Slashdot Mirror


Uber Knows Exactly When You'll Pay Surge Pricing (yahoo.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Uber has figured out exactly when you are more likely to pay double or triple the cost of your ride: when your phone battery is low. Uber's head of economic research, Keith Chen, recently told NPR on an episode of The Hidden Brain podcast that people are willing to accept up to 9.9 times surge pricing if their phones are about to go dead. Data about user batteries is collected because the app uses that information to know when to switch into low-power mode. The idea being: If you really need to get where you're going, you'll pay just about anything (or at least 9.9 times anything) to ensure you're getting a ride home and won't be stranded. A person with a more fully charged device has time to wait and see if the surge pricing goes down.The company insists that it won't use this information against you.

211 comments

  1. Ah, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The idea being: If you really need to get where you're going, you'll pay just about anything (or at least 9.9 times anything) to ensure you're getting a ride home and won't be stranded. A person with a more fully charged device has time to wait and see if the surge pricing goes down.

    No, I'd bring up google, find the number to the local cab company, call them, and get a ride. D'uh!

    Secondly, WTF is it with Uber? Just to go to the pool 3x a week would cost me about $450+/- per month - it runs about $20 each way. Add in other places i frequent and it'd be cheaper to buy a Tesla Model S - including insurance and taxes.

    1. Re:Ah, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case, here you go: https://www.teslamotors.com/mo...

    2. Re:Ah, what? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3, Funny

      Secondly, WTF is it with Uber? Just to go to the pool 3x a week would cost me about $450+/- per month - it runs about $20 each way. Add in other places i frequent and it'd be cheaper to buy a Tesla Model S - including insurance and taxes.

      Why is that an Uber problem? If you take a taxi to the pool 3x a week, is that going to be much cheaper? Why are you paying for rides to the pool 3x a week anyway?

      This just in: if you use Uber to drive you 10 miles to and from work every day, it's going to cut into your budget.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    3. Re:Ah, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bicycle is fairly cheap, and you can easily cycle past the traffic jams. No need for a car everywhere.

    4. Re:Ah, what? by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Unless you live somewhere with rain and/or snow....

    5. Re:Ah, what? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      I mostly just take it if I'm gonna plan to be out drinking....

      Worth every penny for that....and also, when going to the French Quarter, don't have to worry about parking, etc.

      I don't find it to be that expensive...most rides I take are in the $12-$14 range....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re:Ah, what? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      A bicycle is fairly cheap, and you can easily cycle past the traffic jams.

      You have obviously never been run down by a soccer mom trying to get her devil spawn to school on time.

    7. Re:Ah, what? by Flavianoep · · Score: 1

      or slopes everywhere.

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    8. Re:Ah, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, a police officer who decides to stop and ticket you – the rules of the road apply to bicycles as well as motorcycles and cars.

    9. Re:Ah, what? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I might not be the best example of an Uber user, but I've found it to be pretty nice. My use cases:
      1. Needed to catch a bus, wouldn't make it if I wait for the train. Parking near the station is over $20/day. Taxi service couldn't tell me when exactly they would get here. Uber app showed me the closest driver and estimated the time and cost of the trip. Sold.
      2. (The more common situation) Took the train into town. Missed last train. Take a couple of buses trough sketchy areas over an hour or taxi/Uber it in about 30 minutes. Cabs that time of night are often hard to find and a bit of a gamble in the "smells like vomit" department. If a bunch of us are out, we can specify a 3rd-row-seat Uber SUV and split the fare. Sold.
      3. We want to go out to a restaurant in the 'burbs somewhere. Public transit and cabs are scarce or shitty. Sold.

      I don't think it's a deep mystery. A deep mystery is why the cab companies haven't contracted someone to make a competing dispatch app for them.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    10. Re:Ah, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bicycle is fairly cheap, and you can easily cycle past the traffic jams. No need for a car everywhere.

      Great, more bikers getting in the way of traffic. Just what everyone needs.

    11. Re:Ah, what? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Or, a police officer who decides to stop and ticket you â" the rules of the road apply to bicycles as well as motorcycles and cars.

      Do you think soccer moms in SUVs give a damn about the rules of the road? I've seen soccer moms drive up on the sidewalk and/or landscaping to avoid being delayed by traffic at a red light Bicyclists are just another speed bump for them.

    12. Re:Ah, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is that an Uber problem? If you take a taxi to the pool 3x a week

      That reminds me of the good old days when Uber claimed to be a "ridesharing" service, something you would use when you want to cut back on the costs of traveling alone.

    13. Re:Ah, what? by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      That reminds me of the good old days when Uber claimed to be a "ridesharing" service, something you would use when you want to cut back on the costs of traveling alone.

      I think this was real. The first time I remember hearing about Uber was in stories about commuters in places like San Francisco where they have big tolls to cross the bridge. I remember one story - NPR I think - where the driver picked up 3 separate riders on the way to work. They all met him at more central locations, not at their home. They specifically mentioned the toll to get across the bridge being split because they weren't taking 4 cars. I think they were pitching in like 5 bucks each for the ride.

      The Uber part was helping match riders with drivers. It was more of competition for the bus than for cabs. They mentioned that the bus would take about 2 hours, where a direct commute was more like 30-45 minutes. So the driver saves like 30 bucks a day, gets some company on the ride and the riders avoid about $20-25 in expenses (paying 10 for the privilege) while getting some company for the ride and avoiding an extra couple hours on a bus every day. Win-win.

      There also was a big bit about the etiquette of ride-sharing.... when to talk, when not to talk. What you can and cannot talk about. The stories at that time were definitely about regular folks commuting to work and sharing rides.

      I suppose what happened is that once the infrastructure was in place, people living in locations that were ripe for black market cab operations figured out that they could use this service to make a few bucks filling the unmet need for cabs. Even before Uber there were big markets for black market cabs in places like New York City. Heck, New York is so over-regulated that they even have black market bus lines.

    14. Re:Ah, what? by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Secondly, WTF is it with Uber? Just to go to the pool 3x a week would cost me about $450+/- per month - it runs about $20 each way. Add in other places i frequent and it'd be cheaper to buy a Tesla Model S - including insurance and taxes.

      Why is that an Uber problem? If you take a taxi to the pool 3x a week, is that going to be much cheaper? Why are you paying for rides to the pool 3x a week anyway?

      This just in: if you use Uber to drive you 10 miles to and from work every day, it's going to cut into your budget.

      Our Quebec Government is passing a law requiring Uber drivers to have criminal checks, CPR and an "operator driver" license. And then the cars themselves have to be safety inspected every six months. If all goes well, it will be in force by July 2016. Here is the dilemma. The government put a limit on the number of taxi permits allowed. Taxi owners bought the permits, and due to scarcity, their price rose to around $200,000. With Uber as competition, with "unsafe" cars as competition, these drivers will be bankrupted, and their life savings poured into the permit, gone. The government has therefore tried to level the playing field. Taxi companies are forming to offer Uber type services (cashless, pre-determined and surge pricing, and ride shared pricing).
      The standard fee the last time I took a taxi was $3.00 plus ten cents/km, that is a dollar a kilometer. Uber charges are about 30 percent less.
      Uber drivers are complaining that Uber takes 30% off the top, and Uber does not insure them. Uber wants the drivers as independent tradesmen. Uber does not want to handle sales tax deductions (as built-into the taxi fare) or income tax data.

       

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    15. Re:Ah, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the problem with cycling in the rain? I do it often.

