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.
Because the name "Lift" is likely too literally descriptive of the service to be eligible for trademark protection.
There are not 'normal free markets', they simply don't exist.
Sooner or later they devolve into this, or people selling outright fradulent/dangerous products, or they form cartels to screw over the consumer.
Left to its own devices, a free market becomes anything but. It's a complete myth that it will arrive at perfect outcomes, and it always has been.
Adam Smith knew this when he wrote Wealth of Nations.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
Why? "Windows" got trademarked. True, the trademark is only applicable with regards to naming of software, but it's still arguably extremely descriptive of its functionality. How would "Lift" be any different?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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+
You can't trademark/copyright/patent a normal word. Anybody who doesn't anything with lyft HAS to be making money that is rightfully yours.
Tonights forecast: Dark. Continued dark throughout most of the evening, with some widely-scattered light towards morning
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.
Only trademark applies here ... copyright and patent are for entirely different things, and trademark only applies in the specific area of business.
And, to counter your point, I offer you Windows and Word. It's not like it's never happened.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Many people do not understand the nature of a "free market". To help them put it into perspective, a "free market" means that the players in the market are free to screw over each other and their customers as much as they want. If you don't like it, your only option is to start your own company assuming that the established players haven't already cornered the market or the infrastructure required to bring the product or service to market. However, healthy and fair competition is rarely ever the result of a free market - that only exists with a moderate amount of regulation to prevent the established players from stomping or buying out the competition.
Why? "Windows" got trademarked. True, the trademark is only applicable with regards to naming of software, but it's still arguably extremely descriptive of its functionality.
That trademark application was initially rejected--in fact, I think it was rejected more than once. Microsoft threw lawyers and appeals at the USPTO until they wore down the system. IIRC they used the argument that through use the term "Windows" had come to be accepted as identifying specific software (which, really, was true by then).
How would "Lift" be any different?
My personal opinion is that it is extremely similar. So it would get rejected, and to get beyond that, the brand would both have to become ubiquitous and the company would have to spend years and millions on appeals.
And while many politicians apparently seem to think that's an ideal outcome, it's a terrible situation for everybody else.
Case in point: poisoned baby formula from China with melamine in it.
The free market people say "you are free to not buy toxic products for your children". The rest of the world says "no, you're an idiot, it needs to be illegal to do this".
The assumptions about people making rational choices based on perfect information are complete garbage, because people provably are not rational, and someone will always decide his profits are worth killing a few people for.
No, over time, the terrible behavior of the actors involved demonstrates more and more places in which you need regulation.
The notion you can come up with a skeleton set of regulations only designed to ensure competition, and have that in the long term come up with good outcomes -- well, that's the lie perpetuated by people who say the free market solves problems.
The free market solves one problem: maximizing selfish behavior of some players to the severe detriment of others.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Markets are defined by their rules, plain and simple.
The rules for an ideal free market are pretty straight forward: everyone is free to do whatever they want. There's also another term for this approach in the political sphere: anarchy.
What most people really mean when they say free market (in America, at least) is a market defined by the rules of property law (the foundation of most western legal systems). As soon as you have some basic rules, you no longer have a free market.
A real free market is a theoretical extreme, like an ideal gas. It's useful for reasoning about things, but doesn't actually exist in any practical form in real life.
-Chris
Because the name "Lift" is likely too literally descriptive of the service to be eligible for trademark protection.
Because in Europe and the UK, people would think it's an elevator service :-)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Because the name "Lift" is likely too literally descriptive of the service to be eligible for trademark protection.
It would also generate too many false hits in search engines.
And yet, a large amount of politicians continue to act like this is what we should be striving for.
Which leads me to conclude the people who unabashedly are proponents of a pure laissez faire market are either lying to us, have no actual understanding of this, or somehow think all of these terrible outcomes are actually a good thing.
It makes a good sound bite for the electorate, but it's a shitty basis on which to make policy.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
No, not even a little.
Do you think you can copyright a single word in the English language you didn't make up? Do you think you can patent a word??
If you brought court challenges saying you'd copyrighted use of "the" or patented using an article in a sentence, and judge who didn't immediately dismiss your case, with prejudice and legal fees, should immediately be disbarred for being incompetent.
There are meanings to copyright and patent, and a single word, even when used as a product name, will NEVER meet those.
If they ever did, the legal system is broken beyond repair.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
It would also generate too many false hits in search engines.
Excellent point.
Umm, harmless?? Not only does uber frustrate the gett drivers by scheduling a taxi and then cancelling, they also try to recruit the drivers away from their competitors. This is practically like vandalizing a competitor's service causing financial loss.
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.
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.