Slashdot Mirror
The Fiercest Rivalry In Tech: Uber vs. Lyft
onehitwonder (1118559) writes WSJ looks at the cantankerous rivalry between two popular ride-sharing companies, Uber and Lyft, and the dirty tactics each employs to weaken its opponent. Lyft, for example, alleges that representatives from Uber frequently order short rides from Lyft just to slow down Lyft's service and to try to poach its drivers. WSJ points out that the rivalry is more than just a made-for-TV competition: "It's a battle for a key role in the future of urban transportation." Lyft certainly isn't Uber's only rival, though, even setting aside conventional taxis and car services, even those two names are big in U.S. cities: its clash with Gett has reportedly involved tricks at least as dirty. Another way to look at the rivalry, too, is that the biggest clash is not between Uber and any other particular company, but rather between the various ride-calling / ride-sharing services taken together against the existing, regulated taxi and car-service companies they threaten.
To be able to correctly understand this piece of news, I'd need a definition on the criteria to identify a corporation's action as "dirty tactic".
This is the very reason we have regulations in the first place. Why is the government not stepping in and making them register like any other taxi service?
So why does nobody think they'll get kidnapped by random strangers who use Uber and Lyft?
Anybody who picks them over a black cab driven by someone who's done the Knowledge and who is subject to regular testing is either a clueless tourist or a helpless dullard.
So many times we've seen previously well state-regulated transportation services undercut by the "free market", which has waited until the older services have been driven out of business before setting up a new monopoly on their terms. The Beeching Axe of the '60s was nothing more than a guy with an ownership a highway-building company on the government payroll unravelling the onion of rail transport. The initial deregulation of bus services across the south coast has led to domination by Stagecoach, which spent years operating a loss, but whose monopoly and subsequent regulatory capture has allowed its over-priced, under-utilised buses across the south.
Looking to the skies, we're seeing exactly the same thing with SpaceX. Boeing was once the nimble, cheap innovator to which NASA contracted out, before it became a greedy behemoth sucking at government teat. History is repeating itself with SpaceX - but with even less management control in the hands of NASA, sadly, so there is less opportunity to choose a selection of specialist companies to cooperate on new projects, as was the case during the space heydays of the '60s.
Between this nonsense and the fact that the ride sharing services don't have the proper licensing and proof of insurance, I wouldn't feel comfortable using any of them.
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
For the same reason that no one thinks they will get stabbed by a random stranger when walking around. Sure it could happen, but I am not about to start wearing a stab vest.
Serious question. Why can't we move past the ridiculous Spelling 2.0.
In a normal free market environment I would simply say let the market sort them out, this is war, there can be no rules as long as the government does not participate in any of it. The ones with the deepest pockets will win, which is correct from the perspective of the market rewarding some of them more than others.
Of-course the participation of government completely skews the picture, the Federal reserve is creating so much inflation that all this newly created cash has to go somewhere, so it goes into the stock market and the financing and IPOs for companies that would not get financing in a normal market environment but they are getting it now, because there is no yield anywhere due to government depressed interest rates. My point is that there are all these asset, bond, dollar bubbles that are going to implode in a terrible way, you don't know what will happen to any of these companies at that time except that it won't be pretty for the entire economy.
--- /. bug, where it reported 12 comments on this story and then in half a minute 11 comments, hmm).
(as a side note, just observed some
MY OTHER COMMENTS
Your regulations (especially limited medallions) have caused more waste than these "dirty tactics" do. If your claim is "I don't support medallions, but instead some better regulation than the status quo", then at this point you really need to explain why you think the government is listening to your opinion at all (as opposed to special interests and economic elites). They've had decades to eliminate medallions, and now people are suggesting changes only because Lyft and Uber have forced the issue.
How about you guys fix your taxi regulations first, then I'll consider the wisdom of trusting the same politicians to regulate ride-sharing.
This is just low-down mafia-level diversion bullshit. This isn't rivalry, and Uber/Lyft aren't fucking tech, they're taxi services that HAPPEN to be tied to using a smartphone - guess what Taxi drivers are tied to all day? A smartphone AND a CB radio AND a bunch of other shit that makes them actually worthy of the tech title.
Submitter should be stopped from posting any more stories until he figures out exactly what is tech worthy. Of course, given the 7 digit UID, not likely.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
That is the risk of an unregulated market. Unregulated markets can be very dysfunctional. See Microsoft as an example of a monopoly developing when there are no regulation of software licensing to hardware manufacturers.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
I agree that underhanded tactics make them both look bad, but personal experience using Uber, at least, tells me the service is typically quite good.
In Virginia, both Lyft and Uber were allowed to start legally operating again, under a specific set of rules:
- They must meet a set of regulations to promote passenger safety, have appropriate insurance and comply with Virginia laws.
- The companies agreed to run background checks of drivers, including criminal and driving histories
- Drivers must have a valid driver’s license and must be 21 or older. Their vehicles must be four-door, carry no more than seven passengers at time and must have a valid registration and inspection.
- The companies and the state also agreed on checks on rate transparency and documentation. And drivers are not allowed to accept street hails.
I think all of this sounds pretty reasonable, and IMO, it's fair to consider them a new way of doing business, vs. the traditional taxi cab services.
Competitors try to gain an edge, use harmless dirty tactics. Nothing to see here people.
You claimed before that this (obvious) sock puppet account of yours was something that you use only when you can't write more comments through your usual account. Except you haven't written enough comments in the past 24 hours to have run into a limit yet.
Add to that the fact that you didn't admit this time that this is a sock puppet account and it is rather clear that you are just trying to make people think you are more than one person.
All of this is, of course, blatant hypocrisy in light of the cult mantras that you so often utter here. You are trying to circumvent the rules of discussion that are established for an open forum.
"It's a battle for a key role in the future of urban transportation."
Bikes work too.
One very simple reason I never use Lyft over UberX: Lyft refuses to put in a fare estimation tool.
So even if they could be possibly cheaper than Uber or a taxi, I'm not going to get in a Lyft not knowing even roughly how much it's going to cost.
I have no idea why they choose not to be transparent about even a rough estimate of my ride cost. Saying that the per-city rate table on their website satisfies that function is a joke.
This is why taxi licenses were created originally: there were taxi wars. People were getting shot for picking someone up in someone else's 'turf'. Taxi companies fought over turf and drivers and with guns and billy clubs. Add to that a few passengers getting cheated and robbed and eventually a city would step in and bring it under control with licensing and regulations. That the licenses eventually became a valuable item and an industry in themselves is a different story.
Uber and Lyft are re-doing what the original drive-for-hire people did that got them regulated in the first place.
Apple vs Samsung is by far the fiercest "Tech" fight as they are both actual tech companies.
The 2 pissant operations noted in this article are tech users certainly, but not actual tech companies.
This is just low-down mafia-level diversion bullshit. This isn't rivalry, and Uber/Lyft aren't fucking tech, they're taxi services that HAPPEN to be tied to using a smartphone - guess what Taxi drivers are tied to all day? A smartphone AND a CB radio AND a bunch of other shit that makes them actually worthy of the tech title.
Submitter should be stopped from posting any more stories until he figures out exactly what is tech worthy. Of course, given the 7 digit UID, not likely.
This was on the front page of the business section of the wall street journal today, including the catchy title about a tech rivalry, so if you disagree that they are tech companies, don't blame the submitter.
From my point of view, Uber and Lyft are using technology to try to disrupt a huge industry, which makes them more interesting than yet another social network or phone app that hopes to live off monetizing users through ads.