Uber seem to be always on the edge between aggressive profit and shady business.
EDIT: Don't think by my comment that I meant the taxis are better. I was just saying that right now, this is a great deal in most cities where Uber does offer their services but seeing how hungry they are for max profit, I doubt this will last and eventually we will realize that a broken system was replaced by another broken one.
I'm not wedded to Uber out of principle, but I'm staunchly against our taxi establishment for it.
I've been black all over America, often not hardly middle-class, the [edit: taxi] situation is not that dire in the 21st century, and Uber are not civil rights workers - you still have to find one that will go where you live.
edit: Not that I don't believe that your neighborhood was particularly racist, but I'll put our Chicago racists against anyone else's racists. I think the largely immigrant workforce driving taxis (especially Nigerians) are more likely to pick me up out of affinity than one might think.
Sounds like Uber is letting its drivers make up their own rules to continue the fiction that its drivers are "independent contractors". If they keep doing that they'll be as unaccountable for customer service as the average taxi dispatcher.
Whether Uber would have behaved more ethically than taxi companies with regard to racial bias, I don't know. An Uber driver has no idea what the race of his/her next client is. It would require some genuinely evil behavior on Uber's part just to support racial bias, much less carry it out.
Then you have the whole "they aren't really employees" thing.
They (and Lyft et-al) all claim to be "empowering the sharing economy" and call themselves "ride sharing". Ride sharing is if I'm going to the shops, and offer someone else a ride to go there too.
Driving around in my private car and picking up people who want to go places, with exactly fuck all regulation, is just being an illegal taxi, which brings me to your "patriotic" argument.
> Americans have a patriotic obligation to disobey corrupt laws
So, any law that any american thinks is corrupt, they have a duty to break? Or, are you the arbiter of what's corrupt and what isn't?
> Those laws are no different than handing out tickets for doing 56 MPH in the middle of the desert
The difference is, if you break that law, you're probably only affecting yourself, or the people you know in your car.
Uber & Lyft together spent 8 million fucking dollars, campaigning for the right to self-regulate themselves, because they think a fingerprint background check is too onerous.
So sure, the medallion system might be fucked. But on the plus side, the taxi industry is actually regulated and follows the laws that are put in place to protect the fucking customers.
It's obvious that this can't last, but it's pretty great for the moment.
EDIT: A few clarifications: These were in Chicago, and I haven't omitted any rides from this sample. Those really are the last 9 UberPool rides.
The reason it's so cheap is because Uber keeps carpet bombing my phone with 50% and 75% off promo deals. I don't know why. The two types of deals are "Your next 5 rides are 50% off" and "All rides between 4pm and 7pm are 75% off."
Just balancing out what seems to be a biased sample.
The last two were from SFO to Palo Alto. In all honesty $50 for a 50 minute drive isn't that bad, but I didn't pay for it either.
If their growth team wants to throw VC money our way to keep me on board, why not? Recently commuting from Palo Alto to Mountain View pretty regularly and paying around $7/$8. PS Not affiliated, just a happy user.
Having two competitors doesn't necessarily create a cartel. Are you trying to argue that Uber and Lyft are working together to maintain prices at a higher level?
The stronger may use competitive pricing in the short term to weaken the other, driving it to withdraw from the market or be acquired, but this hardly provides long-term benefits to the consumer like true competition would.
For example, note the Office Depot / Officemax / Staples relationship. Though competitors, they never really did compete on price on everyday products (and in fact often charged the exact same price for common items -- a price much higher than, say, mail- and internet-order sources such as Amazon), hence the ability to advertise local price-matching without genuine risk to profit.
The result? Three became two, and two are becoming one, resulting in no competition between them at all. The Uber / Sidecar / Lyft relationship is tracking very similarly.
Can you name any retail space with only two players of significance that has not ended up having the same effect on consumers as a cartel? I honestly can't think of one.
The Cellular One (now AT&T) / GTE Mobilnet (now Verizon) relationship is another example of this behavior. Prices of entry and of usage stayed high until additional, independent competing networks (e.g. T-Mobile, Sprint/WiMax) entered the space.
I wouldn't venture to guess that Lyft/Uber is a good long-term state of affairs for the ride-scheduling market (or whatever you want to call it), but it's better than just Uber.
