Re:Read This Before You Build Uber for X
by wlesieutre on Friday September 01, 2017 @02:13PM
(#15151029)
FWIW I tried to use RideAustin when I was there a few months ago and couldn't even get signed in to the app. Ended up using Uber instead.
Well, once Uber and Lyft came back, the alternatives all basically fizzled out. It's kind of hard to compete against VC subsidized rides.
The telling thing to me is that Uber and Lyft came back to Austin with no concessions after throwing a hissy fit and leaving. That tells me that they saw something that scared them and they needed to squelch it before it escaped to other cities.
Edit: I stand corrected. The state legislature overrode the Austin laws. (Side: Wish I could put an overstrike through my comment.)
Make no mistake, this is 1990's Microsoft levels of predatory behavior. It is nothing to be praised.
Re:Read This Before You Build Uber for X
by wlesieutre on Friday September 01, 2017 @02:33PM
(#15151226)
The reason they left was Austin saying "You need to fingerprint all potential drivers and run them through an FBI fingerprint database."
They came back when legislature said "Actually you don't need to do that."
I'd hardly characterize it as a hissy fit.
Re:Read This Before You Build Uber for X
by fragmede on Friday September 01, 2017 @03:39PM
(#15151774)
City of Austin: "You need to fingerprint all potential drivers and run them through an FBI fingerprint database."
Uber: I don't wanna do that! Uber: stomps feet Uber: goes home Uber: Bribes Texas state into passing laws to force Austin to accept them.
Re:Read This Before You Build Uber for X
by jsjohnst on Friday September 01, 2017 @05:56PM
(#15152689)
While I am usually an outspoken critic of Uber, I feel this is an unfair portrayal of that situation. If I owned a ride hailing service, I would protest the same law.
Both services return were widely predicted here even before they left. It wasn't a hissy fit, it was a calculated move to reduce business costs, and it worked better than I think they even expected.
Re:Read This Before You Build Uber for X
by tim333 on Friday September 01, 2017 @07:44PM
(#15153193)
Probably the biggest problem with no medallion regular taxis is you can end up with dozens of them trying to pick up a small number of passengers and cluttering the streets and causing congestion. With Uber you don't get that - they seem to drop the prices to regulate the number of cabs instead.
That is not fiction or speculation--it is history. You can look up the problems New York had before the taxi medallion system.
I am by no means defending the taxi system. It was rife with problems (especially outside the very biggest cities): unreliable pickups, long wait times outside of a very small number of areas, not wanting to take credit cards, bad driving routes to overcharge, and a whole litany of other complaints.
The only reason why the whole system hasn't devolved into a free-for-all is that Uber and Lyft have so much VC money subsidizing ride cost that nobody can get under their prices--they are below the bottom.
The real competitor to Uber/Lyft is the company who can take the existing cabs and cab companies and insert them into an app that does real-time bidding on their end and works like Uber/Lyft from the consumer end. Austin, TX showed that once Uber and Lyft quit sucking the oxygen out of the space, competition and new options start opening up.
However, Uber and Lyft will have to both implode first. And the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.