Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Uber and Lyft Drivers to Strike Wednesday? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
glvsav37
Footballguy
1st thing: I'm not targeting you specifically, you just said it.
Does anyone have a moral dilemma when taking an Uber? Seems like the majority knows the company sucks, but are perfectly fine using the service. Plus its not like you are using a piece of software the is faceless, you are actually in the car with the person who you know id getting screwed over by their company.
I don't travel often, but when I do, I do use uber. Some times the guy will give me a card with his personal info on it so I can use him outside of the uber ecosystem. I've never really taken them up on it bc I'm rarely there long or wont be back soon enough that its worth holding on to the card.
Vanilla Guerrilla
Footballguy
I'm sure some of it goes to the government for cab licensing/fees. There were articles when Uber first hit about how expensive the New York taxi medalions were.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
This reminds me of when my sister worked for a retail store that had just had 3 straight years of losing money and they decided to hire more people and give out big raises and bonuses.Alex P Keaton said:
They also decided they weren't paying their suppliers enough so they issued themselves a 20% cost increase in good faith to their suppliers. The owners of the business also sold all of their earthly possessions to rent out citi field during a mets game and invited any past customer to show up and get in for free.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
Taxi medallions are insanely expensive. I think they hit $1M at some point. $1M just for the right to be a taxi driver.Vanilla Guerrilla said:
But there's no question in my mind that Uber and Lyft are undercharging in order to build out their market share. That has been enabled largely by drivers not understanding their actual costs and partially by being willing to take annual losses as a company.
Neither one is sustainable in the long run IMO.
The problem is that consumers have basically shown that all they care about is lowest price. Quality, ethics, environmental impact, long-term financial impact, etc are much lower considerations for the vast majority of people.
The taxi system was a government enforced racket prime for disruption. I think the general idea behind Uber and Lyft is great, but I think the way it has currently played out is quite problematic.
Last edited by a moderator:
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
And let's be honest, when the result is surge pricing because there are less drivers, how many drivers are going to sit by and ignore that extra money?
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Did you somehow interpret my comment to mean that a) I like Uber's leadership or b) I somehow think Uber is a well run company?
Trying to figure out what the point of the above was. Others have already pointed out that Uber is a shell game. It isn't a sustainable model, unless drivers want to keep driving for payment that is less than a living wage.
That said, lots of people appear willing to keep driving for less than a living wage. Until that changes, this is basic economics. There is a supply of drivers sufficient to meet the demand --- for now.
So why should Uber pay the drivers more?
BassNBrew
Footballguy
Joe Bryant said:
Chaka said:
@Joe 8ryantCapella said:
@Capella and @Chaka are completely correct here. Even if all the driverless issues are sorted out, you'll need to come up with AI to identify the passenger it is picking up at a distance in traffic conditions and AI to do things that are illegal like double park and wait in a loading zone for a customer.
Besides, why would Uber/Lyft want to invest in driverless cars when their work force is supplying the capital for there most expensive equipment. This model would be like you paying Tremblay $15 an hour to work for you and him provide all the server space you need to run FBG.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
I figured we might just be misunderstanding each other here.
I am not arguing Uber should pay them more. We are on the same side there.
mr. furley
Footballguy
do long haul OTR trucks count?Capella said:
mr. furley
Footballguy
easy, send the passenger a code to their phone. only that code unlocks the AI car door.
parking would be tricky, i agree.
Major
Footballguy
I never noticed a difference. I check both and go with the cheapest price. I've been getting a lot of 30-50% off my rides for the week with Uber and Lyft the past 6 months. Probably to boost their pre IPO numbers.
Jayrod
Footballguy
I've believed for a while now that a quasi rail/car system will come into play. We will get to merge our personal vehicles onto a sort of rail system (or designated lane) at a set pace and just let the car drive itself over this stretch until it is told to get off that track. Human driving will only be done basically to maneuver around over short distances to park and pull out. Once on the highways, everything will be automated.
