10 ms·

This. Basically while there are network effects in the sense that any provider (Uber, Lyft etc.) will need to have some critical mass before there are enough d

by yumraj 12y ago

This. Basically while there are network effects in the sense that any provider (Uber, Lyft etc.) will need to have some critical mass before there are enough drivers and enough riders, both can subscribe to multiple providers and there is no long-term stickiness at the moment. In other words, this is not a winner take all market with FB/LinkedIn/Twitter type network stickiness and the overall market is still fair game. The driver's rating is the only sticky data, and it is unclear in this context as to how valuable that is as riders are not going to wait an extra 30mins to get a 5-star driver vs. a 4-star driver. This should not come as a surprise to anyone since right now most metros have multiple competing taxi service providers, so it makes sense that that may be replaced by a similar multiple mobile-app taxi providers. Also, it is difficult to re-paint your taxi when you move from one traditional provider to another, in the Uber/Lyft/etc. world, that is no longer required, so provider switching or aligning with multiple providers is trivial which will imply that in future the providers' margins will be squeezed out and riders and drivers will keep the most benefit.

toomuchtodo 12y ago
How would you say self-driving vehicles fit into this? Supposedly they're rolling out in ~3-5 years, and with self-driving vehicles, you no longer need the middle man managing a fleet of contractors. EDIT: I'm willing to me a Long Bet [1] with anyone regarding fully autonomous self driving vehicles in regular use in 6 years. [1] http://longbets.org/ http://longbets.org/ ; http://longbets.org/rules/ http://longbets.org/rules/
- aetherson 12y ago
  Self-driving vehicles are the final commoditization of the rides-for-hire business. Personally, I'd be very skeptical about the 3-5 year time frame, but clearly they're coming at some point. When they do, I can't see any rides-for-hire business having gross margins higher than 5% (though the size of the rides-for-hire market may well expand greatly). Barrier for entry is basically nonexistent.
  - lxmorj 12y ago
    Scale and perks will drive that 5% up, I imagine. Sure, Joe Average can buy a Tesla Model A (for automatic, obviously) and have it operate as a AI-Uber Driver, but Uber can buy a fleet of thousands, allowing them better pricing, better access to charging stations, better data about which rides are most valuable and where to position their cars. With a bit better margins comes things like bottled water in the cars. This differentiates them further, etc.
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      I used to think otherwise when Uber first hit the scene, but now I'm willing to pay the premium to own my self-driving vehicle to control my mobility.
    - gregpilling 12y ago
      and then they will add "driving attendants" attractive people to serve you the drinks etc on your trip
- stonemetal 12y ago
  Someone will still need to manage the fleet of self driving cars. Who is going to fill them with gas, do routine maintenance, clean them after some drunk dude puked all over the back seat, etc?
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    If they're electric vehicles, they'll charge on their own based on closest charging station and the cost of electricity at the time they need their charge. Also, the only maintenance you'd require would be tire rotations/changes every ~5K miles, and a new battery every 150K-200K miles (Tesla automated the battery pack swap, I'm sure they could automate pulling four wheels off and bolting four new ones back on). I agree someone is going to need to clean them out though.
    - mncolinlee 12y ago
      Heck, they won't even need to plug in once we get wireless, inductive charging stations or inductive roads. Both are coming. You could outsource the car cleaning with an agreement at any full service car wash. One doesn't even need a physical presence anywhere to make the business work.
      - toomuchtodo 12y ago
        They already have wireless charging for electric vehicles: http://www.pluglesspower.com/ http://www.pluglesspower.com/ While high-capacity electric vehicles like a Tesla wouldn't be able to wirelessly charge, it should be trivial to build a physical dock they can connect to with no human intervention (similar to how SpaceX designed the DragonEye mating connector for autonomous mating to the ISS).
        mncolinlee 12y ago
        I'm well aware. I was referring to public charging infrastructure using wireless charging. This is almost non-existent due to the lack of compatible vehicles today. I understand that some electric buses are already using wireless charging in major trials.
- kapkapkap 12y ago
  Autonomous vehicles that can navigate city roads and do not require any driver behind the wheel are most certainly not 3-5 years away.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    Tesla is indicating they're prepared to offer full auto-pilot (Level 4) self-driving cars in 3-6 years. http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1094329_self-driving-cars-from-tesla-in-about-3-years-says-ceo-elon-musk http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1094329_self-driving-car...
  - glenra 12y ago
    By which you mean they already exist today? My parents got a demo ride in one at a google event earlier this year. As long as the city involved is Mountain View, the vehicles already exist. (Google's current effort relies on extremely detailed mapping of all the roads involved, but given the continued existence of the StreetView program that approach probably scales tolerably well.)
    - dasil003 12y ago
      Mountain View doesn't really qualify as a "city" in the sense of city traffic. The roads are wide and not particularly densely packed. Not to downplay the accomplishment, but it's probably a long way from being able to handle San Francisco let alone New York or London.