    16. Re:Ah, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you dont like what Uber charges, buy the Tesla you claim will save money.
      If they charge too much competitors will evolve or alternate forms of transport will be used.
      Enough of some people trying to Centrally Plan business and economies!

    17. Re:Ah, what? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I have precisely zero sympathy for cab drivers. What cab drivers don't seem to understand is that there is a single major reason why I always try Uber before calling a cab: Uber provides a superior product. If there was an app that I could use on my phone to order a taxi, where I could see all of the cabs around me, how long it's going to take them to get to me, who the driver is, track them on the way to get me and track the trip (I might not be in the car, I want to make sure it's going to the right place), for roughly the same cost, then I would use taxis. What I don't want is to call a taxi company and hear from a guy who is on the other side of the city so it's going to take him 30 minutes to get to me, then when he does the car smells like shit, the driver has a shit attitude, the seats and floor have questionable cleaning standards, and it's going to cost me $40 to go 10 miles.

      If the taxis did what Uber is good at then I would not have a problem using taxis. Taxis don't do that though, they have had years to invest in technology like that and haven't done it. I'm not going to sit at home worrying about how they're going to pay off that permit, they made their bed and they get to lay in it.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  2. Very smart of them, if tru by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you really need to get where you're going, you'll pay just about anything (or at least 9.9 times anything) to ensure you're getting a ride home and won't be stranded

    Good for Uber, if really true.

    In a free market — and this aspect of it remains reasonably free in the US — the price of everything is the amount a buyer is willing to pay.

    Keep your batteries charged.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At some point, users will catch on to surge pricing and will opt for a taxi or lyft instead

    2. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by mi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At some point, users will catch on to surge pricing and will opt for a taxi or lyft instead

      Yes! That's what free market is all about.

      No need to petition the government. No need to raise awareness — just call a competitor and be on your way...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sick people are willing to pay the fuck out for medicine, so let's peg that shit at $500/pill.

      Oh wait, the monopoly fell through and someone's making them for $5, just to kick us in the intrinsic balls.

    4. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are violating one of the most important principles of the free market - free exchange of information. Go read Wikipedia, it will explain how free exchange of information is essential to a free market.

      What's going on here is that one side has all the information and the other side is blind, depending on Uber to be honest.

      Uber has no business learning about the state of your phone battery. It doesn't need it and it's YOUR private, personal confidential information that poor software design let Uber steal. They don't tell you about the desperate need for cash by their drivers because their rent is due and they would accept ANY fair.

      Uber is not being 'good', it knows that if they unethically use your private information they have unethically gathered, then it will piss us off enough to pass laws preventing them from gathering it.

      The price of everything is the amount a buyer is willing to pay AND a seller is willing to sell when competition keeps prices fair and information is fairly and ethically exchanged.

      When you ignore the rules that undermine capitalism, you aren't being capitalistic, you are being a thief. And people like you is why socialism has grown so popular - when you cheat the way you want to, it upsets people and they demand government intervention.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    5. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't an example of the idealized and idolized "free market" - it is an example of the information asymmetry which ensures that such a thing never exists.

    6. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by mi · · Score: 0

      You are violating one of the most important principles of the free market - free exchange of information.

      I'm not violating it. Nor does Uber — unless they deliberately program their app to drain the battery faster somehow. That would've been wrong, but there is not even accusation of that, much less proof.

      Uber is not being 'good'

      Of course not — never said, they are. I said, it is good for them to have figured this out.

      unethically use your private information they have unethically gathered

      That's the thing — there is nothing unethical about their gathering of the information. Would their use of it be unethical — I'm not sure... Could you elaborate, why you think so?

      when competition keeps prices fair and information is fairly and ethically exchanged.

      Sure, sure — that's what I meant by free market.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It doesn't need it and it's YOUR private, personal confidential information that poor software design let Uber steal.

      Battery state is now considered private, personal confidential information also? Hey, my battery is at 78% right now, what are you going to do with that information?

      This has nothing to do with poor software design. Any application should be notified when the phone is entering a low power state, or a power saving state, so that the application can disable certain high-power features if the programmers decided to add that feature. Maybe Uber doesn't need a constant GPS feed until you're actually ordering, for example, but it's nice to have that position information if your battery is fine.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    8. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well Uber will use that information to charge you more, I think that is the point of this article.

    9. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by period3 · · Score: 2

      If you really need to get where you're going, you'll pay just about anything (or at least 9.9 times anything) to ensure you're getting a ride home and won't be stranded

      In a free market — and this aspect of it remains reasonably free in the US — the price of everything is the amount a buyer is willing to pay.

      In a democracy, the "free market" can kiss my ass.

    10. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a lot of aspects to a classical free market that have been lost - no barrier to competition and that all companies behave ethically towards the customers spring to mind.

    11. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hey, my battery is at 78% right now, what are you going to do with that information?

      Jack up the price nine times because you're under stress and we know it.

    12. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      No need to petition the government. No need to raise awareness — just call a competitor and be on your way...

      Found the Libertarian.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    13. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What's going on here is that one side has all the information and the other side is blind, depending on Uber to be honest.

      Given Uber's documented history of abusing the information available to them, anyone who expects them to "be honest" is an idiot.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    14. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Uber has no business learning about the state of your phone battery. It doesn't need it and it's YOUR private, personal confidential information that poor software design let Uber steal.

      I tend to agree.

      I have no problem with the idea that Uber will use this information in their app. I think it's nice that an app might have a low-power mode that gets rid of some of the bells and whistles when your battery is low. But why does this information need to be sent to Uber's servers?

      Yet another reason I won't be using Uber.

    15. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ummm.... Yes, need to raise awareness. Without that, it's not a free market. Unless the different parties have enough information it's just a market.

    16. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I wish I could live in the 18th century, too.

    17. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's unethical because not only does it prey on you when you are at your weakest, it actively seeks to discover when that is. A barkeep is glad when depressed customers decide to come in on their own, because they'll buy more drinks. But an ethical barkeep will not pass out directions to his bar at a funeral parlor, charging those customers more. He also won't refuse to serve you if you don't tell him your mood 72 times a day. That's analogous to what Uber does. Can't use them if you don't install their app. Can't install your app unless you agree to constantly ping them your battery life.

    18. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by crabbz · · Score: 2

      Battery state is now considered private, personal confidential information also? Hey, my battery is at 78% right now, what are you going to do with that information?

      This has nothing to do with poor software design. Any application should be notified when the phone is entering a low power state, or a power saving state, so that the application can disable certain high-power features if the programmers decided to add that feature. Maybe Uber doesn't need a constant GPS feed until you're actually ordering, for example, but it's nice to have that position information if your battery is fine.

      There is nothing wrong with checking the battery state but they don't need to send the data back to their servers to put the phone in low power mode.

    19. Re: Very smart of them, if tru by firewrought · · Score: 1

      Here's another idea: don't give money to people who show a willingness to exploit others.

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    20. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would argue NO app needs to know the level of my battery.

      this is meta data. should I have to explain that to a smart guy like you?

      if I'm powered from battery or ac, that is meta data. it means other things. add it up.

      yes, its private and yes, its WRONG to glean that because the os allows it. the os is a piece of shit anyway and that info should not be leaked to apps.

      yes, we live in a world where we now need to think and rethink about every bit of info and how it can (and will) be used against us.

      this is our info and its being used against us. how is that not a privacy issue, when they used priv'd info to gain an advantage over me?