Good Posting Judge
Footballguy
Which is a feature, not a bug.Eephus said:
Instead of not taking Uber/Lyft for a day, maybe just not take Uber/Lyft at all and call a cab instead? The old way worked fine.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
Seriously, could one not see an opportunity to undercut the old system in this model? Just like brick and mortar stores having to deal with lower overhead online only businesses. Bloated = ripe for competition.
Jayrod
Footballguy
Both systems were bloated due to a lack of competition. It was impossible to beat them with the technology that existed at the time. Now we have the internet and the possibilities of online ordering and ridesharing apps. Before smartphones, ridesharing would have been impractical.
Angry Beavers
Footballguy
i guess i have been pretty lucky with Uber drivers. Most of them have been pretty personable and the cars fine for going from point A to B. Now that I have said that I am sure I will have a run of terrible experiences.
Major
Footballguy
Really depends on the city. Taxis worked great in NYC but around the country they needed a lot of work. People got used to customer service, timely arrivals and getting their fares discounted by 50-75%. Can't see many going back.Which is a feature, not a bug.
Instead of not taking Uber/Lyft for a day, maybe just not take Uber/Lyft at all and call a cab instead? The old way worked fine.
TripItUp
Footballguy
If you want to be a CEO get into an IVY league MBA school and earn it.James Daulton said:How could either company possibly justify paying their executives that much money? Because other companies do? Other companies who's board's are made up of current and past CEOs and other rich people?
But nah, the system isn't rigged against the little guy, it's all jealousy of rich people.
I wouldn't want to be a CEO...that's why I don't care how much they make.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Unless Uber succeeds in winning the autonomous vehicle race (and they are currently loosing it), I really don't see what Uber has asset wise, or future growth, that makes it a good investment.
Their app is about as sophisticated as the programming for Ms Pac Man. The numerous restaurant delivery apps show it's not hard to code an app that matches requests to drivers. Uber has a ton of market share... but they're losing it. And losing it to only one competitor. What happens when more competition shows up.... and it will. Blackberry had 90% of the smartphone market and never saw Apple coming. Now most people don't even know Blackberry at all. Novell had 90% of the file and print server market. Oops... Microsoft showed up there, and even though all the server engineers said Microsoft sucked compared to Novell, the CTO's liked Microsoft's lower invoices (because it was bundled with their MS Office purchase).
So to me, Uber's massive market share simply reflects that they succeed at being the first rideshare company people heard of.... but is that a loyal market share? In my opinion, people don't treat rideshare like they do a clothing brand or their favorite restaurant. They treat rideshare more like gas stations. They choose the one that is cheapest, and relatively close. When more rideshare brands show up, Uber is going to bleed market share even faster than it is losing to Lyft now.
They are seeing success with UberEats, but that market, even despite how young it is, is saturated with a lot of competitors. They're behind Doordash and Grubhub. And Postmates, Cavier and even Amazon are biting at their heals. And the restaurants may even pull the plug on this market. Right now they're dealing with it because it seems to be incremental revenue, which is why they're willing to give the delivery apps 20 to 30% of the price of their meals. But some are starting to learn that their regular customers are no longer coming in and instead order through the app. That's lost money. It's the same customer they already had, but now they keep 20 to 30% less than what that customer was spending. As more restaurants experience this, the whole market could implode as they abandon ship or have to raise prices to compensated for the revenue they are losing. So even their UberEats success is a high risk.
They are investing in scooter rentals.... oh...... hold on a minute..... let me get my focus back.... oh wait.... I can't..... SCOOTERS!!!!
Their app is about as sophisticated as the programming for Ms Pac Man. The numerous restaurant delivery apps show it's not hard to code an app that matches requests to drivers. Uber has a ton of market share... but they're losing it. And losing it to only one competitor. What happens when more competition shows up.... and it will. Blackberry had 90% of the smartphone market and never saw Apple coming. Now most people don't even know Blackberry at all. Novell had 90% of the file and print server market. Oops... Microsoft showed up there, and even though all the server engineers said Microsoft sucked compared to Novell, the CTO's liked Microsoft's lower invoices (because it was bundled with their MS Office purchase).
