Hacker News Reader

Comment by aphextron | Hacker News Reader

I'd agree that the concept of ride sharing is great. But Uber's execution of it has been a complete travesty. The precedent they set for people not expecting to tip drivers has set the standard for all "sharing economy" apps that came after. It is downright deceptive how they presented the service as "tips included" at first. On top of that, their technology is nothing that can't be copied and done better. I think Lyft is going to eat their lunch in the long run.

View on HN

The "no tipping" was a great precedent they set. It made their service super easy to use. Call your ride, get in, get out, leave a rating if you're pissed off (vs. spending weeks dealing with the NYC Taxi & Limousine Commission). Americans want to tip so badly, the only way to prevent them from doing it is to not give them the option to (it was always possible to tip in cash, but the intention was clearly to have all interactions happen through the app). Tipping doesn't actually lead to drivers earning more money, it just leads to the price of rides dropping as the need to tip increases quantity supplied and decreases quantity demanded until prices reach a new equilibrium, at which point the drivers are still making the same amount and riders are still paying the same amount, except now riders get all stressed out about how much they should tip and drivers get all stressed out about how much their passengers are going to tip. Drivers only think tips are a good idea since most of them aren't smart enough to understand economics. Or, perhaps the Lake Wobegon effect is at play and an overwhelming majority of drivers believe they would receive more tips than average.

> the concept of ride sharing is great...Uber's execution of it has been a complete travesty

Most cities would have no ride sharing industry to speak of had it not been for Uber de-fanging the taxi industry.

Cities where ride sharing services like Uber was banned (e.g. Vancouver) have been getting along just fine with car sharing services like Car2Go[1], Evo[2], ZipCar[3] and Modo[4] for years. Uber hasn't really brought anything new to the table asides more competition to taxi companies though more convenient app services and VC money to drive prices lower.

[1]: https://www.car2go.com/CA/en/ [2]: https://evo.ca [3]: http://www.zipcar.ca/vancouver [4]: http://modo.coop

Those services don't bring a car to you with a driver. They're competing with Avis and Hertz, not taxis.

Because of the per-minute billing nature of Car2Go (as opposed to Avis which is per-hour billing) as well as the convenience of these cars being within walking distance at any point and can be left anywhere within the service area, it is a direct competitor to one-way travel services like taxis. If I'm choosing to use Car2Go instead of a taxi service to drive my fiancé and I to the ferry on a weekly basis or to drive us home from downtown Vancouver after shopping, or I'm driving myself to the airport, then it's a direct competitor with taxis. Keep in mind that in all these use cases, Car2Go and other car sharing services are significantly cheaper than equivalent taxi rides.

There are enough cars in Vancouver that you'll find one within a few blocks 90% of the time, so the argument of "not bringing a car with a driver" is moot unless you don't know how to drive. There's also no surge pricing. It's always the same flat rate.

Boston Metrocab's app predates Uber by years. It just didn't have VCs subsidizing the cost of rides. Which, in fairness, isn't a business model innovation when it's not a sustainable price.

(Also why Uber went on a sustained binge of offering 5$ rides in Boston; they didn't have anything else to compete with BMC on).

I think Uber's execution got them the market share they have (which btw is a huge achievement by any means) but lost them the time to build a decent culture.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com