If the local can company had an option for me to call one of their cans and i could track it to my door, I probably never would have used Uber. There's some value in being an app you can use in any city, but the number of people who are jet setting around the world _and_ need a cab is probably quite low

I basically avoid cabs at all costs. I'd rather stand in front of an available cab and get an Uber because of crappy cab experiences are. The drivers are miserable and rude and the cleanliness is low.

>If the local can company had an option for me to call one of their cans and i could track it to my door, I probably never would have used Uber.

Yep, and for you to report them when they scam you on rides and lie about broken credit card machines. But alas, most cab companies don't have this so you turn to the apps that do provide it.

Yes, I will put it out there that Uber/Lyft/fasten/local Uber clone all provided an actual benefit since you knew up front what the cost is.

That, however, does not mean that their network affects are worth their externalities as any individual company could provide services in a city where you knew the price up front, but did not rely on their global network effects

Based on my travel experience and given that taxis are rather cheap in many countries, I’d say that most of the people jet setting around the world are very likely to use a universal cab-hailing app at some point.

My point, which I did not make clear, is that there aren't very many people traveling all over the world to begin with. Most people on the planet do not routinely visit other cities outside their home area and could easily be served by a single local company rather than needing a company with a network that spans the globe

Of course, but all over the world is not needed: a company with a presence in whatever country you go for holidays/work is enough, so an app with a nearly global presence will get all the travelers' money automatically. (For instance, I never use Uber in my home country, but at the moment I am in Romania, and the fact that I could call a cab at the airport in a new city with zero hassle is very sweet; I imagine that people coming to my country and not in the know about the local taxi market will be in the same position.)

If there is one place in a country where finding a cab has always been straightforward, that's an airport. I mean, it is easier to find a cab by walking through the airport doors than avoid the cabs there :-) That's really the place where Uber & Co add zero value.

> That's really the place where Uber & Co add zero value.

In my opinion, the added value with Uber at an airport is knowing the price up front. That's not always possible with whatever driver is first in line at the taxi stand.

> Labor != Value. I can go dig ditches in a yard for 10 years and not create any value.

Well that really depends on a) whether someone (including you) wants or needs ditches (farming irrigation? undertaker? dog hiding bone?) and b) the amount of time required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. If someone really wants a ton of ditches, and you can dig faster and deeper than anyone else, is your labor more valuable? As programmers we should hope so.

I don't mean to sidetrack the conversation but let's not make sweeping statements of fact without thinking about them!

>Well that really depends on a) whether someone (including you) wants or needs ditches (farming irrigation? undertaker? dog hiding bone?)

You just proved the point though. It's not about how much labor was expended. If we are irrigating and I spend 20 hours digging a ditch by hand and someone spends 10 minutes using heavy machinery, they both produced the same value. Labor is independent of value.

>If someone really wants a ton of ditches, and you can dig faster and deeper than anyone else, is your labor more valuable?

Only if time and depth are a factor. It's the result that has value to the purchaser, not the labor. If said company could hire someone for half the price that does it in twice the time while still meeting the company's deadline, your labor is definitely not more valuable.

Except that network is only valuable because it has people in it to do the labor.

Yes, that's how network effects work. The connectivity provides value. Telephone networks were also useless without the people to call.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect

A bunch of people independently operating their cars to give rides with no common means to find them, schedule them, and pay them makes them almost completely useless. The network is the only thing making them useful to consumers.

It's like claiming Google is only valuable because it has websites to crawl.

"The network is the only thing making them useful to consumers."

No, this statement is entirely and purely false. The reason the network has value is because there are people on the network doing the work. If no one was doing the work, the network would be worthless.

Stop falling into the trap of believing that the people actually doing the labor are not contributing, or do not have value.

"Stop falling into the trap of believing that the people actually doing the labor are not contributing, or do not have value."

That is not what pathseeker said. You said (and pathseeker agreed) that the network is only valuable because there are people in it to do the labor. Pathseeker also said that having people willing and able to do the work is only valuable with a network to organize them and connect them to the people who need work done. You're both right. The people and the network are both contributing, and they both have value. Neither would be valuable on its own.

> Neither would be valuable on its own.

but often the network gets a disproportionaly large share of the reward (i.e., the extraction of value is higher on the network side vs the labour side). This is the same as the capital vs labour argument - one without the other isn't going to produce value, but the capital side is able to extract a higher value than the labour side.

"Larger share"? Maybe. "Disproportionately"? I think not. The correct proportion is not necessarily 1:1. If the capital / network gets a larger share, it's because it contributes more by multiplying the productivity of the labor. Also, in a culture where everyone wants to consume and live in the moment rather than save and plan for the future, capital is relatively scarce compared to labor, which gives capital owners an advantageous position in any negotiation.

I do think they get a disproportionate share of the reward. And you can't argue that it's because the network contributes more; it's purely because the network has access to venture capital.

Saying capital is relatively scarce compared to labor is flat out false. Look at the last 10 years or so. Venture Captial has been flush just about anywhere you look.

So your argument is that venture capitalists are idiots, throwing money at people building networks and not expecting anything of similar value in return? VCs are not in the habit of throwing money away. When a VC-funded venture succeeds, the VCs take the lion's share of the rewards. Accepting VC funding is not a quick path to easy riches. (Of course, the VCs are also taking on the majority of the risk if the venture fails, as happens more often than not; in the end, over enough ventures, it all balances out.)

Capital is not money, but rather durable goods which contribute to more efficient production. It is the networks which are the capital here. Money can be used to buy capital, but only if someone goes to the trouble of designing that capital first. There is plenty of available labor looking for productive work to do, just as there are plenty of VCs searching for ventures likely enough to succeed to justify the investment. It is a lot easier to find people able to do whatever work is required than it is to find the right capital (networks) to organize them and enabled them to do the right work productively.

Both capital and labor are needed. The networks receive a greater portion of the reward because they are more scarce than labor as well as contributing more to overall productivity.

Except they are arguing that the network is the thing to care about, rather than the people doing the work.