I'm actually shocked that #deleteuber had that large of an impact. Maybe this is the cynic inside me, but I feel like social media campaigns like those didn't have much impact. Guess I was wrong.
at the end of the day it's just an app... there is no Uber infrastructure such as a bus stop... very few real assets... and not a ton of IP if every car company, Google, and others are competing.
they had a great brand and the only thing they had to do was not fuck it up before they reached the next level. and instead they spent most of their cash on fighting rivals, built a culture that is eroding the brand and behind on the next thing in transportation.
It looks like it barely had any effect. Lyft has been far behind but slowly gaining mark share for years. The chart looks like they briefly accelerating that gain rate, then returned to normal.
Uber’s global sales are still growing, with first-quarter revenues surging to $3.4bn, triple the levels of the previous year. However, its growth rate in the US is slowing and investors have become concerned after a period of crisis has left its top ranks in disarray.
In other words... the company is still growing massively, from a large base. It's just not growing as fast as it once did. As happens too often, the headline doesn't match the data.
Scroll to the top of the page, click the link labeled web. It runs a Google search that should put the article near the top. Useful because many paywalls make an exception for traffic that comes in that way.
The company I work for, only has Lyft as approved service for travel and expenses.
Everyone used Uber mostly, and then they announced Lyft is the only approved one. Not sure why that decision was specifically made when majority were expensing Uber trips
Are you the same person as GP? Because that's not the same username...
Perhaps you're speaking more generally, and saying that you've never heard of shady decisions made by HR dudes? Well, I have heard of such decisions, and I doubt I'm alone.
I have definitely heard of negotiated travel deals where the company gets some percentage of the spend back. So for instance a Delta flight might not be cheaper than United on the ticket booking site, but it ends up costing the company less. OTOH this was a Fortune 100 company with high travel spend so they had quite a bit of leverage.
That's called commercial bribery and it's against the law in most states, including California. Enforcement is pretty slack in the US (surprise surprise) but given that it involves employees making personal profit at the expense of employers companies generally would not tolerate this sort of behavior.
More likely someone in Finance or purchasing negotiated a preferential deal on behalf of the company.
Preferred supplier relationships are common in corporate America, for example "all employees fly United unless United doesn't go there," or "all employee car rentals are with Avis unless Avis doesn't serve that airport," or "all employee computers are HP unless there is a special exception," etc.
Honestly, I always use lyft for business because they have the ability for me to store a company card and when I use it to add a memo for when I submit expenses.
Uber being more mainstream has nothing to do with quality comparison.
Even so, tell me again which is actually the crappy toilet paper in this comparison...
I use Lyft primarily because of the grossly offensive scandals surrounding Uber, I'm talking even from the early days when execs were caught bragging about threatening journalists, to sex abuse, to lying to everyone about their 6 blown red lights in a single week during self driving AI testing in SF. The services do the same thing, almost exactly; Uber's track record might as well be the deciding factor.
Does your expense reporting software have hooks that Lyft can use and Uber can't?
I tried Uber's Concur integration once, but our accounting people didn't like that I had a receipt in my expense report without a hardcopy... I ended up needing to print out the email receipt so someone else could scan it in.
There are plenty of examples of trademarks that became generic terms for product or services where the initial trademark owner did not dominate in that market very long. Heck I could argue a genericized trademark may be a bad thing and signify the lack of uniqueness in the service Uber provides if all other competitors are described using the same term.
I would argue that at least half of those don't qualify.
Kleenex, Google, Band-Aid, Post-It, Q-Tip, and Sharpie are all in a dominant position in their respective product categories. Off-brand examples of all of them exist, but all of my Sharpies are Sharpie brand, I use Q-Tip brand Q-Tips, I only Google with Yahoo or Bing when Google itself is down, and My Band-Aids are Band-Aid brand adhesive bandages.
Just this weekend I heard a friend say they "googled somebody on Facebook", meaning they searched for them in the Facebook search form. So it may have become a synonym for "online search" for some.
Also, I have used Post-Its all my life but did not even know until now that this was a company or product name.
While I think Post-Its are a potential candidate, I think your friend is just weird. I've only ever heard or used "google" as a verb to mean "performing a search via a web search engine to search the entirety of the internet", and even then it almost always includes the unspoken assumption that it will be done using Google.