Also, consider that Lyft and Uber are spending big money to change the rules in every market—something that is only going to lower barrier to entry for new competitors. Based on real-world experience, I'm convinced that Uber is very worried about the follow-on effect and looking for ways to lock in customers, drivers, etc.
Anyway, this whole ride-scheduling thing is only going to last until it's possible to hop on the never-ending train of self-driving cabs.
The word "cartel" has a specific meaning that is different from "the opposite of true competition"
Scale is a big factor as well, maybe you're in a place with fewer drivers, or posher folks?
We are a "smaller city", large population but a little sparse.
So that's not nearly cheaper than taking public transit.
For example if I get an uber ride between my apartment and the train station, it's close to $2-3, but that's on top of the $5 base fee. So I could either pay $7-8, or I could pay $2 for the bus.
I've never heard of that
For UberBLACK that's 50kr (~$6), and UberLUX starts out at 100kr (~$12).
Does this affect how much the driver receives? E.g. do they receive a share of the full fee, or the discounted one?
With Uber and Lyft, on the other hand, I know ahead of time what I'll be paying.
One reason I like Uber/Lyft more is I can take it a few blocks. A taxi driver would be upset if you only needed them for a short ride.
Pretty sure they are aware, and just waiting until they have enough market share to make good on that.
- There's a surcharge for phone bookings
- Taxis generally refuse small fares
- Taxis still just use their gps
- Taxis are more expensive
- Taxis drive more aggressively
- The cars aren't as clean
And they're wondering why their business is getting eaten alive...
Coming from Canada where the card just works I was shocked.
The taxi industry is corrupt as hell. Credit card fraud, drivers who take clueless tourists on an hour trip when it is a 15 minute drive, theft of forgotten items in cars, unlicensed drivers driving others' cars when the legal driver is off-hours, etc. Some of these people belong in jail, but the worst they ever face is a slap on the wrist or possibly losing their job. Any competition to them - legal or not, I don't give a shit anymore - is welcome. Their monopoly is abused by the owners as well as many individual drivers. Their business deserves to fall apart.
The driver is not only stealing from their company, but is also opening up customers to suspicious transactions. Do I trust a random criminal - they are criminals, no doubt about it - to swipe my credit card into his cell phone? No.
Agree on the suspicious transaction (though the opportunity for a cab driver to put a skimmer in their machine is pretty substantial to begin with), but I have a hard time seeing this as stealing from the dispatcher. If the cab takes cash, this is really just the driver acting as middleman and paying cash to the dispatcher. Unless they're also doing it unmetered, I guess, but that's a whole other ballgame.
In particular, I expect the dispatcher claims the additional cut is for transaction fees associated with a credit card. The driver is in this case taking the fees on themselves.
The good part is they're ripping the company, not you. Unless they input a "wrong" value into square and you don't notice.
It's partly a consequence of there being so few banks in Canada, so you only need 5 or 6 fraudulent cards to hand back to the user.
You should see their faces when you pay through the app they set up recently. Most of them don't know wtf is going on.
Well, then they can't pull the "credit card machine in the car isn't working, so let me drive you to an ATM so you can take out money to pay me. Sorry that I waited until after driving you to your destination to tell you this, despite the fact that my car advertises credit card payments on the outside. Oops! I also left the meter on while we drove to the ATM! Silly me! You still have to pay me for the extra on the meter, though." (Of course, if you threaten not to pay, the credit card machine magically comes to life.)
I miss being able to just jump out of the vehicle in Uber since they pulled out a couple months back. Hopefully they're back soon.
Many credit cards today simply have the digits printed on them in ink, rather than raised lettering, so I don't know how this would even work half the time today.
It wouldn't and a lot of debit cards I know - at least in Europe - are issued exactly for that reason: So they don't work without online authorization.
The other place I saw one used c2008 was when buying a ticket from a guard on the platform at Kings Cross after I missed my train. Then the ticket price didn't show up on my online card statement for about a month.
I love them - makes me feel like I'm leading the travel high life in the 1970's. (same feeling I had when landing in Tunis national airport - cash exchange registers, competing with each other on rates! Actual coin operated pay phones! Loved it)
Processing them manually was the only option.
It's a machine that you use with copy paper and slide it over the card. The name and numbers are raised up on most credit cards and leave an imprint on the paper. The cardholder then signs the paper.
I've used them when I worked at a department store for customers who's magnetic strip had worn out to the point that our computers couldn't read the card. I imagine the main reasons for a taxi driver to use one is that 1) it's cheap and reliable, and 2) it works offline.
