Hacker News Reader

Comment by tgflynn | Hacker News Reader

What if it were done in a different way though so that the app is really just an app that doesn't attempt to exert any control over the drivers ? In that case wouldn't the drivers really be independent contractors and not employees ?

I always thought that instead of trying to replace taxis someone should have created an app/platform to make them as easy to use as Uber/Lyft.

View on HN

I have seen somewhat successful attempts (in international markets) that used a similar approach. There are still some hard questions: how do you make sure that your clients receive consistent levels of service, what is the plan if a driver breaks the law (if/when something _really_ bad happens, clients typically don't like position "it's not us, we are just the app - blame the driver")

The plan is that you don't get involved in any of that. All you do is provide a platform that allows customers and drivers to connect in an efficient way. If clients don't aren't willing to accept that then I guess they don't need rides.

And you believe Uber/Lyft haven't thought about this?

I think they did it wrong by trying to maintain too much control over the drivers. Either that or people and/or their political representatives just aren't that interested in ride-sharing. But I doubt that, because as someone who is currently unable to drive, I know what a valuable lifeline these services can be. Fortunately I don't live in California.

EDIT: Also there's a problem with the way resources get allocated. I think that platforms of this type provide a valuable service, but not necessarily one that should be considered the basis for a billion dollar business. The majority of the revenue should be going to the drivers. But it's hard to get capital for something that has no chance of creating a few more billionaires.

I suspect that a large part of the current ridership of these services would be less than thrilled about grabbing a ride from a random stranger without the level of oversight provided by Uber/Lift in terms of payments, safety, and service levels.

My objection to your argument is that taxis and other car services existed long before Uber and Lyft, usually with some level of safety supposedly being provided by government licensing requirements for drivers.

The big problem with taxis is that they're inconvenient to use. You either have to take a chance at hailing one or call a switchboard, having no idea in advance of how long it will take to get picked up.

Uber/Lyft's platform largely solved the inconvenience problem, they could have offered it as a service to existing taxi companies/drivers without getting involved in all the regulatory issues.

>My objection to your argument is that taxis and other car services existed long before Uber and Lyft, usually with some level of safety supposedly being provided by government licensing requirements for drivers.

And people preferred Uber/Lyft’s oversight versus the taxi services that existed before.

I don't think "fuck the customer" is a useful step of brainstorming market fit.

I agree, a general platform that rather than try to manage, just connect.

In the short-term, while Uber and Lyft leave the market, any shared-ride service may be better than no shared-ride service, so a replacement may have a low bar for "good enough."

Then it can improve over time.

Of course, where possible, more public transportation, biking, and reducing or replacing travel works too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com