I wish it was more clear. There are three main widely available OTC medications that broadly cover main categories such as pain reliever, fever reducer, etc:
Ibuprofen (known colloquially more commonly as Motrin or Advil in the US)
Acetaminophen (also known by chemical name paracetemol outside of the US and brand name Tylenol in US)
Acetylsalicylic acid (also known as Aspirin, was previously a trademark but now a generic name)
I always try to avoid using the brand names in favor of the actual chemical names to dodge ambiguity and confusion (there are other brand names for acetaminophen, acetylsalicylic acid, and ibuprofen over the ones I have listed even in the US), but even then in the case of acetaminophen it cannot be avoided. Further compounding (pun intended?) difficulty is trying to pronounce acetylsalicylic acid to the layman instead of just saying "Aspirin". In the US at least, you can get away with saying ibuprofen vs "Motrin" and acetaminophen vs "Tylenol", but the Aspirin problem is a bit more of a difficult hurdle to overcome in terms of layman's communication.
Slightly tangentially, when referring to airports I even have the same problem. I always try to go by IATA airport code, but those apparently have ambiguities as well: AUS is the IATA airport code for Austin-Bergstrom, but in ICAO terms it's actually known as KAUS, presumably to avoid conflict with other airports outside the US who might also answer to the callsign "AUS"
I always found it interesting that zipper was a trademarked and then genericized name. Mainly b/c it's a verb that accurately describes what the product does.
Actually, as best I can tell, "zip[per]" didn't have that meaning (combine two lines in succession at some moving point of contact) until the product existed, so the verb only exists because of the product. Before that, it just meant "move quickly".
I think it was intended to be a list of generic names whose company isn't in an overwhelmingly superior position. Adobe Photoshop is still the >95% dominant image editor.
Lyft is a homonym of "lift", and "getting a lift" has been used for decades (or longer?) to mean being driven somewhere by someone. Saying Uber conveys more information, so people say that.
I use "uber" when I really mean "lyft" - ie "Want to get an Uber?" is much more clear than "Want to get a Lyft"? I think any other more recognizable name would have been a plus for Lyft.
You don't say "taxi"? It's just as short, starts with a consonant, not ambiguous,
translates between cities, is obviously generic, doesn't give mindshare to a nasty company and contains the letter "X"...
The only downside I can come up with is that "taxiing to" is more awkward to say than "ubering to". As Calvin says, though, "Verbing weirds language."
"Lyft, which completed a $600m fundraising in April, has expanded into 150 new cities this year " seems like this would skew the numbers a bit. Uber is already everywhere it needs to be in the US. Lyft is irrelevant until they prove they can compete internationally imo, they are way behind uber here
Irrelevant is a strong term. I agree that I still have Uber installed precisely because I travel internationally, but for my use here in the US I've switched entirely to Lyft (and been pleasantly surprised! Though I'm still waiting for them to make it easier to switch between the different levels of service to compare rates).
> Lyft is irrelevant until they prove they can compete internationally imo, they are way behind uber here
Why should they compete internationally?
From what I can see, international competition is wildly unprofitable, subject to the whims and vicissitudes of local politicians, and subject to local competition who understand their market far better than any foreign firm.
I've got a buddy who works for (possibly one of multiple?) Lyft's PR firm, and has worked on that account.
You don't need any sort of 'black ops' when your competitor is busy generating their own bad headlines. Instead you just call up your journalist connections every time Uber does something stupid to make sure they saw it.
Given how Uber operates, if Lyft is doing anything wrong, I would expect Uber would already be publicizing it, and indeed be trying to make it look a good deal worse than it really is.
"PR black ops" against Uber would probably consist of "smack down any Lyft people who approach 10% of Uber's public idiocy quotient," plus finding some charities to support, maybe something involving kittens and puppies.
More neutral/balanced outlets like Recode and TechCrunch don't have either as investors. Recode for example was the only media company that mentioned the death of Travis' mother as a primary motivation for taking leave of absence. The less balanced sources above barely mentioned that "detail" at the bottom of the articles on that matter.
