Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Uber Testing Massive Merchant Delivery Service

Posted by Soulskill on from the bring-me-pizza dept.

An anonymous reader writes: TechCrunch has obtained documents showing that Uber is testing out a delivery service that would allow shoppers to buy something online and have it delivered on the same day. "Sources say that Neiman Marcus, Louis Vuitton, Tiffany's, Cohen's Fashion Optical and Hugo Boss are all in talks with the Uber Merchant Delivery program, and one source in particular said that there are over 400 different merchants currently in talks (or already testing) with Uber for same-day delivery. (Cohen's Fashion Optical and Hugo Boss are both used as examples in the training presentation.) ... From what we can gather from the manual, it seems that Uber drivers and couriers are currently taking merchant orders through a different app (and even a separate phone) than the one they use to receive regular UberRUSH orders. Eventually, however, Uber drivers will be able to take both human passengers and Uber Merchant orders at the same time through an intelligent routing system, all from a single driver-side app."

83 comments

  1. flashy, but risky too. by nimbius · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Im sure most of these companies feel like its worth the PR, until they realize shipping through an unregulated, unlicensed, un-insured third party is a great way to watch $12,000 worth of shoes and purses go from the back of a prius to a roaring bonfire on youtube.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:flashy, but risky too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definitely without regulations is the issue. With regulations, but without a license or insurance, there's no way anything bad would happen. Regulations are what cause everything to work out just peachy. I mean, regulations are why nobody speeds, after all!

    2. Re:flashy, but risky too. by tmosley · · Score: 2, Informative

      You know, you should probably lay off the libel there, friend.

      Uber already carries insurance on its passenger service. What on Earth makes you think they wouldn't insure parcels? And why do you think that people who are being electronically tracked would destroy their parcels, thus getting themselves fired/deactivated, and having charges brought against them?

      Do you anti-Uber people just not think? Because it seems like you just throw out any kind of garbage that sounds like its an argument against it and see what sticks, even if they are outright and blatant lies.

    3. Re:flashy, but risky too. by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      Oddly enough, Massachusetts has just introduced a bill to ensure that Uber drivers are not "unregulated, unlicensed, or uninsured".

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    4. Re:flashy, but risky too. by NixieBunny · · Score: 1

      Considering the amount of stuff that TSA agents are reported to steal from airline passengers, why is this not a reasonable question of risk?

      --
      The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
    5. Re:flashy, but risky too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I mean, regulations are why nobody speeds, after all!

      No, regulations (speed limits) are why people stay within 10-20 mph of the posted limit, and assholes that drive recklessly and exceed it by a rediculous amount don't stay on the road long endangering the rest of us.

      Just because some people break laws doesn't make the law pointless. There is still a measurable restraining effect, and recourse when some jerk steps way out of line to the detriment of the rest of us.

      Regulations aren't the problem. Bad regulations are, and often, no regulations = bad regulations. So instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, maybe you should be pushing for well-thought out, good regulations, rather than just waving your hands and abdicating public policy in favor of the magical market.

    6. Re:flashy, but risky too. by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      You know, you should probably lay off the libel there, friend.

      It's not libel if it's true:

      Currently, commercial coverage that Uber buys for its UberX freelance drivers, who use their own cars and must maintain their own personal auto insurance, kicks in at the point when a ride request is accepted through the company's smart phone app.

      Pending legislation advanced last week by the Assembly and supported by the insurance industry in New Jersey would require that Uber's commercial coverage take effect as soon as the drivers log into the mobile app and make themselves available to passengers seeking rides.

      If an accident occurs during the gap between when the driver logs on to the app and when he or she accepts a request for a ride, the driver's personal auto insurance company sometimes denies those claims, Mohrer acknowledged. But he said the company has additional insurance to cover those situations, "All rides on the Uber platform have insurance when commercial activity is actually happening," Mohrer said.

      The legal situation with Uber being a commercial vehicle, and their insurance situation is not ever as clear as Uber claims it to be.

      The problem with Uber is the delusional owners who like to assert that they are not covered under laws which are designed to cover exactly what they do.

      So, sorry, as long as Uber says "we're not a cab company, we're a tech company" they don't also get to pretend they're a legally licensed transportation company.

      Uber is just a company who has an app, and takes a cut of people running mostly as bootleg cabs.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:flashy, but risky too. by fermion · · Score: 1
      There is a lot of counterfeiting as well. While insurance, if Uber has it, will protect the consumer and vendor, the consumer will not be protected from counterfeit bags.

