The key points are

- CEO never blackmailed journalists

- No major revelations of sexual harassment

- ~~No major revelations of political support~~

Related to core business

- Surge Limit has prevented complaints about emergency pricing vs Uber.

- Lyft takes a lower commission capped at 20%/25%

- Lyft has in app digital tipping (drivers keep 100% of tips). Uber's tip policy encourages cash, which is an often cited complaint of taxis.

- Major investment / partnership with GM (mentioned in an Uber thread that Car Makers will need a cheap / reasonably priced app)

> Lyft has in app digital tipping (drivers keep 100% of tips).

One of the reasons I don't like Lyft. How about this system: pay the drivers a fair wage up front, so they don't need to subsist on the generosity of strangers. If they get great ratings, you can give them a bonus.

Exactly! Charge me what you're going to charge. None of this tipping nonsense. It's really a vestige of former times when if someone felt nice enough they'd offer you a tip --not that you deserved it, but it was to show they had heart, a kind of virtue signal.

Why would Lyft want to continue this anachronistic idea which puts the burden on a fare? It's the number one reason I do not use Lyft.

Just don't tip. I don't know anyone who actually tips in Lyft.

The number one reason you don't use Lyft is because of tipping? What do you use instead, Uber, taxi, or do you drive? If it's the first, how do you justify using Uber when its practices are significantly worse than an optional tipping for the users? If it's the second, how do you justify using a taxi when tips (in the US) are almost mandatory?

Uber. It's just mentally easier to deal with. After spending time in other countries, I have come to dislike tipping. Having to decide --do they deserve it, do they not? I don't want to deal with it. Tipping used to be an optional thing in transactions but it has become pervasive. Tipping jars. Just charge me more and pay the barista a wage a highschooler or recent graduate can live on.

But that is what Lyft is doing... they charge your more to give a little more to the driver. And on top of that they offer the tipping. On the other hand Uber pays less and doesn't offer tipping. The worse of both worlds.

I agree with you on tipping but your reasoning seems to need some work.

You assume he cares more about the driver than his own internal state.

It seems you significantly value not having to tip over rewarding drivers appropriately.

I use Lyft because I can ensure that the other person in the transaction is fairly compensated. I see you would prefer for both services to fairly compensate drivers, but given the choice of doing more work to ensure adequate compensation or giving up on it entirely, you went with B.

I agree with you that tipping sucks, but using Uber doesn't the functional reliance on it go away, it just means you don't see it (and the people working for you can't benefit from it). That's not an awesome look.

Okay, sure, tipping is annoying for multiple reasons but if that's the sole reason you won't use Lyft, that, all things equal (give no tip) would give the driver a better wage, you're being too dogmatic about one specific issue without looking at other issues surrounding both Lyft and Uber. You would rather feel good about yourself and make things easier for you by choosing an app (Uber) that pays drivers less but doesn't have the option to tip than choosing an app (Lyft) that pays drivers better but includes the option to tip (which is not enforced). Your argument especially falls flat when you say "just change me more" since Lyft generally does charge you more so they can pay the driver somewhat better money. I'm not sure if you've used Lyft or if you just assume you have to give a tip because the option is present, but unlike many other cases where tips are present (restaurants, taxis) tipping in Lyft isn't mandatory and it's presented such that they make it clear it's optional.

When was tipping optional in general? In your lifetime?

If you have trouble dealing with the details, just pick a standard percentage.

This is a complaint against American culture in a broader sense, not really Lyft specifically. Valid complaint for sure, just misdirected.

No, it's a complaint against Lyft since they made a conscious decision to include tipping, while their main competitor demonstrated that modern American companies do not need to bow to stupid customs.

[edit: shouldn't have implied that Uber is financially successful]

I think it's still an open question whether Uber has shown that "American companies can be successful." They are losing hundreds of millions per quarter and are only still afloat due to venture capital.

That same competitor pays its drivers less (Lyft takes a smaller cut than Uber). So in this case, tipping has not served as an excuse to pay employees/"contractors" less than the competition.

> their main competitor demonstrated that American companies can be successful without bowing to stupid customs.

And then Uber bent in May 2016.

What happened then? I still do not tip

They officially changed tipping policy as a result of a contractor/employee lawsuit. Drivers are now allowed to ask for tips, have tip "jars", etc.

That's exactly why I like it. This either tip or living wage thinking is so American! How about both!?

I want the easy option to tip someone for exceptional service, but I also want them to get payed well enough to not feel obliged to.

What do you consider exceptional Lyft service?

Exceptional, by definition, is rare. Having an easy option for a rare event is usually bad UI.

Lyft has already split the fare 20% for themselves and 80% for the driver. Lets assume there is an additional tip of 20% kept by the driver so effectively a bulk of the fare. Now is that by itself equal to a living wage or does the fare need to go up? If the fare goes up will consumers continue to use the service?

Why is that sentiment (general sentiment, not just yours) different in case of restaurants?

When I meet Americans and when I leave w/o tipping, which is not common but normal where I live, they feel really offended and sometimes, I suspect, they might have thought they have to hangout with stingy persons like me. I am not sure whether I am meeting a very different kind of Americans or it's ingrained in the culture there in US.

Problem is they are usually not even willing to see that it's a different culture here, or that we tip based on the service and/or the fact whether the restaurant charges a "service charge" or not (it's additional to service tax).

Do you leave no tips in America or in your home country?

I give about 30% of my Lyft drivers a tip, and I'm glad Lyft includes the option in their app. I've occasionally wanted to tip an Uber driver but then not had cash on me.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect ride share companies to pay their drivers a fair wage when they are in fierce competition with each other and self-driving cars are on the horizon.

I agree "mandatory" tipping like in US restaurants isn't a great system. I don't think including tipping in an app with a default of $0 makes it close to mandatory. Lyft could give stats on what fractions of rides have a tip given; my bet is it that it's relatively low. Making optional tipping easier is a good thing.

> I don't think it's reasonable to expect ride share companies to pay their drivers a fair wage

It's always reasonable to expect companies to pay their people a fair wage.

I always liked the quote, “No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.”

Nice quote, thanks!

"In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living."