They take an imprint of the embossed credit card details for later processing
Also, how does this work with chip-required cards?
They also complain about you paying with CC, even after they had introduced a credit card surcharge last time I was there
Also, I find that the airport service is made wonderfully redundant by the mostly excellent Airtrain.
Is that true? It's been a long time since I've been in a 1996 S-class , but the Toyota Avalon Hybrid is rather comfortable.
That is, unless I sought the sheer thrill of tearing through the streets of Nairobi on the back of a motorcycle taxi.
I say pleasant because the drivers are usually super-polite, dressed in a neat uniform, quick to get out of the car to help you, keep their cars immaculate, etc.
I say complicated because Japan has an infernal resistance to using street names and marking addresses. If you can get your destination to appear on the "navi", you're OK. If not, you'll be doing a lot of "more towards the castle" and similar guesswork.
In Japan and South Korea, a city is divided into small numbered zones. The houses within each zone are then labelled in the order in which they were constructed, or clockwise around the block.
Then Uber might create a medallion system - artificially limiting the number of cars on the road - to maximize their profits . Uber would also have no real incentive to monitor their driver's behavior - after all, it's not like they'll lose any business to Ola, Lyft or Meru. They might even engage in racist protectionism, like banning cab drivers from the wrong ethnic group !
I sure hope no one ever gets this kind of monopoly on taxi cabs!
 http://www.firstpost.com/india/dont-know-marathi-cant-drive-... (For those unfamiliar, Shiv Sena is basically the Donald Trump party of Maharashtra.)
(one example; there are more recent articles)
If they did all it would do is decrease demand, and would allow other competitors to make their ways into the ridesharing market. I think the CEO is smart enough to know that making a product that is great for customers with margins so low that it makes it really hard for new competitors to come up is a great business to be in.
That said, I'm fine with that. I live in a suburban area and getting a (traditional) taxi is complicated and getting a car service is both complicated and expensive. Uber is simple and convenient and I'm fine with paying (some) premium for that.
Their solution won't be increased prices, it'll be the end of drivers. I'd love to see someone actually run the cashflows, but the current prices seem to me about adequate for healthy profit on driverless vehicles. All this nonsense about paying drivers is just incredibly expensive market building.
The question is whether drivers are making less than minimum wage. This is admittedly more difficult to calculate in an unbiased manner due to a lack of consensus as to whether gas, insurance, vehicle maintenance, etc. should be counted towards a driver's costs of operation.
My intuition says that it shouldn't matter. If a driver is willing to work for a very small margin of profit or even at a financial loss, it's their fault for taking a job that doesn't provide. If Uber doesn't pay, then don't work for Uber, it's as simple as that! Let the market decide; if people were to refuse working for pennies, then Uber would be forced to offer decent income or go out of business due to lack of drivers. And yet after having this initial opinion, the thought occurs... what if this was the norm for employment? Clearly we cannot operate as a society if every job paid like that. At some point, does regulation need to kick in to prevent such abuses from being the norm?
I don't know. It just makes no sense to me that anyone would be an Uber driver if it doesn't pay whatsoever. I can't decide who's more at fault - Uber, or the people offering themselves up as bait to a broken system.
Also, it seems you are happy for Uber to effectively pay below minimum wage. Does that mean you want to see minimum wage abolished?
I can understand why it would be terrible if every business tried to pull this shit. Nobody gets paid to work? How would society function? But if you work for an outlying company like Uber where there is no money, that is your problem. Go find a paying job. It's not like Uber has a monopoly on the job market and everyone is required to work for them, for nothing. It's a choice. So don't choose to work for nothing? All I'm hearing is "I signed up to be a driver for Uber. I know they pay nothing, but I intentionally choose to work here, knowing it pays nothing!".
If this were a real problem, Uber would not have any drivers, and they would be out of business. If it were an even more serious problem, we'd have tons of companies paying nothing, and our first world economies would collapse overnight.
A big upside is that it simplifies evaluating the position for the person doing the work.
A downside is that the company would have to monitor for fraud (but this is pretty easy for Uber which is premised on tracking the distance the vehicle travels).
(contractors and employees, either arrangement)
Everyone offering below minimum wage because that's ok now and you are fucked.
I don't think Uber should be allowed to offer below minimum wage, personally.