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    21. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uber didn't "steal" that information. You agreed it when you accepted their EULA, which is a contract, something taught first semester in law school. If they state in a contract that you have to hand over the status of the battery, that is perfectly legal, as there is a meeting of the minds, and an exchange of currency/services.

      Again, Uber is doing nothing wrong. They are free to set rates as they please, just as you are free to not use their services. Wish Austin understood that.

    22. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this supposed to be a bad thing?
      Sounds like common sense to me.
      I do the same thing with my cellphone.
      This contract is 3 times this other one? Guess it's time to switch.

    23. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also very hard to prove they are draining your battery faster on purpose. They can add all sorts of intensive, battery-hogging "features" to their app that have nothing to do with their direct business, yet can demonstrate in a court of law to have "worth".

    24. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by anegg · · Score: 1

      Which is why buyers and sellers should limit the amount of information they share during a negotiation. Uber's ability to use the app to pull battery data from the phone essentially turns the user's phone into a spy funneling information to the other party in the negotiation.

      The general principle here might be "Don't host your negotiating adversary's minions within the walls of your castle unless you can wall them off from everything except that which you wish to share."

    25. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They are free to set rates as they please, just as you are free to not use their services.

      We're also free to complain about it. So here we are.

    26. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really need to get where you're going, you'll pay just about anything (or at least 9.9 times anything) to ensure you're getting a ride home and won't be stranded

      Good for Uber, if really true.

      In a free market — and this aspect of it remains reasonably free in the US — the price of everything is the amount a buyer is willing to pay.

      Keep your batteries charged.

      In that case, bars will need charging ports on the dance poles so the Apple acolytes can hover around it while their phones charge.

      The more daring Apple acolytes will simply plug in their phone and walk away in search of some "good times" while their phone charges, and all the while expecting the courtesy of strangers to not pick up their "abandoned" phone by mistake.

    27. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      "Would their use of it be unethical — I'm not sure... Could you elaborate, why you think so?"

      You've been poisoned. When you arrive at a clinic is it ok for them to raise the price of the antidote proportionately to how close you are to dying?

    28. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why the free market sucks. The biggest argument for it is by people who want to take advantage of people in desperate situations.

    29. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalism and libertarism will solve all that, by magic!

    30. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In short, when I can tell why individual consumers
      Know best who should approve their drugs and who should treat their tumors;
      Why civilized existence in its intricate confusion
      Will be simple and straightforward, absent government intrusion;
      Why markets cannot err within the system I've described,
      Why poor folk won't be bullied and why rich folk won't be bribed,
      And why all vast inequities of power and position
      Will vanish when I wave my wand and utter "COMPETITION!"---

      In a libertarian utopia, after you've been poisoned, your mind will still be clear enough that you can browse the healthcare web sites and find out which competing hospital will raise the price the least. And you'll have no problem dying to spite the clinics and push their prices down, even though you're supposed to be supremely a homo economicus otherwise. Oh, and you won't be poisoned to begin with because that would be initiation of force and your government^W defense association won't take kindly to it.

    31. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      If it is in low power mode and taking steps to conserve energy, then certain information might not be sent to Über's servers that might otherwise be sent.

    32. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Hussman32 · · Score: 1

      That's the thing — there is nothing unethical about their gathering of the information. Would their use of it be unethical — I'm not sure... Could you elaborate, why you think so?

      I'll say it from my view, because if this is true, they are setting the price according to the potential buyer based on information from the buyer that is not normally available, not according to the local market conditions. Surge pricing is supposed to entice more drivers, not bilk the user. You could argue it is similar to selling groceries to blacks at a higher price than whites, which is illegal, although you could also argue it's like airline websites using your profile to price your tickets at a different rate them market (apparently if you browse incognito at times you can see different prices than when you log in).

      If Lyft chooses not to do it, then we have competition.

      --
      "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    33. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Battery state is now considered private, personal confidential information also? Hey, my battery is at 78% right now, what are you going to do with that information?

      Wait til it drops to 10%, then charge you 10x more for a ride.

      Seriously, if Uber is going to use that information to charge me more, and it's my data, then of course I want to keep the information confidential. I also don't carry my W-2 into a car dealership to show to the salesman before we start talking.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    34. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      In a free market â" and this aspect of it remains reasonably free in the US â" the price of everything is the amount a buyer is willing to pay.

      And this is good, why? It seems that you've confused "In a free market, X" with "X is good."

      Also, it's factually not true. The price of everything is less than or equal to what a buyer will pay, if the thing is in fact traded. Which is a different statement.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    35. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by dlt074 · · Score: 1

      "I would argue NO app needs to know the level of my battery."

      ok, mr smart guy, please do. explain to us dumb people why that is. make sure to dumb it down real good.

      as stated, it's a good idea for apps to know battery levels so they can adjust accordingly how much power they consume via features.

    36. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name an instance of abuse.

      Waiting.

    37. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I would argue NO app needs to know the level of my battery.

      this is meta data. should I have to explain that to a smart guy like you?

      OK, so "power saving mode" should not be a feature on a "smart phone", according to you. A good programmer who respects your privacy will not have a function to listen to power save events, because they don't need to know that.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    38. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

      How are you defining OK? Should it be legal? That's irrelevant in a free market because by definition, it can't be both illegal and a free market.

      I'm also free to then spread the information that the clinic price gouged me. Then someone can setup a competing clinic where prices are declared ahead of time and set, and everyone goes there instead.

    39. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still waiting.

    40. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as stated, it's a good idea for apps to know battery levels so they can adjust accordingly how much power they consume via features.

      This is one of those things where it would be unexpected and fucked up, if everyone agreed.

      You think it should know your battery level.

      Someone else (who I almost agree with) would say it should just react to plugged-in vs on-battery (if battery is 99% charged but we're using it instead of drawing from a cable: then HELL YES you should be running in low-power mode).

      And then I say you should use an OS-supplied API (instead of having any direct hardware access at all) which works however the user wants it to. Maybe it uses one of the above strategies, maybe it just uses a low-power-mode on/off checkbox, or maybe it's something complicated, based on "the further GPS says you are from your charger, the longer your time estimate until you can plug in, and so the more conservative you need to be."

    41. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by fred911 · · Score: 1

      "Yes! That's what free market is all about. "

        Except that raising pricing based on battery level isn't exactly a free market. If I trade a security having information
      not available to the public, I've broken the law and made an illegal. Pricing based on battery level is close to the same.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    42. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Uber has no business learning about the state of your phone battery. It doesn't need it and it's YOUR private, personal confidential information that poor software design let Uber steal. They don't tell you about the desperate need for cash by their drivers because their rent is due and they would accept ANY fair.

      They don't? I'm pissed at my current phone because the thing is too dumb to throttle down on it's battery usage when the battery is getting low, so it ends up dead a lot of the time.

      I'm actually happy that the Uber app apparently has a working low battery mode, which helps conserve battery life. That you'd prefer it run full throttle until your phone dies is your thing.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    43. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      And thus your privacy is well respected because you're incognito because your phone died due to lack of battery.

      This protects your privacy in many ways, since all the other apps can no longer track you, and you don't have to worry about pesky phone calls - making or receiving them.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    44. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      I was responding to Mi's question on ethics, with a question for Mi. It had nothing to do with the free market (which is a contradiction in terms) ideology.

    45. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by FrankSchwab · · Score: 1

      So you're OK with apps driving your phone into a low battery condition, as long as they stop doing so once the battery gets low?

      WTF is the Uber app doing that needs battery, anyway? If I'm not actively waiting for a ride (where it might want to be updating me on ETA), it shouldn't be doing anything.

