I know Uber has the dominate market share, but I really enjoy life. I notice that I get better, friendlier service from the drivers and I like having the option to tip. They have rolled out a lot of impressive features and programs recently. I hope, at the very least, their actions will pressure Uber into some similar moves
Having an option to tip enforces customers to tip, I would prefer using a service that does not force me to tip by providing that option. I am against tips in general for drivers.
Right but the tip is done long after the ride is over, so its not like a taxi driver where you are still in their presence when you make the decision to tip or not tip
I wonder if there's any data on accidents/ traffic violations between the two companies. Tips are supposed to be for better service, and with driving the only way to provide better service is to be faster. My hypothesis would be that in attempts to be faster, drivers may be driving more dangerously, thus increasing accidents and/or traffic violations.
> with driving the only way to provide better service is to be faster
This isn't even close to the case - being friendly, having a clean and quiet vehicle, and providing a ride that is safe and not white-knuckle terrifying will all garner a lot more in tips from me than someone careening through traffic to save 30 seconds. I think your hypothesis is baseless.
Agreed. I nearly always tip with Lyft. One of the rare times I didn't was when a driver, in the interests of speed, decided to hit the gas and merge two lanes to the right without a turn signal, because he wanted to get ahead of the truck that was coming down the street. The other passenger (this was a Lyft Line) joked with him about how sometimes you just gotta drive like that. But that kind of driving not only ensured I didn't tip him, it also meant I gave him a bad rating and wrote some nasty feedback. I really don't appreciate having my safety compromised in the interests of saving 20 seconds.
there's a balance there: people are less likely to tip if they are driving dangerously as well. Of course, this is all assuming people's tips are really based on better service. I'm sure tips are like that in some cases, but in general I think the customer's general mood and generosity are far bigger factors.
Tips can be nice in certain situations, but I think people would prefer to just be paid more, so their income is stable and dependable.
Semi relevant: New York City advises you to "tip your driver for safety and good service" [1]. Kinda scary that safety is some optional thing that you do for the prospect of a passenger noticing it and paying you more...
I'm really glad that option is there. I had an emergency involving a seizing dog and a round trip to the vets office. The driver was incredible and would have gotten a whole $9 if I couldn't tip.
What would prevent you from just giving him some cash out of your physical wallet?
In general you are getting a ride from someone. Other than the fact that with legacy taxis you tip, (just like at a restaurant) where it doesn't really relate to quality of service, I don't see how much extra someone can do that would make a ride tipworthy.
Even more so with paywave, which is all over Australia and becoming more common in New Zealand. I don't think I actually inserted or swiped my card more than once a week in Brisbane.
Germans almost always pay with cash and rarely use credit cards. It's cultural. I think it's one of the reasons why Greece is getting screwed so hard by the troika: cultural norms and the societal moral confusion v/v debt.
I just spent two weeks in the UK as a tourist. I had a wonderful time. Perhaps it was me? But I used cash much much more than I do in the US. I pulled out my credit card in a pub and got scolded. Perhaps because I was outside the big cities?
It might be me but I perceived the culture in smaller town Scotland to be more cash oriented than I am used to in the USA.
I personally saw more people pay with cash than I am used to.
I still love your country and will go back at any time.
Excuse me? I certainly DO have a chip and pin, thank you very much!!! The scolding was from fellow patrons. "Why are you waving around that card? That isn't welcome around here. That's not how we do things around here." They didn't have card readers in sight either so..... I was expecting to pay cash anyways, I figured I'd just try card first... I just felt very embarrassed trying to pay card in a cash establishment. It was very clear it was an "old school" type establishment....
I do have chip and pin and I wouldn't have left without a chip and pin card (I have more than one out of my 8 credit cards, not counting debit cards...which I have several as well...). There was absolutely zero reason to believe a perceived lack of chip and pin was an issue from what I wrote.
Also the fraud rule are/will be different in the US as well.
I went to a deli they told me that I have to ahev £10 minimum to use a card. I went to a restaurant and they had a £1.50 surcharge for card as well and encouraged me to pay in cash.
The first time I used card while I was there was at Wetherspoons... lol...
I also base my feelings on my personal observations of watching other people pay for things as well. Of course my "feeling" could be off base as well. People are known for getting a wrong impression sometimes.
That being said - I still love Scotland and will visit again in a heartbeat. In fact I hope to visit again in the near future!
I don't think anyone's offended. But I think it's acceptable to say "people in first world countries" when one actually just means "the overwhelming majority of people in first world countries".
Haha it was a literal no true Scotsman dismissal. That's funny. That being said, I'd really love to hear the opinion of a smaller town Scots(wo)man who has traveled/lived other places on their opinion of card/cash "culture" vs other first world countries if they are any around here.
The reason I went to the place I went was because the primary purpose of my trip was to visit someone.
Really you don't keep £50-100 for small purchases on you what happens if its late at night raining and your card gets eaten by the machine and you need a taxi home?
Also if its a crowded pub waiting while you dig you card out and slowly use the one machine your holding every one up.
> Really you don't keep £50-100 for small purchases on you what happens if its late at night raining and your card gets eaten by the machine and you need a taxi home?
Cash has great privacy, works at cash only places, small merchants are happy to receive it because it means no fees, you get a discount when buying gas, the aforementioned tipping (good luck giving the valet a credit card!), it works when the power is out and a lot more I'm sure. Cash is pretty great. Even if you don't carry it you should definitely keep some at home.
Imagine that you're on a date. You've got a nice evening planned, only to run into a state-wide blackout. Now the trick is to get food at all. You see this restaurant with a lot of cars out front. Turns out they have gas grills, so they can cook some kinds of food. (Not french fries, though - that machine's electric). They're working by candlelight, adding up the tab on a hand calculator, pouring pop out of bottles, and they are not taking credit cards.
Been there, done that. Only once, but yeah, it happens.
The last time I had to go shopping during a blackout, the few places I went to that were open were still taking credit cards. Maybe it's just a regional thing.
Cash has great privacy - for some people, this is a non-issue. For me, I actually like the fact that credit cards have a record, at the end of the month I can look at my statement, and see all the places I spent money and how much. I can graph it, etc.
Works at cash only places - this probably varies around the world. In Australia, most places will accept card - the exception being Asian places, cause we're cheap =).
