Hacker News Reader

Comment by paxys | Hacker News Reader

The latest dark pattern in all these apps is that they will mess up your order/ride and then "refund" you in the form of account credit. There's no way to actually get your money back. Trying to contact support results in an endless loop of help screens and chatbots. If you are able to figure out the magic combination of options that will get you to a support agent they will say "sure we will refund your money" but that is still only going to your app account. The last time I had an issue I literally had to ask them 3 times "I want you to confirm that you are refunding my credit card the amount it was charged" for them to finally agree to it. It is crazy what they can get away with.

View on HN

The worst thing is that you can't even do a chargeback, otherwise you get banned. There is no recourse for the consumer. If this is their solution for fighting chargebacks, they should get banned from accepting Visa / MC / AMEX.

Another sketchy practice: if you get Uber Cash through a card like Amex, when you go to use it the price for the ride is automatically $15-$20 more than someone who doesn’t have an Uber Cash balance.

I’ve checked this side by side with colleagues at the airport getting ride quotes to the same hotel. When you have Uber Cash they will quote you more. You can find numerous Reddit threads on the topic as well.

This feels very illegal to me, but not a lawyer.

Send in a complaint to your state attorney’s general

I notice this with my Uber cash credit I get from my AMEX Gold card. The prices are always higher.

Here's a story today about this practice:

Bay Area traveler says Uber gift cards boosted fare https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43751945

https://www.nysun.com/article/dynamic-pricing-at-major-groce...

The less they know about you the better. Good reason to not have Gift Cards inside of the applications.

I have heard a lot of people speak about dynamic pricing, but I have yet to hear any benefit to the consumer or society as a whole.

Basically any possible pitch for it is worse in every way than simple downward wealth redistribution.

Going by pure economic theory "dynamic pricing" actually benefits both buyers and sellers in a marketplace. There are plenty of cases where it makes sense – lunch menus at restaurants, grocery store coupons, retail bargain bins, dollar menus, happy hour deals, senior/youth/student discounts, even surge pricing in Uber & Lyft. Of course like with every aspect of economics how something is implemented matters a lot more than how it sounds on paper. Especially in the case of rideshare/food delivery, where the middleman has all the data and makes all the decisions.

Well that's certainly AN economic theory, but it feels a little polyannish/unreasonably hopeful. Like most of american macroeconomic discourse.

Where exactly does macro come into play here?

Wouldn't perfect individualised dynamic pricing mean that the seller (Uber in this case) would get to capture the entire consumer surplus? Is that good?

Yes but also that some people would be getting a service that they otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford. But there’s little/no incentive for a pure seller to do that, although for a marketplace like Uber there is more possibility for that, in order to maintain liquidity on the other side of the transaction. I listened to an interview where Uber CEO Dara K note there is always an incentive pool, and based on the market it is either riders or drivers who are getting the incentive money at any given time.

Ideally the remedy is competition.

Yes. This is why getting an Uber is merely expensive instead of impossible on rainy days or on New Year's Eve.

Dynamic pricing makes it possible for both riders and drivers to respond to changes in supply and demand. If prices were static, many drivers would prefer to go to a New Year's Eve celebration themselves than work, but when it becomes their biggest paying shift of the year, they're a lot more willing to do it. Riders have to pay a bigger price if they want a ride at peak times, but it's still possible to get one when they really have a strong preference to.

Prices are always dynamic in every business. The only difference is in how frequently the price changes.

If you take your idea to the logical extreme then you're essentially arguing for permanently fixed prices. This is one reason why it's sometimes impossible to get a taxi in places where the rates are fixed by government edict.

I don't think we're referring to the same concept. Dynamic pricing implies charging two different concurrent customers different prices for the same good or service. The only place you can see this now are basically reward/promo/point programs, which while also gross (basically, making transactiobs cheaper for the rich) at least seem to have some proponents.

You are thinking of price discrimination, which is a subcategory of dynamic pricing. Changing prices based on time of day, current demand, tiers/SKUs or really anything else is also collectively dynamic pricing.

I would probably call this "charge discrimination", which gives a clear indication which side of the party is empowered with this concept.