Franklin Roosevelt's Statement on the National Industrial Recovery Act (16 June 1933)

[0] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

You can "expect" this all day but as long as you keep throwing your dollars to companies that try to pay their workers as little as possible (like Uber) they will continue to squeeze them as much as they can.

So if you were running Uber, would you increase your prices to pay a more fair wage even if it makes you more expensive than competitors? Would you expect to stay in business if you offered a commodity like transport at 20% higher prices than competitors?

Is it a particularly ethical standpoint to say "I don't pay my driver's a fair wage, but if I did then I wouldn't make money!"?

I would rather have companies be forced to pay a reasonable minimum wage and compete by improving the service or efficiency, not just pushing the employees to work for less and less.

> Is it a particularly ethical standpoint to say "I don't pay my driver's a fair wage, but if I did then I wouldn't make money!"?

Not very ethical, but rational, profitable, and prevalent. Cost is a large area to compete in, and people are expensive.

It would be nice if companies acted ethically, but that isn't their reason for existence (especially in fast growing or large companies). If it's not surprising to me when companies act unethically, can I honestly say that I expect them to act ethically? Not if expect means "assign high probability to".

I agree that regulation is needed. It seems that often basic economics (people want to move around as cheaply as possible) lead to unethical situations (paying people as little as possible to move people around). I'm far from an expert of economics, but it seems like regulation is a way to change the rules of the game to have more ethical/fair/uniformly distributed equilibriums at some cost in net efficiency.

I think this comes back to the original statement of "It's always reasonable to expect companies to pay their people a fair wage."

This is a bit ambiguous, and perhaps it's a different reading of it that's the contention.

Expect can either mean I think it's likely, as in I expect the sun to rise tomorrow, or a requirement.

I am not surprised that uber try and pay their drivers so little, but I am disappointed and want better from them.

> I'm far from an expert of economics, but it seems like regulation is a way to change the rules of the game to have more ethical/fair/uniformly distributed equilibriums at some cost in net efficiency.

I agree. Safety regulations are a good example of this.

Contractors, not employees.

I assume these drivers are all cutting checks to the IRS?

In the UK at least they're workers (based on the outcome of a fairly recent ruling), despite Uber trying to say they're all self-employed.

If it weren't for the contractor lawsuit, I think Uber should have kept it's anti-tipping policy.

The 'Premium' image was black cars, inspected cars, and no need to tip.

In the UK taxi tipping is often just rounding up, so an 8 or 9 pound fare is £10. The driver won't be upset about giving change, but £1 times 10 5 days a week adds up. (disclaimer: my prices are based on 10+ years ago and always paying cash).

With several ride sharing services waging a war of attrition in terms of fare prices, it is challenging to prevail with higher pricing. Unfortunately many people do not care why prices are lower, they just prefer the cheaper service.

Regulations could help setting a limit to that, but then half of the US believes that regulations are bad for businesses and jobs. Part of that is true, but then what is the point of a job that makes you poorer at the end of each day?

A workaround are tips. And it is not ideal, I concur on that, but it is more viable than getting the government to regulate ridesharing jobs to ensure a minimum wage or teaching people at a large to be socially responsible.

You can think of it as something similar to price discrimination: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination

It's not a great system, tipping the way it's done in cabs, restaurants, and "door-opening" (I only see those guys when I'm in America, no idea what to call them).

But people have come to rely on it, and there'd be fewer people working those types of jobs if there wasn't some extra money from the customers.

If there was a collective way to tell the tipping industry to change, I think a lot of people would be for it. But for now it feels like you're taking away something they reasonably expect if you don't tip.

> there'd be fewer people working those types of jobs if there wasn't some extra money from the customers.

And somehow, Europe isn't suffering from a massive taxi driver and server shortage. And here in the U.S., there is no shortage of Uber drivers.

> for now it feels like you're taking away something they reasonably expect if you don't tip.

Uber drivers never relied on or expected tips. Uber seized the opportunity to change expectations and disrupt the payment model, and customers seem to like it. "This is the way it's always been done" isn't a solid argument IMO.

But if you're using it as a point of Uber above Lyft, keep in mind that Lyft gives its drivers a higher percent of what it charges in addition to allowing to tip...which is much more in Lyft's favor. The complaint should be more towards Uber not paying enough wages than "I don't like tipping" if one is making a living wage argument.

You also still don't have to tip if you don't want to.

You don't have to tip, it's just an option to do it in-app.

"pay the drivers a fair wage up front" => If Lyft charged more they'd have fewer customers. Uber didn't even bother with tips and takes a higher cut, so drivers make less on Uber already, I don't see what's wrong with optional tipping.

One driver told me that lyft kept a portion of tips until you've covered a portion of some incentive. Thats the annoying thing about digital tips and most of this crap, there is no real transparency on who gets what. If you really want to make sure a driver keeps a tip, just give it to them directly in cash.

Or you can not tip them. You can just leave the car and never tip them at all. They won't know it until you confirm and decide on tip or not. I was a lyft driver for summer.

Are you European ? tipping seems to be a big habit in the U.S

No, but traveling to Europe for work helped to change perspective.

I thought drivers are not employees…

> No major revelations of political support

They took a kind of strong stance [1] in protesting the recent order that restricted travel from those seven countries, so that's a political statement (whether or not we agree with it.)

Their announcement also included some strawman language, which turned off some people:

"This weekend, Trump closed the country’s borders to refugees, immigrants, and even documented residents from around the world based on their country of origin. Banning people of a particular faith or creed, race or identity, sexuality or ethnicity, from entering the U.S. is antithetical to both Lyft’s and our nation’s core values."

The first sentence was true, the second sentence (while noble and I like it) was a strawman.

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/29/lyft-donates-1m-to-the-acl...

Can you explain how it's a strawman? The Muslim ban (as it has been known for a long time) is a ban on people from a particular faith.

Muslims from Algeria (99% of the population) can enter. Christians from Syria cannot.

That's the weirdest Muslim ban I've ever heard of.

It's almost as if it were a muslim ban as applied by ignorant people... As if!

It's a temporary ban of seven countries that was drafted by the Obama administration.

