>What percentage of customers/drivers do YOU think would switch over to Lyft et al?
Um, all of them? If Uber went under, what choice would they have? Why would customers give up on Uber/Lyft and go back to cabs, when there's at least one company that does almost the exact same thing and is a direct competitor? Why would they refuse to install the Lyft app, when they've already shown they're willing to install the Uber app? And why would drivers not go to work for the competition, esp. with a giant void left by Uber in the market?
I'm sorry, I think your argument is ridiculous. Right now, I'm eating some spaghetti for dinner that I just made. It's made with Brand X spaghettin and Brand A of sauce. Now if either of these brands suddenly went under and disappeared from the supermarket aisles, do you think I'm going to just stop eating spaghetti altogether? That's insane. And even that would make more sense than this Uber scenario. Uber is just a way to get you from point A to point B, and has succeeded so far because it's both cheaper and more convenient, in most cases, than the incumbent services. People aren't going to suddenly stop needing to get transported places without Uber around, nor are those incumbents improving enough to get them back, at least in many places (if they were, Uber would have a large loss of ridership there already). And Lyft is already there (in many markets at least), offering the exact same service as Uber, frequently with many of the same drivers. Why wouldn't people switch? There's only two reasons: 1) ignorace (easily countered with some advertising, plus word-of-mouth from drivers during Uber's last days), and 2) lack of availability of Lyft or other competitors in certain locations (I believe Toronto does not have Lyft for some odd reason). At least with my spaghetti example someone might say they love sauce brand C so much that they just wouldn't bother making much spaghetti without it and would eat other stuff.
I agree with the reasons you ended your last comment on. Ignorance and lack of availability (or rather a mismatch in supply and demand) would surely lead to drop-off. In addition, laziness will lead to drop-off i.e. "Uber was marginally better than taking the next best alternative for me. I'll just go back to that now because I'm too lazy to figure out this Lyft thing".
I'd guess the difference in our conclusions is based on your belief that these are "easily countered with some advertising".
Most of my background is in paid advertising, and reactivation on defunct company contacts is never close to 100% -- not even close.
I still don't see the problem. In this case, the people too stupid to figure out the Lyft app (seriously, if you can figure out the Uber app, then the Lyft app isn't any harder) can just go back to using cabs. So the cab drivers now are making more money, and the cab companies will need to hire more people, who could be former Uber drivers. What's the problem?
Keeping around rotten management because you don't want to disrupt the people below them is always the wrong thing to do, because then you're not fixing the problem, you're letting it fester.
If people go back to cabs then all is fine from an employment standpoint, but the problem is the section of customers whose best alternative is public transit, walking, cycling. (I'm in this group)
After thinking more about this, I think I actually agree with your argument that we should sentence Uber to death just because it's the 'right' thing to do even if it indirectly leads to unemployment of a lot of people.
However, we started this thread under a shared premise of utilitarianism. If we treat these 'death sentence' decisions on on a case-by-case (i.e. no future precedent set), it's hard for me to believe punishing the 'corrupt management' (which probably only amounts to a dozen individuals) is worth screwing with peoples' livelihoods. At Uber's scale, it just seems like a given that there will be hundreds of people whose lives will be SERIOUSLY screwed, albeit indirectly.
I think it's more than a dozen individuals; from what we're seeing with Uber, and what I know about corporate culture from experience, bad corporate culture permeates the entire company, from the top down. In Uber's case, this means not only their executives, but also their HR department (which backs up harassers), and also their engineering (which is very large for a company like that). The drivers are a different thing because they don't work directly with the corporate HQ people and are really just part-time contractors anyway. So I really don't have a problem with those hundreds of people at Uber HQ getting seriously screwed. Most of them will probably get jobs elsewhere anyway, though they'll now have the Uber resume stain, but these people aren't poor people living paycheck-to-paycheck, they're relatively wealthy Silicon Valley office workers (engineers, managers, etc.).
For everyone else, drivers, customers, etc., I really do think they'll just move on to other things and it won't be a big deal. Lyft seems to be doing fine, though it'd be nice if they eliminated the tipping.
Um, all of them? If Uber went under, what choice would they have? Why would customers give up on Uber/Lyft and go back to cabs, when there's at least one company that does almost the exact same thing and is a direct competitor? Why would they refuse to install the Lyft app, when they've already shown they're willing to install the Uber app? And why would drivers not go to work for the competition, esp. with a giant void left by Uber in the market?
I'm sorry, I think your argument is ridiculous. Right now, I'm eating some spaghetti for dinner that I just made. It's made with Brand X spaghettin and Brand A of sauce. Now if either of these brands suddenly went under and disappeared from the supermarket aisles, do you think I'm going to just stop eating spaghetti altogether? That's insane. And even that would make more sense than this Uber scenario. Uber is just a way to get you from point A to point B, and has succeeded so far because it's both cheaper and more convenient, in most cases, than the incumbent services. People aren't going to suddenly stop needing to get transported places without Uber around, nor are those incumbents improving enough to get them back, at least in many places (if they were, Uber would have a large loss of ridership there already). And Lyft is already there (in many markets at least), offering the exact same service as Uber, frequently with many of the same drivers. Why wouldn't people switch? There's only two reasons: 1) ignorace (easily countered with some advertising, plus word-of-mouth from drivers during Uber's last days), and 2) lack of availability of Lyft or other competitors in certain locations (I believe Toronto does not have Lyft for some odd reason). At least with my spaghetti example someone might say they love sauce brand C so much that they just wouldn't bother making much spaghetti without it and would eat other stuff.