So to me, Uber's massive market share simply reflects that they succeed at being the first rideshare company people heard of.... but is that a loyal market share? In my opinion, people don't treat rideshare like they do a clothing brand or their favorite restaurant. They treat rideshare more like gas stations. They choose the one that is cheapest, and relatively close. When more rideshare brands show up, Uber is going to bleed market share even faster than it is losing to Lyft now.
They are seeing success with UberEats, but that market, even despite how young it is, is saturated with a lot of competitors. They're behind Doordash and Grubhub. And Postmates, Cavier and even Amazon are biting at their heals. And the restaurants may even pull the plug on this market. Right now they're dealing with it because it seems to be incremental revenue, which is why they're willing to give the delivery apps 20 to 30% of the price of their meals. But some are starting to learn that their regular customers are no longer coming in and instead order through the app. That's lost money. It's the same customer they already had, but now they keep 20 to 30% less than what that customer was spending. As more restaurants experience this, the whole market could implode as they abandon ship or have to raise prices to compensated for the revenue they are losing. So even their UberEats success is a high risk.
They are investing in scooter rentals.... oh...... hold on a minute..... let me get my focus back.... oh wait.... I can't..... SCOOTERS!!!!
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Taxi companies could have at least tried to figure this out. But they didn't care about what their customers wanted - they had near monopoly power - thus zero reason to innovate.
Last edited by a moderator:
Eephus
Footballguy
Taxi companies were and are heavily regulated. They were in the taxi business and had neither the capital or incentive to disrupt their own business.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Agree - like most monopolies, there was zero incentive to care about the customers' needs or experience.
Good Posting Judge
Footballguy
Uber didn't reinvent the wheel, they're bleeding investor money until they can get autonomous vehicles to replace drivers. That's really their only way to become a viable company, and that seems like an iffy proposition at best. They're being forced by public pressure to institute stronger background checks, even though they'd rather not.
I don't know if y'all are aware of this, but there's not one single taxi company called "Taxi Company," there are actually hundreds of them! That's not a monopoly, brosephs.
glvsav37
Footballguy
I think the monopoly is in the medallions. There may be many taxi companies, but they all need to pay for the right to be taxi companies.
Uber got around that somehow.
And as someone said above, I don't think Uber is interested in self-driving cars...that would require them to have a fleet. Maybe the long play is that Uber becomes the medallion and those with self-driving fleets pays them for the right to use the service/name. IDK?
On that note, what seems to be the primary reason they're losing so much money?
It's clearly not that they're paying drivers too much.
They don't have costs in the cars like taxis would.
What seems to be the biggest problem?
The Iguana
Footballguy
This part here is all kind of interesting. I am no expert on the subject, nor did I sleep in a holiday inn express last night but I've read some about it just out of curiosity. The medallion thing only really exists in a handful of cities - at least as a "big money venture". The medallions were created by cities to limit supply of cabs. This was actually done to protect the cabs because too many meant they couldn't make a decent living because of too much competition.
In some places, the uber/lyft service should basically be illegal but it doesn't seem that is enforced at all. Not sure why not. Doing some reading/research, it seems that they basically should be considered illegal cabs in cities that require a permit/medallion.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Because consumers want them. Cities have tried to make it illegal, and citizens have complained because it's a visible example of how govt regulation can be stupid and often contrary to what consumers want.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Uber thinks they are. In their IPO publication they stated they expect driver sentiment to decline more as they eliminate the current incentives drivers are getting.
They spend over $1 million per day on autonomous car research. That's a big reason why they're losing money, but not the entire amount of their loses.
IMHO I think this might eventually be one of the biggest Wall Street lemons in history.
The Iguana
Footballguy
The "company" may be losing money but it would appear individuals are making it. I'd imagine the company should be investing/re-investing funds coming in to improve infrastructure and other things with a goal of making it highly profitable long term. I'd imagine there are times that FBG as a company could "lose money" as you are investing in the future. It's just a matter of getting the investments to pay off in the future.