That very name is the strawman. The ban doesn't even target the largest Muslim countries.

Yet it was sold as a Muslim ban by the administration, which is a major reason for San Francisco's federal appeal court to suspend it. The fact that it's not an effective Muslim ban is a different question.

> The fact that it's not an effective Muslim ban is a different question.

It is precisely the question. What the ban is is much more important that what it purports to be.

For example, if it purported to be a ban on terrorists but actually was as ban on Muslims (and I mean, a bonafide ban on all Muslims), would that not matter?

No, that would still be illegal, because a ban on Muslims is illegal. It is illegal to ban Muslims, and it is illegal to intend to ban Muslims. The latter reason is the one provided by the Ninth Circuit.

> Thoughtcrime, they called it.

- George Orwell, 1984

I don't see the comparison. One is criminalizing citizens having negative thoughts about an oppressive government. The other is prohibiting rulers from promising to discriminate against a religion and then passing a thinly-veiled bill to do so.

If an action that is normally legal becomes illegal if you have wrong thoughts while doing it, you are essentially legislating thoughtcrimes.

The immigration suspension ought to be legal or illegal because of what it is, not what its author thinks.

You're summarizing the debate between "originalism" and "pragmatism" theories of judicial interpretation. The former looks at what people supposedly intended and confines the meaning of the text to that. It's the weapon of choice of conservative justices (because of course, the Founding Fathers couldn't intend to give marriage equality). The latter looks at what the text does, in today's context. It's the approach preferred by progressives because it accounts for how the effects of a text can change with time (and society).

In general I would agree with you, you oughta look at what a legislation does in practice. But here, because there is a sense of urgency (sending a gay refugee back to Somalia, for instance, is akin to signing their death warrant) and because the executive order hasn't been around for a while, I think it's ok to refer to what the administration intended the order to do. Because we don't have a lot of field evidence. As we see concrete evidence for the effects of a legislation, I think you're right and the weight of what it was theoretically intended should decrease pretty quickly (and it usually does).

The administration also didn't present to the court any sort of evidence supporting the claim that it would prevent terrorism.

I don't think this is quite the originality vs. pragmatism debate. Determining the legality of an executive order is a bit different than determining the modern interpretation of a law.

In the case of this immigration restriction, the debate isn't how the EO ought to be enforced, but rather whether it is legal (specifically whether it infringes on constitutional rights without having a sufficient national security justification). The intent of the EO is important, since it would be trivial to make a silly EO that technically doesn't infringe when taken literally. As an extreme example, the EO could ban anyone who had entered a Muslim place of worship in the last year. Surely some Muslims haven't done that, and surely some non-Muslims have done that. But it would be very clear that the intention of this EO would be to discriminate against Muslims, and it would be ludicrous to claim otherwise.

I think there's a clear difference between all thoughts and intentions. Intentions are a subset of thoughts. There is a legal distinction between accidentally hitting a pedestrian with your car and intentionally doing so. I don't consider that thought crime.

To clarify, I don't think it would be illegal for the president to establish immigration restrictions (that are otherwise legal) while thinking something bad about Muslims. The problem is intending the restrictions to target Muslims.

> There is a legal distinction between accidentally hitting a pedestrian with your car and intentionally doing so.

The difference is between manslaughter and homicide. We take age, sanity, and intent into account, but hitting someone with your car is illegal no matter your mental state.

Likewise, tax fraud (intentional) is punished differently than tax negligence (unintentional). In either case, the action is illegal, and due taxes must be paid.

> The difference is between manslaughter and homicide. We take age, sanity, and intent into account, but hitting someone with your car is illegal no matter your mental state.

Incorrect. Now, in most cases, hitting someone while driving will be at least criminally negligent and thus be some crime, but it's not impossible for hitting a pedestrian to be a non-crime because of the absence of the mental state required for any applicable crime.

> Likewise, tax fraud (intentional) is punished differently than tax negligence (unintentional).

"Negligence" is itself a mental state. That an act is illegal (though of different magnitude) when it is done through negligence as well as intentionally does not demonstrate that mental state is relevant only to degree of punishment, not legality. (There are strict liability offenses for which mental state is not relevant to legality, only possibly severity, but strict liability is exceptional in the law, particularly criminal law.)

> but it's not impossible for hitting a pedestrian to be a non-crime because of the absence of the mental state required for any applicable crime.

Out of curiosity, under what conditions would this be the case?

I don't follow your argument. This car example seems to qualify under your definition of thought crime.

Sorry for being unclear.

I mean to say that intent (and other aspects of mental state) can influence the severity of punishment.

It shouldn't determine whether something is legal, however.

Hitting pedestrians ought to be illegal regardless of whether you intended to do it or not.

Accidentally killing someone is not, in general, illegal. It typically would be if you did it while driving a car, as in this instance it would probably result from negligence on your part. But if you, say, trip over, bump into someone and then accidentally knock them off a ledge, you haven't committed a crime.

But the ACA mandate was supposed to be a mandate or a penalty, not a tax. The Supreme Court ruled that it looked like a tax and quacked like a tax, so it's legal as a tax.

Why can't the same principals be applied here? That the pitch and language of a rule aren't important, just the implementation.

100% agree. It doesn't matter whether Obama intended it to be a tax, or a mandate, or a duck. It was a tax because it was.

It doesn't matter what Trump thinks about the order. It's legality is the same no matter who signed it.

>Yet it was sold as a Muslim ban by the administration

Do you have a source for this? There is so much political noise that the only place I've heard it is second-hand from people trying to avoid the contents of the actual executive order and block it based on feelings.

Giuliani said on national television that Trump asked him how he could legally ban Muslims. He boasted that he came up with the idea that banning countries would be legal because it's based on nationality, not religion. When asked why he didn't ban countries that we know sponsored terror attacks like Saudi Arabia, he said they have changed.

> a ban on people from a particular faith

Is it though? For example of Muslim, it does not even affect about 88% of the world's Muslims (Bangladesh, Egypt, Nigeria, Turkey, Malaysia, others)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country

It's trivial to find stories of people being detained trying to enter from any of those countries.

Bangladesh: http://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2017/02/02/bangladesh...

