News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Lyft Loses $600M in 2016 as Revenue Rises to $700M by narrator on Sunday January 15, 2017 @06:00AM (#13403485)
Good old traditional taxi service makes money. They even have apps now.
Re:Lyft Loses $600M in 2016 as Revenue Rises to $700M by mulmen on Sunday January 15, 2017 @05:09PM (#13406685)
Ostensibly "ride sharing" is different than a taxi service. That's the argument Uber uses to avoid taxi regulations.
Re:Lyft Loses $600M in 2016 as Revenue Rises to $700M by imh on Sunday January 15, 2017 @12:40PM (#13405162)
Haven't they been devastated by Uber and Lyft?
Re:Lyft Loses $600M in 2016 as Revenue Rises to $700M by qeternity on Sunday January 15, 2017 @06:12AM (#13403511)
Regulated taxis are ponzis alright, it's just rigged by governments and investment is forced upon citizens. Absolutely no reason why an extremely commoditized good like transportation should have fixed rates set by a central planner. Uber/Lyft et al may not be perfect, but we will get there. It's tough to deregulate industries.
Re:Lyft Loses $600M in 2016 as Revenue Rises to $700M by quickben on Sunday January 15, 2017 @06:43AM (#13403602)
But, your rant does nothing to invalidate his point. Cabbies are in plus money wise. Chances are zero all taxis in the world will vanish, while Uber+lift can't subsidize forever.
Re:Lyft Loses $600M in 2016 as Revenue Rises to $700M by stickfigure on Sunday January 15, 2017 @12:36PM (#13405137)
Taxis are subsidized by artificial scarcity (medallion quotas).
Re:Lyft Loses $600M in 2016 as Revenue Rises to $700M by quickben on Sunday January 15, 2017 @04:01PM (#13406377)
Look, it's not like taxis or Uber/luft are a basic human necessity to be subsidized.

Public transport exist, and for people that actually need a car on a daily basis, cars exist.

Taxis are luxury service and not subsidized ( as that word is defined in the dictionary) by money offsets. We can derail this into whether medallions/insurance regulation should be there, but the hard cold argument here is : Money. Lots and lots of money.

Uber/luft are subsidized by hard cash just to exist.

I drive, so from the outside, this looks as if somebody was subsidizing Android watches, because they'll overtake real watches.

It's a business gamble, but many are mistakenly taking it as a fact.

So, correspondingly, expect either prices to keep rising on Uber/luft/etc, or them to go out of business.

Re:Lyft Loses $600M in 2016 as Revenue Rises to $700M by sangnoir on Sunday January 15, 2017 @01:21PM (#13405443)
Only in certain jurisdictions
Re:Lyft Loses $600M in 2016 as Revenue Rises to $700M by ams6110 on Sunday January 15, 2017 @02:54PM (#13406008)
Is there a major US city where taxis are not regulated and licensed (by medallion or otherwise) creating an artificial scarcity?
Re:Lyft Loses $600M in 2016 as Revenue Rises to $700M by sangnoir on Monday January 16, 2017 @09:24AM (#13410094)
I'm not familiar enough with the US taxi bylaws to answer that.

Is there a particular reason you are restricting scope to only the US? Taxis and "ride sharing" organizations are an international phenomenon: I'd say the majority of jurisdictions do not have medallions. And the upstream point remains - most taxis can now be hailed via mobile apps.