Especially with Uber experimenting into non-ride services on top of their infrastructure, like food delivery, etc.
Maybe I haven't followed closely enough, but my understanding is that Lyft is still really focused on just making a good, friendly, affordable ride option.
0: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/01/27/how-ubers-autono...
* Loup
* Leap
* Night School
My understanding is that Chariot is still operating and doing well, though.
On the left end would be a private, dedicated chauffer. (Or private helicopter for extreme left!) On the right end would be public transit or walking.
Putting transit options on the continuum would look like:
Private Chauffer -- Personal Car -- Taxi -- Livery/Lyft/Uber -- Lyft Line/UberPool -- Lyft Line + Hotspots -- <potential new bus-like offerings> -- public transit -- walking
My earlier comment on the continuum: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10122701
Perhaps one slight deviation in Lyft Line is is when other people being picked up by your car are running late [0].
0: Personal experience in SF in October.
FYI, the Lyft driver is supposed to wait no longer than one minute. If they wait longer than that, you can prod them to move on (or mention that in their review).
I spent this summer in SF and took a Lyft Line home every day. This was only an issue once, and the driver left after ~1 minute, so it didn't actually delay my ride at all.
The point is, in general, public transit routes are farther from your ideal route and schedule. Taxis and regular Uber/Lyft go direct, while Lyft Lines are in between, requiring some compromise on route and schedule (waiting for a match).
I've built a similar continuum for all of the taquerias in my neighborhood considering price and quality.
It's odd to me that people with (assumingly) no knowledge on the matter feel they can aptly deduce complex situations into one sound bite of a sentence.
He's a raging, power-hungry narcissistic sociopath, in public, all the time. This isn't guess work. The parent of my original post is suggesting that Uber exists for reasons other than the ones Kalanick has given in public, and that's just silly.
You cannot call someone a "raging, power-hungry narcissistic sociopath" or accuse him of having a "god complex" for 1. wanting to build a successful company catering to rich people or 2. naming a company after a Nietzschian ideal. Does NASA have a god complex because they used the name Apollo?
Your points about Travis do not seem to be informed by reason or experience with the man. In fact, it just seems as though you're emotionally invested to the point of complete and utter bias.
That you don't see the same thing demonstrates your own bias to give certain people and behaviors more room for doubt. Which is fine, as long as you recognize it's still a bias. We are the same kind of meat-machine, with the same bugs. Don't try to act like you're above it.
I couldn't agree more. Travis (and the team) has created $51bn of market value, provided cheaper and more efficient transportation to tens of millions of people in hundreds of cities all around the world. He's fought, and defeated, corruption of city officials in many locations all around the world. Uber has and will have a massive positive impact on tens/hundreds/thousands of millions of people in the world (with the self driving vehicle). How he's portrayed in the media is largely irrelevant, to me at least.
I personally think they're just trying to make a lot of money.