Egypt: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/26...

Nigeria: http://indianexpress.com/article/world/donald-trump-travel-b...

I don't see why the percentage of Muslims in the world is relevant. The internment of Japanese Americans in the 1940s certainly targeted Japanese people despite that being a small percentage of Japanese people in the world.

The US didn't intern Japanese. They interned Japanese Americans, so that is the scope of discussion.

And yes, it would be significant if the US targeted the 99% of the Japanese population vs the 1% most concerning part.

No you misunderstand. When they said "no major revelations of political support," they meant "no revelations of political support that I disagree with."

The 2nd sentence is not a strawman because it does not accuse the Trump administration of doing those things. It expresses a core value.

A strawman indeed. None of those were used as criteria for the 90-day immigration suspension.

The immigration order was flawed enough as it was. It doesn't need a speck of embellishment in order to criticize it.

great point.

the in app tipping that lyft provides is what seals the deal for me. the drivers are performing a service for me and having an integrated way to enhance their compensation is really nice. a lot of the drivers have a hard time making a good living especially considering vehicle related costs are all on their shoulders. I'm happy to have a 1-click way to give them a bit extra.

I've never understood why uber doesn't let you tip from within the app. it further solidifies the perception that uber doesn't care about its drivers. they can't wait to replace all their human drivers with a self driving fleet. can the same be said about lyft? maybe. but at least the humans are being compensated better by lyft right now.

Counterpoint: one of the reasons I prefer Uber is that it doesn't allow or encourage in-app tipping. Tipping sucks, is economically dysfunctional, and socially awkward. If the drivers aren't making enough from base fares then the fares need to go up - it's not my job to be a charity.

I completely agree, and was halfway through writing a similar comment when I saw your post.

I actively make choices for things like transit and food which reduce how much I have to think about tipping. I don't like having to judge someone's service, and decide how much it's appropriate to tip them based on some unwritten societal rule.

The signal that hiding tips away sends is "the service provider is being compensated already", and if you want to make an extra effort to pay them more you can, but it's not required of you.

I'm absolutely in favor of Uber/Lift charging whatever is necessary to pay their drivers properly. Similarly, I love no-tip restaurants which pay their servers and kitchen staff living wages.

> I don't like having to judge someone's service, and decide how much it's appropriate to tip them based on some unwritten societal rule

I use neither Uber nor Lyft, so may wrong here, but don't both services strongly encourage passengers to rate drivers based on the quality of the ride?

Why is it awkward to judge someone based on a tip, but not on attribution of stars?

I didn't say the rating wasn't also awkward. Though that's sort or convenient in its way, once you understand its unwritten social rule, since that boils it down to me just having to make a snap decision of "was this ride bad enough that I want this driver to get fired? If so... 4 stars."

(Yes, I think the 1-5 star rating scheme has its own notable flaws based on how Uber seems to use it.)

> I'm absolutely in favor of Uber/Lift charging whatever is necessary to pay their drivers properly.

Ok, great, but they don't, so the practical effect of your stand against tipping is less money for these drivers.

And why? Because you find it socially awkward? That's why it's better to have it in the app. You just get out of the car and it drives away. Then you select the tip in the app. Way better than Uber's system of "hand the driver some ones."

> The signal that hiding tips away sends is "the service provider is being compensated already", and if you want to make an extra effort to pay them more you can, but it's not required of you.

I agree that's the signal, but that doesn't mean it's true.

> I agree that's the signal, but that doesn't mean it's true.

Eh, public transit it is, then.

Not that this is a sacrifice for me. I also hate how chatty most Uber/Lyft drivers are, so I rarely use them anyway.

Cool, I use public transit heavily (subway and buses) and I'm a fan.

But when a driver goes above and beyond, it feels good to tip. One driver offered me water and a towel when it was too hot. He genuinely gave a shit about me and lyft made tipping easy. I found lyft's customer service better.

Honesty lyft's pink branding and mustache logo gives off a fun and underdog vibe. Not many companies go for pink. Their 50% female executive represention probably plays a role.

Uber on the other hand with black/silver gives off a very strong corporate "we're gonna fuck you over if you don't play by our rules" vibe.

This are emotional arguments but that's what branding is all about.

>But when a driver goes above and beyond, it feels good to tip. One driver offered me water and a towel when it was too hot. He genuinely gave a shit about me and lyft made tipping easy. I found lyft's customer service better.

Other people's livelihoods shouldn't depend on your sense of generosity. When I go above and beyond at my job I get a pat on the back and satisfaction of doing a good job. I don't do good work out of mercenary sensibilities.

Thank you. Just pay a reasonable wage and don't have them rely on begging for tips. Encouraging tipping is basically saying "We don't pay our workers enough so you, consumer, must make up the difference, or feel bad when you don't."

I was discussing this with a driver who drives for both Lyft and Uber. His basic stance was that tipping was a difference in kind for tipping, rather than amount, so the living wage argument may not hold. Uber tips tend to be in cash, which is appealing, and may be larger because drunks just hand over twenties, but are rarer, while Lyft tips are more reliable.

I've never understood why tipping, specifically when it is completely optional, threatens people or turns them off. If you don't tip a Lyft driver, they aren't going to give you a dirty look or treat you any differently, especially since you get to rate them on their service.

You can complain that people should be paid a fair wage, but they aren't. I wish for many things, such as the end of warfare, but I accept the current reality that I live in and that I don't care enough about tipping to dedicate time and energy to affect its change. I'm not going to go out of my way to change some business's wage policy. It's sub-optimal, but what isn't? Humans are terrible at setting the correct prices for goods and services. The market does not provide either for a number of reasons (eg we don't take externalities into account, love to socialize losses and privatize gains without getting caught, etc.) It's been this way for longer than I've been alive and has shown no signs of abating.

If it bothers you that there is an OPTION to tip in an app, there's some insecurity there for a reason. Honestly, I like the system. I tip well at bars. As a result, bartenders will occasionally give me free drinks, engage in meaningful conversations, or just really go out of their way for me.

To me, it's fairly obvious that it can be stressful having to choose between a number of options in cases where the social expectations are unclear. It's partly for this same reason other situations can be stressful, like first dates, job interviews, encounters with police, discussing bad news, etc.