      I even doubt there will be suitable insurance or bonding, as one reason Uber can be so cheap is because they externalize most costs to the driver, which means consumer do not have the protection they normally expect. I mean if something happens on the trip, or to a product, who are you going to sue? The driver who doesn't even hold the title to the car? The driver's insurance company that specifically is not going to cover commercial activities?

      Even with proper insurance and bonding, it still leaves the consumer open to receiving counterfeit property. The driver substitutes the counterfeit for the original, gives the authenticity card to the customer, and end up with an authentic $2500 bag for the costs of counterfeit.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    8. Re:flashy, but risky too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because, depressingly, Uber drivers are more accountable, better trained, and better supervised than TSA agents.

    9. Re:flashy, but risky too. by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

      Massachusetts.wants a million dollar insurance policy, to be paid by the driver/ vehicle owner. Not that that's absurd to ask for, but insurance rates may price out the driver, owner.

    10. Re:flashy, but risky too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uber drivers aren't public sector union workers.

    11. Re:flashy, but risky too. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      It's not libel if it's true

      Except that it is NOT true. You pointing out that Uber doesn't insure drivers while they are NOT working for Uber, doesn't negate the fact that they do insure them when they ARE working for Uber.

    12. Re:flashy, but risky too. by Minwee · · Score: 2

      Because, depressingly, Uber drivers are more accountable, better trained, and better supervised than TSA agents.

      They are also slightly better baby sitters than a pack of starving, rabid jackals.

    13. Re:flashy, but risky too. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Even with proper insurance and bonding, it still leaves the consumer open to receiving counterfeit property.

      This problem can be solved with a 5 cent seal applied to the box, which is already commonly done for valuable items, since a UPS or FedEx driver can pilfer a shipment just as easily as an Uber driver can. Most valuable items are also serialized, so the consumer can go online and verify that it is genuine. This is not a new problem, and is not unique to Uber.

    14. Re:flashy, but risky too. by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      In Section 11H, (1) (ii) of the bill in question:

      The insurance may be held by the transportation network driver, the transportation network company, or some combination thereof.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    15. Re:flashy, but risky too. by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And you're going to continue to pretend that insurance companies haven't cancelled the policies of Uber drivers?

      It is true that the insurance situation and legality of operations is most decidedly NOT what comes out of the reality distortion field Uber tells people.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    16. Re:flashy, but risky too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure they say they have insurance, but they can't prove it in a Canadian court.

      http://globalnews.ca/news/1898833/uber-users-drivers-at-risk-without-proper-insurance-coverage/

      maybe people should stop spouting corporate propoganda

    17. Re:flashy, but risky too. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Insurance means very little to companies who have a certain service standard to uphold. No one will give a shit if they get their money back if their order of 10k worth of shoes disappears. These people want their service, and they will blame whoever they bought their stuff from if anything goes wrong.

      There is a reason why certain trucking operations pay their truckers a shit-ton of money, have armed guards, locked trucks, tracking devices, etc. It's so that shit doesn't get "lost", not that they can pay their customer for shit that got "lost".

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    18. Re: flashy, but risky too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not like the police.

    19. Re:flashy, but risky too. by TooManyNames · · Score: 1

      That's undoubtedly true, but not, I think, the intended market for Uber.

      Similar to how you probably wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) use Uber to transport a VIP, you wouldn't use Uber's product service to transport high-value, hard to replace goods. Instead, this service would be useful for goods which are readily replaceable, and just need to get from A to B. If something happens on the first attempt, you reroute with a 2nd attempt, deliver the good, and get reimbursed for the good that was lost. They'd essentially be treating goods as packets, and I'd think that could work pretty well for several cases, but certainly not cases that the service wasn't designed to accommodate.

      --
      "Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
    20. Re:flashy, but risky too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh shut the fuck up already.

    21. Re:flashy, but risky too. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Im sure most of these companies feel like its worth the PR, until they realize shipping through an unregulated, unlicensed, un-insured third party is a great way to watch $12,000 worth of shoes and purses go from the back of a prius to a roaring bonfire on youtube.

      You do realize that big companies monitor their vendor's performance, and only work with vendors that do a good job.

      At my workplace we really don't care how the outside vendor gets the job done for stuff like this as long as they get it done. We care about performance, not process (except at the interfaces with us).

      If Uber starts losing items, they'll go out of business. Heck, if they can't give their customers (the big vendors) visibility into where their stuff is at all times, they'll never get the business in the first place.