Still, wildly volatile pricing is also an excellent reason to avoid taxi apps. Why politicians have no desire to rein them in is baffling. I guess the stock market is really all that matters at the end of the day....

Price discrimination isn’t a subcategory of dynamic pricing. Dynamic pricing is equivalent to what is colloquially referred to as surge pricing, whereas price discrimination is based on the buyer’s perceived willingness and ability to pay.

Dynamic pricing could technically fall into the category of price discrimination if the discrimination is temporal (e.g. people who need a taxi at 8:00 AM pay more than people who need a taxi at 8:00 PM), but generally price discrimination refers to changes in price based upon anticipated demand, whereas dynamic pricing refers to changes in price based on actual demand.

> Dynamic pricing implies charging two different concurrent customers different prices for the same good or service.

That is price discrimination, not dynamic pricing. Price discrimination involves charging more or less based on the buyer’s perceived willingness and ability to pay. Dynamic pricing is based on fluctuations in consumer demand. A taxi ride at midnight is not the same as a taxi ride at noon; if there are proportionally fewer drivers available at midnight, fares will be higher at midnight.

The same principle may be applied in the restaurant industry; kitchen throughput has limits. If these limits are reached during peak hours, the restaurant can either raise prices during these hours or reduce prices outside of these hours to spread out the consumer demand, maximizing earnings during peak times while reducing kitchen idle time during off-peak hours.

In theory surge pricing should bring more drivers into the area making the service better for riders. Not sure how much that actually works out in practice though without data only Uber really has.

Surge pricing in theory incentivizes more drivers to operate during peak times, reducing wait times for passengers. If you’ve used these kinds of apps in regions where they aren’t popular, it can be quite common to not have anyone pick up your fare.

If you could bid up the price, you would be more likely to incentivize any idle drivers to pick up your fare. A driver might not be willing to get out of bed for a $10 fare, but the same driver might be willing to get out of bed for a $30 fare.

I remember the days when Uber prices from SF to anywhere on the peninsula would suddenly spike exactly a minute or two after each Caltrain departed. If you just missed the train you paid a lot more.

And then the many times that Lyft violated the triangle inequality in pricing: Ride from A->B followed by a ride from B->C was often cheaper than a direct ride from A->C, if you knew how to pick B correctly. I once confused the hell out of a driver when I got out and got back in the same car at some nondescript spot.

> If you just missed the train you paid a lot more.

That doesn’t strike me as malicious. If you just missed the train, other users probably did, too.

How did you find the price differentials with Lyft?

> That doesn’t strike me as malicious. If you just missed the train, other users probably did, too.

You may not have started with malicious intent but you may have unintentionally created a malicious algorithm that learned to squeeze profits off of lower income people who normally take the train to save money but just missed it.

When the train leaves, some people miss it. They then use the app to hail a ride. The increased demand leads to a corresponding increase in price. This is how surge pricing works. What you seem to be suggesting is that this is inherently predatory, but it seems more likely that it’s just the result of a large number of people requesting rides at the same time.

What I am suggesting is that whether or not the people are predatory, they created a system that is mathematically predatory.

In the pre-Uber world taxis would line up, the fare wouldn't be any different whether or not it is just after a train left, and more drivers would just know that there is higher demand at that location at certain times, without fare surges.

I do love being able to hail rides with a phone app, but I detest this fluctuating pricing.

It reminds me of why I like train travel in other countries but not so much in the US: In almost all of Europe and Asia, train tickets are fixed price based largely on distance travelled and class of train. In the US, Amtrak plays the idiot capitalist game of predatory money grabbing you if you need to make last minute emergency travel plans or changes.

Hahaha.

Play with any Uber promo code they may give you via physical mailer or otherwise.

Open Uber in two browsers. Apply the promo code in one, don't in the other.

Watch as they increase the service fees when using the promo code to basically equal the other non-promo order.

Who is Visa / MC / AMEX going to side with? The company that gets them hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue every year or a random account holder? It doesn't really matter who is right or wrong.

If it becomes a systemic problem, the CC companies will absolutely drop merchants or entire industries.

CC companies, especially in the states, almost always favor the cardholder over the merchant.

For individual chargebacks and small scammy merchants, sure. Uber meanwhile processes $40 billion worth of transactions a year. There is zero chance they are facing any kind of "discipline" from credit card operators. At that volume they write their own terms.