Why would they. Their cut would not be a hell of a lot more with a price hike. Why kill off sales? Why open up to competitors?
They are in a numbers game. Not a high ticket game.
Can you give an example of another company that has done this?
McDonald's hasn't gone to $20 burgers.. why would Uber price hike?
Uber doesn't care what it drivers earn, why would it hurt sales by giving them more money?
Uber has broken a monopoly, yet people are prattling on that they might create one?
Has a company ever done this, one real world example?
Why get a monopoly by out pricing the competition then raise prices to allow someone to do it back to you?
They ARE tracking my battery, all the time!
I looked into the HTTPS-trafic from the Uber-app (with MITMproxy) and it is one of the few that send my battery and charging status on a regular basis:
Just to see if there is a correlation with the price, waiting time and available drivers I am getting back.
I couldn't because they seem to use pinned certificates.
They only force HTTPS, not their own sertificate as in Facebook and Snapchat.
Visit mitm.it on your phone (after you have set up a proxy through your pc running MITMproxy) to automatically ad a sertifificate to get it working, or generate your own if you don't trust the service.
It's not all that different from a store/car salesman sizing you up based on clues like your clothing and quoting a price based on that. Home repair contractors will also size up the value of your home and give you a quote based on that for the same work.
I know I've been treated differently by bankers and car salesman based on my dress.
This is very true. At one point I managed a bit of money in a Wells Fargo PMA. It was fun to dress and groom similarly to The Dude, wander into branches like I was lost, and get treated like crap until they looked at the screen. Invariably they quickly summoned a manager to whisk me away to an office and asked if I wanted coffee, and their demeanor immediately changed. It became a personal hobby of mine for a while because they very obviously treat the "normals" differently than Premier accountholders. (Doesn't work at my new bank, sadly.)
I'm sure a number of folks here retain balances that far exceed my own at the time. Try this sometime. It's a fun psychological demonstration.
a) likes to work on their own cars on the weekend
b) goes to the bank in oil spotted work clothes
c) has family that purchased a large chunk of microsoft stock in 1987
What are the tangible benefits of a non-Internet bank these days?
There most certainly is not, full stop, and this is the psychological aspect to which I am referring and colorfully exploiting in my anecdote. Someone who hangs out on Hacker News should realize this, since our profession in particular has minted a large number of people who are exorbitantly wealthy and still wear Old Navy flip flops and hoodies. Poor people also inherit Prada, and quite a few hucksters within multiple industries dress in a particular way to exploit this psychological conditioning while having no money at all.
This is the entire point of my comment, and assuming that relationship exists says more about your subscription to certain expectations and conditioning about people than your remarks on "business." It's actually a disservice to yourself to assume there is a relationship between wealth and style based on customs that are increasingly becoming dated.
This may be a bad thing, but it's a reality that people are attuned to - it's a useful heuristic even though it's imperfect. Should you treat people badly because of it? No, but you shouldn't treat them badly even if you were 100% sure they weren't wealthy. That's a separate problem.
The assertion was that "there is a relationship," without any sort of qualification. I'm saying that relationship only exists because of the belief itself and if we all stopped believing it tomorrow, there would be no relationship any longer. So it's not really a correlation at all and only an imaginary one that has largely built itself up on conditioning, upbringing, and so on.
I'm not saying you're wrong nor denying a tenuous correlation, I'm saying it's faulty to assume a correlation where one only exists due to external factors, and that leads to the problems that both you and I point out with the correlation.
Similarly, money provides no power in society to the person controlling it. Because if we all stopped believing that it would continue to work in the future, it wouldn't.
... This is an obviously incorrect argument! There are things that occur only because of widespread belief. Nevertheless, those things do occur!
This is an extremely bold claim. You are claiming that within less than a generation, people stopped dressing as a way to send social signals. I think you are so off base you must live in a tech bubble.
> It's actually a disservice to yourself to assume there is a relationship between wealth and style based on customs that are increasingly becoming dated.
Curious why you think car sales folks are irrational. Do you really think the guy who targets the "likely to buy" customers based on appearance does worse than the guy who takes all comers?
I have a bridge to sell you if you don't think profiling like this works. Sure you miss the outliers, but the mainstream makes up for it.
Is it becoming dated? Perhaps if you're looking for a 3 piece suit. But there are still all sorts of "wealth" signals the vast majority of people probably don't even know they are giving off in the way they dress.