      Nobody needs to regulate UPS. The big companies that use UPS already know how well they operate.

    22. Re:flashy, but risky too. by tmosley · · Score: 1

      If the Uber driver doesn't have insurance, they can't drive for Uber. If this happened, then the driver would be deactivated until they could get another policy. Sucks for the driver, but I REALLY don't see what the problem is.

    23. Re:flashy, but risky too. by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Although I see problems with this I kind of doubt counterfeiting is going to be one. To successfully do this the driver/Uber would have to have access to a huge warehouse of counterfeit goods so they could exchange the real item (chosen by the customer, not the Uber driver) for a matching fake one. I just don't see that as a practical scheme for stealing goods.

    24. Re:flashy, but risky too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also likely stumble upon some organized crime v1.0 in the process.

    25. Re:flashy, but risky too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read that as "TSA agents are required to steal from airline passengers" ... ^_^

    26. Re:flashy, but risky too. by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and those Uber drivers are going to rape the packages, too! Won't someone think of the packages!

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    27. Re:flashy, but risky too. by sr180 · · Score: 1

      I'll just leave this here... DHL in practice.

      We already know how the current companies perform. And its generally not great.

      --
      In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
    28. Re:flashy, but risky too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jumping in here to say something.

      Uber isn't ridesharing. Insurance companies most likely see them as needing commercial insurance, not regular insurance most drivers tend to need.

    29. Re:flashy, but risky too. by tmosley · · Score: 1

      If that is how they feel, then it's a farce, because they do, in fact, have insurance, from the time they accept a trip until they drop off the passenger. All the commercial activity is covered.

      To add to the farce, there hasn't been a single incident (that I am aware of) where these policies have even been exercised.

    30. Re:flashy, but risky too. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I'll just leave this here... DHL in practice.

      We already know how the current companies perform. And its generally not great.

      Meh. At my workplace we use monitors/etc when we ship stuff where handling matters. If handling goes out of spec, then we'll have some words with the courier, and have procurement bring up that nice exclusive agreement we made that sends millions per year in business their way.

  2. Can't wait to steal stuff! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Being an Uber is so easy, takes almost no background check. Why not become a driver, get a big load of packages, then never return?

    1. Re:Can't wait to steal stuff! by tmosley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know right? We all know that FedEX, UPS, and USPS workers are all physically incapable of theft thanks to regulations. Now if only someone would set some regulations on our everyday lives so no-one else could steal or murder. That would make things so much nicer, don't you think?

    2. Re:Can't wait to steal stuff! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, you are a moron! You could get a job at Uber under a fake name, it's just that easy. Real shipping companies, nope, that's a lot of work. You are so stupid!

    3. Re:Can't wait to steal stuff! by jtgd · · Score: 1

      A UPS driver with a truck full of packages might be able to claim a box "fell off the truck" but it's a lot harder for 1 person in 1 car with 1 package to deliver to say the same thing.

      --
      J
    4. Re:Can't wait to steal stuff! by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Why not become a driver, get a big load of packages, then never return?

      If that's actually a problem in reality then we'll see it happen pretty soon, won't we? If we don't see it, then it's probably not actually a problem, is it?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  3. Hmm by koan · · Score: 1

    Possibly this could help sagging local retailers, the matching of routes with people needing a ride means 2 things done at once reducing emissions.
    There's some good potential here, I wonder if Uber can implement this correctly.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Hmm by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      There's some good potential here, I wonder if Uber can implement this correctly.

      Since the social benefits are closely aligned with the greedy self-interest of both the drivers and the shareholders, it is likely that it will be implemented correctly. Profit is a powerful motivator.

    2. Re:Hmm by koan · · Score: 1

      Funny, I can recall arguing to make politicians jobs revolve around self interest, their self interest, as that is possibly the only way to get them to do anything (in our interest).

      Implementation is another thing entirely.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    3. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and a single delivery vehicle, often powered by cng or other lower-emissions fuel, filled with parcels and efficiently routed for lowest drive time and miles, is not efficient? no fucking way uber can deliver the same number of packages as one ups or fedex vehicle in the same amount of time, with the same amount of labor, with less emissions and less fuel consumption... and certainly not at the same or lower cost per parcel.

      uber is simply adding point-to-point courier services to their we're-not-a-taxi-but-shhh-don't-tell-anyone-we-really-are-one taxi service... something legitimate taxi companies have been doing to supplement their business and keep drivers moving for decades... including going so far as to make 'deliveries' possible from businesses that don't do deliveries themselves. the taxis here will pick up anything not age (e.g. alcohol) or id (e.g. prescription drugs) restricted that fits in their vehicle and deliver it to you, for less than the cost of what the fare would have been... and if you arrange it ahead of time, they'll even pay for them (and then you pay the company or driver).