      --
      And the worms ate into his brain.
    46. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      So you're OK with apps driving your phone into a low battery condition, as long as they stop doing so once the battery gets low?

      No, but I'm willing to trade battery for increased functionality in some cases.

      For example, I'd normally like to get my mail on an expedient basis. I'd like to be able to tell it to stop when the phone hits 50%, or even is in a low signal area(meaning that doing so would be more expensive.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    47. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Power saving mode should be controlled by the OS, with programs accepting a flag from the OS to either switch to a low power mode or be disabled completely. Exactly what point this switch occurs could be configured by the user -and is no business of any individual application.

    48. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok, mr smart guy, please do. explain to us dumb people why that is. make sure to dumb it down real good.

      How dumb please ? For a < 90 IQ ? Lower ? Mind you, he already gave you everything, like "meta data", "means other things" and "adds up".

      Also, if you frequent this website you should have encountered other "meta data" related articles here, spelling out how they combined can deliver rather specific knowledge about the person its related to.

      as stated, it's a good idea for apps to know battery levels so they can adjust accordingly how much power they consume via features.

      No.

      Its a good idea that the user can decide (when) to tame a power-guzzeling app down to acceptable levels, regardless of how much charge his phone has left.

      Besides, if an app in low-power mode can deliver all the info you would need to make an informed decision about something, than why should you want it to go into a power-guzzeling mode so it can swamp you with supplementing info you do not actually seem to need in the first place ?

    49. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "At some point, users will catch on to surge pricing and will opt for a taxi or lyft instead"

      Or they'll just buy a power pack for a couple of bucks.

    50. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... the amount a buyer is willing to pay.

      That's true and irrelevant. Uber can ask what your battery state is and knows when you're not going to shop around. That's not a free market, for that moment at least. Or can ambulances query the seriousness of your medical emergency and use surge pricing too? Can you ask Uber which drivers have earnt less than double their number of kilometres traveled because you know those drivers will accept a reduced fare? Why not?

    51. Re:Very smart of them, if tru by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      the os is a piece of shit anyway and that info should not be leaked to apps.

      The data isn't "leaked" it is requested via an API call which the user expressly allowed during install where it says the phone state (it mentions battery when you get more information) will be shared with the app.

      this is our info and its being used against us. how is that not a privacy issue, when they used priv'd info to gain an advantage over me?

      No it's just your info being used. Against you? This is a competitive market. Get a taxi. Or charge your phone. Or maybe plan your life in such a way that you're not so wholly damn reliant on a piece of electronics which can easily have a flat battery within the day. Get a grip on your own life.

  3. company insists that it won't use this against you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The company insists that it won't use this information against you."

    Yeah, that's the ticket.

    Forgot the "YET" at the end of that sentence.

  4. Pay Phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's why I only use pay phones when I am not at home...

  5. Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by mmell · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Let's face it - the reason Uber and Lyft are so cheap is because they aren't regulated. Just like a hitchhiker, you're basically at the mercy of the guy with the car keys. Being not regulated (like, say, a taxi service) means Uber and Lyft can do all sorts of schiesty stuff and not be in violation of the law.

    I can't wait until they start doing things like "Oh, you're in a bad part of town - you're going to pay even more!", "Oh, you're leaving an event of some kind - you're going to pay even more!", "Oh, you're a woman/ethnic minority/religious minority - . . ." . . .

    Sorry to hear about you're driver taking you for a ride - that's what you paid for, right?

    1. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure you're not on the Austin City Council?

    2. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by known_coward_69 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      take the train, take the bus, keep numbers of local taxi services in your phone, take a regular street hail taxi, use a designated driver if you go out drinking with friends, sleep in the office and go home when day comes again free market is alive and well and people somehow coped with these problems as little as 10 years ago before we had smartphones

    3. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no "free market", just a market with illusions fueling its idealization and idolization.

    4. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      you're basically at the mercy of the guy with the car keys

      Yup. Might as well call a friend at that point.

      Sorry to hear about you're driver taking you for a ride - that's what you paid for, right?

      Those corporate fat-cat taxi drivers, always trying to screw the little guy! Seriously, maybe I'm ok with it as long as the driver is getting the extra money. If the driver gets a small bonus and the rest goes to Uber, well, maybe a little less sympathy.

    5. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't wait until they start doing things like "Oh, you're in a bad part of town - you're going to pay even more!", "Oh, you're leaving an event of some kind - you're going to pay even more!", "Oh, you're a woman/ethnic minority/religious minority - . . ." . . .

      The Shadowrunner in me can't wait for the option to add Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) and High-Threat Response (HTR) as a ride option.

      Finally, the chance to purchase my own DocWagon Platinum contract!

    6. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 0

      Let's face it - the reason Uber and Lyft are so cheap is because they aren't regulated.

      No, they're cheap because they have competition.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    7. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that the train, bus, taxi and your friend all need to obey the law, otherwise, they are in trouble.

      Uber's strategy is to play fast and loose with the law, pretending that they are/aren't a taxi company and that their drivers are/aren't contractors or that the do/do not work for Uber at all and such crap, while they become too large to dislodge from wherever they landed. Notice that since Uber doesn't obey the law (because they keep redefining what they actually are) they don't need to deal with costs that other entities have to deal with. They have an unfair (as in, illegal) advantage.

      In a functioning society, things aren't supposed to work like this. I'm glad that many places are pushing back and forcing Uber to play by the rules, or creating rules that allow everyone to play fairly.

    8. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regulations are part of a free market just like traffic laws are part of a freeway.

    9. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Um... the Austin -voters- voted down Uber/Lyft's proposal that they were to be given special privileges, such the ability to park/stand anywhere, stuff that only was given to emergency vehicles.

      The Austin City Council did not do anything. All they did was just put Uber/Lyft's stuff up for a vote, as the previous laws were holding the companies to the same level that cabbies are. But, I guess a level playing field is a bad thing these days.

    10. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by rockmuelle · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, they're cheap because they're burning through piles of cash from their investors and a (limited, but still large) pool of drivers willing to work a few months before they realize they got a bum deal. Both will run dry, at which point the TNC experiment will end.

      For a really good discussion on the economics from the driver's side, check out any of the recent reddit threads in Austin discussing Uber and Lyft's decision to cut off 10k drivers and split town. Here's one to get you started: https://www.reddit.com/r/Austi...

      -Chris

    11. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's face it - the reason Uber and Lyft are so cheap is because they aren't regulated.

      Is that really something that needs to be faced? Your statement works just fine without it. All that does is imply you think what you're saying is not persuasive on its own and so needs the "help" of explicitly asking people to agree with you.

    12. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by Ichijo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Oh, you're in a bad part of town - you're going to pay even more!"

      That already happens, not because Uber consciously decides to charge more for customers in bad parts of town but because drivers refuse to go to those areas until the price goes high enough to make the risk worth the reward.

      It's unfortunate how we've created and worsened bad parts of town by abusing zoning laws in order to segregate the rich from the poor. Middle- and upper-class members of the ethnic majority call it maintaining community "character" but that's just a euphemism for keeping the poor and minorities away. Meanwhile, the wealthy suburbs siphon money from the poor but tax-efficient (per acre) urban areas in a legalized form of reverse welfare, and after discouraging productive uses of land in this way, we wonder why we can't afford to keep our bridges from falling down. Seriously, you just can't make this up!

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    13. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 0

      No, they're cheap because they're burning through piles of cash from their investors...