- esMazer 12y ago
  ~3-5 years is way too soon. The technology might be ready but the governments (think regulations, traffic laws, car insurance companies, car manufacturers, etc etc etc ) in addition to the public (which is not ready either). Is going to take at least 10+ years for it to resemble something like you imagine it.
  - Dolimiter 12y ago
    The technology is not nearly ready. Not in a city. It's like flying drone delivery. Easy to demonstrate in a single controlled setting, but nearly impossible to actually implement in the real world.
    - ghaff 12y ago
      It's hard for me to even imagine how a self-driving car could manage somewhere like large swaths of Manhattan where a certain amount of, umm, aggression is needed to make any forward progress. Though it will likely happen some day (probably multiple decades from now). As it is, I'd even settle for voice control on my phone that could reliably understand me.
      - IanCal 12y ago
        > a certain amount of, umm, aggression is needed to make any forward progress They added a slight "aggression" back in 2011, if other cars aren't letting it out it starts pushing forwards a bit: > Sometimes, however, the car has to be more "aggressive." When going through a four-way intersection, for example, it yields to other vehicles based on road rules; but if other cars don't reciprocate, it advances a bit to show to the other drivers its intention. Without programming that kind of behavior, Urmson said, it would be impossible for the robot car to drive in the real world. http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/artificial-intelligence/how-google-self-driving-car-works http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/artificial-intel... I really don't understand why people think small behavioural differences like that require decades of work. Things that humans find difficult and stressful are likely to be the things that are significantly easier when you have a reaction time measured in milliseconds and full 360 degree vision.
- Dolimiter 12y ago
  Self-driving cars in a city environment are like flying cars. Sounds kinda plausible, but the tech is always going to be 20 years away.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    Google is closing in on over a million miles with no accidents, and have decided to focus on refining their intelligence for city driving. 6 years tops.
  - nl 12y ago
    In 2004 the first drive less car race was held. The best car made 11km. I thought that was an amazing effort, and in 20 years one might finish. It took one year before the race was finished.
- untog 12y ago
  It's clearly Uber's plan to replace all their drivers with self-driving cars in the future - I think they've even said so themselves. But even six years is a long time for a VC-funded business. And what does "regular use" mean? That seems like the critical component of a bet like this.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    "Regular use" is defined as you being able to hail one to take you at least 30 miles for ~$50, from either a mobile or webapp. If anyone can buy a self-driving vehicle, Uber and Lyft are aberrations, as anyone (even FedEx and UPS) could provide self-driving vehicle livery services. Its no longer a marketplace business; its a fleet management business (and both UPS and FedEx are extremely capable at managing capital expenditures, fleet operations, and system capacity).
    - untog 12y ago
      In how many metro areas, though? Surely also a huge factor in "regular use".
      - toomuchtodo 12y ago
        Excellent question. Let me noodle on that over a beer after work. I want to say 5 (SF, LA, CHI, NY, ATL), but its a very subjective metric.
    - prawn 12y ago
      I think we'll see at least two main car providers in major cities plus some niche operators, then one major network that allows you to buy your own car to be committed to a pool as an investment.
      - toomuchtodo 12y ago
        Do you think we'll see public transit orgs (for example, PACE/CTA in Chicago and its suburbs) purchase their own self-driving vehicles to provide transit services?
- findjashua 12y ago
  I think the 'self-driving' feature of the car will be more like an autopilot - you'd still need a human at the wheel to occasionally override the system. Hence, I see the self-driving car to be more of a competition to short-term rentals like Zipcar. In situations where you don't want to drive (have to work/talk on phone; after a you've had a few drinks etc), you'd still need a driver.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    That may be the case at first, but I can guarantee you will not still need a driver forever.
    - findjashua 12y ago
      Of course, but that kind of shift isn't going to happen within 6 years (as parent comment suggests)
      - seanflyon 12y ago
        I think we will see self driving cars in regular use that do not require an attentive driver on the freeway within 6 years. I think self driving cars will put Uber drivers out of business in 10 to 20 years.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        findjashua 12y ago
        Even if the technology becomes publicly usable (stretching it), there are bigger obstacles - government regulation and fear mongering - that make me think it will not happen in this timeframe.
- bentcorner 12y ago
  I'm super excited for self-driving cars - they're literally going to change the world in dramatic ways. It's sort of mind boggling once you start really thinking about the implications of it. You may as well pose it as "what if we invented teleportation?" Many of the end results are going to be similar.
samstave 12y ago
You know what would be interesting is that municipalities should see this as an opportunity. What if the city were to start their own modern municipal taxi services, and compete directly with Lyft/Uber.... Then they get revenues.