What's Uber going to do to VISA if VISA honors the chargeback? Not accept VISA?

Your card provider needs to keep you happy far more than your card provider needs to keep Uber happy.

Going by that theory why doesn't Visa just jack up their prices by 10x? After all what are merchants going to do, not accept Visa? Turns out yes, that's exactly what they will do. Look at the number of business that don't take Amex for example for the same reason. Large companies especially have enough leverage to negotiate their own deals with credit card operators, like Costco does with Visa.

Costco is a bit different. If I don't have a Visa, i can pay with cash, personal check, or debit card. Sure, I'd prefer to pay with credit card, but it's not a huge deal for me to use a debit card there.

With Uber, there simply isn't an alternative. If they don't accept Visa then i can't use a credit card (or most debit cards, since those go through the visa network too) and there isn't a reasonable way for me to pay at all.

> With Uber, there simply isn't an alternative. If they don't accept Visa then i can't use a credit card (or most debit cards, since those go through the visa network too) and there isn't a reasonable way for me to pay at all.

Uber takes Paypal, Venmo, Apple Pay, and Google Pay too. Any would let you use a bank account. You can also deposit cash into PayPal and I think Venmo as well.

> Going by that theory why doesn't Visa just jack up their prices by 10x?

They (in collusion with MasterCard) could jack up prices and then there's be an antitrust case against them.

Here's the thing, though - as long as they don't abuse their duopoly position, those anti-trust cases are weaker. And a policy of preferring to side with the customer in these disputes is not exactly viewed as abuse of the monopoly position.

CC companies have little choice. Laws in EU give right/priority to the customer, and the burden of proof to the company. Now, imagine pissing 1 million Europeans, and them all going to their banks and file a complaint. And Uber (or any other vendor) be hit by 1 million claims that they have to fight for one-at-a-time.

Uber's been bitten by that sort of thing before, though last time [0] it was even more obviously their own fault.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/uber-loses-appeal-b...

FWIW, "CC companies" are banks.

Visa/MasterCard/Discover/etc are little more than clearing houses.

Banks serve as both issuers (to the consumer) and processors (to the merchant), often times both.

You are drastically underestimating the value and control that the processor networks bring.

Wells Fargo might underwrite the credit on my credit card, but I would immediately cancel that line of credit if it wasn’t accessible through the Visa network.

The value of a credit card isn’t just the line of credit, it is the near universal and frictionless acceptance as a method of payment.

You're mostly right, but Discover specifically owns a bank. That bank does underwrite the debt on most Discover cards. Also Amex, but you didn't mention them.

This tidily demonstrates the value of a competent regulatory authority. The payment processor (i.e. card provider) should be even more afraid of the regulator than they are of potential lost business.

Would be nice, except that consumer protections were anyways an afterthought in this country and we just elected a government with an explicit goal to kill them entirely.

I agree about the current government. However, we do have examples of muscular regulatory schemes and infrastructure in this country's past: CFPB and Dodd-Frank are recent good examples. Both could also have been stronger, of course.

Except that the CFPB has just been defunded/defanged

Yes; emphasis on "past." The point is that it's not an impossibility.

Visa / MC are also under monpoloy FTC scrutiny. They've kept out all competitors in he usa, supposedly by threating not letting you accept Visa / MC if you accept anyone else. In places like Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Thailand, Mayalsia there are tons of competitors. And because of the competition the fees are much lower to try to lure merchants as well bonuses for consumers.

Almost all places accept AMEX too, and many accept UnionPay and Discover. So not sure about the monopoly bit.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/sep/24/visa-doj-an...

I didn't know what a chargeback was till last few years when it became popular almost meme like. Probably lots of fraud there.

I’ve won every single charge back and yet to get banned. I’m sure it happens but I’m also sure it’s something companies threaten to reduce them since it’s basically an automatic fee they pay. It also hurts their rates if they have a higher rate of chargebacks.

If you are at the point where your only option left is a chargeback, that is a “burning the bridges” moment anyway. Why would you want to continue doing business with a company that treats you like that? I would be grateful to be banned: it means I don’t have to go to the trouble of canceling my account.

