Hacker News Reader

Comment by Aelinsaar | Hacker News Reader

What exactly was the logic with this company? It feels like a fundamental misunderstanding of the Uber business model, which thrived on the constant demand and ubiquity of a market. It also, frankly, is cashing in on people who uber when they know they'll be drinking. That's a giant slice of the market that, for obvious reasons, kids won't be a part of.

It seems like it would be tough for a "Shuddle" driver to make a lot of money, during the limited hours when they'd be needed.

View on HN

Ummmm... well, in California, anyway, anybody that works with kids needs to be fingerprinted and pass a Livescan and keep it current. My daughter's 80yo violin teacher has to keep her Livescan up to date, FFS. Now, how many Uber drivers have ever even heard of Livescan, much less have submitted to one? And jumping through all the hoops required to do activity sign-out, that is a bunch of paperwork, too. So the safety and security part of the equation is what makes it different from Uber. The regulatory landscape for a kid-oriented service is totally different.

But there are long-standing competitors like Kid's Kab, etc. Mostly they are a scheduled service, like to/from gym every Tuesday and Thursday at 4:00PM or something, not a ride-on-demand like Uber.

The logic is that some parents will happily pay a premium to not have to drive their kids everywhere, but below a certain age they won't entrust them to random Uber drivers.

You seem to think that a driver can't do both Shuddle and Uber, but I don't see why that wouldn't be the case. During peak kid hours, they pick up Shuddle rides. When they don't have those, they do Uber, Lift, delivery, or one of the many other things you can do with a car and a cellphone.

When you think about it though, it seems like a feature of Uber or Lyft. Just pay an extra fee for extra vetting for sensitive rides where the passengers need extra attention (maybe it's a monthly subscription?).

You'd think, but Uber and Lyft aren't doing it.

But it's somewhat probable that they could (given their mission), and that's what makes this risky.

And even if they don't do it themselves, I imagine that uber will eventually release an API of sorts, allowing anyone to tap into their logistical network.

The food delivery startups faced similar risks, it'll be interesting to see how they fare now that uber eats is gaining momentum

This business model has existed forever in the taxi industry. It is often school districts contract with taxi companies to fill gaps in bus routes.

That seems like a service a taxi company (Uber in this case) with a normal revenue stream could afford to offer. It doesn't sound like a viable independent model.

This seems like an area where the lack of oversight of drivers would all of a sudden matter a LOT.

Sure, but again a company with Uber's money and network can afford to explore creating such a service, without having to fold before they can. More, they could sustain it, and generalize it to a network of "Trusted drivers".

So, to me, it seems much more viable as a sub-unit of a larger company.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com