Re:I Got Paid $0 from the Uber Security Bug Bounty
by saas_sam on Sunday December 24, 2017 @03:48PM
(#16001246)
Sounds great until you realize 1. riders would only use the app if they could sort by 'price,' 2. drivers would therefore have to constantly change their rates to reflect what those in the area are charging at a given time/supply/demand level, so.. 3. in order to do this effectively without creating massive unexpected price swings for both drivers & riders, you'd end up automating this 'bidding' system and hey whaddya know, you just built Uber again!
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:I Got Paid $0 from the Uber Security Bug Bounty
by smcmurtry on Sunday December 24, 2017 @04:07PM
(#16001301)
Genuinely curious about this - why would the price swings in this case be worse than with uber? With enough drivers, I would expect prices to reach an equilibrium that depends on time of day/day of week, with highly rated drivers charging more. And even if the price swings were larger than uber's, wouldn't the prices be more optimal since they would be set by individual actors with more local info about the cost of providing the service?
Re:I Got Paid $0 from the Uber Security Bug Bounty
by xocyabencl on Sunday December 24, 2017 @06:57PM
(#16001922)
While Uber and Lyft raise prices in periods of high demand, they also subsidize rides in periods of low demand to keep a consistent quality of service. You'd have a hard time getting a network as reliable as Uber and Lyft without that subsidy.
Re:I Got Paid $0 from the Uber Security Bug Bounty
by AntAF on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @06:16AM
(#16014123)
It's not uncommon to see Uber retain 75% of the fee collected these days. The subsidies are much lower and less frequent than you are probably expecting. In Los Angeles, you are talking about 1.1-2.0 subsidy on base rates in the same areas with base rates for the driver being .72/mi and .11/min.