  4. Economy of Scale by Cheer+Up+Queefy+Jean · · Score: 1

    It will be interesting to see if this system can grow and mature to make a substantial dent in the market shares of FedEx and UPS.

    1. Re:Economy of Scale by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, right.

      FedEx/UPS are bonded, insured, and reliable, and have global logistics chains.

      Uber is some guy with his mom's car, no commercial license, possibly improper insurance, and quite likely operating as an illegal commercial vehicle in many places.

      I just don't see that happening.

      Uber's magical thinking that laws don't apply to them tell me they're not what I'd call trustworthy.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Economy of Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "I just don't see that happening."

      That would be because you are a short-sighted rube. You didn't see Uber itself coming either, did you? But don't let that stop you from making asinine assertions from the peanut gallery.

    3. Re:Economy of Scale by dale.furno · · Score: 0

      My little pickup truck gets 20 mpg... not sure it would be worth busting my balls as a courier in Massachusetts. What kind of pennies do Uber drivers make per jobbie?

    4. Re:Economy of Scale by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      have global logistics chains.

      You don't need a global logistics chain to deliver a parcel in a store in Wichita to a person in Wichita. Which is what it sounds like they're doing.

      some guy with his mom's car

      The owner of the car seems largely irrelevant.

      no commercial license

      Which is unnecessary to drive said mother's car.

      possibly improper insurance

      Boy, that doesn't sound solvable at all. Like, by making drivers have and prove they have the right insurance?

      quite likely operating as an illegal commercial vehicle in many places.

      TBD, lawsuits aren't over, laws may change.

      I just don't see that happening.

      If you stopped your irrational hate for a second and used your imagination, maybe you could.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    5. Re:Economy of Scale by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't have an irrational hate for Uber ... I have a well reasoned dislike for a company who says "la la la, we're not listening, your laws don't apply because we're awesome".

      I heard one of the founders/mouthpieces defending their position once ... he sounded like a self entitled ass who deemed himself special and covered under a different set of rules.

      Uber can't simultaneously say "we're not a transport company, we're a tech company" and also pretend to be a transport company.

      Having an app doesn't exempt you from laws. Only in their delusional, self important heads.

      They're a greedy tech company, they're not some fucking saviors of the world.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:Economy of Scale by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      FedEx/UPS are bonded, insured, and reliable, and have global logistics chains

      Uber is some guy with his mom's car, no commercial license, possibly improper insurance, and quite likely operating as an illegal commercial vehicle in many places.

      I just don't see that happening.

      Uber's magical thinking that laws don't apply to them tell me they're not what I'd call trustworthy.

      This sounds like just an EBay style market for last mile delivery... I think if structured properly it could work with feedback, policing and policy structures in place to reinforce good behavior and quickly weed out bad actors. You can use tamper evident seals/photograph/signoff procedures to keep drivers on the hook legally.

      EBay has buyer protection schemes which work for all buyers regardless of seller. Uber could do the same and essentially offer insurance itself for the service as well as requiring their drivers to be properly insured.

      While mom's car has no prayer of matching the global throughput of FedEx... For rapid one-off deliveries those physical economies of scale are quite worthless anyway. The big guys hate covering the last mile as it is.

    7. Re:Economy of Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah bro, they're totally the Jesus Christ underdog of transit that will redeem us all! I've heard they're like run out some kids garage still. So grass roots! They're like David and all of the independent taxi companies are all somehow conspiring like Goliath against little ol' David.

      Why do you hate underdogs?

    8. Re:Economy of Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Local delivery.... I don't find that particularly disruptive. There's a gap in the cost vs benefits. Uber will have to pay the driver a lot compared to what people are willing to pay compared to UPS/USPS/FEDEX. The market of people who want things right now, it's pretty small and mostly filled with local courier services or peapod deliveries.

    9. Re:Economy of Scale by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1

      Every analysis I've seen, even independent analysis by skeptics, say that an Uber driver can expect to earn $19-$30 per hour, after taxes and expenses.

