Comment by colmvp | Hacker News Reader

Comment by colmvp | Hacker News Reader

As mentioned in the article and countless times on HN:

Many people in Silicon Valley are biased against Lyft because they think that ride-sharing will be a winner-takes-all market. They are probably wrong. Once a ride-sharing company gets to a certain level of reliability and waiting times are short enough, there is little benefit to using one service over another. Uber and Lyft will both be able to claim a lead in lots of cities, and both will be around for a while.

Furthermore, if you live in a city with both, it's not uncommon to talk with drivers who work for both services.

I will also add that the need for expansion has toned down the quirkiness of Lyft from when they first out a few years back. The giant furry mustache was replaced. No more fist bumps. And the drivers I encounter are generally less talkative and charismatic. That's not meant to criticize the company, but AFAIC, there is just a lot less separating the two companies.

So playing it slow and sane might be second in the long run, but if they keep expanding I don't see them not eating into Uber's market and climbing their way up. Well, unless of course Uber's investment into driverless cars is able to come to fruition within our lifetime.

I have no idea what the situation is like in the rest of the country, but Lyft seems to do pretty well in Chicago. The drivers I speak to tend to use both Lyft and Uber, but prefer Lyft overall; Lyft allows tipping, and Uber customers are allegedly pickier.

I'd say most people I know use one or the other exclusively. I think Uber actually tends to be cheaper at busier times than Lyft if you tip when you use Lyft. The average Uber vehicle seems newer than Lyft vehicle as well.

Either way, I don't think Lyft is at much of a competitive disadvantage in Chicago, at least in the 20-something crowd. The older individuals I know are much more likely to use Uber exclusively, and use the features that are not present in Lyft, like calling a standard taxi, or Uber Black.

It's all anecdotal of course, but I personally wouldn't worry too much about Lyft. I think the fact that they appear to allow a broader range of vehicles and drivers is a competitive advantage.

Chicagoan here, lots of drivers I've spoken with prefer Lyft. Most reference the great support they get from Lyft corporate.

I live in Chicago part time, and whenever getting a ride from Ohare, the drivers prefer I hail with Lyft instead of Uber.

As such, the dude abides.

Lyft is nice to drivers -> Drivers ask customers to hail with Lyft -> Niceness wins

Allowing tipping is why I don't use Lyft.

Exactly this, to be honest. I use Lyft whenever Uber is too far away, but always prefer Uber given the choice primarily for this reason. (That, and Uber has a superior airport pickup UI, last I checked.)

It's not about money; it's just a UX thing. I don't like having to remember to go back into the app after the fact to pay more to not look like a jerk. I'd rather Lyft just raise their rates by 15% and kill the option to tip, or at least give me an opt-in setting to auto-tip (and factor the auto-tip into fare estimates).

"I don't like having to remember to go back into the app after the fact to pay more to not look like a jerk"

But you don't. The driver doesn't see that you tipped or not.

As opposed to saying drivers are already getting tipped despite the fact that there's no percentage of the fare that's set aside and preserved from Uber's cut ie they're not being tipped?

I am against tipping as a practice in general. Tipping or not tipping results in preferential treatment, subtle attitude changes, depending on the amount tipped and so on. It's more about the social discomfort I have around tipping, rather than the money itself.

That's why you tip at the end?

Does not work with repeat visits. May not be a big issue for Lyft, but it is for frequently visited restaurants and other places.

Okay well obviously that's the case. That's the bargaining chip that you have available.

The expectation is that you get good service and pay for it in the amount of roughly 15-20% of your actual bill of sale.

If you do not get good service, the bargaining chip available to you is to tip less and stop coming in.

If you do get good service and you choose to tip less then you're the one not holding up your side of the bargain. The bargaining chip available to them is to give you worse service so you stop coming in.

Tipping is not a good solution, but you honestly just sound like a cheapskate. Obviously there are repercussions for not abiding by standard transaction practice.

Customer service in restaurants seems pretty good in Australia, and there's universally no tipping here.