Now, I don't think that's sufficient to say that all tipping is to be avoided, but I certainly understand the urge to avoid it, ceteris parabus.

> bartenders will occasionally give me free drinks

Isn't this just the bartender stealing from his employer? Did he use your tip to buy the alcohol?

...or is the bartender building marketshare?

Don't drivers also rate their passengers?

I really don't understand what the issue is with tipping. I am American and I love the custom. I feel being able to pay directly the person I have received a service from is very powerful. I think it does incentivise a better work ethic and it's a very social way of affording a middle class income. Now states that reduce the minimum wage for tip workers, that's evil (I live in California).

There are many issues with tipping

This article and the research behind it

http://www.esquire.com/food-drink/restaurants/a23132/why-tip...

3. The percentage basis makes no sense.

4. Better service doesn't actually beget better tips.

5. It perpetuates racism and sexism.

6. It rewards arbitrary people.

If you go out and eat a fantastic piece of food do you think the person who should be rewarded is:

* The person who actually made the food.

* The person who carried it to your table.

When you go out and eat a fantastic piece of food, how often do you speak with the chef and compliment him?

FYI in most jurisdictions the tip is shared by both wait and kitchen staff, by law.

People are cheapskates and get uncomfortable when confronting that reality so they want to blame the system instead of looking at themselves

Couldn't agree more. It's THE reason I use Uber, instead of lift. Tipping has gotten out of control in this country. It's supposed to be reserved for when someone performs an exceptional service, not to subsidize their wage.

This sounds an awful lot like "I'm taking advantage of the assumption of tipping to avoid paying a fair price for the services I receive."

You're making an assumption (and a false one) that I have a problem paying a fair wage. That couldn't be further from the truth.

I would gladly pay 15% more for a service, if I knew that the tip was included.

My problem with tipping is that it's become unclear when to tip, and when not to tip.

You tip you server, ok. You tip the bus boy at the hotel, ok. You tip your hair stylist, ok. You tip your Uber driver? huh, ok... Tip the guy who just made you a smoothie? Tip your starbucks barista? Tip the bus driver?

Nobody can clearly define when to tip, and when not to. It's entirely arbitrary, which is a horrible system to begin with. Never mind the fact that employers should pay fair wages to begin with. The fact that anyone DEPENDS on tips to get by, seems like the employer passing the buck.

Mr. Pink, just cough in your goddamn buck like everybody else.

> If the drivers aren't making enough from base fares then the fares need to go up - it's not my job to be a charity

The way I view it, I've already gotten a discounted cab ride thanks to the VCs. So the very least I can do in my fortunate situation is share a dollar or two for the guy who drove me home at 3am.

It's a dollar; you folks making six-figures are really gonna hold out against a person who drove you across town just 'cause you disagree with the currently (broken) system?

As I posted in another thread: it's really sad that the crazy state of tipping in the US makes people think like this.

I want to have the option to tip for exceptional service or if I really enjoyed taking to the driver, but I do not want to feel obliged to, which is the issue currently with the low wages.

You have cash in your pocket.

Why give money when you can give "stars"?

So people use Uber because it costs less to ride and because it does not allow tipping idea being that companies should pay more. This is a sound logic.

Uber wanted to make payment so easy you don't even have to think about it. Tipping seriously gets in the way of that ideal, even if it's purely digital.

The first few times I used Uber, the most impressive aspect of it to me was that at the end I could literally just get out of the car. It was done. Payment was already handled. This was a tremendous improvement over the experience with taxis, where paying could be stressful and awkward and not even easy.

To this day I'm strongly against tips for Uber. Uber already has a rating system. I don't need the ability to decline to tip to communicate that a driver did poorly: I can just give them a low rating. So the only argument remaining for tipping built into the app is to supplement their pay, but that is a slippery slope that will quickly hurt drivers.

As soon as drivers routinely expect and rely on tips, that opens up Uber to reducing their rates to grab more customers. Drivers will become totally reliant on tips to make a decent wage, just like servers are in the restaurant industry. But not every customer will tip appropriately, which means one of two things:

(1) Either the drivers' overall compensation will go down due to the non-tippers, or

(2) The expected tips will go up, so that tipping customers effectively subsidize non-tipping customers.

> As soon as drivers routinely expect and rely on tips, that opens up Uber to reducing their rates to grab more customers.

In Atlanta this happened last fall. [Some] Uber drivers now have tip jars square readers ready.

Personally, being pressured to top is bad UX. I feel bad when presented with the prompt via square et al.

I'd much rather have the price baked in like other countries.

I would rather have it baked in, too. But since it's not, and tipping is de facto part of the compensation for service jobs, the fact that you feel bad when you're presented with the tip prompt and choose not to leave one is not really a bad thing.

> being pressured to top is bad UX

You're not the customer of Square. It's great UX if your goal is to get more people tipping.

(I've said this before at food trucks)

Totally valid point.

But I changed from Chevron to Shell because of their bad UX for Safeway rewards integration, and I've noticed that Philz never asks me to tip on their Point of Sale system while places like Signtglass do. And my noticing will likely have affected by purchasing behavior.

Uber's claim is that black people are known to tip poorly, and so drivers would be incentivized to cancel their rides in favor of fares they expect will tip better. Therefore they don't allow tipping to prevent racism. Supposedly...

They changed their tipping policy in May 2016 in response to a contractor lawsuit.

Drivers are now allowed to ask for tips; I've had drivers with tip jars and squares available. And I've seen reddit discussions of drivers calling riders who don't tip dicks.

Couldn't drivers also negatively rate passengers in retaliation if they don't tip?

They can and hbr wrote an article about it.

https://hbr.org/2016/05/ubers-new-tipping-policy-is-a-mistak...

That is in no way true.

Suggesting that black people are somehow to blame for Uber not allowing in-app tips is one of the most out there things I've seen on HN, and that's saying something.

Tipping has been studied and has been associated with discrimination on gender, race, and class.

http://www.esquire.com/food-drink/restaurants/a23132/why-tip...

It's a long way to go from that to saying that Uber have enacted a policy specifically because of it.

