Comment by hn_throwaway_99 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hn_throwaway_99 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

hn_throwaway_99

I want to believe this is possible, but experience also says it's not worth it.

This happened in Austin, TX. When Uber and Lyft left Austin due to a driver fingerprint ordinance, RideAustin, a local non-profit with the backing of an Austin tech mogul, sprung up. Ride Austin paid drivers better, had a round-up option to support local charities, and though there were some early kinks with the app most of those went away after a couple months. I was a big fan and supported them as much as I could.

The second Uber and Lyft came back (state legislature overrode Austin's ordinance), Ride Austin's ridership plummeted. I tried to still take them whenever I could, but over time it became harder and harder (fewer riders meant fewer quality drivers). After 3 bad pickup experiences at the airport I said forget it. Covid was the final nail in the RideAustin coffin and it closed in June.

Of course California is a much bigger market so any competitors may have better luck, but I still think a lot will be wary if it's just a matter of time before the big boys come back in one form or another.

RideAustin did not work unless you had a US-registered credit card which cut off a huge group of people from being able to use it (not to mention they only published it in US app stores). I rented cars instead.

I highly doubt the international market would have made a lick of difference for a service only accessible in a city in the middle of Texas. Not saying there weren't some international visitors who may have used it, but in the grand scheme of things that's a drop in the bucket.

Ok then - not sure I agree during SXSW, ACL, the many downtown conventions etc, but fine, let’s go with that.

It was during SXSW 2017 that RideAustin failed for 5 hours one night, and the alternatives (Fasten etc) also did not work. How many qualified customers never even opened the app again after being burned by that?

I mean, if anything you are exactly making my point. RideAustin was a local nonprofit, run on essentially a shoestring budget, that failed during a surge that was probably many times the load they normally get in any single night, and your response is "How many qualified customers never even opened the app again after being burned by that?"

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying why would some small startup that really could only address a single, relatively small market (CA is big but pales in comparison to the world at large) be able to attract the capital necessary to eventually compete against Uber and Lyft? The service levels you've come to expect from Uber and Lyft don't come cheap, and they've already had years to scale their operations.

It's a weird dichotomy I sometimes see on HN: "Why aren't there more competitors in this space?" and "Why doesn't this other startup provide the same levels of service and low low prices as this other enterprise that got billions in VC funding?"

I feel like network effects are at play here. For locals, Ride Austin becomes the default. But for Austin, there's also many events that bring in regional and international travelers; it's not hard for them to find out who the local ride service is, download the app, and set up the service, but if Uber and Lyft are available, they're the lower friction option and are going to be the default choice of travelers, regardless of moral fringe benefits like paying drivers better or supporting charities.

Wouldn't something like Ride Austin also face the same problems as Uber, which is to say, they need to hire every driver as an employee which they do not at this time

I guess if Uber and Lyft had to compete fairly, RideAustin might have stuck around.

I'm not actually sure. I lived in Austin during the time, and it was nice, but it also meant I needed to have 2-3 Austin-specific rideshare apps, Uber and Lyft, and then Juno for when I was in NYC. It was just cumbersome.

I wasn't using any of them regularly, mostly just on trips/to and from the airport, so a lot of the time when I tried to open any of them, they'd need me to re-enter my payment info. It's just not a good UX to have 5 different apps that all do the same thing, because you can't be sure exactly which ones will work when you need them.

What do you mean "compete fairly". I don't see how they competed unfairly when they came back. There is no way a small, single-locale-focused ride share company can provide the levels of service and quality people have come to expect from Uber and Lyft.

They mean Uber and Lyft use investor money to subsidize ride costs, so they are able to beat the local alternatives on price.

It’s the classic, big company opens a store in a small town and sells at a loss until the local mom and pops are driven out of business, then raises the prices once they are the last man standing.

That and not drive costs lower by shifting risk onto "contractors"

This would likely have been the case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com