I’ve had to do a handful of chargebacks and I don’t know or care whether they banned me: I would never voluntarily do business with them again anyway.

One reason you might still want to use them is that they used anticompetitive blitzscaling strategies and ran at a loss to prevent competitors from taking off.

That could have been a great reason to support legislation. Really quite a shame that nobody put that forward.

I have a friend who had a bad experience with a company once. After drawn out fight for the equivalent of a months salary with lawyers getting involved and threats of collections, the company made a final statement. "We will refund you, but you'll be blacklisted". My friend was delighted, and responded to them as such. He thanked them, since now he wouldn't have to remember their name to avoid ever accidentally buying from them again.

He found a local contractor to do the job instead.

> Why would you want to continue doing business with a company that treats you like that?

They might have a practical monopoly on these services. Most cities are going to be serviced by only Lyft and Uber, with one having more drivers than the other. If you get burned by both services due to their refusal to provide adequate customer service checks on automated systems, you initiate two chargebacks and then lose your ability to call a cab until you pay them the money on the chargeback.

I have lived in this state for 5 years. Lyft works great!

The full story is I requested a ride to an Air Force base and the driver was not able to take us there due to restrictions at the base. We requested the driver drop us off at a restaurant just outside of the base. The ride we were on was cancelled, a new one created, and calculated as if we were originating at our point of embarkation at the same time all of this happened. Which happened to be during surge pricing.

I tried support for weeks. I was in an endless loop of scripts and going nowhere. At the time, the extra $200 or so charge was a significant amount for me so I charged it back with my card. The card had no issue with this but every time I try signing into Uber, they insist I pay them the remainder of their error from years ago.

I won't go back and don't care one bit.

I don't think I've ever used Uber. Have used lyft a few times, just to support a relative 'underdog' compared to Uber. Never had a problem. Probably less than 10 rides in the past 3 years though, so I'm possibly not a huge data point.

Can confirm. Issued a successful chargeback after they bait and switched the Uber 1 subscription promising $5 for every late delivery only to revoke that portion weeks later.

Support would not refund the yearly subscription despite an obvious change to the economic terms of the subscription and so a chargeback was issued which the credit card company agreed with.

Ransomware screen now on the account to the effect of "Pay $100 Immediately To Regain Your Account" with no transactions possible unless the ransom is paid.

Then I guess do a chargeback, get banned, and good riddance to forcibly not having to ever use their crappy service(s) again?

Earlier this month Uber sent me an email that they “discovered that [I was] charged for an additional period of Uber One membership after [I] contacted customer support. This was because [my] scheduled payment was already in process before [my] cancellation request was received.” I knew they must have gotten in trouble with a regulator because the incident they’re referring to was 2+ years ago.

How did they rectify this issue they “discovered”? They gave me Uber credit…

Same experience in India.

Additionally for past year or so they have always consistently charged me higher than what they quote originally.

I jump through the hoops to get a "refund" of the difference through automated support workflow. Ofcourse never real money -- just a credit applied to account or so they say.

That credit can never be seen or verified because wallet screen is always down for maintenance or whatever.

There is no email trail or anything else where you can prove you are owed an x amount of credit.

That credit never gets applied to a future ride.

Excellent "growth hack" I guess.

I have done screen recordings of this support workflow shenanigans a few times. Never had the energy to fight it till closure. I know the kind of duplicitous run around the support is going to give me the first five times I raise this.

I still can't fathom why so many customers voluntarily subject themselves to abuse by food delivery services. Overpay for cold, late food (which the driver might have already sampled). I mean I can sort of understand the use case for customers who are stuck at home due to illness or something. But I've seen plenty of young people in good health waste scarce funds on UberEats and similar services. Why?

When I want take-out food I just call the restaurant to order, then get in my car (or on my bike) and pick it up myself.

The last part is the answer for your question: they just don't want to get in their car if they can pay someone else to do that job for them. It's the same reason people pay for cleaning services.

The last time I checked I just had to pay 1,50€ extra compared to ordering directly with the restaurant. The delivery itself is free with Uber One. Getting your food delivered for 1,50€ seems pretty cheap to me.

I've tried a few times (whenever somebody sent that sort of gift card my way), and it was always >$10 in explicit fees, plus all the menu items being silently marked up 20%.

