Basically what Rich said. If either side raises prices, they will lose, since all the business will go to the other one. But they also can't lower prices any more. This is due to a lot of factors, such as (obviously) their revenue, but also whether drivers will accept lower pay (no), how much of a loss investors are willing to bear, etc. So they are at a stable equilibrium point, which sounds ok, except that they are really stuck there.
But, when I say it will take a major shake up to change this, a lot of people think the IPOs will be that catalyst. The pool of investors is suddenly blown up wide, and now the public has skin in the game and share prices are determined by a market. How much of a loss, if any, are shareholders willing to accept? Well, both IPOs flopped, which I think says something.
The next couple of years should be very interesting.
Anyone who has studied game theory knows how this is going to go. They can't raise prices. Uber and Lyft are settled at a Nash Equilibrium. It's going to be a looong time before either one is profitable, and it will take some sort of major shake-up in the industry for that to happen.
I hope she reported him to Uber. He should be fired summarily. We are professional drivers. I don't agree with her decision either but it's her decision and that guy had one simple job, which was to deliver her to her destination safely, end of story. He failed.
I think the price argument is really the crux of this article. Uber is engaged in a race to the bottom with Lyft and other competitors, and it might win -- but if it were to then raise prices, new competitors would simply come in and undercut them. While you are right that the technical challenges are not insignificant, there is nothing novel about scaling services. Yes it takes a talented technical team but there are plenty of talented engineers out there -- for the right price.
It seems like a lot of these "uber for X" type apps have somewhat similar requirements, but are different enough that I think this would require a somewhat bespoke solution for each. So maybe the base platform can be reused but there will be a lot of customization for each. And they'll each have different scaling requirements. Tricky business.
Local governments were blindsided by Uber. They move so slowly and could not respond to the Uber sea change. So, now they are stuck, unable to regulate post facto. Maybe they will get their act together eventually but right now it's like the wild west. Don't expect big changes anytime soon other than in isolated pockets as certain municipalities finally figure out how.
The thing about computers is... garbage in, garbage out. They can call it "artificial intelligence" all they want, but it's not. As long as a human can turn off a critical part of the software, there is nothing "intelligent" about it. It's only as smart as the humans who write the software and operate it.
What the heck? I mean, what I want to know is, what sort of things were triggering these false positives? Why were they so confident that changing the threshold could be safe?
RIDEGURU
Basically what Rich said. If either side raises prices, they will lose, since all the business will go to the other one. But they also can't lower prices any more. This is due to a lot of factors, such as (obviously) their revenue, but also whether drivers will accept lower pay (no), how much of a loss investors are willing to bear, etc. So they are at a stable equilibrium point, which sounds ok, except that they are really stuck there.
But, when I say it will take a major shake up to change this, a lot of people think the IPOs will be that catalyst. The pool of investors is suddenly blown up wide, and now the public has skin in the game and share prices are determined by a market. How much of a loss, if any, are shareholders willing to accept? Well, both IPOs flopped, which I think says something.
The next couple of years should be very interesting.
Anyone who has studied game theory knows how this is going to go. They can't raise prices. Uber and Lyft are settled at a Nash Equilibrium. It's going to be a looong time before either one is profitable, and it will take some sort of major shake-up in the industry for that to happen.
I hope she reported him to Uber. He should be fired summarily. We are professional drivers. I don't agree with her decision either but it's her decision and that guy had one simple job, which was to deliver her to her destination safely, end of story. He failed.
I think the price argument is really the crux of this article. Uber is engaged in a race to the bottom with Lyft and other competitors, and it might win -- but if it were to then raise prices, new competitors would simply come in and undercut them. While you are right that the technical challenges are not insignificant, there is nothing novel about scaling services. Yes it takes a talented technical team but there are plenty of talented engineers out there -- for the right price.
It seems like a lot of these "uber for X" type apps have somewhat similar requirements, but are different enough that I think this would require a somewhat bespoke solution for each. So maybe the base platform can be reused but there will be a lot of customization for each. And they'll each have different scaling requirements. Tricky business.
"In 2018 alone, I forked over $33,812 to Uber through my business account.”
Wowza. This guy ubers.
not necessarily a lot of the problem is drivers driving around with empty cars waiting for their next ride. this could be solved in other ways.
yeah but insurance companies don't mess around like that. They would have needed to see proof that this guy was dead before they paid up.
angel list is basically a job site.
Local governments were blindsided by Uber. They move so slowly and could not respond to the Uber sea change. So, now they are stuck, unable to regulate post facto. Maybe they will get their act together eventually but right now it's like the wild west. Don't expect big changes anytime soon other than in isolated pockets as certain municipalities finally figure out how.
The thing about computers is... garbage in, garbage out. They can call it "artificial intelligence" all they want, but it's not. As long as a human can turn off a critical part of the software, there is nothing "intelligent" about it. It's only as smart as the humans who write the software and operate it.
What the heck? I mean, what I want to know is, what sort of things were triggering these false positives? Why were they so confident that changing the threshold could be safe?
No way. First of all the driver knows he's getting a 1 star rating for pulling that. It wouldn't be long before he's booted.
I'm calling bull on this. Sorry.
bingo. give this man a prize.