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?
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.
Do you really think the man who opened all of Tesla's patents to the public has wealth as his highest aspiration?
No. How about the man who opened a strategically selected subset of Tesla's patents in order to improve the network of charging points Tesla's cars depend on?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Really good post.
Until you got to the Beeching Axe and you started sounding like a nostalgic train anorak.
Then you got to Boeing and SpaceX of all topics and it just went worse from there on.
The Beeching Axe almost got British Rail back to profitability. SpaceX is just a competitor for Boeing Defense, Space & Security, which Boeing damn well needs, after acquiring all of its previous competitors like Rocketdyne, McDonnell Douglas and Hughes.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
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.
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.
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.
Speaking as a Londoner, I can live without a detailed knowledge of what's running in the West End and just make do with being taken to my destination for half the cost.
[FUCK BETA]
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
So why does nobody think they'll get kidnapped by random strangers who
drive cabs ?
ftfy. ive taken a lot of uber and lyft rides, and every ride has been better than the typical sketchy smelly rude cab driver.
He opened only those patents related to charging. The intent behind this is not charity, rather he wants synergy with other electric car manufacturers.
Without standardization, you'll have a charger T for teslas, charger F for Fords, charger N for Nissans etc. This is not feasible for even a handful of electric car manufacturers.
Seems like he might have been referring to this, moron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
Here are the relevant bits...
The taxicab driver is required to be able to decide routes immediately in response to a passenger's request or traffic conditions, rather than stopping to look at a map, relying on satellite navigation or asking a controller by radio. ...
It is the world's most demanding training course for taxicab drivers, and applicants will usually need at least twelve 'appearances' (attempts at the final test), after preparation averaging 34 months, to pass the examination.
Next time you feel like being a pretentious twat, why don't you just keep it to yourself.
-AndrewBuck
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.
loooool in US there are no requirements other than being a dickass.
btw, I know london is a socialist state, but have you ever heard of the free market? If uber drivers are shit and get lost, then nobody will use them duh. why would you need to know everywhere by heart when you could just use GPS?
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.