
Lyft forgoes global expansion in favor of U.S. market domination - prostoalex
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_28566633/lyft-forgoes-global-expansion-favor-u-s-market?source=infinite
======
blfr
_The only advantage of going international is just to be bigger_

This is not the only advantage. Another is being able to serve international
travelers. You can step off a plane in another country and keep using Uber.
These users may be relatively few in numbers but they have an outsized
influence.

~~~
SyneRyder
That's exactly why I initially joined Uber: I was overseas, and if I'm
travelling I don't have to learn how the local taxi system works, I just
continue using Uber. It's a bit like McDonalds, it's similar enough in every
country that you can rely on it and you know what you'll get. I use Uber a
fair bit at home, but my heaviest use of Uber is when I'm travelling to other
cities & countries.

~~~
Frondo
When I travel, I _like_ using the local system. The differences and element of
surprise makes for fun adventure.

To each their own, I guess.

~~~
andreasklinger
In several countries it is legal for Cabs to individually define their rates.

Then they prey on tourists who didnt get that the rate was bumped up by 10x.

Hard to watch out for in certain areas if you dont know the local currency
that well (esp if the 10x shift looks like they show cents values) and often
they group up to make places look like legit normal cab waiting spots.

Completely normal and legal in eg Rumania and Bulgaria. Stuff you know, learn,
have to watch out for but is still highly annoying.

I can relate when someone doesnt want to hazzle with this adventure on eg
business trips.

~~~
Frondo
I can relate to that. Buuuut, it's also pretty easy to look up "about how much
does it cost to go a mile/kilometer" beforehand, and map the distance to your
hotel. Then, when you're hiring a cab, you just give them a price within
10-20% of that. If they try to overcharge you, onto the next one.

Americans don't like haggling, but it's actually pretty fun once you get into
it.

Again, local flavor. But I also get that some people want to go eat at
McDonald's whatever country they end up in, so to each their own. (I'd just
personally regret it if I visited some foreign country and only had stories
about US-based fast food chains...)

~~~
Symbiote
Constantly having to deal with being ripped off is never fun, and is the usual
experience for tourists in many countries.

It's a big deterrent for independent tourists in places life Egypt and India.

~~~
Frondo
It's actually pretty easy to avoid being ripped off. You just have to know
about how much something ought to cost, and offer that as your price. You also
have to be brave about offering $5 for something if someone tries to sell it
to you for $100.

~~~
Symbiote
Now do that at 4am in Merrakesh, in the rain, at the bus station.

Possible, but certainly not fun, and not easy when other tourists are paying
$75 thinking they've got a good deal.

~~~
Frondo
Yeah, so? You're travelling in a foreign country. I get that some people want
McDonald's wherever they go, and some people stay at Disney resorts, but
again, show a little grit, I say.

------
colmvp
Funnily enough, my experience with Lyft has dropped significantly over the
last year.

In the last few months alone, I had an where the Lyft driver who was supposed
to pick me up at SFO didn't know where I was despite following the instruction
that Lyft texted me. And even after I explicitly told him where I was he just
did not understand. Meanwhile everyone else who was waiting for a ride got
picked up by Uber without much of a hitch.

On that same trip in SF, I requested a ride while downtown, only for the
person not to show up at all.

It's a real shame because barely more than two years ago, Lyft was my
preferred choice since the drivers seemed quite friendly and it was that
quirky kid on the block. Now that they've toned back their branding and
character, it's really no different than Uber. Except sadly, my experience
with Uber has been more consistent than Lyft.

~~~
brownbat
I had a no pickup with Uber recently, despite the car circling around our spot
at a metro park and ride for five minutes. We messaged the driver to try to
help, but he simply didn't respond. Because he waited to cancel, we were
initially charged $5 for the driver's inability to find us. Uber ultimately
reversed the charge, so that's the silver lining, but it was annoying to have
wasted about 20 minutes of our time and then assume we wanted to pay $5 for
the privilege.

I've also had great service with Uber too. I'd like to see each each company
publish their missed connections numbers, see the data on which has more
confused no shows.

~~~
cseales6
I recently flew from NYC to Seattle. When I arrived in Seattle, I wanted to
use Uber to reach my destination. However, the driver it booked for me was
still in NYC. We talked for twenty minutes until I just asked him where he was
at, and he replied "La Guardia".

------
threeseed
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.

~~~
bsdpython
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.