      And why do you think they're going through the effort to keep the prices low?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    14. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by NotAPK · · Score: 1

      Ironically, you have just identified the true "sharing economy" - which is interacting with and helping each other in times of need.

      The "sharing economy" being championed by Uber is **nothing** of the sort.

    15. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

      Stated alternately - the reason why most services in this country are so expensive is because they're regulated. The solution is not to start regulating services that are cheap but instead to stop regulating the services that are expensive.

    16. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Oh, you're a woman/ethnic minority/religious minority - . . ."

      You have no money!

    17. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Middle- and upper-class members of the ethnic majority call it maintaining community "character" but that's just a euphemism for keeping the poor and minorities away.

      i don't know about that. The last place I lived, I had a black family on one side of me and a mixed couple on the other. Both were of upstanding moral character, though neither were poor but, then, that's a factor of the cost of housing in that particular development. In fact, all of my neighbors were particularly "well-charactered" (to coin a term) with one exception, a somewhat wealthy (relative to the majority of that neighborhood) white divorcee who has no sense of respect for her neighbors and is constantly throwing loud parties and making noise at all hours of the day and night. We moved out shortly after, the mixed couple was talking about doing the same (they started looking for a place shortly after we told them we were moving), and the black family on the other side of me is far enough from her so as not to be impacted, so they're staying put.

      Say what you will, but it has absolutely nothing to do with race or financial status. Or zoning laws, for that matter. Yes, poor people live in less desirable locations, I'm not denying that and anyone would be a fool to do so, but let's look at the real cause: cost. If landlords could charge more rent or property owners could sell for more in undesirable locations, they would and poor people would be screwed; they can charge more when you get out of the industrial district and get away from the landfill and sewage treatment plant, so they do. That holds until you get into the really, truly, rural areas, where the usefulness of the land factors more into its value. You can get some really nice land and build on it for cheap if you don't mind being an hour away from the nearest anything and don't intend to farm; the moment you decide you decide you want to grow crops, you need flatter land with a higher water table (easier access to larger quantities of water) and it starts getting expensive.

      To put it another way, factories don't go up because poor people live nearby, poor people move near factories because that's what they can afford; leaving race out of it altogether.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    18. Re: Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Sharing with a corp is usually a one way street.

    19. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by rockmuelle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "And why do you think they're going through the effort to keep the prices low?"

      To wipe out the competition and then raise prices when there's no more competition. Pretty much what every good capitalist wants to do.

      The only competition Uber and Lyft they have at the low end of price spectrum is each other. Of course, they need each other in the same way Intel needs AMD - to demonstrate to regulators that they aren't a monopoly. The competition they need to wipe out is taxis and other TNCs (transportation network company) that pay fair wages and follow the laws. Wiping out taxis is pretty easy, since there have been structural issues with the taxi business for decades. Wiping out the other TNCs is going to be a little harder since the new services are demonstrating that you can run a TNC that follows the law and pays its drivers a reasonable wage.

      As Austin will likely demonstrate, the race to the bottom in compliance and wages being run by Uber and Lyft is probably not the real race to provide alternatives to taxis. Business that respect their drivers, communities, and passengers will emerge as the winners here.

      -Chris

    20. Re: Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to daydream about a motorcycle pick up service in dense, high traffic cities. Just need them to split the lanes for the next few blocks so I can make my train/ferry.

    21. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Thanks to zoning laws, in suburban neighborhoods, it's generally illegal to tear down a house and replace it with cheap apartments, or to convert a garage into a granny flat. People simply don't want those poorer than them living in their neighborhoods.

      Another tragedy is that it's often illegal to build housing in industrial zones where land is cheap and close to jobs.

      So with so much resistance to economic and racial integration codified in our laws, it can't be surprising when poor areas remain poor and people in those neighborhoods have trouble summoning an Uber or Lyft cab.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    22. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The solution is not to start regulating services that are cheap but instead to stop regulating the services that are expensive.

      Sure. If you assume that the only purpose of regulation is to drive up prices.

      Personally, I can think of a few other purposes.

    23. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Your situation sounds none too different from mine. A few years back an Ethiopian family moved in on the corner across the street and I was over helping a neighbor cut up a fallen tree. His comment was that he wasn't quite sure about the "black family" that moved in. I look over to their house and see the mother and daughter planting some flowers in the garden and the father and son with a soccer net setup and playing soccer. My response to the neighbor was I wasn't worried about them as they don't seem like the type of people who will throw wild partied with a bunch of underage teenagers drinking who when the cops show up flee in the cars and run over my mail box leaving empty beer cans and bottles in my lawn. Which was what had happened a couple times that summer from the house that was next to his that was a rental and currently occupied by some 19 year olds. That rental house thankfully is no longer a rental and the current occupants are pleasant family of Mexican origin. The parents go to work every day and and is a car guy who is restoring a 67 mustang and has asked if I would help him as I have a wire feed welder so I have welded in a number of patch panels for him. I much prefer judging someone based off of their actions.

      You are correct on remoteness and desirability. I bought some recreational property up in norther Minnesota not far from one of the major lakes. The multi acre wooded lot with over 200 feet of shore line was under $40,000 yet if it had been on the major lake instead of 5 miles away it would have instead cost about $200,000 because it is just a more desirable lake. Personally I will stick to being on a small 50 acre lake that only has 7 properties the border it, no public water access, and 0 fishing pressure instead of the zoo on the major lake. Add in that there is just over a square mile of public land open to hunting, snowmobiles, and ATVs just 600 feed down at the end of the road that is only accessible from this road it is a hidden gem.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    24. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Well, the choice to that is not having a workable market at all, so good thing for regulations.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    25. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

      Sure, there are other reasons for regulation - protect an entrenched business (usually one who makes generous donations), reinforce the power of a given public official or party, etc.. I suspect what you were getting at though was safety, for which market solutions would be much more effective.

    26. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Thanks to zoning laws, in suburban neighborhoods, it's generally illegal to tear down a house and replace it with cheap apartments

      It's generally illegal to tear down a house (purely residential) and replace it with (commercial-residential) apartments, yes. Also, quite often, the reason it's illegal is less to do with zoning laws (commercial-residential is still residential, thus allowed in a residential zone) and more to do with maintaining property borders and right of way for utilities and infrastructure; the apartment building simply won't fit on the plot while allowing for this so, of course, it is not allowed.

      or to convert a garage into a granny flat

      I never understood that, personally. If it's no longer being used to house a vehicle, it should be perfectly fine. That said, I guess it's a good thing the article you linked to was about how this practice is becoming more popular and how many states are rewriting zoning laws to make it legal, though that kind of waters down your point, so I guess not good for you.

      Another tragedy is that it's often illegal to build housing in industrial zones where land is cheap and close to jobs.

      It's illegal to build housing in high-pollution areas with an elevated danger of catastrophe that would wipe out those homes, potentially killing the occupants? You don't say. Residential land close to jobs is anything but cheap; and you can bet your ass a residential building on industrial land would be anything but cheap for the same reason it costs 3x as much to rent an apartment in San Francisco than it does 30min away. As you allude to, it's close to jobs.

      So with so much resistance to economic and racial integration codified in our laws

      And so much racism in that remark... Seriously, where is the codified resistance to racial integration? Let's just assume there is codified resistance to economic integration, we'll let that be a given for the purpose of this question, are you saying there's a necessary correlation between economic status and race? Black people must be poor? Really? So there's a law somewhere saying that only white people can live in a given neighborhood, or that you must live in the ghetto if you're black? Well, I know a lot of people in violation, then. That's not to say the existing laws aren't enforced unevenly; it wouldn't surprise me to actually see statistical proof that they are (and I haven't seen that yet), but that's racist law-enforcement, not racist law.

