3 ms·

I think the best-practices that can be learned here is that if you are going into emerging territory with a technology that is challenging the regulator limits,

I think the best-practices that can be learned here is that if you are going into emerging territory with a technology that is challenging the regulator limits, it's better to be the Lyft than it is to be the Uber. In fact, I think this is one of Lyfts strategic advantage - that they aren't Uber, and they let Uber take all the hits. The costs of those hits must be realized somewhere in Uber (as in hiring David P.). Whereas Lyft can essentially sit back, garner goodwill, and enter a the market as a full competitor without expending the same resources. Now realize, that they can only do that because Uber also exist, and Uber does some of the dirtier work. If Lyft on it's own was trying to open new territories, they'd probably be a bit more like Uber. But it's a good lesson in creating a competitive advantage from unwanted competition. Kudos to Lyft for seizing that.

gooserock 12y ago
Sorry, I don't buy this. You're proposing that if Uber weren't around, that Lyft would need to act like Uber and "take all the hits." That's absolutely not the case. Uber does not have to act the way it acts. Sure, the first company in this space is bound to run up against regulatory hurdles, but they don't need to openly and brazenly break the law to make their point, to the point that city officials are publicly calling them "thugs." Sure, Uber has been talking to Portland city officials for a year, as the article says, but what's the rush? They're in 250 other cities already, cities a whole lot bigger than Portland. What possible motivation do they have to act the way they do, going behind the backs of the very people they're trying to negotiate with, operating illegally, and daring anyone to stop them? No, that's just immaturity, arrogance, and greed.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  >Sorry, I don't buy this. You're proposing that if Uber weren't around, that Lyft would need to act like Uber and "take all the hits." Nope, that's not what the post says. It says that Lyft would probably be a bit more like Uber. That doesn't mean they'd have to flaunt the law, just that they would have to do more negotiation themselves. Also that they currently get the benefits of rabid regulation-fighting without being the bad guy.
eddieplan9 12y ago
You said it as if Windows Phone or Windows RT has been a good strategy since it entered the market when it was ripe thanks to Apple and Google who had been cultivating it for years. Imagine applying that "strategic advantage" to electrical car: one would sit back and wait for Tesla to do all the hard work and then enter as a full competitor. This does not sound right to me, and hugely discounts the immense value of the "dirtier works", such as actual goodwill from appreciative consumers and businesses and invaluable partners (rather than tech bloggers), not to mention first mover advantage. And it's hard to praise someone for "seizing" it when they just "sit back".
- hadees 12y ago
  The truth is these companies are selling a commodity now and all anyone is going to care about is which one can give me a ride the fastest and cheapest. I have zero loyalty to Uber or Lyft. If there was another player in the market that gave me cheaper rides quicker I'd never use Uber or Lyft again.

gooserock 12y ago

Sorry, I don't buy this. You're proposing that if Uber weren't around, that Lyft would need to act like Uber and "take all the hits." That's absolutely not the case. Uber does not have to act the way it acts. Sure, the first company in this space is bound to run up against regulatory hurdles, but they don't need to openly and brazenly break the law to make their point, to the point that city officials are publicly calling them "thugs." Sure, Uber has been talking to Portland city officials for a year, as the article says, but what's the rush? They're in 250 other cities already, cities a whole lot bigger than Portland. What possible motivation do they have to act the way they do, going behind the backs of the very people they're trying to negotiate with, operating illegally, and daring anyone to stop them? No, that's just immaturity, arrogance, and greed.

Dylan16807 12y ago
>Sorry, I don't buy this. You're proposing that if Uber weren't around, that Lyft would need to act like Uber and "take all the hits." Nope, that's not what the post says. It says that Lyft would probably be a bit more like Uber. That doesn't mean they'd have to flaunt the law, just that they would have to do more negotiation themselves. Also that they currently get the benefits of rabid regulation-fighting without being the bad guy.

eddieplan9 12y ago

You said it as if Windows Phone or Windows RT has been a good strategy since it entered the market when it was ripe thanks to Apple and Google who had been cultivating it for years. Imagine applying that "strategic advantage" to electrical car: one would sit back and wait for Tesla to do all the hard work and then enter as a full competitor. This does not sound right to me, and hugely discounts the immense value of the "dirtier works", such as actual goodwill from appreciative consumers and businesses and invaluable partners (rather than tech bloggers), not to mention first mover advantage. And it's hard to praise someone for "seizing" it when they just "sit back".

hadees 12y ago
The truth is these companies are selling a commodity now and all anyone is going to care about is which one can give me a ride the fastest and cheapest. I have zero loyalty to Uber or Lyft. If there was another player in the market that gave me cheaper rides quicker I'd never use Uber or Lyft again.