Small merchants are happy to receive it - I suspect this is changing, the fees are next to nothing these days, and by not handling cash, they avoid issues like employee theft, and also people are encouraged to spend more.
You get a discount when buying gas - we don't have this here (Australia)
The aforementioned tipping - likewise, we don't have this here. In general, I prefer to know how much I am spending beforehand, and I dislike the concept of tipping, or people needing to beg for tips.
It works when the power out - err, I suspect if the power is out in say a supermarket or a restaurant, they would have more issues than just the credit card machine not working.
I'm not saying never carry cash - but I like the convenience of card. And let's be honest most people aren't keeping their money stuffed inside their mattress.
Their money is in a bank account - and not in physical notes either, it's a set of electronic digits. So the whole, going to a bank, converting it to cash, giving it to somebody, so that they can then convert it back into electronic digits - seems incredibly archaic and outmoded.
I think drivers are discouraged from taking cash because companies like Lyft don't want people to assume drivers are carrying lots of cash, for safety reasons.
I guess that doesn't make sense to me. I thought one of the bedrock principles of these types of services was a situation where you knew a bit about the person (reputation) that you were transporting.
Additionaly, nothing is to prevent a driver from keeping a small amount of cash on their person and then stashing the rest periodically in a hidden safe. So yes they might lose $50 or $100 vs. not getting tips. Even if they don't get tips a person could assume they had some cash on them.
The point of the small amount of cash is twofold. One it's a small amount so if you lose it not that big of a deal. But it's also enough that if you got robbed you could give something to the robber. So they don't harm you or beat you thinking there is more somewhere. [1] This is similar to the old rule of leaving a small amount of cash in your cash register at a store and leaving the register open. That way someone comes in, takes the cash, and in theory has less of a reason to trash your store.
[1] Of course you could store more of the money where you can find it to satisfy them if the $100 wasn't enough and if you felt your life depended on it. Kind of a honey pot in a way.
You want to buy a bottle of coke from a vending machine? Most of them don't have card readers.
You want to tip the valet/bellman/maid? Most of them don't have card readers; even if they do, it's still inconvenient to make them dig it out.
Feeling compassionate toward the beggar on the corner? Think he's got a card reader?
Want to pay the babysitter? Does she carry a card reader?
Then there's the other side of risk. Ever had your identity stolen? (I have, though not from a dodgy card reader.) And if you think chip and pin is going to make that impossible, I expect that the crooks will find a way.
Feeling compassionate toward the beggar on the corner? Think he's got a card reader?
I don't panhandle, but I am homeless. In fact, I have a PayPal account. IIRC, I could get a card reader from them if I wanted it (though, in practice, I might need a better phone than I currently have to make that work).
Although I am posting this merely because it strikes me as humorous, it isn't crazy to think beggars may soon have card readers, at least some of them.
I carry small amounts of cash (in part to print e-gift cards at the library) and do as much as possible via debit card/paypal/online payments/etc.
> You want to buy a bottle of coke from a vending machine? Most of them don't have card readers.
I never have that urge tbh.
> You want to tip the valet/bellman/maid? Most of them don't have card readers; even if they do, it's still inconvenient to make them dig it out.
Yeah, when I'm on vacation I'll run to the bank and get some $5 bills for that sort of thing. Hence "regularly" was the word I used. I'm not on that sort of vacation 51 out of 52 weeks a year.
> Feeling compassionate toward the beggar on the corner? Think he's got a card reader?
I donate directly to large charities that I know provide food, etc. to people. I honestly don't see beggars on street corners [largely because the local police are assholes].
> Want to pay the babysitter? Does she carry a card reader?
Actually yeah. She does.
> Then there's the other side of risk. Ever had your identity stolen? (I have, though not from a dodgy card reader.) And if you think chip and pin is going to make that impossible, I expect that the crooks will find a way.
Yes. If you meant actually identity theft [e.g. social, driver license] so they can masquerade as you...a lack of credit card provides no protection. The insurance companies you use, your employer, your bank, and dozens [if not hundreds] of "big data" companies have this info as well.
If you somehow believe a lack of a credit card will magically secure you against this risk, you are very much mistaken.
Stolen credit cards, honestly, are much less of a problem than stolen cash. I can get the money back from a stolen credit card.
I 100% agree. This is entirely the reason why I use Caviar over other food ordering services, since they do not offer a means of tipping and even say 'there is no need to tip', as the cost/fees in part go to the driver/delivery person.
The fact that I have to tip is my big complaint with my local food delivery service. I'm already paying at least $6 for the delivery, possibly an added 20% of the check if it's not a "partner" restaurant yet I'm still expected to tip. They go so far as to say the whole "fee isn't a tip, so make sure to tip" like the chain pizza joints do. I really don't see why tipping is a thing when I'm explicitly paying for the service. I'm sure the owner is just using the cultural institution of tipping to avoid having to pay his employees.
Does it enforce customers to tip? You tip via the app well after the ride is over. I usually don't tip, but occasionally I get a great driver and toss them a few bucks. They don't make great money so the tip is worth it.
I'm not really sure why you are against tips for drivers.
They don't make great money so the tip is worth it.
This is the main issue for me. When tips are allowed, the floor for pay/remuneration drops. I would much prefer to know that people are paid sanely for the job they do than to know I am obligated to supplement their pay.
Absolutely agree with this point. I hear the same argument for restaurant waiters and I hate this tipping system that even has suggested tipping tiers. It only tells me that owners of these establishments are not paying their employees correctly. I know of places which don't even disburse the tips back to their employees (when tip is part of receipt)!
We have direct evidence to the contrary. Uber disallows tipping and pays somewhat substantially less than Lyft.
It's great that you want people to be paid sanely for the job they do, but the fact of the matter is people largely aren't in this industry. Uber doesn't allow tipping, and doesn't pay particularly well. After factoring in depreciation of their vehicle most drivers are going to be bringing in something like $10/hr.
We live in a culture where businesses won't pay their employees sanely. Until that is fixed I want the ability to show my gratitude for a job well done with a tip. "Blah blah use cash!" Sure I can do that, but it's inconvenient for a number of reasons and the reality is that most people won't do it.
Recently some fancy restaurants in NZ have started asking if I want to tip (tipping has never been common practice in NZ). I always refuse and state this exact reason. As soon as customers are expected to tip, workers get exploited.