      Moving on, I don't believe there's any resistance to economic integration codified in any law anywhere, either. Sure, poor people don't live near rich people, but that's because they can't afford the prices; rich people would be just as happy if they could, it would mean they were also paying less, thereby making them richer! If a poor person wins the lottery, they don't suddenly become a better or worse person; they're still the same person, just now they can afford to move to a more expensive neighborhood. The people in that neighborhood won't have a problem with that, and neither would the law.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    27. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      There's a middle ground between the suburbs and the country, as well, and that's where I find that I'm the happiest. Knowing that I can drive 5 minuted and get to civilization and do my shopping, but that there's no real source of noise or commotion nearby, well, that's just peachy. The place I'm in now is pretty close to that; it's an apartment complex neighboring a small subdivision. On the other side of the subdivision is a small commercial zone, just a few restaurants and a couple gas stations, and on ramps to two major freeways. Surrounding all of that, for miles, is farmland. I'd say it was a suburb, but... a suburb of what? There's no city nearby. But I can hop on the freeway and be in a city in 5-10min depending on traffic.

      Oh, and it's cheap! About half what I was paying to rent a similarly-sized condo in an only slightly less rural area. And the people seem friendlier, to boot, so no complaints there.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    28. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uber doesn't just see their proles as exploitables with zero negotiating power - it sees them as disposable.

      Not that that's unusual, it makes perfect business sense to ratchet until your turnover is dumping the whole fucking curve, and keeping whatever outlier tail you wanted.

    29. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      "I lived near a rich black person and I didn't hate them, therefore racism doesn't exist."

    30. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Another tragedy is that it's often illegal to build housing in industrial zones where land is cheap and close to jobs.

      While I'm with you on building cheap apartments or making a granny flat, I'd ask West, TX about the benefits to building housing in/near industrial zones.

      Accidents, explosions, spills, and just general pollution makes living in most industrial areas a poor choice.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    31. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Also, quite often, the reason it's illegal is less to do with zoning laws...and more to do with maintaining property borders and right of way for utilities and infrastructure; the apartment building simply won't fit on the plot while allowing for this so, of course, it is not allowed.

      So it's illegal because it's impossible? Should the government prohibit anything that's impossible? That could lead to some very amusing laws!

      It's illegal to build housing in high-pollution areas with an elevated danger of catastrophe that would wipe out those homes, potentially killing the occupants?

      So it's illegal because nobody would want to build a house there? Should the government prohibit anything it thinks people wouldn't want to do?

      We don't get many supporters of totalitarian governments in Slashdot's comment threads. Welcome!

      are you saying there's a necessary correlation between economic status and race? Black people must be poor?

      No, I'm saying the perception of that correlation led to us passing discriminatory laws, just as the perception of certain grammatical errors led to creating literary tests that prevented people of certain ethnic races from voting.

      Sure, poor people don't live near rich people, but that's because they can't afford the prices...

      Exactly, and zoning laws artificially raise the price of housing. For example, why does a poor family who doesn't own a car need a 2-car garage? Yet zoning laws say that for every 'x' rooms, you need 'y' number of off-street parking spaces, and this prices poor families out of middle-class neighborhoods.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    32. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Nah, nobody in that community was rich by any standard except the one that got people to start moving out; and she was white.

      It wasn't just me who didn't hate, or even have issues with, the black families in the community, we all got along. Before my wife and I lived there, my wife's filipino friend and her samoan husband lived there; my wife was actually living there with her friend when I met her (before her friend was married, of course) and nobody had any problems with them, either.

      Also, I never claimed racism doesn't exist, so you can fuck right off with that. Why can't you just let progress happen instead of opening your mouth and giving the bigots another data-point to throw out like "look, we tried to be tolerant but it keeps getting thrown back in our faces"? Yes, those people exist, stop giving them ammunition to use against you like a dumbshit.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    33. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      So it's illegal because it's impossible? Should the government prohibit anything that's impossible? That could lead to some very amusing laws!

      Oh, no, it's very possible to build in a utility right of way, it just makes accessing the utility lines and pipes below the building impossible, which is why it's illegal to build in those rights-of-way.

      So it's illegal because nobody would want to build a house there?

      No, it's illegal because the dangers may not be completely obvious to the poor (both financially poor and deserving of sympathy for having been tricked into buying that house) people who buy it. Plenty of people would love to build houses in those areas, sell them for cheap, then reclaim the property when an industrial accident wipes out the house and the poor sap who bought it quits paying. Clearly you didn't consider this, so you are actually oen of the people that law is meant to protect; you're welcome.

      No, I'm saying the perception of that correlation led to us passing discriminatory laws, just as the perception of certain grammatical errors led to creating literary tests that prevented people of certain ethnic races from voting

      In the 1960's. Did you even read your source? Got anything indicating that's happened in the last 45 years? No? Okay, then, looks like progress has been made.

      Exactly, and zoning laws artificially raise the price of housing. For example, why does a poor family who doesn't own a car need a 2-car garage?

      They don't, but someone who does will be more than happy that such a home was built for them. Or are you insinuating that people who can afford things shouldn't have them because others can't?

      Yet zoning laws say that for every 'x' rooms, you need 'y' number of off-street parking spaces

      And those spaces can be in the driveway.

      and this prices poor families out of middle-class neighborhoods.

      Ah, I see, you're talking about apartments in crowded cities where those laws make sense (as street parking is woefully inadequate in a building with 450 apartments and only a dozen street parking spots in front of it), not houses with driveways to provide off-street parking. Maybe you should have said that, then.

      You have no leg to stand on, as evident by the fact that the best source you could find is about something completely different than what you were talking about. Have you ever tried to park on the street in a crowded city, like the one your source is talking about? If there was no under-building parking for those apartments, people who do have cars wouldn't rent them (because they'd have nowhere to park), leaving the poor who don't have cars and simply creating another poor neighborhood. Those laws aren't discriminating against the poor, they're preventing (and in a lot of cases trying to fix existing) parking issues in already over-crowded cities.

      But go ahead and think everything is about keeping you down, brotha'. Clearly, nothing anyone with skin a different color than yours, or in a different financial class than you, can say will convince you they're not racist or classist. That's a very racist and classist position you're taking, there, and a bit paranoid. Just keep blaming "the man" for beign racist and classist without consideration for the real reason for these laws.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    34. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except "market" solutions are time-delayed, which in the case of safety means unnecessary deaths. As a society that is unacceptable.

    35. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      it's very possible to build in a utility right of way, it just makes accessing the utility lines and pipes below the building impossible

      That's not a zoning issue, that's a right-of-way issue. Anyway, why can't those utility lines and pipes be relocated at the developer's expense?

      it's illegal because the dangers may not be completely obvious to the poor

      So instead of solving the problem by requiring disclosure, you prefer to solve the problem by prohibiting the sale. Whenever a market failure arises, is eliminating the market always the best solution?

      Got anything indicating that's happened in the last 45 years?

      Yes, zoning laws are having a similar effect today.

      someone who [wants off-street parking] will be more than happy that such a home was built for them.

      So governments should force developers to build properties that have the widest appeal?

      And those spaces can be in the driveway.

