Hacker News Reader

Comment by threeseed | Hacker News Reader

Seems like a very smart strategy to me.

Uber is dealing with regulatory fights in almost every country it operates in. May as well let them spend all their time and money establishing the playing field before joining in. Lyft is after all only a few minute download away so getting people to switch isn't going to be as difficult as it could. Especially with Uber's appalling business practices continuing to make headlines.

View on HN

How can you entirely discount marketplace dynamics? If Uber has all of the drivers signed up then the users try switching to Lyft but no drivers are available then they will go right back to Uber. Uber has raised billions and are seemingly making a lot of money so they can easily afford to fight legal battles around the world.

Wouldn't drivers just be on both apps? Most of the drivers I've talked to just run on both and get the first customer from either one.

That's the biggest long term problem, uber can't create platform monopoly without hiring drivers or illegal employment practices. They can still thrive, but it will be monopolistic competitive market where they have to rely on branding/reputation and less concrete platform lockin effects.

They pretty much have to allow the drivers to drive for competing networks, or qualify "partner" as an employee. So Uber marketing budget in some ways helps Lyft, Sidecar and Wingz.

Yeah but by establishing the playing field Uber can become dominant in the rest of the world. Taxi apps are subject to network effects so it's going to be very difficult for Lyft to supplant Uber in markets where they are dominant (e.g. the UK).

> Taxi apps are subject to network effects

Network effect is limited to local. Them adding 5 more drivers in NYC does not benefit riders or drivers in Portland or Barcelona.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com