I'm not tipping you for your own (long-term) good.
Lyft currently pays more, because that's probably last thing that keeps them alive. Many drivers work for both, if Lyft would pay same or less then what would keep them there?
As for the negating point, this is not something that happens instantly, but if you want an example then look at restaurants. There's even special minimum wage (currently $2.13) for jobs that receive tips.
I tipped a driver well because he went out of his way to come back to my home to return my cell phone I forgot in his. That took time and money out of his pocket. I could have tipped cash, but having it in app made it nice and easy.
I've heard stories of Uber drivers demanding cash tips out of customers and giving low ratings to any customers who decline (IIRC, Uber's TOS forbids this, but that's almost impossible to enforce).
That doesn't happen with Lyft: because tipping is built into the app, nobody asks for cash.
I don't carry cash, so I'd be screwed if I rode Uber and a driver threatened me with a 1-star rating if I didn't fork over cash.
It's anecdote-vs-anecdote, but I use Uber often in the Bay Area and have never experienced nor heard of this.
If a driver ever asked this of me I would give them a bad rating along with an explanation. I'd expect the driver to get canned pretty quickly if passengers report such behavior and passenger reputation to be restored if the drivers gave them 1-star ratings. As far as I understand it, driver reputation is far more important than passenger reputation (they certainly have a lot more to lose).
That might work for the ones who are explicit about it, but there are also the subtler ones.
Like the drivers who won't ask but will still give you a low rating if you don't offer a tip. And then you have the ones in the middle, who have tip jars sitting in the middle of their car. Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/uber-driver-complaints-e...
Also, while you or I might complain, a lot of people are either too scared to speak up or just figure that a big company like Uber won't care, so this kind of stuff just goes unreported.
The only party that benefits from tips is the employer (let's not go into the employee distinction right now though). It just shifts the responsibility to the customer to determine whether or not the employee should be paid for their work.
In NYC drivers may times work with both companies.
My backseat survey had most drivers say Lyft riders tend to be more chatty and friendly, while Uber riders tend to be busy with their phone and not say much.
Unfortunately, I've had some pretty bad experiences.
I used to love Lyft more than Uber but then the lack of professionalism over my last three times using it in SF have made me hesitant to ever recommend them again. First time around, the driver was completely incapable of finding me at SFO despite me following Lyft's text message instructions and communicating precisely which gate I was waiting at. Second time in downtown SF, the Lyft driver 'accepted' the ride only to basically never pick me up. Third time, same thing happened. And of course, there's that time when the driver almost ran someone over because they were focused on talking.
Now, I don't see any difference between the two. I've definitely had less than stellar experiences with Uber but now I don't see any differences between the two.
I'm the opposite. I want a known fee or fare. I don't want to have to think if I need to tip or not tip. Is the tip expected or is it optional gratitude for exceptional service?
No, just tell me the amount. Most of the world works this way. Even in places where bribes are routine, there isn't as much tipping.
Restaurants are moving away, slowly, from the tipping model, mostly due to increases in base wages, making it unpalatable for all but the rich, to pay a premium price and a tip on top of that.
Pay your employees/contractors a fair wage and take responsibility for it, don't shift wage responsibility to the "fare" (paying passenger).
I'm a heavy Lyft user, and I only tip when I have a particularly impressive ride (i.e. Driver goes above and beyond to be accommodating or I had a very insightful conversation). There is no expectation to tip, and I have never met a driver that's been offended with there being no tip. This with over 1k rides...
"Restaurants are moving away, slowly, from the tipping model, mostly due to increases in base wages, making it unpalatable for all but the rich, to pay a premium price and a tip on top of that."
Although I agree when it comes to Uber. I mean, I don't need great service from my Uber driver, I just need them to get me from point A to point B. However, the restaurant service I've gotten in places outside the United States is just awful. It's 15-20 minutes before you'll see your server again, regardless of whether the place is busy or empty.
I think that's somewhat if not greatly dependent on culture. In Japan and parts of China you get great service from staff who are typically paid only slightly above minimum wage. Parts of Europe have good service, and many places are seemingly contemptuous of customers, maybe foreign customers? In my experience its not exactly tied to tipping or not.
I found it interesting that this program is starting in Vegas given the trouble Uber has had there [1]. I don't hear about Lyft nearly as much as Uber, but I haven't heard any stories about Lyft running into issues with taxi regulations (which seem to show up here weekly for Uber). Do taxi companies find Lyft more palatable for some reason? Or has Uber just been the figurehead taking most of the heat in the news for all of the other ridesharing companies running into issues with taxi regulations?
Lyft doesn't provide the equipment, they've just negotiated special rates with Hertz so that Lyft drivers can rent cars at a special discount if they're going to use them for business purposes.
I completely agree with you, but I think this is definitely making the water a bit murkier. Its a pretty fine line that Uber and Lyft are toeing already and this seems to be pushing it even further.
Yeah, if you have to drive the subsidized car and use the subsidized gas to possibly get paid the market rate, it's the equivalent of an employee.
This is so obviously an employee status I wonder if they're doing it to try to draw a clean line between employees and contractors somewhere to their liking.
I mean, we're past that discussion aren't we? Uber and other rideshares are going to have to start classifying drivers as employers eventually (at least until self-driving cars get here). Legal determinations are already headed in this direction.
It'd be interesting if someone got in front of that and ran Uber-Prime with Uber-Prime, Inc. employees as drivers, driving vehicles leased by Uber-Prime, Inc. Maybe go upmarket of Uber by offering a 100% guaranteed rape-free experience for your minor children, borderline medical transport, incapacitated people, rich/scared people, etc.
Tesla is on its way to doing this, no driver required.
"As Tesla Motors Inc. develops self-driving technology, an analyst asked Chief Executive Elon Musk a provocative question Wednesday: Will his company sell cars to a transportation service like Uber, or try to start something similar on its own?"
"Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas posed the question to Musk in an earnings call Wednesday afternoon, noting that Uber CEO Travis Kalanick has reportedly said he would want to buy Tesla’s self-driving cars when they are released."
Musk called it “an insightful question,” then added, “I don’t think I should answer it.”
EDIT: I'd like to add, Tesla is building up massive manufacturing capacity and already is beta testing self-driving technology in end user vehicles. Uber has an app.