      Where land is free and untaxed and the driveway is a dirt path, the driveway won't add anything to the cost of the house. But I don't think such a place exists.

      street parking is woefully inadequate in a building with 450 apartments and only a dozen street parking spots in front of it

      Only if those spots are priced below market equilibrium. If they are priced right at or slightly above equilibrium, then by definition there's no shortage of parking spaces and therefore no need to build hundreds of parking spaces for 450 apartments. Unless, of course, the developer thinks there's enough demand to justify the cost, then he or she will build parking without being forced to. (Trust me on this.)

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    36. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      That's not a zoning issue, that's a right-of-way issue.

      Right of way is codified into zoning laws in most places, if not everywhere that has a codified right of way. that makes it a zoning issue.

      why can't those utility lines and pipes be relocated at the developer's expense?

      Because that would mean turning off power, water, sewer, phone, and cable services to a large number of people pretty much on a daily basis so one developer can build a building and profit from its sale or rental. Also, because (much like underground parking) it would drive up the price of rent to where the people you are concerned about could not afford it. That's ignoring the fact that there probably isn't anywhere else to run them; if the building is being build in the right of way, that leaves nowhere for those lines to go. Also, It's illegal for anyone but the utility who owns the lines to touch them, because, well, they're the utility's property; just like it's illegal for me to pay to have your car towed (relocated) if I want to park in your spot... even if the towing is at my expense. So, we have a non-solution that, even if it were a solution, wouldn't solve the problem for the people you're trying to pretend to care about (if you truly cared you'd take the time to think of these things before spouting off) because, even if it could be done, "at the developer's expense" means a more expensive build that the developer isn't gonna eat, thus higher rent or sale price the poor can't afford.

      So instead of solving the problem by requiring disclosure, you prefer to solve the problem by prohibiting the sale.

      Yes, because people are intrinsically trusting and many don't care about disclosures even when the disclosure reveals a real and deadly risk to their health and well-being (see: smoking). People prefer to take the attitude "they wouldn't be allowed to sell it if it wasn't safe" and ignore the disclosure stating otherwise.

      Whenever a market failure arises, is eliminating the market always the best solution?

      It's not a market failure, it's a public health and safety issue. Yes, when something can not be used (or a place can not be occupied) in a safe manner, it should be removed from the market. Period.

      Yes, zoning laws are having a similar effect today.

      There were zoning laws in the 1960's as well, they're not something new that popped up to replace voter testing laws and they weren't viewed as a problem back then or they'd have been dealt with in the same way as voter testing laws by now. Also, I was asking for a citation; clearly, you believe your words to be true, but I'm asking you to prove it.

      So governments should force developers to build properties that have the widest appeal?

      I didn't say that, and neither did your source. Your source was about a zoning law in a crowded city, which applied specifically to multi-unit dwellings (read: apartments), not houses. Show me a law requiring a two car garage at the end of anyone's driveway, then we'll talk.

      Where land is free and untaxed and the driveway is a dirt path, the driveway won't add anything to the cost of the house. But I don't think such a place exists.

      You're right that land will never be free or untaxed, but there are a lot of places where driveways are dirt paths. Make the house a little smaller and BAM, condition met. If they're okay in a 300sq-ft apartment, why do they need a house that's bigger? But that's ignoring the fact that the laws you refer to don't apply to single family homes. To elaborate, the government should not (and does not) force builders to build to the widest appeal; the fact that they actually want to sell what they build and do so for a profit does a good enough job of that. You're also ignoring that

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    37. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Aww crap, forgot to close those links. Oh well, doesn't take away from my point.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    38. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Oh, you're a woman/ethnic minority/religious minority - . . ."

      Really? I'd bet at least 10:1 that taxi drivers preferentially pick up women rather than men.

    39. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Because that would mean turning off power, water, sewer, phone, and cable services to a large number of people pretty much on a daily basis

      No, it wouldn't.

      Also...it would drive up the price of rent to where the people you are concerned about could not afford it.

      Irrelevant.

      It's not a market failure...

      Information asymmetry is a market failure.

      I was asking for a citation; clearly, you believe your words to be true, but I'm asking you to prove it.

      As requested.

      Show me a law requiring a two car garage at the end of anyone's driveway, then we'll talk.

      As requested, 2 required parking spaces per single-family home.

      You're also ignoring that a neighborhood full of houses only poor people would want would, intrinsically, be a poor neighborhood; that's what you're trying to eliminate here, right?

      That won't happen, because developers don't build neighborhoods for what poor people want.

      So if 400 of 450 residents in that building [with 12 spaces] have a car...

      That won't happen, because how can everyone who lives there all have cars if there's no place to park them all?

      In San Francisco, parking could easily equal rent if priced above equilibrium...nobody is going to pay $6192/mo for rent and parking.

      If those spaces go empty because nobody is paying to park there, then the price is way too far above market equilibrium. The price should be only slightly above market equilibrium at most, so that the parking spaces are only mostly full and nobody who is willing to pay is ever turned away because the spaces are all taken.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    40. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      No, it wouldn't.

      How do you move a water or sewer line without turning it off? And are you proposing linesmen put their lives at risk by moving live lines at ground level? Yes, they work on live high-tension wires all the time; from a helicopter and not grounded. Yes, moving these does necessarily mean turning them off first.

      Irrelevant.

      Howso? You're talking about making homes cheaper so poor people can afford them, you complain that parking requirement make homes more expensive by driving up building costs, why is it irrelevant if this also drives the costs up? Because it's what you think should happen? I see.

      Information asymmetry is a market failure.

      And allowing the sale of goods and property unfit for their intended purpose is also a market failure. You're proposing we legislate that market failure (or, rather, that we no longer legislate its prevention).

      As requested [tandfonline.com ($41 PDF download)].

      Got one that doesn't cost an arm and a leg to read? A source is no good if it won't be looked at; and I can tell you, this one won't be. Given that you likely knew I would never pay to view it, I'm just going to assume it says nothing at all like what I claim; I'm also going to assume you didn't pay for, or read it, either.

      As requested, 2 required parking spaces per single-family home [tempe.gov].

      Yup, two spaces, no garage requirement. A 20ft by 6ft driveway meets that requirement and then some. Your original argument about legislated two-car garages has still not been supported.

      That won't happen, because developers don't build neighborhoods for what poor people want.

      You're arguing that this is due to zoning laws, though. You still have failed to support that position. You're right, though, that builders won't build for the poor; but, again, that's nothing to do with the law, nor with discrimination. They simply want to make a profit for their hard work. And if you want to argue that building a hous isn't hard, poor people should be able to buy land and build their own house, right? No? Because that would be too hard? Exactly, and that's why the builder deserves a profit on their labor.

      That won't happen, because how can everyone who lives there all have cars if there's no place to park them all?

      That was the point I was making; and the end result is a poor neighborhood, as only people too poor to afford cars would live there. I thought you were trying to eliminate poor neighborhoods, no?

      If those spaces go empty because nobody is paying to park there, then the price is way too far above market equilibrium. The price should be only slightly above market equilibrium at most, so that the parking spaces are only mostly full and nobody who is willing to pay is ever turned away because the spaces are all taken.

      Right, $1.50 per 15min is not an unheard-of rate in SF and those spaces are usually taken by patrons of local businesses and people parking to go to work; where to residents park?

      Look, I get what you're after and it's a noble cause, I just think you're going about it the wrong way. Any solution you've raised here that could possibly be workable would lead to the cration of another poor neighborhood, though, not the integration of the classes, which is what you claimed you were after. I think, really, what you want (though you don't realize it) is for conditoins in poor neighborhoods to be improved; for the government to step in and actually provide proper police and fire services in those areas, to fund the schools so those children can be educated and break out of the poorness cycle. I get it, and I support that. That's why I'm shooting down your misguided ideas, as they won't achieve the goals you think they will.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    41. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Because that would mean turning off power, water, sewer, phone, and cable services to a large number of people pretty much on a daily basis

      No, it wouldn't.