Uber enacted their tipping policy to keep total control over prices and moreover to keep prices low.

When they were sued by their own workers because of this and had their backs against the wall, they had to claim it was because of this racist hand-wavy BS.

It was a ret-con and an incredibly cynical and insulting thing to do, but that's now the official reason they didn't allow tips.

This is the claim made by Uber spokesmen. I also heard it directly from an Uber manager. It disgusted me too.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/04/27/uber-resists...

Travis Kalanick has never blackmailed journalists. Emil Michael, an Uber executive, brought up the idea as an ethical hypothetical.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicole-campbell/what-was-said-...

Specifically, he asked Ben Smith of Buzzfeed whether it would be ethical for Uber to hire someone to investigate and report to the public true facts about a journalist (as opposed to journalists investigating and reporting true facts about people involved with Uber). Ben Smith evaded the question, most likely because he didn't want to admit that as a journalist he feels that's a privilege which should only be afforded to members of his club.

You are right that Lyft doesn't do much politics. Instead, Uber spends money fixing political problems and Lyft then freeloads on them, making money in the better world that Uber created. For me, that's a strong reason to prefer Uber to Lyft.

Sorry for the incorrect information; I'd edit the comment w/ more ~s, but the window has passed.

My recollection was apparently wrong and from headlines that Ben Smith wrote.

Some journalists seem to believe that freedom of the press is an exclusive legal right. In reality, the right belongs to everyone.

> - CEO never blackmailed journalists

Neither did Uber

> - Lyft takes a lower commission capped at 20%/25%

Same as Uber

I would swear when i first installed Uber, they were clear tips were built in to the price of the ride. I believe there was even a screen on signup to select 10,20, or 30% tips - i might have imagined that part though, it was years ago.

You're Kinda remembering right. They definitely marketed it as tips were built into the price and even had a policy where drivers had to refuse tips.

Slide 1:

    Why fund us?

    The key points are
    - CEO never blackmailed journalists
    - No major revelations of sexual harassment
    - No major revelations of political support

Slide 2:

..

Our 20% commission is great because the other company with more funding and first mover advantage takes more commission.

