3 ms·

I assume demand in major cities doesn't really change that much so that the schedule is announced and updated very rarely (similar to public transportation). Ye

I assume demand in major cities doesn't really change that much so that the schedule is announced and updated very rarely (similar to public transportation). Yes, you would occasionally sacrifice some availability but I think people prefer that trade-off.

nemothekid 12y ago
If I wanted to sacrifice availability, I would use a Taxi. Uber, first and foremost, an on-demand ride flagging application. If Uber can't find me a ride then the app is broken - I lose any incentive to pay any surge pricing if I am going to get the same availability from Uber that I would get from a Taxi cab. Any savvy individual (who needs to be able to schedule their Uber rides in advance for whatever reason, instead of just using a Taxi to schedule rides like others have been doing for the last 50 years) will quickly learn when surge pricing is effect namely, Weekday mornings when people are going to work, Weekday evenings when people are leaving work, Weekend nights (sometimes), and any event where you can expect alot of people going home at the same time (concerts, sports games). In any case, and back to my original point, Uber doesn't force you to use their service and they are not the only game in town. If availability is more important predictability get an Uber, otherwise just get a Taxi. It doesn't make sense for Uber to become more like Taxis because people are unaware they have choices.
wutbrodo 12y ago
> I assume demand in major cities doesn't really change that much so that the schedule is announced and updated very rarely (similar to public transportation). This is way way way off. Looking just at my experience in San Francisco: weather patterns (in detail, across different parts of the city), public transit issues, tourism, events, fluctuations in the city's population and travel across various holidays/festivals/three-day weekends, changes in price of Uber, changes in price of alternatives (i.e. Lyft drops prices)...and the interplay of all these variables (e.g. public transit happens to have diminished capacity along a critical line for a given event vs having diminished capacity on an unrelated line). It's not market fundamentalism to acknowledge that what the market is good at is this sort of massively decentralized, million-variable price optimization[1]. This is precisely the reason why direct price controls on consumer products tend not to work: because it's damn near impossible for any entity (even the freaking US gov't) to accurately gauge the million variables that go into setting supply and demand. The idea that Uber could do this without being way, way, way off almost all the time is a hilariously bad idea. As someone alluded to below (and I alluded to above multiple times): The product Uber is selling is predictable-availability rides. The product taxis are selling is predictable-price rides. It's nonsense to say that reducing the predictability of Uber's availability would be "less stressful" or easier on its passengers. [1] Note that it optimizes for allocative efficiency. Much of what market fundamentalism gets wrong is ignoring that allocative efficiency is not always what our goal is. That's not relevant in this case though, since we're explicitly talking about how a centralized, top-down rate schedule is a laughably terrible idea.
- foobarqux 12y ago
  > It's not market fundamentalism to acknowledge that what the market is good at is this sort of massively decentralized, million-variable price optimization Note that Uber isn't a free market because the drivers aren't setting prices.
  - wutbrodo 12y ago
    Yea for sure, but it's not a binary distinction. "Allowing the price to float" is the concept we're discussing in general, and Uber is further along the spectrum towards a fully-floating price.

nemothekid 12y ago

If I wanted to sacrifice availability, I would use a Taxi. Uber, first and foremost, an on-demand ride flagging application. If Uber can't find me a ride then the app is broken - I lose any incentive to pay any surge pricing if I am going to get the same availability from Uber that I would get from a Taxi cab. Any savvy individual (who needs to be able to schedule their Uber rides in advance for whatever reason, instead of just using a Taxi to schedule rides like others have been doing for the last 50 years) will quickly learn when surge pricing is effect namely, Weekday mornings when people are going to work, Weekday evenings when people are leaving work, Weekend nights (sometimes), and any event where you can expect alot of people going home at the same time (concerts, sports games). In any case, and back to my original point, Uber doesn't force you to use their service and they are not the only game in town. If availability is more important predictability get an Uber, otherwise just get a Taxi. It doesn't make sense for Uber to become more like Taxis because people are unaware they have choices.

wutbrodo 12y ago

> I assume demand in major cities doesn't really change that much so that the schedule is announced and updated very rarely (similar to public transportation). This is way way way off. Looking just at my experience in San Francisco: weather patterns (in detail, across different parts of the city), public transit issues, tourism, events, fluctuations in the city's population and travel across various holidays/festivals/three-day weekends, changes in price of Uber, changes in price of alternatives (i.e. Lyft drops prices)...and the interplay of all these variables (e.g. public transit happens to have diminished capacity along a critical line for a given event vs having diminished capacity on an unrelated line). It's not market fundamentalism to acknowledge that what the market is good at is this sort of massively decentralized, million-variable price optimization[1]. This is precisely the reason why direct price controls on consumer products tend not to work: because it's damn near impossible for any entity (even the freaking US gov't) to accurately gauge the million variables that go into setting supply and demand. The idea that Uber could do this without being way, way, way off almost all the time is a hilariously bad idea. As someone alluded to below (and I alluded to above multiple times): The product Uber is selling is predictable-availability rides. The product taxis are selling is predictable-price rides. It's nonsense to say that reducing the predictability of Uber's availability would be "less stressful" or easier on its passengers. [1] Note that it optimizes for allocative efficiency. Much of what market fundamentalism gets wrong is ignoring that allocative efficiency is not always what our goal is. That's not relevant in this case though, since we're explicitly talking about how a centralized, top-down rate schedule is a laughably terrible idea.

foobarqux 12y ago
> It's not market fundamentalism to acknowledge that what the market is good at is this sort of massively decentralized, million-variable price optimization Note that Uber isn't a free market because the drivers aren't setting prices.
- wutbrodo 12y ago
  Yea for sure, but it's not a binary distinction. "Allowing the price to float" is the concept we're discussing in general, and Uber is further along the spectrum towards a fully-floating price.