~~~
consz
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.

~~~
soup10
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.

------
dylanjermiah
Disappointing. Really wanted more choice and competition in the areas where
Uber is the only 'on demand' transportation service.

------
applecore
Unfortunately for Lyft, it's a winner-takes-all market: “First prize is a
Cadillac Eldorado. Second prize is a set of steak knives.”

At this point, with over $1 billion invested, the most viable opportunity left
for Lyft investors is to pressure Uber or someone else into acquiring Lyft.

[http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/12/accusations-fly-
bet...](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/12/accusations-fly-between-uber-
and-lyft/)

~~~
jballanc
I've heard this multiple times with no real evidence to back it up. Why? Why
is it winner-takes-all?

Natural barriers to entry? Nope, all you need is a half-way decent mobile app
and some people with cars. Yes, the bigger your fleet the larger an area you
can cover, but there's no need to serve an entire metropolitan area if
covering just some of it is enough to turn a profit. (For example, if I were
going to enter the ride-for-hire market in NYC today, I'd put all my drivers
at JFK, Laguardia, and Times Square.)

Artificial barriers to entry? There used to be, in the form of TLC monopolies
and regulations around medallions. The nice thing about Uber's success,
though, is that they're bearing the brunt of breaking down these barriers,
leaving the path open for those that will follow.

Network effects? Mmm...some, but only for those that travel frequently. That
is, if you often find yourself in a new city, your first act might be to open
the Uber app because you can count on them providing service in a new,
unfamiliar local. I'd wager that's the minority of ride-for-hire customers,
though. Each city has its own local mass transit, and there hasn't been a push
to standardize across regions. (Though wouldn't it be nice if your Metro Card
worked on BART?)

On the flip-side, I see _a lot_ of opportunity for new competitors to
differentiate themselves. For example, let's say you decide to focus on the
"regular customer": someone who travels roughly the same route most days of
the week, a commuter or someone with a daily or semi-weekly appointment to
keep. Imagine you could tune your service to get the same driver for these
customers most days. Now you have a familiar face picking you up, who knows
where you're going, what route you prefer, what station you like on the radio,
etc. If I was that customer, I'd take that service over Uber in a heart-beat.

So, again, why should it be winner-takes-all?

~~~
pbreit
The barriers to entry are so high that it's nearly impossible for new
entrants. The advantage of liquidity in both drivers and riders is very large.
You underestimate this drastically.

~~~
jballanc
What does liquidity mean in terms of drivers and riders? I'm familiar with
liquid vs illiquid assets, but how does that relate to something like
customers or staff?

If a competitor enters the market and offers a better deal for drivers and/or
customers, it would be trivial for them to switch, no? There's no lock in
beyond a free mobile app download, a username/password combo, and a CC on
file.

I think the only way that supply could present a barrier to entry is if you
assume that for-hire rides are a commodity and price is the only
consideration. It seems obvious to me that this is _not_ the case.

~~~
pbreit
Liquidity is the number of drivers available and passengers requesting a ride.
More drivers mean shorter wait times, more passengers means more work for
drivers. If an Uber is 5 minutes way and a Lyft is 10 minutes away, I go with
Uber. If Uber gets me 3 rides/hour and Lyft gets me 2, I drive with Uber.

------
pbreit
Prudent move. If Lyft can figure out how to grow in markets already dominated
by Uber it will be a much stronger company than if it waters down all its
resources playing Uber's game. In fact, a lot of Lyft drivers and riders
prefer the Lyft experience. If Lyft can maintain the service differentiation,
it can grow to a strong, if smaller number 2 player. And eventually in any
market it chooses to go into. Perhaps like a Southwest Airlines.

------
pbreit
Kudos to the Mercury News for writing a pretty decent analysis article on
"Silicon Valley". The Merc and Chronicle never really seemed to take their
role as covering the most booming industry in the past few decades very
seriously.

------
andy_ppp
How do Uber/Lyft etc. get away without paying Apple's 30% tax on in app
purchase? I'll be surprised if Apple don't show up one day asking for a big
check, every month, forever...

EDIT: Thanks for the clarity here, external goods and services are excluded
from in app purchase. Makes sense, but surely represents a loop hole... that I
think something I'm building might be able to exploit :-)

~~~
flipmonk
Because you're not buying features or consuming what you're buying through the
app.

Is Amazon supposed to give 30% of all purchases made through the Amazon app?
ofcourse not. If Amazon made additional search features an optional upgrade
for the app, I'd imagine Apple would want a piece of that.

~~~
dylanjermiah
You can purchase a Kindle, but not the books.

------
jimjamjim
comical pr spin...