- hnal943 12y ago
  I'm not optimistic about municipalities running anything efficiently. However, this would provide great opportunities to get rid of public transit as we know it. Private sector rides could simply be subsidized for low income users. How much more convenient would this be vs taking the bus?
  - samstave 12y ago
    Sure, but maybe some scrappy startup could go to municipalities and try to offer it as a service to them under contract. Then use that to grow out and manage it for other cities a well.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    A municipality can't write a check every year to a white label service that sits between its citizens and the self-driving vehicles, maintenance facilities, and charging stations built to provide automated mobility? My city provides roads, fire, police, and other services in a pretty efficient manner. If yours doesn't, I suggest you campaign for more transparency.
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      > My city provides roads, fire, police, and other services in a pretty efficient manner. Mine doesn't. I saw a ladder truck, a fire engine, and multiple other vehicles show up when one guy passed out and need medical care.
      - toomuchtodo 12y ago
        That's not inefficiency. That's precautionary, and SOP in most first-responder units. Rarely do first-responders know the extent of what the situation on the scene is going to be before they get there. Diesel and miles on the truck are cheap, and peoples' time is a sunk cost. Don't take my word for it though, the Mayor of Provo answered the question much better: http://provomayor.com/2011/03/04/why-do-we-send-a-fire-truck-with-each-ambulance-call/ http://provomayor.com/2011/03/04/why-do-we-send-a-fire-truck... "I’m often asked why we send a fire truck on every medical call. Does it really require an ambulance and a fire truck for many of the minor injuries? It seems a waste to drive a very fuel-inefficient fire engine to something where the additional personnel are not needed. While there are some calls for emergency medical assistance that can easily be handled with just the two personnel on the ambulance, there are many that require additional help. Nearly every EMS system sends a unit to “back” the ambulance for a number of reasons. First, nearly every life threatening emergency incident is best handled with at least two paramedics in addition to the driver. Second, there is not always enough reliable information on the patient condition to determine if additional help is needed. Valuable time may be lost if additional personnel are not dispatched until the ambulance arrives and makes an assessment. Finally, even so called “routine” medical calls often require the patient to be lifted into the back of the ambulance. Even if the patient is not obese, it is safer for the patient and for the backs of the medics to have additional help to lift. When the fire truck is not needed on an incident, it is released to go back into service as soon as possible. The cost of the fuel to have the extra help immediately available when it is needed is a small cost when compared to the loss of precious minutes when a life is on the line."
samstave 12y ago
You know what would be interesting is that municipalities should see this as an opportunity. What if the city were to start their own modern municipal taxi services, and compete directly with Lyft/Uber.... Then they get revenues.
panarky 12y ago
Consequently, the cost of a ride will approach the level of direct costs like fuel and maintenance. There won't be much left for driver compensation or vehicle depreciation, much less a durable surplus for the network operator. Paradoxically for the disruptors, the way out of this trap is for Uber and Lyft to lobby for greater regulation, stringent requirements for insurance and liability, background checks, safety inspections and government licenses. They need higher barriers to entry. They need to carve out a space safe from competition, or it will rapidly devolve into a lowest-common-denominator market. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
- rescripting 12y ago
  Companies like Uber and Lyft operating without as stringent regulation as regular taxi companies is their main competitive advantage (AirBnB is in the same group). Taxi drivers have lobbied for years to build up the kind of economic protections they have from disappearing margins in a competitive marketplace, and consequently being a taxi driver meant you could make a middle class living without tortuous hours. Uber comes along and operates without the limitations of those protections and drivers earn less. Ultimately without intervention it puts a whole industry of people on a trajectory towards poverty, and this is before we even get to self driving cars. What are we going to do with everyone who gets forced out of their middle class jobs?
  - brianbreslin 12y ago
    I would argue that it has been a long time in the USA since a taxi driver could earn a middle class income driving. Medallion fees basically make them indentured servants.
    - paulhauggis 12y ago
      If that's the case, why would anyone do this by choice? You could just work for McDonalds and make just as much money for less effort.
      - 12y ago
tootie 12y ago
I don't see how there's any network effect to be had. Consider food delivery. I use both seamless and delivery.com. Seamless is a little better and has a wider network of restaurants. But I have 0 lockin and will frequently switch to delivery.com for any exclusive restaurants they have. I have an account on grubhub too although I use it rarely. There's nothing tying to me to any of them. No friend list, no thousands of photos. Just my recent orders which are of limited value. Taxi service is the same. The second that Lyft has lower rates or a close car, everyone will switch in a second. Or flock to option 3 the second it has any advantage.
100timesthis 12y ago
This.