Mind you, that's still not exactly "expensive" for delivery [0], but I can make better food both faster and cheaper than waiting, I can pick it up and actually use an insulated bag faster than waiting for delivery, and pretty much any other food strategy at least guarantees I'll actually have the expected meal and not have to waste my time with customer support (or money if I decide it's not worth the hassle).

[0] Imagine you're a driver, you incur $3 in actual expenses, the delivery takes 15min, and they have to wait 15min for the food to be ready (this is the thing that makes pizza delivery more efficient -- as soon as you get to the store there's another pizza waiting). Suddenly that's a $14/hr gig without any benefits and where you need to purchase a special insurance on top of things, assuming the only part Uber keeps is the 20% fee they're scamming you out of. Beyond that, you're at a much higher risk of bodily harm than doing something like construction, and if those aren't good drivers I don't really want to be encouraging more of them to be on the street, especially with time pressures (and if they are skilled ... that's less than McDonald's pays even before you factor in benefits).

Right it’s expensive since, as a comedian describes it - you ordered a taxi for your hamburger.

that seems to be so cheap that at least one of {customer, delivery driver, restaurant} must be getting shafted for the business model to be profitable

I'm not sure how it's working. Maybe Uber is currently eating a part of the costs to gain market share. They handed out very generous 4x 15€ coupons last year for new users. That was when I signed up for Uber Eats.

I actually worked as a delivery driver for a local competitor for Uber eats back in college. In that case, it was pretty much all parties that were getting screwed. Restaurants gave up some of their profit margin, delivery personnel worked for poor wages and paid for their own equipment, and the customer paid a hidden markup on all items.

I started before they cranked up the exploitation and quit as the terms got increasingly bad.

I don't even think they ran a profit at that point, so I guess everyone was getting screwed

These apps make the majority of their revenue from dense urban areas where people don't own cars. No one is driving across New York or San Francisco or to pick up their dinner.

If you live in NY or SF then you have multiple restaurants within easy walking / cycling / subway distance.

Umm, no, there are 4.6 million people living in the SF metro area and twice that in New York. I can assure you very few of them are within walking/easy transit distance of good restaurants. And most have responsibilities that don't let them get out of the house for dinner. If an hour of your time is more valuable to you than $5 then why wouldn't you order food delivery?

Umm, no. If you're not living in the SF city limits then you almost certainly have a car. And the tiny fraction of Bay Area residents without a car aren't the ones keeping UberEats in business.

Every single person in NYC either has a car or lives walking distance to a good restaurants.

Ordering my go-to meal at this restaurant down the block with Grubhub+ has $0 delivery fee and $1 "service fee". It takes roughly 4 minutes to go get it myself, assuming there's no line. $1 for 4 minutes is $15 an hour -- I value my time more than that.

It's always here within 10-15 minutes. It's never been cold, and the bags are stapled shut, so I don't think the meals have ever been sampled.

Plus it feels nice to be able to stay in sometimes.

grubhub raises the prices for a lot of restaurants by like $1 on every item even if youre ordering takeout here in Chicago. Calling the order in yourself can save more than you expect

At least where I live the prices when ordering through any of the apps are around 20% higher than when ordering from the restaurant directly.

I once had a 5€ surprise surcharge after a trip. Since Uber’s chatbots were a deadend, I brought up a full-on litigation against them (France). A month later, my litigation was closed and I received 5€ on my bank account.

If you pay by PayPal you will get your money back, some company tried to pull that account credit on me and PayPal had my back

Interesting (in Canada), if my order is wrong I just click the item that is wrong and the chatbot automatically refunds me either on my card or via a credit, and often gives me an extra $5 in credit for my trouble, wonder what account flag I have you don't.

In my experience, in Australia; you don’t get to select the item that was wrong, and simply get a refund on the cheapest item.

Seems the vendors are catching on, with orders often dramatically wrong without any consequence. This is pure speculation, however.

I also found vendors would often substitute items out of stock with those of a lesser value, but write a semi-cute message on it. Nothing like buying some fancy cola, only to get a can of coke and a love letter..

Endless chatbot and help option loops; I gave up, and refuse to use their services - though use was rare anyway.

