5 ms·

You’re confusing unprovable and unfalsifiable. It could proven either through a whistleblower or finding an example where two accounts request the same ride at

by nfw2 2y ago

You’re confusing unprovable and unfalsifiable. It could proven either through a whistleblower or finding an example where two accounts request the same ride at the same time and show a different price. If these sort of anecdotes aren't acceptable to you, you might say it's unprovable. Unfalsifiable means it's impossible to submit evidence to contrary. In this case the proposition is that Uber sometimes charges you more based on having credits in your account. There is no way to prove this never happens through an experiment. If an experiment showed that two rides cost the same to users with and without credits, it doesn't show that it never happens.

addicted 2y ago
Considering Uber’s stated, implicit and possibly legal goal is to maximize their profits, why do you believe they are choosing to not maximize profits in these situations?
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  > choosing to not maximize profits There is a phrase "penny wise and pound foolish". That phrase is a good description of what's being alleged here. Trying to grab a few percent in ways that are likely to bring the hammer down when discovered is not exactly a great idea.
  - stemlord 2y ago
    >likely to bring the hammer down when discovered People would forget a week later and continue to use the app. I think that saying is a bit naive to the post antitrust capitalist world
  - Nextgrid 2y ago
    > Trying to grab a few percent in ways that are likely to bring the hammer down when discovered is not exactly a great idea. DoorDash stole tips and got away with it. The precedent has been set. The "hammer" you're talking about hasn't existed for over a decade.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      DoorDash still charges more for items compared to in person prices, charges a delivery fee, and then charges another fee which I can't remember what it was called. Then a tip. DoorDash can get bent. Which is exactly how I feel about Uber
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    > Trying to grab a few percent in ways that are likely to bring the hammer down when discovered is not exactly a great idea. That assumes that there is a hammer that will be brought down and that the hammer actually has some weight behind it. The reality is that it takes years for governments to react to people breaking or bending the law in novel, creative ways. The fact of illegality didn't stop Uber and a bunch of other competitors to provide taxi services, nor did it stop AirBnB from facilitating the running of illegal hotels world-wide. Yes, eventually the hammer came down, but seriously, not even a million euros fine and of that, 50% suspended for Uber [1] or a few hundred K for AirBnB [2]... that's a joke, that's pennies for these ultra-large corporations. And so, yes, breaking the law and paying fines until it's actually hitting execs personally is the more profitable option in the mid run. Just change which law you break and you'll get off. [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/uber-and-execs-fined-france-illegal-taxi-service/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/uber-and-execs-f... [2] https://www.hotrec.eu/en/policies/_airbnb_fined_on_the_balearics_islands.html https://www.hotrec.eu/en/policies/_airbnb_fined_on_the_balea...
- astrange 2y ago
  Corporations do not have a legal requirement to maximize profits.
- nfw2 2y ago
  My comment was about the usage of the term unfalsifiable, which means something specific that was being misunderstood. I don't know whether they are charging more when users have credits in there account. It seems plausible I guess. Here are some plausible reasons why it may not be the case: - If Uber's analysis determined that the best price to charge to maximize profit is independent of whether or not the user has credits - Because predatory practices would generate bad press and push users to competitors, which would reduce profits
Aeolun 2y ago
That example is literally in the article though. Clearly it’s not enough to convince OP.
- nfw2 2y ago
  In the article, the user looks at the price and thinks it seems higher than normal, which is different than comparing prices for identical rides at the same time. EDIT: There is another account I missed in the article where identical rides are compared, so I take this back
  - Aeolun 2y ago
    In the article, the same thing is later tried with the user’s phone and the phone of a friend in sequence, at the same time.
    - nfw2 2y ago
      I see. That seems like pretty good evidence then. The point of the OP is that it is impossible to submit evidence that contradicts these anecdotes, because it is impossible to prove something never happens through experiments.
      - logifail 2y ago
        > I see. That seems like pretty good evidence then. Two data points, one gathered immediately after another for the same route from a separate device, from a provider known to track demande and use "surge pricing"?
    - c22 2y ago
      Ah, but which phone checked first? I could see the second request coming back with a higher price due to increased demand in the area.
jachee 2y ago
Like in the article? > He went a step farther and did something I didn’t: he checked Uber prices “with someone else’s phone” who did not have a balance in their Uber account – and Uber was pricing the route at the usual $20 for them.