Wouldn't work because Uber pays per person, not to a company. You'd have to get drivers to voluntarily give a cut of their take home to pay for insurance, the car, etc. without having a way to track what they actually make.
>You'd have to get drivers to voluntarily give a cut of their take home to pay for insurance, the car, etc. without having a way to track what they actually make.
This is exactly what they do now, they just don't pay Uber, they pay those companies directly. But as a company with employees, they could negotiate a deal to get cars for cheaper, negotiate a better insurance rate, and save the driver the hassle.
But then we've come full circle, inviting regulations that drive up costs. This is an attempt to stay on the edge of that.
Yes, that's precisely what I mean. And that's what makes this kind of move from Lyft so interesting. They're walking a fine line. Banking on the time it takes to be regulated as runway for pivoting to automation. Google says they'll be delivering fully autonomous cars by 2020. If we give Google til 12/31/20, that's more than 5 years out. Seems like Uber/Lyft will be regulated hard before that, unless they've got something up their sleeve.
Off topic: I'm always looking for ways to make myself better understood. I think by using the term "we", I gave the impression that I'm personally concerned about costs and that I actively support businesses skirting labor laws to save costs. Not my intention, but I can see how one could concluce that.
No, I meant Uber-Prime, Inc., a competitor to Uber, Inc. Every driver for Uber-Prime, Inc. would be a direct W2 employee of Uber-Prime, Inc. and would offer a premium service to displace/defeat the evil communists at Uber, Inc.
Maybe I'm just not hip to the whole Uber/Lyft thing, but the idea of being chauffeured around by somebody in a Hertz rental car doesn't sound at all appealing.
It was appealing to me last week (the first time I used Uber) when it cost $40 to take a cab from the airport to my hotel and less than $20 to go back to the airport with Uber.
What is the difference between someone's personal car you'll never ride in again or a rental car you'll never ride in again? Taxis are typically rented by the day too, but who cares other than the driver and the rental company?
I like how Lyft is trying to make it easier for more people to drive for them. But, after Lyft's cut, tax and gas the hourly rate was very low. I drove for a couple months and they promised $25 - $35 during peak time, but I netted out to about $10/hr. Now to add on a Hertz rental fee, that is going to get very slim.
Obviously this is still a better job for some people then there alternative. Lyft will market to new drivers with the higher rates and ease of renting a Hertz vehicle.
The issue is, this is how profitable it is effectively – any driver following the law will have to pay this much.
And this is why uber can only currently provide their high margins because they provide no insurance between rides (only during rides), because they don’t follow laws, etc.
It’s unfair competition, and sadly, people expect Lyft to offer the same.
Speaking of insurance, I was going over the terms of the car rental insurance coverage in one of my credit cards. It explicitly states that if you rent a car in order to provide a transportation service for hire, you are not covered. Oops!
IMHO, this is a misconception. Most of the benefit of Lyft/Uber comes from app convenience, being cashless, mutual rating to weed out the jerks, carpooling efficiency, transparency (easy to get estimates and know if you overpaid), good customer support, and reliability in getting a ride, all of which are legal and which cab companies could have done.
They have a lot of room to raise prices before it outweighs those advantages. Remember, people were using UberBlack (as "UberCab" way back then), which simply took existing, fully-insured car service drivers, which had no regulatory advantage, long before UberX/Lyft.
Room to raise prices in very dense areas maybe. Uber is only viable in a lot of places (like DFW) because their rates are much much lower than the per-mile Yellow Cab rates that came before. Here you had to decide wether the (not all that convenient) convenience of a taxi to the movies on date-night was actually worth $40 each way and a half hour's wait to you. Where at maybe $15 each way and a 5 minute wait with Uber it's a no-brainer.
At least that's my experience.
Never been to San Francisco. But in Chicago or NYC I generally use Uber just because most taxi drivers seem to only drive at 99% of their limits and it's stressful. The Uber drivers are much more sedate generally. IME.
100% agree. That is why it has been successful. The magnitude would certainly be less if the cost was more because demand is elastic, but head to head with cabs they would dominate at the same price. It is an efficient way to manage resources and just a great thing.
"Breaking Laws" is maybe a bit strong, as regulation is extremely bulky and a monolithic unequippted government isn't in the position to adapt. The laws vary on every level but what I think it comes down to, in a society that teies to be democratic, is whether people are comfortable with this existing. It seems they are.
In my country, the laws for driving a taxi-like service (but without being allowed to use taxi spots, etc) are:
* Have commercial insurance
* Have a "people-driving drivers license", which allows you to drive commercially taxis, busses, trams, etc. Costs 55€.
Uber is even refusing to follow the insurance part – they only insure during rides, but not when the person commercially drives with their car to the start of a ride.
>Most of the benefit of Lyft/Uber comes from app convenience, being cashless, mutual rating to weed out the jerks, carpooling efficiency, transparency (easy to get estimates and know if you overpaid), good customer support, and reliability in getting a ride, all of which are legal and which cab companies could have done.
You are ignoring the speed of getting a ride. I mean, all those things would help a lot for cabs, but if I had to wait half an hour, even if I knew it would only be half an hour, while that would be better than my previous cab experience, it still wouldn't be very useful.
If you want me to use the cab regularly, your average wait time needs to be 5 minutes or less. This means you need a lot of cabs on the road... a lot more than were in my area before this.
I'll put up with a lot of other bullshit, but if you make me wait, I'm not going to use your service, full stop.
I'm not sure that would be possible under the previous regulations. Improving dispatch only takes you so far; at some point you need more cabs on the road.
>They have a lot of room to raise prices before it outweighs those advantages. Remember, people were using UberBlack (as "UberCab" way back then), which simply took existing, fully-insured car service drivers, which had no regulatory advantage, long before UberX/Lyft.
Now, here's where we need to stop and remember that the average HN user makes a lot more money than the average person. Yes, for you and me? it's about convenience.
That's the thing, I'd be fine paying uber black rates; but waiting is not a luxury experience. At the same price, I'd much rather ride in a ratty honda that shows up in four minutes than take a limo that takes twenty minutes.
