EDIT: There is another account I missed in the article where identical rides are compared, so I take this back
The point of the OP is that it is impossible to submit evidence that contradicts these anecdotes, because it is impossible to prove something never happens through experiments.
Two data points, one gathered immediately after another for the same route from a separate device, from a provider known to track demande and use "surge pricing"?
There is a phrase "penny wise and pound foolish". That phrase is a good description of what's being alleged here. Trying to grab a few percent in ways that are likely to bring the hammer down when discovered is not exactly a great idea.
DoorDash stole tips and got away with it. The precedent has been set. The "hammer" you're talking about hasn't existed for over a decade.
People would forget a week later and continue to use the app. I think that saying is a bit naive to the post antitrust capitalist world
That assumes that there is a hammer that will be brought down and that the hammer actually has some weight behind it.
The reality is that it takes years for governments to react to people breaking or bending the law in novel, creative ways. The fact of illegality didn't stop Uber and a bunch of other competitors to provide taxi services, nor did it stop AirBnB from facilitating the running of illegal hotels world-wide.
Yes, eventually the hammer came down, but seriously, not even a million euros fine and of that, 50% suspended for Uber [1] or a few hundred K for AirBnB [2]... that's a joke, that's pennies for these ultra-large corporations. And so, yes, breaking the law and paying fines until it's actually hitting execs personally is the more profitable option in the mid run. Just change which law you break and you'll get off.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/uber-and-execs-f...
[2] https://www.hotrec.eu/en/policies/_airbnb_fined_on_the_balea...
I don't know whether they are charging more when users have credits in there account. It seems plausible I guess.
Here are some plausible reasons why it may not be the case:
- If Uber's analysis determined that the best price to charge to maximize profit is independent of whether or not the user has credits
- Because predatory practices would generate bad press and push users to competitors, which would reduce profits
> He went a step farther and did something I didn’t: he checked Uber prices “with someone else’s phone” who did not have a balance in their Uber account – and Uber was pricing the route at the usual $20 for them.
Unfalsifiable means it's impossible to submit evidence to contrary. In this casem the proposition is that Uber sometimes charges you more based on having credits in your account. There is no way to prove this never happens through an experiment. If an experiment showed that two rides cost the same to users with and without credits, it doesn't show that it never happens.