Yup. The shoes, belt, watch, haircut, demeanor, the way you talk, walk, all give off signals to the astute salesman.
Variable pricing is applied all the time in all sorts of businesses. It even happens when there is a sticker price.
Then it wouldn't really be price gouging.
Amazon already does this for a lot of items based on your account, cookies, user agent and previous buying history. Try pulling up a few items and having a few friends or colleagues also search for and add the same items to their cart. Even with the same shipping zip code (shipped to same office during work hours), prices will differ.
I've looked into several claims of Amazon doing this and none turned out to be true.
I wouldn't use Uber under those circumstances; it sounds almost as bad as taxis.
Today, both Uber and Grab have relatively short dispatch times (usually < 1-2 minutes where I live) at all times of the day and night.
The interesting phenomenon is that both are running incentive campaigns and depending on which one has the better incentives, the other one will end up with dispatch times over 10 minutes. Like many customers, I run both apps and pick whichever is the flavour of the week based on dispatch time. I have a very slight preference for Grab since they quote the price upfront, but generally, taking UberX after a Grab quote, it comes to the same number or within 5% either way.
Talking to drivers (I take Grab/Uber over 10x a week), I've noticed:
- virtually all (one exception in the last 4 months) drive for both, and have a phone for each (Grab does not have an iOS app, apparently);
- virtually all drivers have done it for less than 6 months, lending credence to the "fast food joint" theory of Uber driving (that it provides temp unskilled jobs with no long term prospects like fast food joints in the US);
- maybe 80% of drivers are part timers, often unskilled workers (e.g. shop staff, construction) who are moonlighting, often because they have a lot of kids (highest was 8) and their wage is not amazing;
- taxi drivers tell me virtually all bookings are now from either of the apps; one said he did only one physical street flag in the last 6 months! I anecdotally knew this to be the case for me, as even when the taxi queue is free I still book my car via the apps, so I don't have to pay in cash and because dispatch times are so quick;
- some of the incentives seemed pretty good: if you made $150 in one day (the average trip being around $6-8) you got a whopping $23 extra per trip!
Taxis in Singapore get substantial discounts both on car rental and gas ($0.70/l diesel for taxis vs $2/l petrol for everybody else) so the economics are funny; Singapore is one of the few countries where taxis are competitive with UberX. During surge hours, I take taxis on Grab since the rate does not seem to be surged unlike Uber, and there's always plenty around.
This is not true of all other countries I've used Uber in. For example, in Sydney, in the last 2 years UberX has been about half taxi equivalent fares; in Paris, Uber Black (UberX is now famously illegal) is slightly cheaper than taxis but you get a really nice car and a much friendlier driver.
Emotional anecdote: I had an older Malay driver who struggled a little bit with English and upon driving past Little India, pointed at his old school (he now lives a good half hour away as the area has massively gentrified). He said he got in with a bad crowd at school and spent many years in jail due to gang activities, but he climbed back out of it, got a job, married and had two kids. He drove Uber/Grab in part because the money was exceptionally good compared to his other options as an ex-con, in part because it was a way to have a car in Singapore where the permit for 10 years of ownership costs upwards of $100,000, the apps income offsetting the rental cost for the day. He wanted a car because his kids were proud and happy when he drove them to school instead of having to take public transport. He said this practically with tears in his eyes as if it was the most important thing in the world to him.
...but battery optimization of the Uber app is now a lower priority, amirite?
takeaway: giving your battery status information to apps that do not explicitly need it for core functionality is a bad idea.
> Chen also said people are getting used to the surge and Uber has seen demand during peak periods drop by a much smaller amount than when it introduced the system.
Doesn't that mean that surge pricing is starting to fail? Isn't the whole point of surge pricing precisely to spread demand out so it's not all concentrated at peak times?
And there's no reason to expect that only the latter Uber has in mind.
You're correct in assuming that increased prices will reduce the number of drivers demanded. But you're wrong in assuming that the pool of available drivers remains static when prices increase.
Got out, had no way to get back to our truck, nor to our house an hour outside Austin. Called Uber, figuring we'd at least get a ride back to the truck to get our stuff, and see if any friends could take us the rest of the way home.
Despite nothing going on in town that night, and only being about 8:30pm, the app warned me of surge pricing, saying it would be 1.5x the usual fare. Didn't have many other options, and had been happy with Uber in the past, so went ahead.
