4 ms·

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

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

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