But there are a lot of people for whom the price matters a whole lot. There are more of them than there are of us, by a lot. If Uber only wants to keep me as a customer, yes, they can double prices for me. but their customer base is massively larger if they are cheaper than cabs, and the larger their customer base, the more cars they will have wandering around, and the less time I need to wait for a car.
I suspect that if uber doubled their prices, their ridership (and thus drivers on the road) would fall to the point where my wait times would increase to the point where I would no longer find the service interesting.
As much as I hate the serfitude economy companies, the fact that the cab companies have not adopted the app approach boggles my mind.
I would have zero problem calling a cab, even with the regulated cab prices, if they had a Lyft/Uber-like app. Hit the button, accepted in 60 seconds, tracked to your door. The fact that the cab companies simply won't do this grinds my gears.
This is also why Lyft/Uber grind my gears. JUST BE A COMPETENT CAB COMPANY and people would love you. Uber/Lyft doesn't have to flout the existing laws while lobbying to get them changed.
Taxi service, provides rating, has app, can pay and rate via app, fully insured, hired and trained drivers, transparent rate (rate set by law and shown in app), guaranteed arrival, etc.
And it costs 5€ less than uber.
And it existed since 2008.
What I am wondering is why this only caught on in some european cities, but never worldwide?
Good question, I'd have to know more about the specific service. It sounds like it started in Europe, where there wasn't a big enough improvement over what cabs already provided.
Well, now I have to admit confusion. I downloaded it and poked around, and it seems to be put together pretty well and has all the features from Uber. My best guess is that they started in a place where taxis were generally "good enough" already and didn't market it as hard, but it definitely competes well along the dimensions I gave before.
Interesting, that definitely gives some perspective on why Uber has taken so much more flak in Europe than the US, where the taxi market is uncompetitive and routinely tries to take advantage of passengers.
Another reason Uber can do this is because they have large amounts of money riding on doing away with human-driven vehicles entirely. Once they get there, they will fire their entire driver-base so quickly it will make heads spin. They just need to make it that far.
That's probably why Hertz does longer leases instead of rentals for this program. It would probably be worth it if you got it from locations outside of urban centers, but drove in the urban centers.
One "savings" I see is that you wouldn't have to wash your car (which in the city for me meant an extra $35 a week). You also save on general car maintenance. The city streets are tough on the suspension and brakes. You can drive that rental into the ground :)
Already live in Las Vegas, Hertz cars are available to Lyft drivers at special affordable daily, weekly, and monthly rates. Approved drivers can quickly rent cars on-demand and earn money as a Lyft driver with no long-term lease commitment.
Most people with cars are already making a car payment or lease agreement payment, taxes, insurance, etc. Having a car is typically not cheap.
Hard to say if this will really be a good deal for anyone. That always depends on a lot of details. But I am wondering if you were perhaps not counting your car payment and other expenses because you had to make those anyway, whether you drove for Lyft or not.
Perhaps there is only a big difference if you compare it to someone whose car is paid off, not to typical car owning costs.
My car is paid off so I didn't factor that in. But you make a good point. Probably the majority of drivers have some sort of payment, whether that's a car loan or a lease.
From my perspective, this is the chance for someone to get access to a car that they might not otherwise have and also create a job for themselves.
Someone who is a college student or relatively poor for some reason might view this as a chance to get access to a car for themselves and also make enough money to cover it and perhaps a bit more than that. It might not be a paradigm that would occur to you because your situation is different from that. But I think we need to not turn our noses up at giving people the chance to make what looks to you like a poor wage.
A quick google suggests Nevada's minimum wage is either $7.25/hour or $8.25/hour, depending upon what benefits they have. If you are only making $7.25/hour, then $10/hour is more than a 33% increase in income. That extra $2-$3/hour may seem piddling to you, but for people who have very little, it can be huge and make a big difference in their quality of life. Furthermore, if it also gets them access to a car that they wouldn't otherwise have, this may be hugely life changing. Living without a car in America can be quite challenging.
Yeah, I tend to agree. Driving for Lyft/UberX seems like it only makes sense if your car was worth buying and having for reasons other than to give rides through a TNC.
This -- along with Uber's car financing plan -- really raises my "ick" factor in that they seem to be taking advantage of those who don't see the full expense or risk that they're taking on, and it may end up similar to the GM situation: "we're a finance company that happens to give rides too".
I was driving in SF for two month a couple years ago. Lyft took a 15 or 20% cut right off the top, then I covered taxes, gas, weekly car wash. I also included the time when I ended a shift, but had to get back to my apartment, or had to take a break to fill gas or grab some food in between rides.
After that stretch I drove periodically when I wanted some extra money. It's very flexible on hours.
So, I can't tell from Uber's site, but is Uber doing similar things for their drivers that actually save them money, as opposed to finding new ways to make money off of them?
This is a picture of an industry right before being automated. Rather than relying on skilled drivers with knowledge of the area, the industry can rely on computers to do most of the work. Reduction in labor costs, which are partially subsidized by coupons provided by partner companies who also make money. When driverless cars become widespread, Hertz can provide the cars and Verizon the on-board WiFi.
Some nice moves from Lyft. Feels like they've really upped their game with this and it will be an incredible case study if they're able to surpass Uber who has a head-start, which almost never happens.
Reminds me of the days when alltheweb had just become the popular SE beating AltaVista, Excite and others, and Google stormed in and cleaned up.
Lyft had the headstart (and Sidecar was earlier than Lyft). Uber had their UberBlack program but didn't jump into the ridesharing pool until nearly a year after Lyft did.
Delayed payouts are one way for businesses to minimize loss should a chargeback occur. But now that Lyft pays out instantly, they're at risk of losing the payout (> $50) + $chargeback_fee. Is the wording of the announcement code for "Stripe is shielding us from exorbitant transaction fallout costs"?
Not necessarily - they could be self-insuring. Given their historical chargeback data, they've got a fairly good amount of information about how much money it would cost them to eat chargebacks. Lyft may suspect that they're getting their money's worth in terms of non-pay driver compensation, loyalty, and marketing.
I like ridesharing, great market offering for consumers and drivers. Using a rental agency like this is good because those cars are underutilized and that can help people without cars provide service. Initially, i was going to snarkily compare this to cab companies, and the point still stands the economics arent great but it is a decent trade in some scenarios.
