always worth an extra ten seconds of my time.
      - com2kid 3y ago
        > Flagging a cab on a busy road in NYC is always faster than waiting for an Uber, at least in my experience. In Seattle, you can't really flag down a cab. What you could do in the past (pre-uber) was call their phone number, have the dispatcher on the other end pick up and be annoyed that you are bothering him, and request a cab that may or may not show up. Also you had to know where you are at, which for a lot of people I know, is a serious challenge. A surprisingly large % of people have serious problems finding what intersection they are at. (To be fair, sometimes you are on a street that, for whatever reason, doesn't have any street signs, or the street sign is not lit up at all and you have to use your phone's flashlight to try and read it... and again, all this while drunk). The experience sucked.
ska 3y ago
> The thing that bugs me about this is how he just dismisses Uber as providing nothing. I think you are misreading him, but it's mostly his fault. He's not talking about if consumers got value out of things during a bubble, but what is left over after it "pops". His argument is basically that uber did not represent a viable business plan initially/currently (true) and will never find a viable plan (arguable), therefore at some point it will collapse when people get tired of subsidizing the rides in various ways. His claim then is when this happens, what is left afterwards is strictly worse than what existed before uber. Now I'm not going to opine on the argument or the timeline, but nowhere in there does he claim that people getting subsidized rides didn't benefit from them at the time, just that it nets out negative over time.
- ctoth 3y ago
  This idea is just so fundamentally weird that I didn't think it could have been what he meant. Why does surplus only matter if you capture it after the bubble pops? Does the money I saved on Uber not carry forward? Does the cheap trip I took to the doctor's office where they found something important not still benefit me even if the company later shuts down? Edit: You would need a literal Gods-eye perspective of the Universe to know how something like this actually nets out.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - dh2424 3y ago
    I think you're oversimplifying it. Of course it provides something of value to some people - it pays drivers, riders get rides home from the airport, etc. I don't think he's saying that Uber has never provided anything of value at any point, but he's making the case that it's still a scam or a bubble, because the company isn't actually making money, it knows it, and has no plan to become profitable. Therefore, it's a net loss, and essentially scamming investors out of money, plus the other negatives he mentions. I'm sure some people made tons of money when the stock market crashed in 1929, that doesn't mean it wasn't catastrophic - just because some people benefited.
  - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
aaroninsf 3y ago
FTA: Not only did that fraud end up screwing over the retail investors who made the Saudis and the other early investors a pile of money after the company’s IPO – but it also destroyed the legitimate taxi business and convinced cities all over the world to starve their transit systems of investment because Uber seemed so much cheaper. Uber continues to hemorrhage money, resorting to cheap accounting tricks to make it seem like they’re finally turning it around, even as they double the price of rides and halve driver pay (and still lose money on every ride). The market can remain irrational longer than any of us can stay solvent, but when Uber runs out of suckers, it will go the way of other pump-and-dumps like WeWork. -- Enumerating the manifest harms doesn't mean you didn't enjoy cheap rides for a time, it's not all or nothing. "Cheap rides" do have a measurable cost to others and society. In addition to the ills cited here one could add many others, not least of which was the elevation of a grotesque ethos of "breaking things" (i.e. evading any legal obligation or social responsibility until regulators and critics, viewed with contempt, "catch up"), and notably distilled down douche-bag toxic tech-bro culture. Both of which still tarnish and retard our industry.
- ctoth 3y ago
  Right. He talks about hypothetical outcomes as if they have happened, which dramatically reduces his credibility. For instance, in Denver, we still have several (I think even more than when I moved here in 2011) Taxi companies. Those Taxi companies actually use apps now. Those companies don't ever have the "oh the credit card reader is broken" excuse anymore. Riding a Non-uber Taxicab in Denver is an objectively improved experience now! > douche-bag toxic tech-bro culture. Ah, I see where you're coming from now.
  - aaroninsf 3y ago
    That is indeed what turned me from neutral and mildly interested, having been suckered by the "share" posture, into a life-long hater. The culture there was among the worst and most egregious, but it opened the door to unapologetic toxicity that the Valley has never recovered from. There's no excusing it, no overlooking it, and those who would defend it or ignore it are worse than complicit.
  - 3y ago
kevinventullo 3y ago
If nothing else, it has forced decidedly profitable taxi companies to create viable apps.
tim333 3y ago
Yeah he has: >Uber burned $31 billion in investor cash, mostly from the Saudi royal family, to create the illusion of a viable business. Not only did that fraud end up screwing over the retail investors... but looking now Uber's market cap is $128bn so it doesn't look like the investors did that badly or that there's nothing there.
- omnimus 3y ago
  Why would you buy Uber for 128bn if it cant make money? I assume there is a faith that it will find some way to be profitable in the future. But they have been at it for a while…
  - tim333 3y ago
    Well it's public now with many analysts who presumably estimate it is worth something.

