Comment by kevstev | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kevstev | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

| Consumer don't actually care that much about this. They care about price - they're very price sensitive. Uber WAS cheaper, so they won. The experience being better matters a little, but not much. And, again, it's not that much better! Certainly, I can catch a cab much faster than an Uber, and consumers are also time sensitive!

You are rewriting history here. Most NYers have a story about a cab that either tried to take them for a ride and take a shitty route, charged them an exploitative fee to return their cellphone, had their credit card machine "break" until you insisted you didn't have any cash and it was either a CC card or you are getting out right now... etc. There was absolutely no accountability for them at all and Uber fixed this problem- getting a ride is now actually pleasurable and everything is negotiated up front with no haggling and a full paper trail.

Your whole argument is ridiculous, not sure what your axe to grind against Uber is, but its clear you are not being objective here.

I am very much being objective here. Uber won despite having an objectively worse economic model, because they cheated via venture capital. It happens all the time in the tech world.

Tech company comes in, "innovates" by providing a product that's 2x as convenient for 10x the cost, and undercuts competitors by cheating.

To be very clear, Uber IS absolutely a better experience than taking a cab, and I've noted this multiple times. I believe, however, it's not convenient ENOUGH to justify the extreme infrastructure costs.

From an economic standpoint, Uber does not make sense. If you wanted to run an Uber service at that scale, it would be beyond expensive. Customers don't want to pay 20 bucks to go a few blocks down. So if that was the case from the beginning, Uber would have been dead in the water.

You're greatly underestimating how cost sensitive consumers are. Most people will willingly take a less convenient and shittier option if it's cheaper.

We are just in opinion territory here, but Uber was originally more expensive generally than NYC taxis, but it took off anyway. If everyone was so cost sensitive, why isn't everyone taking the subway?

Well first off people do take the subway. Lots and lots of people. But if subway doesn't go where you need it to and you're in a time crunch, you take a taxi or uber.

Second off, even if Uber is more expensive that's still not it's true cost. You, or anyone, would be happy to take an uber if it was 1.15x the cost of a taxi. Because that's worth it for you.

But this is the big idea here: "Tech company moves in a provides a product that's 2x as convenient for 10x the cost"

There's a point where it makes no sense to get an Uber, and we're well past that point. Uber made it only because they could hide the true cost.

Uber IS a better experience. But would you pay, say, twice as much for a better experience? I would say for most people the answer is no. Not for a transportation service.

When you're making a product it doesn't matter how amazing it is if it's too expensive to produce. There's some exceptions for some product categories, but ultimately operating inefficiency will bite you. From an economic standpoint, Uber does not make sense and has never made sense. Point blank, it's a stupid idea. As time goes on and Uber prices go up and up to try to make up their billions of dollars of losses, you will see this first-hand.

The world is bigger than NYC, and even New York is bigger than NYC.

you are right about Uber bringing accountability, but Europe solved that through regulation. NYC could have done that-- the right to run a cab is linked to owning a government-issued medallion-- but regulation is not the US way.

Medallions only apply to yellow cabs and the green outer borough taxis. Any New Yorker will tell you stories of hail (yellow) cabs not stopping, not driving minorities, not driving to locations in the service area or not being present outside Manhattan. Calling for a cab, van, car service or limo does not require a medallion.

My taxi driver in barcelona still refused to turn on the meter until I argued with him for a few minutes, definitely not a solved problem

The most recent time I was in the EU, I used freenow everywhere for upfront fares and driver ratings - would it even exist if not for uber?

Cabs in Europe are shit too, to be clear. New York probably has the _best_ taxi system in North America though.

>You are rewriting history here. Most NYers have a story about a cab that either tried to take them for a ride and take a shitty route

I've had Uber try to go through the Throggs Neck Bridge, over to the Triboro in order to take me to LIC from eastern Queens. Of course the Uber driver, who only spoke Chinese had no way of understanding why this was incredibly and obviously stupid.

I've gotten refunds from uber when the driver got comically lost and i reported, try that with a medallion taxi

lyft even shows a notification on the passenger's phone now when the driver deviates from the planned route

That would've never happened with a medallion in the first place, and you don't seem to gather that it was the planned route.

medallion taxi drivers did it maliciously, not unintentionally

Yeah, maybe to people from out of town. I didn't say cabs were perfect, but people are acting like Uber is beyond reproach and I don't think it is and I find taxis incredibly convenient and are almost always a better deal, and I lament how few of them there are now which is due entirely to Uber. The experience in an uber is not really that much better, people used them because they were much cheaper.

And NY Cabs were actually generally trustworthy. Cabs were absolutely worse everywhere else in the US, with many more shenanigans.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com