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.

Comments

Dirty tactics

[Thanshin]

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".

Re:Dirty tactics

[Richard_at_work]

Any action which directly interferes with your competitions business, done with that sole intention. So booking lifts and not taking them up, or booking lots of short trips which put competitors drivers out of position or otherwise unlikely to be able to pick up the more lucrative jobs (ie, have an employee travel to the middle of an industrial estate right when a major train or bus arrives, so your drivers get the more lucrative jobs).

The link is very interesting, and if true it shows a concerted effort to disrupt Ubers competitors through anti-competitive behaviour.

Re:Dirty tactics

[NotDrWho]

I even heard Uber was encouraging Lyft drivers to put stupid pink mustaches on their cars, ensuring that the service would be seen as a hopelessly hipster/metrosexual by mainstream riders and would be forever relegated to a small niche market of people not ashamed to be seen in said cars.

Oh no, wait. Lyft did that to THEMSELVES.

Re:good

[gstoddart]

In a normal free market environment I would simply say let the market sort them out

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.

Re:Makes both look bad

[Type44Q]

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.

Hold up. You're generalizing, as well as mixing inaccuraries with implications that are downright false, in a rather blatant attempt to create a strawman... but unfortunately there are people here who have paid careful-enough attention to this debate that it's become rather easy to sniff out the taxi industry's bullshit:

It's true that Uber's "economy class" service (UberX) relies upon everyday folks* who possess their own [presumably non-commercial] insurance... but you've conveniently neglected to mention that Uber takes out a million dollars' worth of commercial auto liabilility for each of these drivers.

Uber's "premium services" (UberBlack and UberSUV) rely upon existing limo-service providers who possess all the requisite permits, licenses and commercial insurance coverage required by their respective municipal authorities.

*I've seen the way taxi drivers in New York, LA, Chicago, Dallas and elsewhere tend to drive... so you can shut the fuck up with your suggestion that these so-called "professionals" are somehow any safer than the Average Joe would be behind the wheel.