by yumraj 12y ago

toomuchtodo 12y ago

How would you say self-driving vehicles fit into this? Supposedly they're rolling out in ~3-5 years, and with self-driving vehicles, you no longer need the middle man managing a fleet of contractors. EDIT: I'm willing to me a Long Bet [1] with anyone regarding fully autonomous self driving vehicles in regular use in 6 years. [1] http://longbets.org/ http://longbets.org/ ; http://longbets.org/rules/ http://longbets.org/rules/

aetherson 12y ago
Self-driving vehicles are the final commoditization of the rides-for-hire business. Personally, I'd be very skeptical about the 3-5 year time frame, but clearly they're coming at some point. When they do, I can't see any rides-for-hire business having gross margins higher than 5% (though the size of the rides-for-hire market may well expand greatly). Barrier for entry is basically nonexistent.
- lxmorj 12y ago
  Scale and perks will drive that 5% up, I imagine. Sure, Joe Average can buy a Tesla Model A (for automatic, obviously) and have it operate as a AI-Uber Driver, but Uber can buy a fleet of thousands, allowing them better pricing, better access to charging stations, better data about which rides are most valuable and where to position their cars. With a bit better margins comes things like bottled water in the cars. This differentiates them further, etc.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    I used to think otherwise when Uber first hit the scene, but now I'm willing to pay the premium to own my self-driving vehicle to control my mobility.
  - gregpilling 12y ago
    and then they will add "driving attendants" attractive people to serve you the drinks etc on your trip
stonemetal 12y ago
Someone will still need to manage the fleet of self driving cars. Who is going to fill them with gas, do routine maintenance, clean them after some drunk dude puked all over the back seat, etc?
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  If they're electric vehicles, they'll charge on their own based on closest charging station and the cost of electricity at the time they need their charge. Also, the only maintenance you'd require would be tire rotations/changes every ~5K miles, and a new battery every 150K-200K miles (Tesla automated the battery pack swap, I'm sure they could automate pulling four wheels off and bolting four new ones back on). I agree someone is going to need to clean them out though.
  - mncolinlee 12y ago
    Heck, they won't even need to plug in once we get wireless, inductive charging stations or inductive roads. Both are coming. You could outsource the car cleaning with an agreement at any full service car wash. One doesn't even need a physical presence anywhere to make the business work.
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      They already have wireless charging for electric vehicles: http://www.pluglesspower.com/ http://www.pluglesspower.com/ While high-capacity electric vehicles like a Tesla wouldn't be able to wirelessly charge, it should be trivial to build a physical dock they can connect to with no human intervention (similar to how SpaceX designed the DragonEye mating connector for autonomous mating to the ISS).
      - mncolinlee 12y ago
        I'm well aware. I was referring to public charging infrastructure using wireless charging. This is almost non-existent due to the lack of compatible vehicles today. I understand that some electric buses are already using wireless charging in major trials.
kapkapkap 12y ago
Autonomous vehicles that can navigate city roads and do not require any driver behind the wheel are most certainly not 3-5 years away.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  Tesla is indicating they're prepared to offer full auto-pilot (Level 4) self-driving cars in 3-6 years. http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1094329_self-driving-cars-from-tesla-in-about-3-years-says-ceo-elon-musk http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1094329_self-driving-car...
- glenra 12y ago
  By which you mean they already exist today? My parents got a demo ride in one at a google event earlier this year. As long as the city involved is Mountain View, the vehicles already exist. (Google's current effort relies on extremely detailed mapping of all the roads involved, but given the continued existence of the StreetView program that approach probably scales tolerably well.)
  - dasil003 12y ago
    Mountain View doesn't really qualify as a "city" in the sense of city traffic. The roads are wide and not particularly densely packed. Not to downplay the accomplishment, but it's probably a long way from being able to handle San Francisco let alone New York or London.
esMazer 12y ago
~3-5 years is way too soon. The technology might be ready but the governments (think regulations, traffic laws, car insurance companies, car manufacturers, etc etc etc ) in addition to the public (which is not ready either). Is going to take at least 10+ years for it to resemble something like you imagine it.
- Dolimiter 12y ago
  The technology is not nearly ready. Not in a city. It's like flying drone delivery. Easy to demonstrate in a single controlled setting, but nearly impossible to actually implement in the real world.