      Not quite pennies, especially in today's limited job market. The most dedicated drivers I know, after the first couple of months using their own car, use their profits to buy a just-young-enough semi-beater to take all the depreciation and save their own car for strictly personal mileage

      *full disclosure* Not a rideshare driver, but I sure have been considering it.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    10. Re:Economy of Scale by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I don't have an irrational hate for Uber ... I have a well reasoned dislike for a company who says "la la la, we're not listening, your laws don't apply because we're awesome".

      The thing is, most people likely to consume their services would rather have them operating just as they are than otherwise. It is a bit of an irony given that we're a democracy, but stuff like this happens all the time. We have speed limits that almost nobody follows, and yet they aren't changed. The issue is that laws often do not reflect the political will of the population.

      So, just about everybody is starting to just ignore laws in these cases and dare anybody to do anything about it. People just speed, and politicians know that if they actually tried to enforce the speed limits rigorously it would be political suicide. Companies like Uber operate, and if anybody messes with them it causes them a bunch of backlash. Presidents just work around Congress, and there isn't much that Congress can do about it, since they'll never get the supermajority required for impeachment. Judges just override gay marriage laws passed in states, and they get upheld.

      People just don't want to deal with the process necessary to change the laws, so the laws reflect the will of special interests that can navigate the process and get the laws established. People will instead just ignore the law, and everybody just goes along with it one way or another.

      Uber is really just part of a much larger trend.

    11. Re:Economy of Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      billion dollar uber the underdog? sure, just try telling that to your local cabbie or delivery driver ... sigh

    12. Re:Economy of Scale by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      FedEx/UPS are bonded, insured, and reliable, and have global logistics chains. Uber is some guy with his mom's car, no commercial license, possibly improper insurance, and quite likely operating as an illegal commercial vehicle in many places.

      FedEx is a lot more like Uber than you think. FedEx drivers are independent contractors. They get no benefits, no overtime, no sick leave, and no insurance. They pay for and maintain their own vehicles.

      And yes, there was even a time when the US Post Office was trying to outlaw FedEx, because FedEx drivers had the gall to sometimes use door mail slots (instead of just leaving the envelopes on the ground in front of people's doorways when they were not home).

      In any case, FedEx had some rough patches when it started out and FedEx did some questionable things. The same will happen with Uber. For one thing, now that Uber is no longer a startup, its CEO needs to get fired/resign. He is simply too direct and not socially mature enough to be the mouth-piece for the company.

    13. Re:Economy of Scale by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      The thing is, most people likely to consume their services would rather have them operating just as they are than otherwise. It is a bit of an irony given that we're a democracy, but stuff like this happens all the time. We have speed limits that almost nobody follows, and yet they aren't changed. The issue is that laws often do not reflect the political will of the population.

      The problem is when something inevitably happens, and the user gets screwed. E.g., an Uber driver getting in an accident without a fare, but heading to pick up one. Technically, the Uber insurance doesn't apply, and it's up to the driver's insurance to figure out if they cover it or not.

      If not, then if you're the one they hit, it's YOUR insurance that covers the bill under "underinsured party". Your insurance may try to recover the money from the other driver (who has no insurance) but there's no guarantee. Meanwhile, YOUR insurance goes up even though it wasn't your fault - the Uber guy ran into you. So you're screwed. You can try to sue to the other driver.

      And that's when the big crackdowns happen. It's all a big party until someone gets screwed over. If it's someone in power, then Uber may have to pay up themselves (the principle to go after those with money).

      And we're seeing the effects of no regulation slowly - depending on your location, taxi companies may be forced to pick up anyone, including handicapped, and if they cannot, they may be forced to actually wait for a replacement. (Some jurisdictions say if a taxi driver cannot pick up a fare, they must wait with the passenger until a replacement taxi arrives who can pick up the fare - you're not allowed to say "he's black, I don't want him" and drive off).

      Uber's small enough now it doesn't matter because they're only going after the folks with money...

    14. Re:Economy of Scale by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Uber's small enough now it doesn't matter because they're only going after the folks with money...

      This has happened in other areas of the economy as well. Previously there was a monopoly that charged inflated prices to most of the population, and subsidized prices to a small part of the population. Then somebody comes along and competes for the profitable majority and ignores the profitless minority, which then causes a loss for the former monopoly.

      I think the real problem is that this is a lousy way to provide services to the poor/etc. Just make the service provider free-market and run things super-efficiently. Then have the government pay the price for the poor, so that it comes out of taxes and not from the provider's profits. Then when a competitor comes along it is no big deal because the original company can compete fairly, and if prices are driven down it helps the poor and taxpayers.