The Iguana
Footballguy
People want to exceed the speed limit almost all the time. That doesn't stop the government from issuing speeding tickets to at least a small percentage of the people that speed.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Lyft was actually the first one to do rideshare. At that time, Uber was just an app to call for existing black car services. The CEO at the time, Travis Kalanick, answered questions on stage about Lyft and pointed out how they were illegal for the exact reasons being discussed here. He also said they were appealing because they were so cheap because they were breaking those laws. Uber then released UberX a short time after words. Instead of trying to beat them... they joined them, and used their deep wallets from venture capital to expand UberX far faster than Lyft was expanding. And yes UberX was breaking local laws doing it. To beat the law they would pay the first drivers in cities they launched $2.00 per mile or more and $0.30 or more per minute. The drivers loved it. Some were making $100,000 per year. They were so happy driving for Uber that the customers reaped the benefits. Really nice cars... happy drivers... etc... So the customers loved UberX so much that when the government stepped up to hold Uber accountable to the law, the customers stood up to the local government and made it a career ending move to end Uber services in their city. Uber then sent in the lobbyist to get the laws changed, and thus new rideshare laws were passed almost everywhere. Once the laws were changed, Uber dropped what they payed the drivers to poverty wages. Now the service sucks compared to what it was to get the laws changed. Old cars. Bald tires. Squeaky breaks. Drivers that smell and don't care. It really is like night and day. But Uber never would have succeed at getting the law changed if they started off in each city paying #### wages.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Eephus
Footballguy
I live a few blocks from Uber's headquarters so I took a quick stroll to the front lines of the 21st century labor war. Surprisingly, there was nothing happening. No pickets, police or silver Priuses circling the block disrupting traffic. There were just three local news trucks loading out their equipment after their live stand-ups for the morning shows. I bought a donut and came home.
msommer
Footballguy
In order for something to break, IMHO, you either have industrial action (such as this strike) improving the conditions for the drivers (and in turn passing the cost of that improvement onto the customers) or you need the taxi licensing system (whichever is in place in your locale) to break, allowing for hybrid business models to compete. good question. I'd imagine something in the taxi industry changes, just not sure what.
Yep, and by the time this is figured out and cost goes up are taxis extinct or come back in play?
I don't use either often but something definitely isn't quite "right". taking an actual taxi/cab from the Indianapolis airport to dowtown is like $60. Taking an uber/lyft for the same trip is like $20. Always been a bit curious but never really investigated where the difference in money goes - i.e. the driver or the company. Seems a safe assumption most of it goes to the company for "vehicle expenses" and such.
There has to be a "breaking point" eventually, IMO. Long term I can't see both co-existing. Either uber/lyft loses their workforce or taxis become obsolete.
Also, I agree we are a long way away from driverless cars, for the reasons brought up by @Chaka and others. I could see small nations without 1) own car production, 2) a judicial system enticing tort lawsuits but with 3) a tech profile and possibly 4) virtual dictatorship (e.g. Singapore) declare that all cars must be driverless by some date to spur on adoption and development, but it is hard to see an American company succeeding in the US when the lawsuit vultures will be circling from day one.
That said, there is a lot of risk (and return) seeking capital in the US, so it is not impossible that someone will be left standing after the chips fall.
msommer
Footballguy
I would never use a taxi service that uses the Uber business model in a place that already have a reasonable standard for taxi drivers, vis a vis, sick benefits, pension plans, safety requirements etc. If the place does not have that (e.g. Lima, Peru where I used to live) I would choose the service that fit me the best. Most times that was not Uber as I dislike them requiring to have my credit card on record. Here in Northern Europe Uber can forget it.glvsav37 said:
msommer
Footballguy
Uber may have data (from their many trips and surge pricing algorithms) that could be useful to predict traffic patterns. Other than that, I agree that they had first mover advantage and seemingly are squandering it (not really profiting)Unless Uber succeeds in winning the autonomous vehicle race (and they are currently loosing it), I really don't see what Uber has asset wise, or future growth, that makes it a good investment.
