Hacker News Reader

Comment by sheepscreek | Hacker News Reader

That part is understandable. What doesn’t make sense is the ratio.

Driver pays for the car, gas and their time. And Uber pockets 50% of the fare? I’ve heard this from at least a few vocal drivers.

Apple App Store’s 30% cut as a software service provider seems like a bargain.

View on HN

Uber has never considered its drivers to be employees. I think it sees itself as a marketplace - selling driver time to riders. So it makes sense that the plan was always to take more of the pie for itself once it got enough power to do that. Like Amazon with Audible - if you're the only game in town then you can charge whatever you like, so they do.

> if you're the only game in town then you can charge whatever you like

Did I miss Lyft going out of business or something? Or is this more of a duopoly type situation?

Android is around too (with the Apple app store example). So, yeah, I guess?

> Driver pays for the car, gas and their time. And Uber pockets 50% of the fare? I’ve heard this from at least a few vocal drivers.

It is in Uber's interest to keep exactly as much of the fare as they can to the extent they still have riders and drivers. This was always the endgame.

but what are they supposed to do? there is no more evil tech-bro to blame even, they are now under public pressure to make money and if the current CEO fails to maximize the profits, he will get booted and replaced by the one who will.

Society doesn’t need to accept their profit motive

Then Uber wouldn't exist. It was an exorbitantly expensive and risky plan to disrupt an entrenched taxi industry all funded by investors.

You lack imagination if the only way people can achieve something is through the one specific economic system

Reply on news.ycombinator.com