Having never used a ride-sharing service before, I hesistantly installed Lyft and handed over my payment information.
After the first ride, I didn't look back. I used their services maybe 10 times in 3 days in order to get around the city. Waits were never very long (we got rides at many different times of day, morning, mid-day, late night) and all of the drivers I had were friendly.
My experiences were all pleasant and the fares were reasonable. I can't speak to the quality of the Uber experience, but it seems many of the Lyft drivers were not too keen on the company.
All of them said they vastly prefer Lyft — they said Uber's policies for firing otherwise excellent drivers as soon as they dip below 4.6/5.0 stars makes them very worried.
As a user, I found the actual driving experience of Lyft better, but the Uber app is vastly superior to Lyft's – not being able to split rides being a major annoyance.
Actual implementation of policies can be completely different (imagine a ratings drop triggering an automated email saying "turn in your kit before 6pm today or a security detail will come get it" vs. triggering a non-confrontational call from someone trained to help you improve your ratings). Even the tone with which a policy is generally enforced (even if the end result is exactly the same) matters.
I don't have direct experience with either Lyft or Uber, but I wouldn't discredit drivers' impressions.
I wonder if action they took against my account was a result of them trying to mitigate these attacks from Uber. If so the damage is much worse than just the canceled rides.
> the risks of using customer's credentials in such a careless and ridiculous way many magnitudes higher than the potential rewards
Are you sure? What are the risks of parking a username? I doubt it's illegal and I bet they could obfuscate the traffic well enough to make it very difficult to prove to a court that they were the ones doing it. The only downside seems to be a bit of slightly negative PR (i.e. the assumptions of those who jump to conclusions) when Lyft detects the widespread parking.
Meanwhile, the upside is the expected value of their most profitable customers times the probability that they will switch to Uber+Lyft or 100%Lyft.
Low risk, large upside... I don't think this is as bad a business proposition as you make it sound like.
Where I felt the app shortage hurt the most wasn't at the top - there are a few glaring omissions, and some of the apps took a long time to show up, but WP8 for the most part has apps for top services (facebook, twitter, instagram, spotify, uber, etc).
But then there's this second tier of apps where WP8's coverage is absolutely terrible.
I was talking with a coworker today about how his bank (small, local bank) just released an app allowing mobile check deposit - on android and iOS.
Your favorite pizza chain or sub shop has an app for ordering delivery or takeout? Android and iOS only.
Target has an app that allows you to search an item, and then see what aisle it's in in the store - android and iOS only.
There's this huge class of convenient but not necessary apps that you don't get on windows phone right now, and having spent a couple of months with them, I don't think I could go back. It's too bad really, I feel like Microsoft got a lot of things right with WP8. I definitely preferred the UI compared to android.
In line with Microsoft's info-not-apps philosophy, I'd love for them to work with, say, Lyft, to integrate the APIs behind the app into Cortana - so I can have a similar experience as the Lyft Android Wear app. Extrapolate to all the apps that are UI layers for a web service.
It really does seem a two-horse race between iOS and Android.
Either way the intended meaning was clear enough not to warrant a flame.
I'd be interested to know what, specifically, you disapprove of. The article sounds to me like one company trying very hard to recruit another's drivers.
What is the alternative? One or both companies refrain from recruiting each others' drivers? Google and Apple (and others) recently got in trouble for doing that sort of thing.
Uber does have an explicit SUV option (I don't recall Lyft having this), which has proven to be a boon upon occasion.
If you the type of person who closes a bar, though, I would strongly suggest additionally adding a photograph, since it will make you easy to identify in the crowds of the bar rush.
It's interesting, there are two totally different cultures when it comes to Lyft and Uber drivers. Lyft drivers are always happy to talk and love it when you sit in the front seat. Uber drivers are always pretty friendly but often encourage sitting in the back like a taxi. There are drivers that are both on Uber and Lyft and they are always great and seem to be more like a typical Lyft driver than an Uber driver.
Before now I'd considered them too small to be worth bothering with, but hey, if Uber is worried then maybe I should give it a try. After this, and Uber's attempts at doing the same with GoTaxi a few months ago, I'll be very happy to take my business elsewhere.
I'd also be interested to know if the VCs that invested in Uber were aware of these tactics. It's especially sad to think of good startup investment money being used to defraud a competing company rather than invest in good customer service.