by ctoth 3y ago

com2kid 3y ago

Uber is weird. On one hand, it destroyed the livelihoods of many people. On the other, it made ordering a taxi so easy that a lot of people stopped driving home from parties drunk. Uber has also made getting around in a lot of cities much safer. I've gotten into taxi's with drunk drivers before (seriously wtf), not a problem with Uber, or at least not for very long. (When I reported the drunk taxi driver, turns out the medallion owner wasn't working that night and had lent his cab to someone else, there was not trace of my ride or of the driver...)

chpatrick 3y ago
I think you can kind of have both. For example in Budapest Uber is banned and I miss it, but Bolt provides the exact same user experience for ordering a regulated city taxi (with fixed pricing as well). I can get one quickly any time of day. In American cities I often found I had to wait 20 minutes to get an Uber or Lyft, if one even came. Is that because the economics of it fundamentally don't work and no one wants to drive for them any more?
- com2kid 3y ago
  > I think you can kind of have both. For example in Budapest Uber is banned and I miss it, but Bolt provides the exact same user experience for ordering a regulated city taxi (with fixed pricing as well). I can get one quickly any time of day. The American taxi companies screwed up, tl;dr by maintaining a low supply of taxi medallions cities and cab companies maintained wealth for people who had already acquired one. This meant taxi companies could never fulfill demand during peak hours. Also city councils had to bow to pressure to not have streets clogged 24/7 with taxis. > In American cities I often found I had to wait 20 minutes to get an Uber or Lyft, if one even came. Is that because the economics of it fundamentally don't work and no one wants to drive for them any more? Depends on the time of day, the city, and where you are at. I've not had a problem getting an Uber in Seattle, but the prices in Seattle are extravagant.
  - JambalayaJim 3y ago
    And now we just have cities clogged up with Ubers.
jcalvinowens 3y ago
> Uber has also made getting around in a lot of cities much safer. This has been the complete polar opposite of my experience in NYC. The professional taxi drivers are pretty consistent, like 1/4 uber/lyft drivers barely know how to drive at all. I distinctly remember one driver so terrifyingly incompetent I made him pull over and let me out of the car five miles from where I was going...
- com2kid 3y ago
  By safer I meant that by reducing the friction of ordering a driver, more people just go ahead and have someone else drive them home instead of getting behind the wheel while drunk. Drunk people are stupid. A giant "get me home now" button is more likely to get utilized versus stumbling around trying to wave down a taxi. Also the cash thing, knowing that a card is 100% going to be accepted is huge, compared with Taxis and "oops the card reader is broken today".
  - jcalvinowens 3y ago
    Flagging a cab on a busy road in NYC is always faster than waiting for an Uber, at least in my experience. I prefer to pay cash, personally. Denying finance parasites their 2% fee is always worth an extra ten seconds of my time.
    - com2kid 3y ago
      > Flagging a cab on a busy road in NYC is always faster than waiting for an Uber, at least in my experience. In Seattle, you can't really flag down a cab. What you could do in the past (pre-uber) was call their phone number, have the dispatcher on the other end pick up and be annoyed that you are bothering him, and request a cab that may or may not show up. Also you had to know where you are at, which for a lot of people I know, is a serious challenge. A surprisingly large % of people have serious problems finding what intersection they are at. (To be fair, sometimes you are on a street that, for whatever reason, doesn't have any street signs, or the street sign is not lit up at all and you have to use your phone's flashlight to try and read it... and again, all this while drunk). The experience sucked.