Driver was cool, and not only took us back to the truck, but drove us all the way home, complete with a flat tire we helped him change on the side of a busy, dark toll road, and running out of gas.
Wound up being $98, and that guy really earned his tip. I still wonder if the fact that we called from the exit of the ER triggered surge pricing, though. Not a great time to experiment, but I could've probably walked a few blocks and tried again, if my wife wasn't in the shape she was in at the time.
Running out of gas seems like a real unfortunate thing to have happen during a paid ride and falls pretty squarely on the shoulders of the driver.
Example #1, since it's an "app" you can't remove but that many (I'd guess not far away from most?) people use, is Mail. I wish my email servers would send push notifications, but they don't, so Mail is constantly checking for updates. That uses battery, but it's something I want it using battery for. And then in battery saver mode, it stops automatically checking, so you won't notice any new emails until you either turn off the mode, or go into Mail and manually have it sync.
When the software is adversarial, we can't have nice things.
Sadly, yes. On low battery, Uber's app could change its attract screen (the map with the fake moving cars) to a static, dim screen with just the Uber logo. But no, they have to phone home to Uber Central.
At least they don't crank up the GPU to run the battery down further, then announce surge pricing. Yet.
You are an edge case, my friend.
I'm also the kind that carries around emergency money in his wallet and has a first aid kit and spare headlight in his car. In fact, I keep a spare credit card in my desk drawer with my passport so that if I lose my wallet I won't be without money for a few days. Thanks dad, you taught me well
(Moto G 2015)
Then if someone has a job where there's lots of meetings or lots of walking ... etc ...
For whatever reason, in my life at least, it's almost always north of 80%. And I don't have some special smartphone (in fact, I don't even know the model offhand). This has been a consistent story since I started carrying mobiles 15 years ago
I don't drive, but do carry a small USB charger with me anytime I either go out for most of the day, especially if for work, and sometimes on nights out. I still can get to the end of a long day having used all of both my phone's and my charger's batteries. But I don't turn my phone off before it gets to 9%, because 9% is more than enough to do whatever emergency thing I might need my phone for at the end of the day. I'd be able to turn it back on and... make a few phone calls. Or order and wait for an Uber. Or look up transport options on Google Maps. Or open my bus/train ticket app to get on-board.
(I do, however, often think ahead and would sometimes put battery saver mode on even when I'm as high as 80% charged, if I know it's a long time until my next charge, it means people can still contact me but there might be a slight delay, it means I can still use it soon as I pull it out of my pocket, and it means I'm much less likely to need to turn it off at all.)
I view the GP as suggesting that Uber has an incentive to show some people a larger surge price than what the market would suggest since those people will pay it anyway. (And people don't have enough information to know if Uber is charging them more because they can get away with it or if that is the price that anyone who wants a ride would pay.)
I don't believe that.
People with Appendix attack, stroke, stab wounds would be likely to accept 100x surge. If only Uber was able to detect them.
Then the vultures skimmed off a lot of the "easy money" bar traffic (7pm-2am). There are now only a fraction of the cabs on the road in the middle of the night as there used to be; I'm certain that "ride share cars" have not replaced all the cabs that used to be available at 3am.
Towards the end of my taxi driving career, there was a fellow trying to go home from work at 10pm, from his restaurant at the edge of the map. He'd mostly switched to using the vultures' phone app, but there wasn't a "ride share" available. So he called Phoenix's legendarily-reliable taxi cab company, and I got him home. It was a few dollars more than getting a "ride", but at least he didn't have to walk.
* I liked working nights until the "vultures" allowed other people to work nights which increased supply and lowered prices.
* One time, I picked up a guy who had trouble getting home because there wasn't always a vulture nearby. It cost him more money.
* 7pm-2am on weekends are high volume times
edit: I think the point was that because ridesharing typically knocks off at 2am or 3am there is a hole between 3am and 5am or something. However, taxi rates are pretty murderous at this hour at least when I've paid them. Regardless, between a taxi, lyft and uber someone needing a ride will be better off at all times of day.
There are fundamental problems involved in transporting people from place to place that are not solved by the new entrants to the industry. The only innovation offered by "ridesharing" is having a more flexible workforce. While this helps with periods of high demand (drinking holidays, etc), the ridesharing model is not sustainable.
I mean to reconstruct my kuro5hin blog , but haven't gotten to that project yet.
But I don't think this is what was mentioned in the article.