Which is obviously not at all relevant to the topic at hand. I don't think tipping should exist as a whole. However, it does exist in the US. Therefore, if you attempt to opt out, i.e. be a cheapskate, then expect there to be repercussions.

And that's why you should frequent business who forbid tipping in the first place, so you don't have to opt out after the transaction.

I couldn't name a single place off the top of my head that forbids tipping.

See https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/15/the-end-of-t...

Eg Uber removes the expectations of tipping---without outright banning it. (The removed expectation was what I was actually talking about. I was sloppy when I wrote 'forbid'.)

Yes and they do so by deceiving their users and their drivers. Not sure why you think this is a good thing.

I hate tipping. I am happy to stick to a deal we agreed to up front. Uber offers that model. As long as Uber doesn't force the drivers to work for them, I don't care too much what deal they accept from Uber.

Most drivers seem to work with multiple apps. Uber probably paints working as a driver in the most glorious light possible---so you can call that deception, but it's not too different from any other job, and easy enough to leave. I don't see how they are deceiving the users though? I get a ride and pay roughly what the fare estimate says.

(The drivers are sure worse off than me. After all I work in tech, and they are driving cars. But my discretionary charitable budget goes towards more efficient approaches towards relieving human suffering, than helping people in first world countries.)

For the record, I think Uber's management are mostly jerks. But as a service provider they undercut regular Sydney cabs by around 50% and provide better value. By comparison, in Singapore regular cabs are mostly alright, so there Uber isn't nearly as appealing for me.

"you honestly just sound like a cheapskate". Ad-hominem? Well, well, anyways :)

I never said I don't play by whatever practices each country has around tipping. I just don't like it.

Exactly.

Of course drivers like Lyft. Lyft extorts tips from users and hence drivers get more money.

It's also precisely why Lyft will never win: tipping is customer hostile. I don't want to tip and will never use Lyft if Uber is an option.

Will you be fine with higher Uber costs when drivers defect to the platform where they can earn more through base + tips?

Yes. It's not about the money.

If supply & demand intersect at a price which is even 20% higher than it currently is, that would be fine by me. What I hate is the mental gymnastics of tipping, the lengths which Lyft drivers go to to extort tips from you, and the clear potential for discrimination which a tipping culture creates.

What lengths do they go to?

I haven't used Lyft much, but the times I have drivers have pointedly recommended how much of a tip to give and even handed me a card with suggested tip percentages on it. A lot of them parrot the Lyft line that "tipping is always optional and always appreciated."

The experience I witnessed in my city (Ottawa, Canada) definitely leaves the second place entrant Lyft as the winner. I imagine the same narrative plays out in many other markets.

- Uber enters the market

- ugly battle ensues, with Uber and the taxi union embracing their associated stereotypes.

- consumers initially sympathetic to either Uber or the taxi union or both lose all sympathy due to flagrant misbehaviour and law-breaking from both parties

- city hall hammers out a compromise that both Uber and the taxi union grudgingly but mean spiritedly accept

- Lyft comes in the day the compromise takes effect

- everybody switches to Lyft

The last two points haven't happened yet in Ottawa, the new laws come into effect Sept 30. I believe they are a solid prediction though.

Most people won't pay any attention to the political battle though, will they? They'll just pay attention to whether there's an Uber available when they need it, and how much it costs. If those two things are acceptable, I don't see most people switching.

But everybody keeps saying that network effects are important, that Uber is going to win because of mind share and network effects.

So either availability and cost is more important than mind share and network effects -> Lyft wins because they didn't spend millions opening the market but are big enough to be basically equivalent to Uber on cost and availability.

Or network effects and mind share is more important -> Lyft wins because they're the 'good guys' who didn't participate in the Pyrrhic battles in both local and global media.

I suspect that you're right, availability and cost is more important. However colmvp's comment indicates that availability and cost is basically equivalent in major markets, making the political battle the major differentiating point.

For me taxis have a huge availability advantage due to taxi stands at work and at the airport, so I'll continue to use them there and Lyft elsewhere.

What's the reason for the last step?

I exclusively just use lyft. I've always found that underdog companies give better service.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com