by nfw2 2y ago

addicted 2y ago

Considering Uber’s stated, implicit and possibly legal goal is to maximize their profits, why do you believe they are choosing to not maximize profits in these situations?

tbrownaw 2y ago
> choosing to not maximize profits There is a phrase "penny wise and pound foolish". That phrase is a good description of what's being alleged here. Trying to grab a few percent in ways that are likely to bring the hammer down when discovered is not exactly a great idea.
- stemlord 2y ago
  >likely to bring the hammer down when discovered People would forget a week later and continue to use the app. I think that saying is a bit naive to the post antitrust capitalist world
- Nextgrid 2y ago
  > Trying to grab a few percent in ways that are likely to bring the hammer down when discovered is not exactly a great idea. DoorDash stole tips and got away with it. The precedent has been set. The "hammer" you're talking about hasn't existed for over a decade.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    DoorDash still charges more for items compared to in person prices, charges a delivery fee, and then charges another fee which I can't remember what it was called. Then a tip. DoorDash can get bent. Which is exactly how I feel about Uber
- mschuster91 2y ago
  > Trying to grab a few percent in ways that are likely to bring the hammer down when discovered is not exactly a great idea. That assumes that there is a hammer that will be brought down and that the hammer actually has some weight behind it. The reality is that it takes years for governments to react to people breaking or bending the law in novel, creative ways. The fact of illegality didn't stop Uber and a bunch of other competitors to provide taxi services, nor did it stop AirBnB from facilitating the running of illegal hotels world-wide. Yes, eventually the hammer came down, but seriously, not even a million euros fine and of that, 50% suspended for Uber [1] or a few hundred K for AirBnB [2]... that's a joke, that's pennies for these ultra-large corporations. And so, yes, breaking the law and paying fines until it's actually hitting execs personally is the more profitable option in the mid run. Just change which law you break and you'll get off. [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/uber-and-execs-fined-france-illegal-taxi-service/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/uber-and-execs-f... [2] https://www.hotrec.eu/en/policies/_airbnb_fined_on_the_balearics_islands.html https://www.hotrec.eu/en/policies/_airbnb_fined_on_the_balea...
astrange 2y ago
Corporations do not have a legal requirement to maximize profits.
nfw2 2y ago
My comment was about the usage of the term unfalsifiable, which means something specific that was being misunderstood. I don't know whether they are charging more when users have credits in there account. It seems plausible I guess. Here are some plausible reasons why it may not be the case: - If Uber's analysis determined that the best price to charge to maximize profit is independent of whether or not the user has credits - Because predatory practices would generate bad press and push users to competitors, which would reduce profits

Aeolun 2y ago

That example is literally in the article though. Clearly it’s not enough to convince OP.

nfw2 2y ago
In the article, the user looks at the price and thinks it seems higher than normal, which is different than comparing prices for identical rides at the same time. EDIT: There is another account I missed in the article where identical rides are compared, so I take this back
- Aeolun 2y ago
  In the article, the same thing is later tried with the user’s phone and the phone of a friend in sequence, at the same time.
  - nfw2 2y ago
    I see. That seems like pretty good evidence then. The point of the OP is that it is impossible to submit evidence that contradicts these anecdotes, because it is impossible to prove something never happens through experiments.
    - logifail 2y ago
      > I see. That seems like pretty good evidence then. Two data points, one gathered immediately after another for the same route from a separate device, from a provider known to track demande and use "surge pricing"?
  - c22 2y ago
    Ah, but which phone checked first? I could see the second request coming back with a higher price due to increased demand in the area.

jachee 2y ago

Like in the article? > He went a step farther and did something I didn’t: he checked Uber prices “with someone else’s phone” who did not have a balance in their Uber account – and Uber was pricing the route at the usual $20 for them.