5 ms·
> I've been mystified how Uber's kept up their "Underdog" mantle for as long as they have. I see them as the "underground." Granted they have gotten a lot of
by wdr1 12y ago
> I've been mystified how Uber's kept up their "Underdog" mantle for as long as they have.
I see them as the "underground." Granted they have gotten a lot of funding, their primary opposition -- taxis -- are firmly entrenched & cities all over the country have considered various legislation to ban/stop them.
In fact, I think it's somewhat silly they're fighting with Lyft. They should be working together to knock back the entrenched players.
- sitkack 12y agoI see Uber as wanting their own future monopoly. They aren't some egalitarian democratic plumb bob making the world better for everyone. They are a national and trans-national transportation monopoly that has deep brand recognition while forcing drivers to play or pray, same schtick as the taxi companies. Why else would Goldman Sachs and Blackrock be involved? Someone needs to make the craigslist of Uber or a Meta-Uber. The fact that many uber drivers are also taxi operators is very telling.
- toomuchtodo 12y agoOr have cities provide Uber-esq services in lockstep with their other transportation services (bus, light rail, etc). Don't we argue always for the last-mile to be a public utility? Same scenario. Whitelabel services can contract with locales, an API is provided that anyone can integrate with, and the city can manage capacity and utilization.
- sitkack 12y agoThis is a great idea. A public clearing house utility for transportation. Seattle just started one of these to integrate public and private parkinglot availability. Why not for personal transit? it would be like the nasdaq of transpo.
- toomuchtodo 12y agoLet the requirements gathering begin.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- bostik 12y agoGood catch. The way I see it, Uber is trying to establish a global rent-seeking scheme. Or, to put it in slightly another way: they're trying to capture a large number of the existing, mostly local rent-seeking schemes. Once that happens, they will no doubt fall into the same slouch that infests any lucrative monopoly. For the time being the customers can at least enjoy the ride.
- sitkack 12y agoUber wins on latency and that is it. An actual taxi costs less.
- pyrocat 12y agoI bet Lyft doesn't think it's silly.
- jonknee 12y agoDon't let the fist bumps and mustaches fool you, Lyft has raised over $300,000,000 in VC and has tried to poach many an Uber driver. There's no one to feel bad for in this race.
- sitkack 12y agoExcept probably the drivers.
- jonknee 12y agoWhy? The drivers are in huge demand (hence trying to be poached and getting hefty starting bonuses). In this scenario they are being paid to drive around an Uber recruiter. If they don't want to work for Uber they still get paid for a ride they wouldn't have had otherwise.
- crazypyro 12y agoExcept when they actually cancel the rides. The drivers lose in that situation.
- mischanix 12y agoI thought the cancellations were for the purpose of looking statistically similar to the average rider. If that's the case, it's no difference to the drivers.
- etjossem 12y agoRead the Uber playbook carefully. The cancellations happened because recruiters were getting matched with Lyft drivers who had already been pitched by Uber (sometimes even by the same recruiter), so they tended to call it off before the Lyft arrived. It's unclear how much this policy impacted the Lyft drivers, but their time is definitely being wasted to some degree.