Oh yeah, forgot to mention, "and people don't like that."

~~~execution~~~

> No major revelations of political support

Why is this one a thing? Almost every business out there beyond a certain size eventually grows into politics, in every industry.

Lyft tipping policy shows how US-Centric they are

If they want to grow, they'll have to address that. Fast

You forgot human rights abuses.

I have encountered Lyft drivers that refuse to work for Uber for such reasons.

Care to elaborate?

Lyft has some pretty political investors e.g. Peter Thiel.

It's not—and anyone who says that it is is deluding themselves.

I think we've reached the point where ridesharing apps are 100% a commodity: there's no real product differentiation, so I'll choose based on price and how long it'll take the car to arrive. Lyft drivers seem 'happier,' but that hasn't translated into anything significantly different for me in terms of ride quality.

This won't be a popular opinion, but I think most drivers—on both services—are too entitled and have unrealistic expectations. Having a driver's license and a car is not rare in the US: it's a job that requires less specialized training/skill than being a fry cook at McDonald's, and should be compensated accordingly.

The drivers who are happy are the ones who recognize this and do it to make some extra cash in their spare time after a 'real' job; the ones who are upset are trying to make their living driving. While I sympathize with the latter breed, they're in a dying occupation that's about to be automated out of existence within the next ~5 years.

> drivers who are happy are the ones who recognize this and do it to make some extra cash in their spare time after a 'real' job; the ones who are upset are trying to make their living driving.

This is also Uber's supposed mentality, but you are wrong and Uber is misleading the public.

If a part time job is profitable, then doing it full time would also be profitable. The biggest lie in their marketing campaign is their claim that Uber is about ride sharing, but that's serious bullshit meant for fooling drivers and legislators, because the driver cannot control the passengers' destination and they take a pay cut when rejecting orders.

You see, the drivers that are upset are those that have done the math and realize that they cannot cover the maintenance costs for their personal car, along with what they lose in time spent in commuting and maintenance and still make a worthwhile profit.

At this point Uber survives because they found enough gullible drivers that waste time and add serious mileage to their own cars for Uber's profit. But at some point the bill kicks in.

> If a part time job is profitable, then doing it full time would also be profitable.

That's making a major assumption. A lot of times aren't as profitable as others, and there might not be enough profitable hours for a full time job, but enough profitable hours for a part time job.

For instance, Friday nights in downtown at last call might be very profitable for 4 hours, which would make perfect sense as a part time job. If you need to make a certain amount of money, you might be forced to work hours that are a net drain on your finances, such as 2pm on a Tuesday afternoon.

> At this point Uber survives because they found enough gullible drivers that waste time and add serious miles to their own cars for Uber's profit. But at some point the bill kicks in.

Absolutely—at some point, the drivers all wise up, there aren't any new gullible people to replace them, the supply of drivers falls, and Uber and Lyft and their ilk have to raise fares. The only real question is whether this happens before autonomous vehicles can replace the drivers entirely. Uber, at least, is betting that it doesn't, and I think they're right.

> “Are there no prisons?” said the Spirit, turning on him for the last time with his own words. “Are there no workhouses?”

For timesharing be non-commodity , they need to have shared routes with multiple passengers. Uber and Lyft aren't terribly good at that.

But it seems that via(ridewithvia) and probably chariot(which was bought by Ford) do manage to do that - with their average passenger density most likely larger than 4 . Another proof they aren't commodities - they don't need all those tricks with drivers - their drivers are regular employees, probably well compensated.

TBH, driving is a harder skill to learn than being a McDonalds fry cook.

So is speaking fluent English (even as a native speaker). The thing is that both are so common that they aren't really skills in the US market.

Knowing how to drive is nearly ubiquitous in the US in the 18+ year old population.

So, let's say the metric is "additional training required after age 18".

Driving: likely none. McDonalds: likely a little!

Being a professional driver (even aided by GPS and Waze) and speaking fluent English are absolutely valuable skills on the US market.

One in five US residents speaks a language other than English at home. Of those that speak a language other than English, only 58% speak English "very well" Older people are less likely to speak English "very well" than younger people. https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-22.pdf

So when you're looking at the bottom 10% or so of the workforce, speaking fluent English is a HUGELY marketable job skill.

Also, yes, a lot of people can drive. But, again, we're looking at the bottom segment of the workforce. It's easier to find "absolute numbers" rather than percentages, but according to one source only 89% of US adults are licensed to drive http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/11/07/americans-arent-as-dep... Multiple studies of the prevalence of government issued photo IDs (not just driver's licenses) corresponds to this: http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/jul/11/eric-...

And if you want to drive for Uber, you need to meet Uber's requirements. You need to be 21 or older. You need to have 3 years of driving experience (you can't just go out and get a license if you decide you want to drive for Uber). Clean driving record, background check, no criminal history at all in the last 7 years...

You need to have a clean 4-door sedan in good condition that can pass an inspection.

Even if you manage to jump through all those hoops, driving for Uber can be customer service in the extreme. Sure, I can drive myself to the grocery store and back like a champ, but Uber drivers are driving on unfamiliar roads to unknown destinations every day. And they're doing it with a paying customer in the backseat. I live in Boston, and there are certain sections of town where the GPS routinely doesn't work/jumps around, and those sections happen to be a minefield of winding one-way streets and construction.

How do you deal with GPS issues? Surprise construction? Traffic that Waze didn't predict? How do you mollify customers when things go wrong? Can you drive defensively and still make a timely arrival to your destination? I've taken a lot of Ubers and have seen some REALLY bad drivers, and some really fantastic ones that handled the car like a pro.

My point is, working as a cook at McDonalds requires far fewer resources and job skills than driving an Uber, hands down. You could make a more compelling argument for working the register, but cooking fries is trivial and requires very few skills or resources.

There are some flaws in your assumptions. You assume everyone that drives has the same license and that driving requires little skill. Some speciality driving requires skills. These drivers have to have Class A CDL licenses and have to pass training. I highly doubt automated vechiles will obselete every driving job that requires a CDL license in the next 5 years. Eventually? Quite possibly. But in 5 years? Most likely no.

I'm not claiming every Uber / Lyft driver has a CDL license (most probably don't). But to claim driving requires no special skill is false. There are certain situations that require very specialized driving skills.

I'd be shocked if any significant number of UberX and Lyft drivers had a CDL. Even in NYC, where a TLC license and commercial insurance is required, drivers still don't need a CDL.

Some driving definitely requires specialized skills, but driving a Prius around SF or $random_american_city isn't it. Autonomous vehicles have gotten quite good, and I can easily see them filling the taxi/Uber use case by 2022.

You missed the part I said I wasn't claminig Uber / Lyft drivers had CDL licenses and mentioned I thought most wouldn't.

Thanks for the downvote and reply to something I didn't claim.

> Why is either business the cat's meow?

I have, for years, commented on Uber's savvy relative to Airbnb [1]. This was partly due to Uber's retention of Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe [2]. Unfortunately, he left for the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative in January [3].

Uber's problems are, 80%, a PR scandal. #DeleteUber started when Uber seemed to interfere with a taxi strike at New York City's JFK airport [4]. Uber cancelled its surcharge at 7:36PM; the taxi union scheduled the strike, at 4:55PM, for between 6 and 7PM [5].

Biggest winner? Peter Thiel--numpties jumped to Lyft. Almost everyone else rallied against his competitor.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6521376#6521700

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Plouffe

[3] http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/10/ubers-david-plouffe-to-join-c...

[4] http://www.businessinsider.com/delete-uber-hashtag-jfk-airpo...

[5] https://www.axios.com/uber-didnt-deserve-deleteuber-22258932...

I don't know what Lyft's corporate culture is like, but I'd rather not support a company whose attitude towards women is like Sterling Cooper Draper Price or where corporate advancement is a Game of Thrones, lest other firms see this as a model to emulate and these behaviors proliferate. I don't want to work in a corporate culture that resembles a preppy/bro boys club that thinks darwinism is a theory you can apply socially