      That is also why I don't like the whole idea of subsidizing job creation, or even the minimum wage. Let companies be operated with brutal efficiency. Then take care of the people who can't get a job, rather than getting somebody to hire somebody they otherwise would not. Instead of a minimum wage, have basic income. Give people enough money to live on (simply) whether they work or not. Then employers will have to offer a decent working environment or pay to entice people to actually work - since nobody is desperate for food an employer who doesn't offer a decent deal will simply be unable to hire people. Somebody who effectively gets $9/hr to stay at home isn't going to spend 40 hours a week working at Walmart for $1 more per hour.

    15. Re:Economy of Scale by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I don't have an irrational hate for Uber ... I have a well reasoned dislike for a company who says "la la la, we're not listening, your laws don't apply because we're awesome".

      I have a rational dislike for Uber because I've lived in a place with unregulated taxi services where anyone can become a driver.

      In other words, I've seen the end game for Uber.

      The best case scenario is to compensate for too many drivers and not enough fares they form gangs and territories of their own. Drivers will not be able to pick up fares outside their territory. Drivers who are not members of a gang will be threatened and intimidated... Thats the best case scenario.

      Beyond the best case you have the artificial rigging of fares. In Phuket, a taxi driver wont switch on the engine for less than 200 baht... which is the minimum wage there. In most places I've travelled, the biggest threats you encounter are these taxi gangs as they are prone to violence when they dont get their own way.

      Unregulated taxis are the domain of 3rd world shitholes mainly because in the developed world, we realised what a problem they were many generations ago and started to regulate them.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    16. Re:Economy of Scale by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      I have a well reasoned dislike for a company

      I'm not seeing the "well-reasoned" part. You don't like what they say and you spewed a poorly reasoned explanation for why you don't see local delivery happening. I'm not in love with Uber either, and I don't approve of all their actions. But my dislike for them doesn't preclude me from seeing the possibility of package delivery.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    17. Re:Economy of Scale by Agripa · · Score: 1

      FedEx/UPS are bonded, insured, and reliable, and have global logistics chains.

      Having had UPS destroy properly packaged shipments and then disclaim all liability, any insurance they provide is useless.

    18. Re:Economy of Scale by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      most people likely to consume their services would rather have them operating just as they are than otherwise

      Until their Uber driver hits someone litigous on the street. Then all of a sudden the driver and the rider (as the "employer of an independent contractor" ) are getting sued.

      There's a reason the laws built up the way they did. You want to fix them, you have my blessing. But, for the love of many things, demonstrate that your fixes also solve the problem that the law was designed to solve, or tell me why it's not a problem.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    19. Re:Economy of Scale by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      There's a reason the laws built up the way they did. You want to fix them, you have my blessing.

      Nah, I'll leave that to you.

      That was my whole point. If you want the law to be right, go ahead and fix it. Everybody else is just going to ignore it. They don't care if the law is right or not, because it doesn't really matter if nobody enforces it.

      It is just too painful to fix the law. Too many entrenched interests are going to block you when you try. People realize they don't actually have to play that game, and so they don't. We end up with a society where EVERYBODY breaks the law daily as a result.

      I don't think it is a good thing, but until it is easier to fix, nobody is going to bother.

    20. Re:Economy of Scale by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      They totally enforce the laws to some degree. Hundreds of people get ticketed for violating the laws.

      But you're talking about the process. I'm talking about the desirability. I think the laws are, in general, good for America. There's a reason they were put in place. And while they may have been captured by industry, the harms they were put in place to avoid are still out there. So my question is: Why would we want to change the law. Or, the question I was asking and you ducked was: In what way can you change the law and still avoid those harms?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    21. Re:Economy of Scale by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Or, the question I was asking and you ducked was: In what way can you change the law and still avoid those harms?

      I'm actually not convinced that it is possible to do so in a democratic society purely governed by the rule of law. Many of the most harmful issues in society are the result of people completely complying with the law, and always staying one step ahead of it.

      I can look at a big company paying zero taxes and say that they're doing something wrong. I can't come up with a robust law that would result in them paying taxes. I don't think anybody else can, unless you allow the law to be changed about 47 times per year to stay ahead, and then that becomes a massive burden on everybody else who just runs a mom and pop shop.

