What we do know is that the algo isn't based on their cost, its trying to figure out the max it can charge me and "get away with it". I'm suggesting that its time horizon is much too small. It was enough to chase me away. That might be what they wanted. It may not be.
We are going to live in a bold new world, where getting picked up at Whole Foods costs X% more than a Grocery Outlet across the street. It's really amazing how loose they are with ethics and how willing to court controversy.
*Uber points to profits in all developed markets https://www.ft.com/content/afa1d4de-33bc-11e6-bda0-04585c31b...
I always see people saying that Uber subsidizes rides now and that rates will rise later if they win a market, but the evidence doesn't support those claims. If they just want to gouge people as everyone speculates they would already do so in markets where there is no "competition".
Instead, it looks like even absent a direct competitor, that they still have competition in the form of car ownership. We should be celebrating their ability to keep driving costs down until it's cheaper to use Uber than to own and operate a car.
Since it's not reliable I prefer it much less. I'd rather it just cost $16 both times.
Now every time I open it, it feels like just a liiittle too much to use for anything but a very occasional trip.
They get more from me for each trip I now almost never take. Win the battle, lose the war.
There should be a name for this kind of algorithm. How bout "Pyrrhic Optimizers"?