I don't have a car, and I would be willing to drive lyft for limited funds AND access to the vehicle. Sure you couldn't take the car on vacation, but if you could make a bit of money and knock out some errands locally, I could see this catching on. The magnitude and evonomics might not be there for everyone, but the cars would just be at Hertz so it could be a positive thing for both parties.
what if Uber/Lyft etc let you lend your car to drivers? So instead of sitting in the parking lot, an uber driver could be driving it. Uber/Lyft could background check the drivers. I wonder if it will be worthwhile for them to provide insurance against theft. The driver would also need to be added to your personal insurance I guess....the insurance companies might eventually come up with plans specific for this type of scenarios.
I can't tell you how many people I know whose livelihood essentially depends on their single, aging vehicle not dying. These are often folks whose university debt is, essentially, a monthly car payment.
I would guess that the greatest demand for Lyft drivers is outside or nearly outside normal working hours. If a person with no car can subsidize a long-term rental by spending their after-work hours being a Lyft driver, perhaps arranging to leave work slightly early to help with the after-work rush, that could be a huge benefit to a lot of low-income individuals and families.
It could also be a benefit to families with one car. If one partner uses the car to commute and the other can subsidize a rental, that could provide opportunities to earn something which might otherwise not exist (not every location is amenable to public transportation or cycling).
There are certainly some potential problems with this model. But looking through the eyes of an under-privileged family, I can see this being a huge opportunity too. I just hope the pay rate and the negotiated rental rate and fuel rate are enough to make more than a pittance at the end of the day.
147 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 209 ms ] threadThis isn't even close to the case - being friendly, having a clean and quiet vehicle, and providing a ride that is safe and not white-knuckle terrifying will all garner a lot more in tips from me than someone careening through traffic to save 30 seconds. I think your hypothesis is baseless.
Tips can be nice in certain situations, but I think people would prefer to just be paid more, so their income is stable and dependable.
[1] http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/passenger/taxicab_rate.shtm...
In general you are getting a ride from someone. Other than the fact that with legacy taxis you tip, (just like at a restaurant) where it doesn't really relate to quality of service, I don't see how much extra someone can do that would make a ride tipworthy.
Perhaps this is just a difference depending on where you are in the world, but I'm not used to people in first world countries carrying cash.
Interesting that Germany is different.
It might be me but I perceived the culture in smaller town Scotland to be more cash oriented than I am used to in the USA.
I personally saw more people pay with cash than I am used to.
I still love your country and will go back at any time.
Probably because you didn't have chip and pin.
If an establishment takes a card without chip and pin in the UK/Europe, the fraud rules are very different.
I do have chip and pin and I wouldn't have left without a chip and pin card (I have more than one out of my 8 credit cards, not counting debit cards...which I have several as well...). There was absolutely zero reason to believe a perceived lack of chip and pin was an issue from what I wrote.
Also the fraud rule are/will be different in the US as well.
I went to a deli they told me that I have to ahev £10 minimum to use a card. I went to a restaurant and they had a £1.50 surcharge for card as well and encouraged me to pay in cash.
The first time I used card while I was there was at Wetherspoons... lol...
I also base my feelings on my personal observations of watching other people pay for things as well. Of course my "feeling" could be off base as well. People are known for getting a wrong impression sometimes.
That being said - I still love Scotland and will visit again in a heartbeat. In fact I hope to visit again in the near future!
I've also been all across small town USA :)
I really hope I don't offend. I don't mean to.
The reason I went to the place I went was because the primary purpose of my trip was to visit someone.
Also if its a crowded pub waiting while you dig you card out and slowly use the one machine your holding every one up.
No? Why would it get eaten by a machine?
Been there, done that. Only once, but yeah, it happens.
Works at cash only places - this probably varies around the world. In Australia, most places will accept card - the exception being Asian places, cause we're cheap =).
Small merchants are happy to receive it - I suspect this is changing, the fees are next to nothing these days, and by not handling cash, they avoid issues like employee theft, and also people are encouraged to spend more.
You get a discount when buying gas - we don't have this here (Australia)
The aforementioned tipping - likewise, we don't have this here. In general, I prefer to know how much I am spending beforehand, and I dislike the concept of tipping, or people needing to beg for tips.
It works when the power out - err, I suspect if the power is out in say a supermarket or a restaurant, they would have more issues than just the credit card machine not working.
I'm not saying never carry cash - but I like the convenience of card. And let's be honest most people aren't keeping their money stuffed inside their mattress.
Their money is in a bank account - and not in physical notes either, it's a set of electronic digits. So the whole, going to a bank, converting it to cash, giving it to somebody, so that they can then convert it back into electronic digits - seems incredibly archaic and outmoded.
Additionaly, nothing is to prevent a driver from keeping a small amount of cash on their person and then stashing the rest periodically in a hidden safe. So yes they might lose $50 or $100 vs. not getting tips. Even if they don't get tips a person could assume they had some cash on them.
The point of the small amount of cash is twofold. One it's a small amount so if you lose it not that big of a deal. But it's also enough that if you got robbed you could give something to the robber. So they don't harm you or beat you thinking there is more somewhere. [1] This is similar to the old rule of leaving a small amount of cash in your cash register at a store and leaving the register open. That way someone comes in, takes the cash, and in theory has less of a reason to trash your store.
[1] Of course you could store more of the money where you can find it to satisfy them if the $100 wasn't enough and if you felt your life depended on it. Kind of a honey pot in a way.
Some what now?
Why would you want the hassle? Or risk it being lost/stolen?
If I'm in town and not attending a fair, I don't have cash on me. Period.
You want to buy a bottle of coke from a vending machine? Most of them don't have card readers.
You want to tip the valet/bellman/maid? Most of them don't have card readers; even if they do, it's still inconvenient to make them dig it out.
Feeling compassionate toward the beggar on the corner? Think he's got a card reader?
Want to pay the babysitter? Does she carry a card reader?
Then there's the other side of risk. Ever had your identity stolen? (I have, though not from a dodgy card reader.) And if you think chip and pin is going to make that impossible, I expect that the crooks will find a way.
I don't panhandle, but I am homeless. In fact, I have a PayPal account. IIRC, I could get a card reader from them if I wanted it (though, in practice, I might need a better phone than I currently have to make that work).
Although I am posting this merely because it strikes me as humorous, it isn't crazy to think beggars may soon have card readers, at least some of them.