I don't know if it's because I've been under a rock, but I noticed Uber advertising on TV for the first time this weekend with a "everyone needs a side-hustle" tagline. I noticed it because it's always a little jarring when SV technology companies turn to traditional media advertising (I still remember the Google SB ad), but I took it as a sign that Uber's organic driver growth has taken a real hit recently and they're now having to actively work to attract drivers.
100% fake news. There's no way they actually have any ride data from either company to back up this claim. In fact there's another bit of equally fake news posted to HN right now that says that recent events have failed to put a dent into Uber marketshare. "Journalists" should stop making shit up, and instead stick to reporting facts.
Second Measure relies on undisclosed data sources of unknown accuracy. So this is very much like those reports from "anonymous sources familiar with Comey's thinking" (an actual quote).
fake news is flat out making stuff up, whereas this is simply reporting from a named and referenced source. How is that fake news? That term is bandied about incorrectly as a smoke screen enough already without people wilfully abusing it here as well.
This article really fails to make a compelling case for Lyft other than the switches coming from the #DeleteUber campaign. While I agree these market share grabs from the underdog are huge, I feel like the author is overstepping the wait of the data. Relying really heavily on narrative.
It's interesting, while I don't live in one of those cities, I've been meaning to drop Uber over all of their apparent complete lack of ethics. I hadn't done so yet, but this article has reminded me of it and I'm installing Lyft now.
As much as we hate to think it, both awareness and social proof in decision making matter. And while I wouldn't have admitted it, part of it was thinking in the back of my head that quitting wouldn't make a difference. Seeing the graph showing the real impact of the #quituber campaign was both surprising and to be perfectly honest a bit motivating to me to keep to my word to use Lyft. Maybe not a full quit, but at least a 50/50.
For what it's worth, Lyft wasn't even available in my city until very recently (Houston). I've been using Lyft recently now because I have fewer doubts about the ethics of the company. As a customer, it's extremely easy to switch from one to the other. As far as I can tell Uber has exactly zero selling points over Lyft for a regular customer like me.
Would love Lyft over in the UK. Uber is the only taxi company (they are a taxi company if they like it or not) with an app which doesn't crash on launch
108 comments
[ 1.1 ms ] story [ 174 ms ] threadthey had a great brand and the only thing they had to do was not fuck it up before they reached the next level. and instead they spent most of their cash on fighting rivals, built a culture that is eroding the brand and behind on the next thing in transportation.
Notice the trendline, and how late 2016 was above the line, then the correction, and back to trendline.
Uber’s global sales are still growing, with first-quarter revenues surging to $3.4bn, triple the levels of the previous year. However, its growth rate in the US is slowing and investors have become concerned after a period of crisis has left its top ranks in disarray.
In other words... the company is still growing massively, from a large base. It's just not growing as fast as it once did. As happens too often, the headline doesn't match the data.
Edit: amp link is paywalled too
edit: nevermind, figured it out. Just search the title in Google, which gives you a link to the article.
Everyone used Uber mostly, and then they announced Lyft is the only approved one. Not sure why that decision was specifically made when majority were expensing Uber trips
There are plenty of companies that would be willing to have such a policy, even if it's not considered a common practice.
Perhaps you're speaking more generally, and saying that you've never heard of shady decisions made by HR dudes? Well, I have heard of such decisions, and I doubt I'm alone.
Whoever is earning the rewards can earn quite a bit by choosing a higher priced options since it earns them more.
Preferred supplier relationships are common in corporate America, for example "all employees fly United unless United doesn't go there," or "all employee car rentals are with Avis unless Avis doesn't serve that airport," or "all employee computers are HP unless there is a special exception," etc.
"Unlimited free construction paper for use as toilet paper! Our gift to you! Take as much as you please!"
Even so, tell me again which is actually the crappy toilet paper in this comparison...
I use Lyft primarily because of the grossly offensive scandals surrounding Uber, I'm talking even from the early days when execs were caught bragging about threatening journalists, to sex abuse, to lying to everyone about their 6 blown red lights in a single week during self driving AI testing in SF. The services do the same thing, almost exactly; Uber's track record might as well be the deciding factor.
State reason (by HR department) for not using Uber: risk of being raped.
Apparently not a problem with Lyft though, so that's good news?
I tried Uber's Concur integration once, but our accounting people didn't like that I had a receipt in my expense report without a hardcopy... I ended up needing to print out the email receipt so someone else could scan it in.