      The simplest solution is to take the CEO of some company that doesn't pay taxes but "should" (for some arbitrary definition of "should"), declare that they've perfectly followed the law, lock them up for 10 years, and announce that you'll do the same to anybody else who perfectly follows the law in an abusive manner. That then creates a huge amount of uncertainty around whether a particular course of action is compliant or not, and then companies have to err on the side of over-compliance instead of following the letter of the law with all its loopholes.

      But, such a society will be only nice to live in as long as the people in charge uphold the public good. Since there is no rule of law, this is likely to vary considerably. This is why democracies tend to be awful, but not nearly as awful as most non-democracies. :)

  5. GayWAD Endorses Uber: Many Homo Drivers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Do you need a lyft? Consydyr Uber. Many drivers are gay friendly. Some may perform fellatio free of charge.

    Thank you for your interest in joining the Gay Wigger Association of DICE* (GayWAD)! GayWADs worldwide are happy that you'd like to become part of our

    constantly enlarging member ship (come sail away 8======D~)

    Unlike other geek fraternities that you might have heard about, GayWAD accepts members of all races, creeds, and colors. We don't even have a technical inclination requirement. As our founders stated in the Annals of GayWAD, Chapter 1: "You don't have to be a geek, as long as you like it Greek." They were, of course, referring to the penis in anus style of sexual relations. Don't despair, as attaining full fabulous lifetime status in GayWAD is easy. The only prerequisites for membership in Gay Wigger Association of DICE* are that you meet all of the following conditions:

    1. 1. Ownership of penis, anus, or both

    To submit your Gay Wigger Association of DICE* Membership Application, simply do nothing. Congratulations, you're now a GayWAD!

    If you require a specific membership number for purposes such as framing, docking, or prestigious inclusion upon your business cards and resume, please take down this number: 69.

    Optionally, you may complete the following survey by replying to this post, indicating affirmative responses with an X in each appropriate box:

    GayWAD Membership Survey (OPTIONAL)

    [ ] I am gay
    [ ] I am a wigger
    [ ] I have used SLASHDOT VIDEO to find a sex partner

    After completion of this optional survey, your Slashdot post ID shall serve as your unique Gay Wigger Association of DICE* membership ID.

    Your GayWAD membership kit** is on its way.

    * GayWAD is neither affiliated with nor endorsed by DICE.COM.

    ** GayWAD membership kit no longer includes HIV self-test catheter.

    1. Re: GayWAD Endorses Uber: Many Homo Drivers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you think that one up all by your lonesome or did mommy help you?

  6. hK0mo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    About who can rant their parting [amazingkreskin.com] AND SLING OR @TABLE a way to spend

  7. I can just see it now ... by Rudisaurus · · Score: 1

    "Sorry -- the back seat of my Corolla's kinda full with that big screen jammed in there ... but if you wouldn't mind just wedging yourself in beside it, we'll be on our way ..."

    Yeah. No thanks.

    --
    licet differant, aequabitur
  8. Uber is the great kind of idea that assholes ruin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    New, interesting services like Uber are always awesome during their "honeymoon" period when they're introduced. Enthusiastic participants make it a great alternative.

    And then, once it becomes popular, the assholes show up. You know the ones. The guy nobody likes to play games with because he's a rule-bending powergamer. They guy banned from the buffet because he brings and ice cooler and fills it with all the crab legs. The loudmouth jerk with no self control who drinks himself in to a drunken rage at the free bar, then gets in a wreck on the way home. (He's the reason why there's no more alcohol at company parties)

    The people you have to make "rules" for because they insist on shitting all over the good will of everyone else. Eventually so many assholes force the creation of so many rules the whole system falls over.

    I wish we could find a way to make the honeymoon last forever. Maybe a way to identify and blacklist bad actors before they can create damage.

  9. Stop acting like a putz by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Regulations are only half the story. The other half is enforcement. I'm fed up with knee jerk reactions from a peanut gallery too lazy to spend five minutes on Google reading up on what life was like before rules that govern a civilized society. Yes, people speed. Usually ten over. They also get ticketed and then drive extra safely for a few months years until the sting wears off from paying the ticket

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  10. Uber run amuck and nobody cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Only now has cities and States begun to pass legislation regulating what Uber can do. Its really unprecedented even in the US for a company like Uber to grow so fast without much oversight. It was not until people began to complain that Uber was in the spotlight. For me the vetting process is just to lax for me to ever use a service like Uber for anything. But, I am sure Amazon is considering such a business deal to help their same day delivery. It just amazes me how much the "got to have it now" crowd has grown.

    1. Re:Uber run amuck and nobody cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it really so surprising that the children of affluence and privilege would seek instant self-gratification? ....really???