I carry small amounts of cash (in part to print e-gift cards at the library) and do as much as possible via debit card/paypal/online payments/etc.
I never have that urge tbh.
> You want to tip the valet/bellman/maid? Most of them don't have card readers; even if they do, it's still inconvenient to make them dig it out.
Yeah, when I'm on vacation I'll run to the bank and get some $5 bills for that sort of thing. Hence "regularly" was the word I used. I'm not on that sort of vacation 51 out of 52 weeks a year.
> Feeling compassionate toward the beggar on the corner? Think he's got a card reader?
I donate directly to large charities that I know provide food, etc. to people. I honestly don't see beggars on street corners [largely because the local police are assholes].
> Want to pay the babysitter? Does she carry a card reader?
Actually yeah. She does.
> Then there's the other side of risk. Ever had your identity stolen? (I have, though not from a dodgy card reader.) And if you think chip and pin is going to make that impossible, I expect that the crooks will find a way.
Yes. If you meant actually identity theft [e.g. social, driver license] so they can masquerade as you...a lack of credit card provides no protection. The insurance companies you use, your employer, your bank, and dozens [if not hundreds] of "big data" companies have this info as well.
If you somehow believe a lack of a credit card will magically secure you against this risk, you are very much mistaken.
Stolen credit cards, honestly, are much less of a problem than stolen cash. I can get the money back from a stolen credit card.
I'm not really sure why you are against tips for drivers.
It's great that you want people to be paid sanely for the job they do, but the fact of the matter is people largely aren't in this industry. Uber doesn't allow tipping, and doesn't pay particularly well. After factoring in depreciation of their vehicle most drivers are going to be bringing in something like $10/hr.
We live in a culture where businesses won't pay their employees sanely. Until that is fixed I want the ability to show my gratitude for a job well done with a tip. "Blah blah use cash!" Sure I can do that, but it's inconvenient for a number of reasons and the reality is that most people won't do it.
I'm not tipping you for your own (long-term) good.
I think some of it is (stupidly) driven by new credit card / eftpos machines that have the tipping option built in.
Tipping through an app allows the employer to pay them even less because "they receive tips", in the end you're tipping the company that hired them.
This makes drivers expect to be tipped (even if they did usual or mediocre job) and essentially becomes a hidden fee.
And your point is kinda negated by the fact that Lyft usually pays more than Uber.
As for the negating point, this is not something that happens instantly, but if you want an example then look at restaurants. There's even special minimum wage (currently $2.13) for jobs that receive tips.
That doesn't happen with Lyft: because tipping is built into the app, nobody asks for cash.
I don't carry cash, so I'd be screwed if I rode Uber and a driver threatened me with a 1-star rating if I didn't fork over cash.
If a driver ever asked this of me I would give them a bad rating along with an explanation. I'd expect the driver to get canned pretty quickly if passengers report such behavior and passenger reputation to be restored if the drivers gave them 1-star ratings. As far as I understand it, driver reputation is far more important than passenger reputation (they certainly have a lot more to lose).
Like the drivers who won't ask but will still give you a low rating if you don't offer a tip. And then you have the ones in the middle, who have tip jars sitting in the middle of their car. Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/uber-driver-complaints-e...
Also, while you or I might complain, a lot of people are either too scared to speak up or just figure that a big company like Uber won't care, so this kind of stuff just goes unreported.
but you are an ass.
EDIT: Keep downvoting HN. The Mr. Pink act on the backs of low wage workers really gives the tech/entrepreneurship crowd a good look.
I used to love Lyft more than Uber but then the lack of professionalism over my last three times using it in SF have made me hesitant to ever recommend them again. First time around, the driver was completely incapable of finding me at SFO despite me following Lyft's text message instructions and communicating precisely which gate I was waiting at. Second time in downtown SF, the Lyft driver 'accepted' the ride only to basically never pick me up. Third time, same thing happened. And of course, there's that time when the driver almost ran someone over because they were focused on talking.
Now, I don't see any difference between the two. I've definitely had less than stellar experiences with Uber but now I don't see any differences between the two.
No, just tell me the amount. Most of the world works this way. Even in places where bribes are routine, there isn't as much tipping.
Restaurants are moving away, slowly, from the tipping model, mostly due to increases in base wages, making it unpalatable for all but the rich, to pay a premium price and a tip on top of that.
Pay your employees/contractors a fair wage and take responsibility for it, don't shift wage responsibility to the "fare" (paying passenger).
they are ?
[1] http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/john-l-smith/mask...
This is so obviously an employee status I wonder if they're doing it to try to draw a clean line between employees and contractors somewhere to their liking.
"As Tesla Motors Inc. develops self-driving technology, an analyst asked Chief Executive Elon Musk a provocative question Wednesday: Will his company sell cars to a transportation service like Uber, or try to start something similar on its own?"
"Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas posed the question to Musk in an earnings call Wednesday afternoon, noting that Uber CEO Travis Kalanick has reportedly said he would want to buy Tesla’s self-driving cars when they are released."
Musk called it “an insightful question,” then added, “I don’t think I should answer it.”
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-tesla-launch-uber-like...
EDIT: I'd like to add, Tesla is building up massive manufacturing capacity and already is beta testing self-driving technology in end user vehicles. Uber has an app.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/is-uber-a-friend-or-foe-of-carne...
This is exactly what they do now, they just don't pay Uber, they pay those companies directly. But as a company with employees, they could negotiate a deal to get cars for cheaper, negotiate a better insurance rate, and save the driver the hassle.
But then we've come full circle, inviting regulations that drive up costs. This is an attempt to stay on the edge of that.
Did you mean applying labor regulations where they're supposed to be applied? Of course employing people under labor law has a cost.
Obviously this is still a better job for some people then there alternative. Lyft will market to new drivers with the higher rates and ease of renting a Hertz vehicle.
And this is why uber can only currently provide their high margins because they provide no insurance between rides (only during rides), because they don’t follow laws, etc.
It’s unfair competition, and sadly, people expect Lyft to offer the same.
They have a lot of room to raise prices before it outweighs those advantages. Remember, people were using UberBlack (as "UberCab" way back then), which simply took existing, fully-insured car service drivers, which had no regulatory advantage, long before UberX/Lyft.
At least that's my experience.