I've never had any of these problems at all with uber eats, probably part of why I use it so often. I click "help with a past order" and the first option I get is "my order was wrong" if I click it, it presents me with my order and everything I paid for and asks me what to pick that is wrong, it then asks for a photo if it's a larger $ item (unless it's missing) and then it asks me if I want a refund via card or credit, and as I mentioned, it typically gives me a credit for the trouble.

Super interesting to me we have such different experiences. Maybe because I have UberOne?

More likely because you have consumer protection laws.

> If you are able to figure out the magic combination of options that will get you to a support agent they will say "sure we will refund your money" but that is still only going to your app account.

This is exactly what chargebacks are for

Silicon valley doesn't deserve credit for inventing this method. It's ancient. Back in the 90s Nintendo lost a suit for price fixing and somehow got the judge to let them "compensate" plaintiffs by giving them coupons toward the purchase of additional games. Comcast, AT&T, GM, Columbia Records, maybe the majority of Fortune 500 companies have done this. Tale as old as time. Silicon valley didn't invent shit.

Submit a credit card chargeback. They cannot charge you for a service not rendered

Then you can't use it anymore... that's kind of a problem when there's a duopoly in the rideshare space.

What’s the threshold for getting banned? I’ve done a few chargebacks against Lyft since they removed all forms of customer support and haven’t gotten banned yet.

Uber is likely a lot more aggressive banning people as that’s how they operate all aspects of their business

Uber was (and I have no idea if still is) the culture-bro and rape-do-nothing-about-it company. I never forget that when they come up in discussions.

Yea, whenever I think “Uber” I associate it with a work culture[1] full of partying, alcohol, gambling, cocaine, sex in the office, sex at company retreats, misogyny, sexual harassment, cocaine-fueled sexual harassment... you know: all the things we normally associate with a respectful, trusted, and principled business!

1: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/09/05/fascinating-revelations-...

The answer to that problem is not giving them more money. They’re going to use that money to try to drive competitors out of the market and lobby for laws which harm riders and drivers.

It's not a choice for many people, like, easily many millions in a city.

Where exactly is Uber the only option?

There are lots of places in the US where if you don't have a car your only reasonable options are an Uber/Lyft or calling a cab that may or may not arrive.

That’s not what I was asking. I don’t even have Uber on my phone because in my experience the’ve been the worst for years so I don’t use em.

Thus being blacklisted by them seems like a non issue, unless there’s local monopolies somewhere.

Which cab service won't pick up a customer after accepting a phone booking? I have never experienced that in the US.

In a city?

Cabs, busses, bikes, trains...

Don't be intentionally obtuse - even for people living in a place with public transport as encompassing as say NYC, you _need_ some form of ride-sharing service eventually in day-to-day life. Being banned from the duopoly of ride-share services is a life-altering thing to happen.

though the commenter might have been obtuse to say that banned from the duopoly of ride-share services is a life-altering thing to happen is quite mad. I live in a city and have never used a ride-share service. out the pool of another dozen friends/co-workers 10 of them seldom-to-never use it (we are all in 40's / early 50's). so most definitely not "life-altering thing"

Have you ever considered that perhaps others conduct themselves differently?

I live in a small city. When I travel, I generally have to be at the airport or train station between 4 and 530 AM. Uber put the taxis out of business, so the choice is Uber, Lyft, wasting a half hour and alot of money parking, or trying to find a black car service.

I was in Rome for business. The choice is Uber or the local cab hailing app, which the cabs don’t always respond to, and the cabbie frequently tries to ripoff a dopey foreigner.

Heh, Rome!! The meter wrote €40, the taxi driver asked for €60. He tried verbal-aggression and threatened to call the police. I took a photo of the meter and asked him to please call the police, I will show them the photo and tell them that he threatened me. He took the €40 and went his merry way.

Once upon a time (around 2005-2006) I had a colleague whose father was a taxi driver. He (the colleague) was openly telling us that every cabbie cheats. Once in a blue moon you find an honest one, or one whose cheating-meter-subsystem is broken.

Cabbies and barmen. My family owned bars, my grand uncle always said he would fire honest bartenders, because there’s no such thing, and he’s too smart to work for him. :)

geeeeez, you guys are making it sound like going to Rome is like going to ____ ( I don’t want to offend any City here… :) ).