ska 3y ago

> The thing that bugs me about this is how he just dismisses Uber as providing nothing. I think you are misreading him, but it's mostly his fault. He's not talking about if consumers got value out of things during a bubble, but what is left over after it "pops". His argument is basically that uber did not represent a viable business plan initially/currently (true) and will never find a viable plan (arguable), therefore at some point it will collapse when people get tired of subsidizing the rides in various ways. His claim then is when this happens, what is left afterwards is strictly worse than what existed before uber. Now I'm not going to opine on the argument or the timeline, but nowhere in there does he claim that people getting subsidized rides didn't benefit from them at the time, just that it nets out negative over time.

ctoth 3y ago
This idea is just so fundamentally weird that I didn't think it could have been what he meant. Why does surplus only matter if you capture it after the bubble pops? Does the money I saved on Uber not carry forward? Does the cheap trip I took to the doctor's office where they found something important not still benefit me even if the company later shuts down? Edit: You would need a literal Gods-eye perspective of the Universe to know how something like this actually nets out.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dh2424 3y ago
  I think you're oversimplifying it. Of course it provides something of value to some people - it pays drivers, riders get rides home from the airport, etc. I don't think he's saying that Uber has never provided anything of value at any point, but he's making the case that it's still a scam or a bubble, because the company isn't actually making money, it knows it, and has no plan to become profitable. Therefore, it's a net loss, and essentially scamming investors out of money, plus the other negatives he mentions. I'm sure some people made tons of money when the stock market crashed in 1929, that doesn't mean it wasn't catastrophic - just because some people benefited.
- 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

aaroninsf 3y ago

FTA: Not only did that fraud end up screwing over the retail investors who made the Saudis and the other early investors a pile of money after the company’s IPO – but it also destroyed the legitimate taxi business and convinced cities all over the world to starve their transit systems of investment because Uber seemed so much cheaper. Uber continues to hemorrhage money, resorting to cheap accounting tricks to make it seem like they’re finally turning it around, even as they double the price of rides and halve driver pay (and still lose money on every ride). The market can remain irrational longer than any of us can stay solvent, but when Uber runs out of suckers, it will go the way of other pump-and-dumps like WeWork. -- Enumerating the manifest harms doesn't mean you didn't enjoy cheap rides for a time, it's not all or nothing. "Cheap rides" do have a measurable cost to others and society. In addition to the ills cited here one could add many others, not least of which was the elevation of a grotesque ethos of "breaking things" (i.e. evading any legal obligation or social responsibility until regulators and critics, viewed with contempt, "catch up"), and notably distilled down douche-bag toxic tech-bro culture. Both of which still tarnish and retard our industry.

ctoth 3y ago
Right. He talks about hypothetical outcomes as if they have happened, which dramatically reduces his credibility. For instance, in Denver, we still have several (I think even more than when I moved here in 2011) Taxi companies. Those Taxi companies actually use apps now. Those companies don't ever have the "oh the credit card reader is broken" excuse anymore. Riding a Non-uber Taxicab in Denver is an objectively improved experience now! > douche-bag toxic tech-bro culture. Ah, I see where you're coming from now.
- aaroninsf 3y ago
  That is indeed what turned me from neutral and mildly interested, having been suckered by the "share" posture, into a life-long hater. The culture there was among the worst and most egregious, but it opened the door to unapologetic toxicity that the Valley has never recovered from. There's no excusing it, no overlooking it, and those who would defend it or ignore it are worse than complicit.
- 3y ago

kevinventullo 3y ago

If nothing else, it has forced decidedly profitable taxi companies to create viable apps.

tim333 3y ago

Yeah he has: >Uber burned $31 billion in investor cash, mostly from the Saudi royal family, to create the illusion of a viable business. Not only did that fraud end up screwing over the retail investors... but looking now Uber's market cap is $128bn so it doesn't look like the investors did that badly or that there's nothing there.

omnimus 3y ago
Why would you buy Uber for 128bn if it cant make money? I assume there is a faith that it will find some way to be profitable in the future. But they have been at it for a while…
- tim333 3y ago
  Well it's public now with many analysts who presumably estimate it is worth something.