  - ghaff 12y ago
    It's hard for me to even imagine how a self-driving car could manage somewhere like large swaths of Manhattan where a certain amount of, umm, aggression is needed to make any forward progress. Though it will likely happen some day (probably multiple decades from now). As it is, I'd even settle for voice control on my phone that could reliably understand me.
    - IanCal 12y ago
      > a certain amount of, umm, aggression is needed to make any forward progress They added a slight "aggression" back in 2011, if other cars aren't letting it out it starts pushing forwards a bit: > Sometimes, however, the car has to be more "aggressive." When going through a four-way intersection, for example, it yields to other vehicles based on road rules; but if other cars don't reciprocate, it advances a bit to show to the other drivers its intention. Without programming that kind of behavior, Urmson said, it would be impossible for the robot car to drive in the real world. http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/artificial-intelligence/how-google-self-driving-car-works http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/artificial-intel... I really don't understand why people think small behavioural differences like that require decades of work. Things that humans find difficult and stressful are likely to be the things that are significantly easier when you have a reaction time measured in milliseconds and full 360 degree vision.
Dolimiter 12y ago
Self-driving cars in a city environment are like flying cars. Sounds kinda plausible, but the tech is always going to be 20 years away.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  Google is closing in on over a million miles with no accidents, and have decided to focus on refining their intelligence for city driving. 6 years tops.
- nl 12y ago
  In 2004 the first drive less car race was held. The best car made 11km. I thought that was an amazing effort, and in 20 years one might finish. It took one year before the race was finished.
untog 12y ago
It's clearly Uber's plan to replace all their drivers with self-driving cars in the future - I think they've even said so themselves. But even six years is a long time for a VC-funded business. And what does "regular use" mean? That seems like the critical component of a bet like this.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  "Regular use" is defined as you being able to hail one to take you at least 30 miles for ~$50, from either a mobile or webapp. If anyone can buy a self-driving vehicle, Uber and Lyft are aberrations, as anyone (even FedEx and UPS) could provide self-driving vehicle livery services. Its no longer a marketplace business; its a fleet management business (and both UPS and FedEx are extremely capable at managing capital expenditures, fleet operations, and system capacity).
  - untog 12y ago
    In how many metro areas, though? Surely also a huge factor in "regular use".
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      Excellent question. Let me noodle on that over a beer after work. I want to say 5 (SF, LA, CHI, NY, ATL), but its a very subjective metric.
  - prawn 12y ago
    I think we'll see at least two main car providers in major cities plus some niche operators, then one major network that allows you to buy your own car to be committed to a pool as an investment.
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      Do you think we'll see public transit orgs (for example, PACE/CTA in Chicago and its suburbs) purchase their own self-driving vehicles to provide transit services?
findjashua 12y ago
I think the 'self-driving' feature of the car will be more like an autopilot - you'd still need a human at the wheel to occasionally override the system. Hence, I see the self-driving car to be more of a competition to short-term rentals like Zipcar. In situations where you don't want to drive (have to work/talk on phone; after a you've had a few drinks etc), you'd still need a driver.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  That may be the case at first, but I can guarantee you will not still need a driver forever.
  - findjashua 12y ago
    Of course, but that kind of shift isn't going to happen within 6 years (as parent comment suggests)
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      I think we will see self driving cars in regular use that do not require an attentive driver on the freeway within 6 years. I think self driving cars will put Uber drivers out of business in 10 to 20 years.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - findjashua 12y ago
        Even if the technology becomes publicly usable (stretching it), there are bigger obstacles - government regulation and fear mongering - that make me think it will not happen in this timeframe.
bentcorner 12y ago
I'm super excited for self-driving cars - they're literally going to change the world in dramatic ways. It's sort of mind boggling once you start really thinking about the implications of it. You may as well pose it as "what if we invented teleportation?" Many of the end results are going to be similar.