I had a great time there, but maybe that’s because I never used a cab.

I used cabs, not any different than using cabs anywhere else.

Oh no, don't get me wrong, it's a magical place and I had a wonderful time there a few times!

Have you ever considered that perhaps others conduct themselves differently?

I have, the commenter I replied to hasn’t :)

I don’t think I was being obtuse. We had ways of getting around before Uber existed. It’s literally just taxis in another format, which we still have.

Like you said I can’t think of a single place we’re not having access to Uber means that you are functionally stuck. I’m sure those locations exist, but they must be quite rare. There are a lot of places with the others that don’t have Uber, however.

What do you mean? You can easily get by without ride share in NYC. Not everyone even has a cell phone.

> even for people living in a place with public transport as encompassing as say NYC, you _need_ some form of ride-sharing service eventually in day-to-day life

Not really. You can say this about smaller US cities, but NYC is absolutely a city where the >90% percentile of people can live without the daily use of a car.

(The simplest reason for this has nothing do to with car ownership or desirability per se: it's because of NYC's food delivery happens by bike or moped.)

This is a strawman if I've ever seen one. The person you're responding to said literally nothing about "daily use of a car". The point was that you need rideshare at some point in your life, which is a point you failed to respond to. There are trips, even in NYC, where you'd be severely inconveniencing yourself by not using rideshare, which makes it a tough calculus to choose between $20 and being banned from Uber for life.

I didn't see the "eventually" before "day-to-day." But I also quoted it, so this is a reading comprehension error on my part, not a strawman.

Not true.

Many times, if I want to go from arbitrary point A to point B in NYC within 30 minutes due to time constraints, the only choice is taxi/Lyft/Uber. Subway/bus combined with walking easily take 1 hour.

Or when it's very late in the evening.

Of course, we are talking about NYC, which means that you can arrive at your destination, eventually. That doesn't mean you want to do that in many situations.

I wonder how it was possible to live before ride sharing services. Like common, they are convenient, but not a life necessity. In a city with a good public transport, taxi usage was rare.

I’m not being obtuse and that’s a very rude thing to say. No need to personally attack me. I get I was being somewhat flippant, but the point is that anywhere that has rideshare almost certainly has at least some other option(s). We would be very hard-pressed to find a place where literally the only option is Uber.

It’s the opposite in cities: you’re far more likely to have alternative options like taxis, transit, bike/scootershare, etc. than in rural areas.

Why would you want to keep using a service that takes your money and doesn't provide you with the service?

The worst part is I have never figured out a way to spend any of my Uber credits. I have hundreds of dollars in Uber credits I've accumulated over the years, and I regularly use Uber, and yet have never spent any credits.

When you choose your payment method in the ride selection screen you should be automatically using credits (unless those credits are for something specific, like Eats, or something else).

I'm able to see this in my Uber app today (set a destination, then at the bottom of the screen is a row for payment options, clicking that will show you Uber balances (uber cash), payment methods, and vouchers) and am located in the US.

If you are not seeing this, I'm thinking you need to reach out to support via email and have a long (probably frustrating) conversation.

I do not see this, it always direct-charges my Amex. The only credits I get auto-spent are my $15/monthly Amex credits. Definitely will reach out to Support at some point (whenever I get fed up and have time to burn, probably while sitting waiting to board a flight).

Okay, are you able to at least see your vouchers and other credits? I currently have a $5 credit applied from a cancellation dispute so I think it should be working for all credits.

Just figured I should reply here as a follow-up. I had a friend see my comment on HN and reach out to me directly. I found out I had enabled some option somehow that disabled the use of credits. I fixed it, and now everything is working correctly.

I discovered this with doordash during the pandemic. They would flat-out not bring things, or would make insane substitutions (one that springs to mind is maple syrup for flour, as though if i have enough syrup pancakes will just happen in some sort of drizzle-down economics) and when you talked to support they would refund the cost of the item as account credit but not the delivery fee. Which means that not only did they not unwind the transaction after they failed to deliver their part, the only way for me to get what I ordered in the first place was to order a second time and pay them a second delivery fee.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com