Hacker News Reader

Comment by daughart | Hacker News Reader

The article assumes Uber can go on offering cheaper rides forever, but every piece of serious analysis I've read comes to the conclusion that Uber must eventually raise its prices to sustain its business. Nothing in the NYT article attacks dynamic pricing, to the contrary it reads to me as endorsing the idea of dynamic pricing. The whole blog post is flimsy.

View on HN

From the NYT article:

> A more thoughtful regime would ensure that all drivers make a living wage by establishing a minimum fare for riders, and a standardized share of that fare for drivers

The reason post also mentions capping supply. What is your definition of dynamic pricing if it includes capping supply and putting a floor on price?

Of course Uber will eventually raise their prices to profitable levels. But if they have their way that won't be until they've driven every other taxi and ride share service out of the market and they have us all by the short and curlies.

There's a very low barrier to entry with taxi services, so I don't foresee any ridesharing getting the kind of strangehold on the market that you describe.

  There's a very low barrier to entry with taxi services

In New York, it's extremely high to have a legitimate taxicab, as a medallion is required. They went for over $1 million 5 years ago and are still 6 figures.

I meant sans regulatory barriers to entry of course.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com