  11. Queue the special interest groups by digitalPhant0m · · Score: 1

    Queue the special interest groups to start trying to shut this down.

    1. Re:Queue the special interest groups by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Queue the special interest groups

      Might be better to get one of those numbered ticket dispensers.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  12. Re:Uber is the great kind of idea that assholes ru by Minwee · · Score: 1

    I wish we could find a way to make the honeymoon last forever. Maybe a way to identify and blacklist bad actors before they can create damage.

    That sounds like a perfect plan. And I'm sure that the identifying and blacklisting of bad actors would be awesome during the "honeymoon" period when it is introduced. Enthusiastic participants will make it a great alternative.

    And then, once it gets popular, the assholes will show up...

  13. Home or Phone? by quantaman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The article is kind of vague on the dropoff but it seems to be the real benefit isn't in the speed, it's the dropoff location.

    As someone who lives in an apartment getting a parcel looks like me checking the main entrance (which I don't use) for delivery notices of parcels they tried to deliver while I was at work then heading to the parcel depot during the 6 hours window on Saturday when I'm not at work and they're open.

    But Uber can get the current GPS location of its customers, so could do the dropoff directly to the person and skip the game of depot tag.

    The traditional delivery companies might have a real hard time responding to that.

    --
    I stole this Sig
    1. Re:Home or Phone? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      My complex straight up stopped signing for packages. You have a job to pay your rent? Tough tits, pay up for FedEx Saturday (or buy from amazon and time it for USPS Sunday delivery) .

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re:Home or Phone? by neminem · · Score: 1

      My complex has never signed for packages; there wouldn't even have ever been that ability, nobody would be there to sign for it. If a package can be dropped off without signature, they'll just leave it in the lobby sometimes (occasionally they don't feel like it, which is annoying).

      However, given that I have a job and am thus not there during the week during the day, if I know a package will require a signature, I have it *sent* to my work. My work receives packages all the time, so it doesn't mind occasionally signing for an employee's package and having that employee drop by the mailroom at the end of the day to pick it up. You could see if yours does that too.

  14. a new dystopia by swell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We all know the dystopia of 1984 in which humans were dehumanized by their own actions; and the Terminator movies where smart machines set out to kill us like cockroaches. The Matrix reduced humans into sleeping energy generators. Uber has advanced a new method of dehumanizing us by sending us on chores to serve a superintelligence (OK, just a central computer now, more or less managed by humans- but are those humans necessary?).

    We do have a similar concept in Taskrabbit and the Amazon Mechanical Turk in which humans do tiny chores in response to requests delivered by their devices. Uber seems ready to take this concept worldwide at a grand scale. People will be scurrying about like ants, rushing from one chore to another in a frenzy of blind busy-ness.

    And you, mister smarty pants programmer, you think you're off the hook? You'll be lucky to find work writing snippets of code that will be inserted into some diabolical software that doesn't even have a name.

    Is this the beginning of a world where nobody has a job, a health insurance plan, a steady income; but instead performs chores when they can be found? Will we compete against each other to do menial tasks? Will we be graded like schoolchildren for our skills, timeliness, reliability? Will future humans be the cooperative slaves of a central computer?

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
    1. Re:a new dystopia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your story has already been written: http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

    2. Re:a new dystopia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks
      clever story!

  15. Escape Velocity, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Say, does anyone remember that old space sim, Escape Velocity? The one where you owned a space ship, and could pick up passengers and cargo runs at mission computers all over the place?

    I guess what I'm saying is, if I joined up with Uber, could I install proton cannons on my car?

  16. Wonder what UPS etc will say by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Unlicensed drivers delivering packages.

    Under TPP this would be illegal.

    Under many state laws this would result in the execs serving jail terms.

    I'm sure nobody would call the cops on them ...

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  17. UPS and Fedex are missing it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They already all the infrastructure to do this - they just need to partner/coord with retailers that have B&M presence. There's no reason why I can't buy something online at target/walmart/sears/whatever and fedex/ups - who are already out driving around - can't pick it up and deliver it same day/next day from the local B&M to me.

    It seems like a no brainer - they become the last-mile servicer for every B&M they can lock up in a contract and B&M's leverage companies that are already successful with nationwide, on the ground local logistics to deliver it.

    Uber's not the answer for a host of reasons, but they may get traction until Fedex and Brown wake up and realize what they are losing...

  18. In related news ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... thin merchants complain about discrimination by Uber.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.