She has no idea about some of the aspects of Uber that some may find objectionable.
Much of the rest of the world already has perfectly fine minicabs that turn up in 5 minutes.
Good thing about Uber for the rest of the world is US VCs subsidising our rides.
1. allow cabs to run mostly unregulated (besides the regulated monopoly part)
2. cab service is crap because drivers rent the taxi license from someone who broker rented taxi licenses. its mind boggling how far the drivers are from the meddalions.
3. startup breaks tons of laws, including the one making cabs a bad monopoly and abuse user data left and rigth.
4. americans thing it is the best thing ever.
wake up and realize that the taxi monopoly was the cause. uber is just trying to replace one monopoly with another. because being at the top of that monopoly is very lucrative.
the only good thing uber did was prove without doubt that taxi monopoly laws were bad and didnt serve the drivers or the community. but absolutely nobody is willing to even consider talking about it. its all PR about "uber saved mankind".
So this is why Uber and its clones are so popular in all kinds of countries from India to China to South East Asia? To be honest it is you who seems like the less traveled one.
Her only reply was that she heard an Uber driver raped a passenger. That's it. Even with her daily CNN news habit, she does not know about:
- Uber workplace sexual harrassment
- Uber using grayball against government officials
- Uber legal fights about contractor vs employee classifications
- Uber lawsuit about corporate espionage
Yes, it's just a sample size of 1 but I think it's very easy to overestimate what typical people know about Uber. The HN bubble repeatedly upvotes negative Uber stories that would never cross the radar of most everyone else.
You presented her as an avid reader of CNN a functionally irrelevant detail as if to say if even SHE doesn't know about bad press about uber obviously the plebs don't.
Unfortunately there isn't any representative sample size of one and the fact that she reads CNN on her ipad tells you little about what she reads on CNN.
You could even be correct but the way you prove your point is so badly argued that you do a disservice to your own point.
You should avoid making your arguments about appeals to emotional reasoning.
1. Ones who drive for both - this cohort used to prefer Lyft due to tips but the scales have tipped (no pun) due to Uber introducing a whole host of features which Lyft is catching up to. This is easily verifiable by frequenting reddit.com/r/uberdrivers or reddit.com/r/lyft
2. Ones who only drive for Uber because the demand is overwhelming enough to not justify managing two separate accounts.
Anything else you hear is pure anecdote. My source - I am an Uber employee :)
[1] Lyft driver cancel policy: https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/articles/213584358#drivercanc...
Policy is to address the combined impact of frequency and magnitude.
Definitely not worth the ride. The fact that you can get kicked out at any time tends to moderate your behavior.
To be clear, I'm talking about drunk and belligerent. If you're just drunk and vomiting, first there's a cleaning penalty. Second, people are generally most sympathetic as it does not make you a bad person.
Some people are just assholes. Heck, if they like abusing people after a bad day at work, they might even take the long way around so they can feel better after more sustained abuse.
They have both lyft and uber, whichever is faster or cheaper, they take.
Sometimes you just need to get from point A to point B