Also, Lyft gives me the option of tipping the driver with my card, which I generally do if the driver provides something more than just transportation from point A to B. Some drivers have told me and a first date a series of jokes, thus being a great icebreaker. Others have helped me carry my drunk friend to the door. I don't like to carry cash and I find Uber's policy to be a commodification of an essentially human experience and almost dehumanizing. A lot of times, I don't tip and I don't feel a whit of guilt about it.

I don't feel Lyft is some paragon of virtue. AFAICT they're a regular Silicon Valley tech company with all of the usual tensions associated with that. The service they provide is a huge improvement on what came before, but there are privacy concerns related to the data they collect and use for business purposes. They'll probably push the envelope a bit on what they can do with that information, and then back down whenever there's significant pushback.

Uber, on the other hand, is a cesspool. It's run by sociopaths who think business success confers moral authority, and are quite annoyed with all the hullaballoo about "right" and "wrong" that their actions periodically provoke.

I have no problem with their business model, but I will not use Uber. I don't trust them with my credit card, and I don't want them tracking my movements.

In a lot of places, Uber/Lyft is a significantly better experience. The cars show up when you call them - reliably and quickly. The drivers don't long-haul you to rip you off. They go places taxis won't to pick you up. They're generally cheaper and cleaner.

Ten years ago, taxis were terrible. Even in San Francisco. Now there's Uber and Lyft.

The question wasn't really why are they better than taxis, but why is Lyft considered a more ethical business than Uber, which has faced criticism, especially recently.

That's what I was getting at, thank you. I understand that taxis are regarded as horrible but I don't get why Lyft is seen as "the better way" (either by investors or customers) when Uber is increasingly reviled. Lyft has the same systemic flaws as Uber but does so behind a pink mustache and a CEO that seems a bit more restrained. Neither company took the opportunity to "fix" a broken taxi system by ensuring that both drivers and passengers get a better deal.

If anything, it looks like Uber and Lyft looked at the taxi industry and said "hey, if we made that into an app, we can make bank for ourselves while incrementally shafting the very people we need for our service!" and proceeded to do so and Lyft does so in a more camouflaged way.

"...and a CEO that seems a bit more restrained."

When distinguishing between two effectively identical products, something like "The CEO seems less of an asshole" is a perfectly reasonable means of differentiating.

Seems likely to me that many of the 100k+ Lyft/Uber drivers are better off than they were before Lyft and Uber.

Setting aside the merits of Lyft, everyone is watching to see what consequences Uber experiences as a result of their chronic antisocial behavior. If people continue to use Uber and their business succeeds, it sends a message to other companies that treating workers humanely is optional and unnecessary. Even if Lyft is substantively identical, there is still signaling value in punishing Uber and helps establish norms. Weak, but better than nothing.

I would rather not give money to a company which pays Mike #2's salary.

Admittedly one of the first reasons I preferred Uber to taxis was that I didn't have to deal with tipping but Lyft does at least offer the option whereas Uber drivers are left with whatever scraps the company decides to throw them that week.

Uber's official tipping policy changed last year to suggest that drivers can ask for tips, have tip jars, and HBR suggests trade tips for reviews.

https://hbr.org/2016/05/ubers-new-tipping-policy-is-a-mistak...

An uber driver even offered square for tip.

I know one nice thing was last I knew they were like ... half female executives. So they would appear to be doing better on diversity issues than most of the valley.

Anecdata I know...

On iphone, uber's app now requires you to give it permission to see your location always, regardless of whether the app is open. With lyft, the app only needs my location while it is open. That's a huge one in my book. The day uber updated and said it had to track me 24/7 was the day I deleted it.

Lyft differentiates itself by throwing slightly more scraps to the drivers and not being Uber. It's shit, but cabbies aren't exactly working with a full benefits package and stock options either. I agree that Lyft is only marginally better than Uber, but it's hard to know where to go when basically every service industry seems to exist to exploit workers for profit. Do you just walk everywhere? Go live in the woods? It's a shit deal but we live in this system - worrying about 'ethical' consumption choices rather than trying to untangle root causes can feel like missing the point. Not that there's much chance of meaningful change there, either. Idunno.

> it's hard to know where to go when basically every service industry seems to exist to exploit workers for profit

No argument there. I completely agree (with the caveat that some small niches or niche companies seem to be "playing fair" but they're, by far, the exception than he rule).

> Do you just walk everywhere? Go live in the woods?

I intentionally didn't mention it, but since you asked: I don't use either service because of my objections to them. Where I live, public transit and bicycle infrastructure is pretty good--at least compared to most of North America--so if I can't get there by train, bus, bike, rented or friend's car (when going as a group), or my own two feet, I just don't go. I 197% recognize that this is a choice that many people don't get to make, but I don't think it invalidates the question of "why is Lyft seen as so much better than Uber?"

Sure - I take a bus to work and back, light rail around town, bike when weather permits, walk and eat/drink/shop local. I still take a Lyft when I go out and get drunk or whatever - not a real alternative out there.

I feel Uber does a (slightly) better job vetting their drivers. I've had a few very questionable rides with Lyft. Most drivers are great but I've had more bad drivers on lyft.

I've had more poor, "I'm in a taxi cab in all but name" drives on Uber.

I used to have those a lot, but I think Uber's eliminated a lot of the "off duty taxi drivers" in the last couple years. I used to get picked up by literal taxi cabs when I called for an Uber pretty frequently. Now, "marked, taxi, or salvage vehicles" are not allowed.

feels like it's city based. i definitely had bad rides on uber in nyc but only had great ones in sf.

in my own town, uber is light-years ahead of taxi drivers. to the point where my parents are using uber (and they are really averse to technology)

Yeah - I didn't mention it, but the variable that seems to drive the majority of the variability for me is "Where am I?"

I use Lyft because I am able to tip the driver. Also if you ask the drivers which platform they prefer typically they say Lyft treats them better.

That is my reason.

> from an outsider's perspective I don't understan

I don't either, but it's related to the outsider status.

Questions I'd be asking would revolve around unit economics - average gross and net revenues off a ride, average rides per driver per month, average rides per user per month, average driver retention and churn, average user retention and churn, all of the above in historic context broken down per market.

Presumably sophisicated investors at this stage are asking for such numbers and base their valuations on cashflow. It's not a pure software business with winner-take-all mentality, Lyft is a Lowe's to Uber's Home Depot.

Because the industry (TAM) is very large and they generate a tremendous amount of revenue. Because their platform is considered very scalable and once they get it figured out they could operate at much lower margins and make more profit. The problem is they're not profitable today.

Tonight I've learned that Uber, on iOS, tracks the user's location even when the app is inactive, for at least ten minutes after a ride is over. Lyft only tracks location while a ride is in session. Would like someone to confirm this.

You have a few faulty assumptions: the contractor classification is reasonable, many disagree it is or should be illegal, business model is money-printing machine. They are somewhat interchangeable but have quite different brandings.

I think it boils down to PR and ethics at this point.

From a consumer's point of view, both services offer a convenience layer over taxis: you have an online account that hooks into your credit card, which means you can just summon a car using your magic pocket computer, step inside, talk to the (generally friendlier-and-more-sociable-than-a-cab-driver) driver, and get out at your destination without having to guide the driver around the city, or having to take your wallet out of your pocket.

That they're priced similarly (and frequently lower) than regular cabs means both of these apps are in demand, period. The convenience layer makes them competitive against cabs even at equal fares.

If Lyft and Uber are essentially identical (which is arguable), then putting their company culture and PR under scrutiny is fair game and the natural direction consumers will go in.

Many people have no problem with the contractor model or disrupting the ridiculous cab system. However, systemic sexual harassment and a generally abusive CEO is not something most people want to support.

> However, systemic sexual harassment

That has yet to be proven with any sort of evidence other than an uncorroborated blog post or two.

Uh.... Uber vetting is weak compare to Lyft.

They're both may not be super stringent but I've seen Uber vetting process and Lyft. Lyft was felt much better compare to Uber.

It's not any better, but it's also worth less than 1/10th the valuation of the other, meaning it could be undervalued in comparison.

Lyft has chosen a pink mustache as their symbol. Being number 2 they have sympathy of the leftist hippies as they dont like anyone succeeding.