Their app is about as sophisticated as the programming for Ms Pac Man. The numerous restaurant delivery apps show it's not hard to code an app that matches requests to drivers. Uber has a ton of market share... but they're losing it. And losing it to only one competitor. What happens when more competition shows up.... and it will. Blackberry had 90% of the smartphone market and never saw Apple coming. Now most people don't even know Blackberry at all. Novell had 90% of the file and print server market. Oops... Microsoft showed up there, and even though all the server engineers said Microsoft sucked compared to Novell, the CTO's liked Microsoft's lower invoices (because it was bundled with their MS Office purchase).
So to me, Uber's massive market share simply reflects that they succeed at being the first rideshare company people heard of.... but is that a loyal market share? In my opinion, people don't treat rideshare like they do a clothing brand or their favorite restaurant. They treat rideshare more like gas stations. They choose the one that is cheapest, and relatively close. When more rideshare brands show up, Uber is going to bleed market share even faster than it is losing to Lyft now.
They are seeing success with UberEats, but that market, even despite how young it is, is saturated with a lot of competitors. They're behind Doordash and Grubhub. And Postmates, Cavier and even Amazon are biting at their heals. And the restaurants may even pull the plug on this market. Right now they're dealing with it because it seems to be incremental revenue, which is why they're willing to give the delivery apps 20 to 30% of the price of their meals. But some are starting to learn that their regular customers are no longer coming in and instead order through the app. That's lost money. It's the same customer they already had, but now they keep 20 to 30% less than what that customer was spending. As more restaurants experience this, the whole market could implode as they abandon ship or have to raise prices to compensated for the revenue they are losing. So even their UberEats success is a high risk.
They are investing in scooter rentals.... oh...... hold on a minute..... let me get my focus back.... oh wait.... I can't..... SCOOTERS!!!!
msommer
Footballguy
Not sure, except the AI research for truly driverless is likely a money sink. But truly driverless means they will have to do one of three things 1) raise capital for a lot of cars to be used for taxis, 2) partner with venture capital or car fleet companies to have access to lots of cars or 3) partner with millions of asset owners, renting their cars out in the periods they themselves don't need them
3 is likely plan a - but it does have a downside. We all work, go to school, eat etc. at roughly the same times, which means that asset availabiltiy is going to be least when the need is greatest. This means that the surge pricing acceptance is vital for success (and quite likely they must pass part of it onto the asset owner in order to entice asset availability).
The Iguana
Footballguy
"Breaking point" I was talking about was simply the idea of ride share and cabs co-existing. If I can take lyft/uber for a fraction of the cost that I can take a cab, eventually the cabs have to go out of business. But if lyft/uber are not making profits and/or can't continue to entice drivers to drive for peanuts, then that model will/could eventually fail. It's probably not an either/or end game but some solution that falls in the middle but who knows.
Capella
Footballguy
The Iguana
Footballguy
I know that is the current status. All I am saying is that I don't see how that stays the same. In other words, I don't see how cabs will continue to exist if they continue to charge $60 while uber/lyft is offering the same ride for $20. As more and more people learn they can save $40, cabs will cease to exist/be profitable. That is unless service from uber/lyft deteriorates to a point that saving the cash isn't worth it for one reason or another.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Save $40 and have an electronic trail that shows which driver picked you up (just in case some ##### wants to kidnap you) along with a rating system that gives you info about the quality of your driver.
msommer
Footballguy
The point I am trying to make is that there is no room in the market now for a middle ground option, without one (or both) of the two options breaking
The Iguana
Footballguy
what?
I should also say that I'm in Indianapolis and live more or less in the suburbs. About the only time I use cabs or uber/lyft is if I'm traveling. Have used it locally to get to/from the airport occasionally but more often when in another city. I've started used uber/lyft almost exclusively. So, I'm not the target market audience either.
Similar threads