So Uber has definitely won in that department - all they have to do is not screw it up (any worse than they already did).
People will forget, and over time that name recognition will give them back the market share.
Name five?
Kleenex, Google, Band-Aid, Post-It, Q-Tip, and Sharpie are all in a dominant position in their respective product categories. Off-brand examples of all of them exist, but all of my Sharpies are Sharpie brand, I use Q-Tip brand Q-Tips, I only Google with Yahoo or Bing when Google itself is down, and My Band-Aids are Band-Aid brand adhesive bandages.
Also, I have used Post-Its all my life but did not even know until now that this was a company or product name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericize...
And I actually use Kleenex brand!
Aspirin, cellophane, kleenex, thermos, band-aid, crock pot, jacuzzi, photoshop, etc.
Edit: Even the main Tylenol page links is ambiguous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tylenol
It's a wiki, so I'll guess I'll add it.
Ibuprofen (known colloquially more commonly as Motrin or Advil in the US)
Acetaminophen (also known by chemical name paracetemol outside of the US and brand name Tylenol in US)
Acetylsalicylic acid (also known as Aspirin, was previously a trademark but now a generic name)
I always try to avoid using the brand names in favor of the actual chemical names to dodge ambiguity and confusion (there are other brand names for acetaminophen, acetylsalicylic acid, and ibuprofen over the ones I have listed even in the US), but even then in the case of acetaminophen it cannot be avoided. Further compounding (pun intended?) difficulty is trying to pronounce acetylsalicylic acid to the layman instead of just saying "Aspirin". In the US at least, you can get away with saying ibuprofen vs "Motrin" and acetaminophen vs "Tylenol", but the Aspirin problem is a bit more of a difficult hurdle to overcome in terms of layman's communication.
Slightly tangentially, when referring to airports I even have the same problem. I always try to go by IATA airport code, but those apparently have ambiguities as well: AUS is the IATA airport code for Austin-Bergstrom, but in ICAO terms it's actually known as KAUS, presumably to avoid conflict with other airports outside the US who might also answer to the callsign "AUS"
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ZIP
Hoover Kleenex Photoshop Xerox Band-Aid
ps. I take Lyft 99 % of the time, for years already. Every industry needs an underdog to keep the big guys on their toes. In particular shady ones.
The only downside I can come up with is that "taxiing to" is more awkward to say than "ubering to". As Calvin says, though, "Verbing weirds language."
Why should they compete internationally?
From what I can see, international competition is wildly unprofitable, subject to the whims and vicissitudes of local politicians, and subject to local competition who understand their market far better than any foreign firm.
You don't need any sort of 'black ops' when your competitor is busy generating their own bad headlines. Instead you just call up your journalist connections every time Uber does something stupid to make sure they saw it.
Once the dust settles, it will be interesting to see whether Lyft is as innocent as everyone presumes.
The most critical outlets are those with one of those two as investors.
Pando Daily: Andreessen has 8% ownership https://pando.com/about/
Buzzfeed: A16Z invested $50m in Buzzfeed https://techcrunch.com/2014/08/10/buzzfeed-raises-50-million...
Business Insider: Andreessen participated in the Venture Series, Series B and Series D https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/business-insider#/en...
More neutral/balanced outlets like Recode and TechCrunch don't have either as investors. Recode for example was the only media company that mentioned the death of Travis' mother as a primary motivation for taking leave of absence. The less balanced sources above barely mentioned that "detail" at the bottom of the articles on that matter.
A16Z did Lyft's $60m Series C: https://www.crunchbase.com/funding-round/3b6daa9a-7bb9-d7de-...
I wonder why Gett is not figured in there.
https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/htt...
Perhaps not 100% accurate, but not 100% fake either.
> The reports of Uber's impending death are greatly exaggerated. - Mark Twain
[0] https://archive.fo/Q0gkJ/595ad70474d05aa1f7b15600fe5ccec2f25...
As much as we hate to think it, both awareness and social proof in decision making matter. And while I wouldn't have admitted it, part of it was thinking in the back of my head that quitting wouldn't make a difference. Seeing the graph showing the real impact of the #quituber campaign was both surprising and to be perfectly honest a bit motivating to me to keep to my word to use Lyft. Maybe not a full quit, but at least a 50/50.