Never been to San Francisco. But in Chicago or NYC I generally use Uber just because most taxi drivers seem to only drive at 99% of their limits and it's stressful. The Uber drivers are much more sedate generally. IME.
"Breaking Laws" is maybe a bit strong, as regulation is extremely bulky and a monolithic unequippted government isn't in the position to adapt. The laws vary on every level but what I think it comes down to, in a society that teies to be democratic, is whether people are comfortable with this existing. It seems they are.
* Have commercial insurance
* Have a "people-driving drivers license", which allows you to drive commercially taxis, busses, trams, etc. Costs 55€.
Uber is even refusing to follow the insurance part – they only insure during rides, but not when the person commercially drives with their car to the start of a ride.
You are ignoring the speed of getting a ride. I mean, all those things would help a lot for cabs, but if I had to wait half an hour, even if I knew it would only be half an hour, while that would be better than my previous cab experience, it still wouldn't be very useful.
If you want me to use the cab regularly, your average wait time needs to be 5 minutes or less. This means you need a lot of cabs on the road... a lot more than were in my area before this.
I'll put up with a lot of other bullshit, but if you make me wait, I'm not going to use your service, full stop.
I'm not sure that would be possible under the previous regulations. Improving dispatch only takes you so far; at some point you need more cabs on the road.
>They have a lot of room to raise prices before it outweighs those advantages. Remember, people were using UberBlack (as "UberCab" way back then), which simply took existing, fully-insured car service drivers, which had no regulatory advantage, long before UberX/Lyft.
Now, here's where we need to stop and remember that the average HN user makes a lot more money than the average person. Yes, for you and me? it's about convenience.
That's the thing, I'd be fine paying uber black rates; but waiting is not a luxury experience. At the same price, I'd much rather ride in a ratty honda that shows up in four minutes than take a limo that takes twenty minutes.
But there are a lot of people for whom the price matters a whole lot. There are more of them than there are of us, by a lot. If Uber only wants to keep me as a customer, yes, they can double prices for me. but their customer base is massively larger if they are cheaper than cabs, and the larger their customer base, the more cars they will have wandering around, and the less time I need to wait for a car.
I suspect that if uber doubled their prices, their ridership (and thus drivers on the road) would fall to the point where my wait times would increase to the point where I would no longer find the service interesting.
I would have zero problem calling a cab, even with the regulated cab prices, if they had a Lyft/Uber-like app. Hit the button, accepted in 60 seconds, tracked to your door. The fact that the cab companies simply won't do this grinds my gears.
This is also why Lyft/Uber grind my gears. JUST BE A COMPETENT CAB COMPANY and people would love you. Uber/Lyft doesn't have to flout the existing laws while lobbying to get them changed.
I literally have like 5 different taxi apps here offering me paying via app, rating, calling a taxi per button press, etc.
And they existed before uber did.
Taxi service, provides rating, has app, can pay and rate via app, fully insured, hired and trained drivers, transparent rate (rate set by law and shown in app), guaranteed arrival, etc.
And it costs 5€ less than uber.
And it existed since 2008.
What I am wondering is why this only caught on in some european cities, but never worldwide?
And they never really expanded over Europe and South America.
But you have to know: My region had a dozen of these apps, all competing with each other.
So, the only reason why people used uber was that sometimes it was cheaper. But that only because they ignored the laws.
German Taxi market is a seriously free market, and uber can’t compete fairly.
Italy, France, etc still have insanely overprotective markets.
Most people with cars are already making a car payment or lease agreement payment, taxes, insurance, etc. Having a car is typically not cheap.
Hard to say if this will really be a good deal for anyone. That always depends on a lot of details. But I am wondering if you were perhaps not counting your car payment and other expenses because you had to make those anyway, whether you drove for Lyft or not.
Perhaps there is only a big difference if you compare it to someone whose car is paid off, not to typical car owning costs.
Someone who is a college student or relatively poor for some reason might view this as a chance to get access to a car for themselves and also make enough money to cover it and perhaps a bit more than that. It might not be a paradigm that would occur to you because your situation is different from that. But I think we need to not turn our noses up at giving people the chance to make what looks to you like a poor wage.
A quick google suggests Nevada's minimum wage is either $7.25/hour or $8.25/hour, depending upon what benefits they have. If you are only making $7.25/hour, then $10/hour is more than a 33% increase in income. That extra $2-$3/hour may seem piddling to you, but for people who have very little, it can be huge and make a big difference in their quality of life. Furthermore, if it also gets them access to a car that they wouldn't otherwise have, this may be hugely life changing. Living without a car in America can be quite challenging.
This -- along with Uber's car financing plan -- really raises my "ick" factor in that they seem to be taking advantage of those who don't see the full expense or risk that they're taking on, and it may end up similar to the GM situation: "we're a finance company that happens to give rides too".
In a city like SF, $10/hour is actually less than minimum wage, yet there is no shortage of Uber/Lyft/Etc drivers.
After that stretch I drove periodically when I wanted some extra money. It's very flexible on hours.
Reminds me of the days when alltheweb had just become the popular SE beating AltaVista, Excite and others, and Google stormed in and cleaned up.
I don't have a car, and I would be willing to drive lyft for limited funds AND access to the vehicle. Sure you couldn't take the car on vacation, but if you could make a bit of money and knock out some errands locally, I could see this catching on. The magnitude and evonomics might not be there for everyone, but the cars would just be at Hertz so it could be a positive thing for both parties.
I can't tell you how many people I know whose livelihood essentially depends on their single, aging vehicle not dying. These are often folks whose university debt is, essentially, a monthly car payment.
I would guess that the greatest demand for Lyft drivers is outside or nearly outside normal working hours. If a person with no car can subsidize a long-term rental by spending their after-work hours being a Lyft driver, perhaps arranging to leave work slightly early to help with the after-work rush, that could be a huge benefit to a lot of low-income individuals and families.
It could also be a benefit to families with one car. If one partner uses the car to commute and the other can subsidize a rental, that could provide opportunities to earn something which might otherwise not exist (not every location is amenable to public transportation or cycling).
There are certainly some potential problems with this model. But looking through the eyes of an under-privileged family, I can see this being a huge opportunity too. I just hope the pay rate and the negotiated rental rate and fuel rate are enough to make more than a pittance at the end of the day.