samstave 12y ago

You know what would be interesting is that municipalities should see this as an opportunity. What if the city were to start their own modern municipal taxi services, and compete directly with Lyft/Uber.... Then they get revenues.

hnal943 12y ago
I'm not optimistic about municipalities running anything efficiently. However, this would provide great opportunities to get rid of public transit as we know it. Private sector rides could simply be subsidized for low income users. How much more convenient would this be vs taking the bus?
- samstave 12y ago
  Sure, but maybe some scrappy startup could go to municipalities and try to offer it as a service to them under contract. Then use that to grow out and manage it for other cities a well.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  A municipality can't write a check every year to a white label service that sits between its citizens and the self-driving vehicles, maintenance facilities, and charging stations built to provide automated mobility? My city provides roads, fire, police, and other services in a pretty efficient manner. If yours doesn't, I suggest you campaign for more transparency.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    > My city provides roads, fire, police, and other services in a pretty efficient manner. Mine doesn't. I saw a ladder truck, a fire engine, and multiple other vehicles show up when one guy passed out and need medical care.
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      That's not inefficiency. That's precautionary, and SOP in most first-responder units. Rarely do first-responders know the extent of what the situation on the scene is going to be before they get there. Diesel and miles on the truck are cheap, and peoples' time is a sunk cost. Don't take my word for it though, the Mayor of Provo answered the question much better: http://provomayor.com/2011/03/04/why-do-we-send-a-fire-truck-with-each-ambulance-call/ http://provomayor.com/2011/03/04/why-do-we-send-a-fire-truck... "I’m often asked why we send a fire truck on every medical call. Does it really require an ambulance and a fire truck for many of the minor injuries? It seems a waste to drive a very fuel-inefficient fire engine to something where the additional personnel are not needed. While there are some calls for emergency medical assistance that can easily be handled with just the two personnel on the ambulance, there are many that require additional help. Nearly every EMS system sends a unit to “back” the ambulance for a number of reasons. First, nearly every life threatening emergency incident is best handled with at least two paramedics in addition to the driver. Second, there is not always enough reliable information on the patient condition to determine if additional help is needed. Valuable time may be lost if additional personnel are not dispatched until the ambulance arrives and makes an assessment. Finally, even so called “routine” medical calls often require the patient to be lifted into the back of the ambulance. Even if the patient is not obese, it is safer for the patient and for the backs of the medics to have additional help to lift. When the fire truck is not needed on an incident, it is released to go back into service as soon as possible. The cost of the fuel to have the extra help immediately available when it is needed is a small cost when compared to the loss of precious minutes when a life is on the line."

samstave 12y ago

panarky 12y ago

Consequently, the cost of a ride will approach the level of direct costs like fuel and maintenance. There won't be much left for driver compensation or vehicle depreciation, much less a durable surplus for the network operator. Paradoxically for the disruptors, the way out of this trap is for Uber and Lyft to lobby for greater regulation, stringent requirements for insurance and liability, background checks, safety inspections and government licenses. They need higher barriers to entry. They need to carve out a space safe from competition, or it will rapidly devolve into a lowest-common-denominator market. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

rescripting 12y ago
Companies like Uber and Lyft operating without as stringent regulation as regular taxi companies is their main competitive advantage (AirBnB is in the same group). Taxi drivers have lobbied for years to build up the kind of economic protections they have from disappearing margins in a competitive marketplace, and consequently being a taxi driver meant you could make a middle class living without tortuous hours. Uber comes along and operates without the limitations of those protections and drivers earn less. Ultimately without intervention it puts a whole industry of people on a trajectory towards poverty, and this is before we even get to self driving cars. What are we going to do with everyone who gets forced out of their middle class jobs?
- brianbreslin 12y ago
  I would argue that it has been a long time in the USA since a taxi driver could earn a middle class income driving. Medallion fees basically make them indentured servants.
  - paulhauggis 12y ago
    If that's the case, why would anyone do this by choice? You could just work for McDonalds and make just as much money for less effort.
    - 12y ago

tootie 12y ago

I don't see how there's any network effect to be had. Consider food delivery. I use both seamless and delivery.com. Seamless is a little better and has a wider network of restaurants. But I have 0 lockin and will frequently switch to delivery.com for any exclusive restaurants they have. I have an account on grubhub too although I use it rarely. There's nothing tying to me to any of them. No friend list, no thousands of photos. Just my recent orders which are of limited value. Taxi service is the same. The second that Lyft has lower rates or a close car, everyone will switch in a second. Or flock to option 3 the second it has any advantage.

100timesthis 12y ago

This.