      How do you move a water or sewer line without turning it off?

      Without turning it off on a daily basis? By building the new line almost to completion before turning it off just once to make the final connections.

      You're talking about making homes cheaper so poor people can afford them, you complain that parking requirement make homes more expensive by driving up building costs, why is it irrelevant if this also drives the costs up?

      Because then it's a result of natural market forces, not government meddling.

      And allowing the sale of goods and property unfit for their intended purpose is also a market failure.

      No, it isn't, at least not by any definition of "market failure" that I'm familiar with.

      A source is no good if it won't be looked at; and I can tell you, this one won't be.

      Then just read the synopsis and assume that it accurately describes the content.

      Your original argument about legislated two-car garages has still not been supported.

      My original argument is that minimum parking requirements drive up the cost of housing.

      the end result is a poor neighborhood, as only people too poor to afford cars would live there.

      As I said, developers won't let that happen because the profit motive prevents them from building for the poor.

      those spaces are usually taken by patrons of local businesses and people parking to go to work; where to residents park?

      Why would those residents have cars if there's no place to park them?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    42. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by BronsCon · · Score: 1
      I think we're done here, I don't argue with hypocrites. In case you're confused, let me clarify:

      As I said, developers won't let that happen because the profit motive prevents them from building for the poor.

      I think you might want to either consider my earlier argument relevant, or your own argument irrelevant because, as you just said said:

      it's a result of natural market forces, not government meddling.

      Good day, sir.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    43. Re:Uber and Lyft - hitchhiking for money! by tepples · · Score: 1

      take the bus

      Buses are subsidized by property tax. That's not very "free market".

  6. Pfft. Okay... by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A company is promising they wont take advantage of a way to charge you 10x more for their service?
    Is there a way to turn off the battery monitoring on their app by any chance?

    1. Re:Pfft. Okay... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Is there a way to turn off the battery monitoring on their app by any chance?

      If that sort of thing bothers you, don't use Android? It's unlikely Uber has access to that information on iOS.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Pfft. Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not likely. The Uber app asks for more permissions than any other app I have contemplated installing.

    3. Re:Pfft. Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My question is why the app is provided with this information in the first place. Why isn't it always in low-power mode? That would be much better for battery life than switching to low-power mode when it's too late anyway.

    4. Re:Pfft. Okay... by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      If that sort of thing bothers you, don't use Android? It's unlikely Uber has access to that information on iOS.

      Unless the app's "low-power mode" is an Android exclusive I'm sure they do.

    5. Re:Pfft. Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There would be many ways, if the phone was Free.

    6. Re:Pfft. Okay... by shawn2772 · · Score: 2

      Is there a way to turn off the battery monitoring on their app by any chance?

      If that sort of thing bothers you, don't use Android? It's unlikely Uber has access to that information on iOS.

      iOS apps have access to battery level and state: https://developer.apple.com/li...

    7. Re:Pfft. Okay... by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      Is there a way to turn off the battery monitoring on their app by any chance?

      No. Android, iOS and Windows all provide access to battery information to any app, and none gates access with any permission. I'm sure it never occurred to anyone that this was potentially-private information, and it is obviously very useful for apps to be able to adjust their operation based on battery level.

  7. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  8. Ahem by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 4, Funny

    "The company insists that it won't use this information against you."

    Heh! There goes another keyboard!

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    1. Re:Ahem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, they had this information for the app to go into low power mode. There is zero reason to be sending it to the server and no reason to be analyzing it. I know, the terms of service probably says they can take your first born child too, but it doesn't make it right.

  9. Capitalism at its finest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use whatever information you have at your disposal to maximize the value of what you are selling, even if that information is surreptitiously obtained.

  10. 50 attourneys general would like a word with you by pla · · Score: 3, Interesting
  11. Why you sheep care about Uber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's an app to call a taxi... there is nothing amazing there, stop try to pretend it's some earth changing app.

    Driverless cars will be here soon and Uber will more or less have no place other than being a mostly valueless middleman. Why would anyone want to subsidize Uber when they are hailing a driverless taxi?

    Either Uber should have little value because they do almost nothing and there is NO LONG TERM FUTURE in human driven taxis. Anyone can make an app to hail the closest taxi service.

    Uber is one of these cases of vastly overvalued IT stock that has 80% of it's value from it's mysterious business model that may or maynot scale. Uber is all about getting cheap drivers, but as I said, driverless cars will make their entire business model look stupid. Nobody will want to pay extra for an Uber driver who has managed to climb the rungs life all the way up to outsourcing their car to money.. when they can just have a car pick them up all Knight Rider style.

    They will trust the car more than the random low wage uber 'entrepreneur'.

    Soo.... good luck with your continued obsession over Uber. Maybe they will release a cold fusion powered Uber app soon to make up for the fact that their business has no real value and at some point that bubble will burst.

    1. Re:Why you sheep care about Uber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you've missed it, but Uber wants to replace their drivers with AIs.

  12. Re:iPhone more than Android too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89hkmQKx9p4

    Also I finally understand why rap is so popular.

  13. Deny their app the privilidge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Deny their app the privilidge on Marshmallow 6.0, or, fake a Broadcast in the Android API and let it think you have full battery capacity.

    1. Re:Deny their app the privilidge by mmell · · Score: 1
      I don't usually waste time answering A/C's, but . . . I LIKE IT! Good on you, A/C!

      Could I possibly get the ability to block the app from reading my battery state (which I'm perfectly capable of monitoring and maintaining myself)? Obviously, Uber went through some trouble putting this in so waiting for them to remove it is problematic at best.

  14. Eu só vou mandar você se fuder - Para se by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet if the cops search and seizure all the cars nearby my house right now, they will find a illegal stuuf - But... This is "Brazil".

  15. Curb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why you install apps for traditional cabs, like Curb. There will be an inflection point where you call somewhere else. But I get it ... if your battery is low, you're less likely to risk "shopping around". So Uber is still ominous.

  16. Whether the weather? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The biggest factor for my decision to pay surge pricing is whether it is raining or not. Matching precipitation at my location and surge pricing acceptance would show a 100% correlation. I handle rain about as well as a bowl of sugar.

  17. That is how are spies recruited by Trachman · · Score: 1

    If someone has financial difficulties and likes fancy lifestyle, that person will very likely become a spy.

    Knowing about you, even if it is metadata, tells you a lot.

  18. Analysis: by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    I know, I know, you are wondering how Uber can be so stupid.

    It's jealousy. Uber wants to compete! Microsoft is evil; only the Enterprise version of Windows 10 is sensible to use, and Microsoft won't sell that version to most people.

    Google and Facebook are tracking everyone and selling the information, and taking more and more control. It's a competition to see who can be most evil.

    Maybe Adobe is selling vulnerabilities to the U.S. government. If not, how can Adobe be so sloppy? Maybe TrueCrypt disappeared because Microsoft has given the U.S. government a back door to Microsoft operating systems, and no authoritarian gov wants excellent encryption.

    Poor Uber! How can a smaller company compete?

    IMO.

  19. Ha ha ha ha by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    "The company insists that it won't use this information against you."

    Lol, that's a hoot! Oh gawd, tell me another one!

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  20. Truth has a Libertarian bias by mi · · Score: 0

    Found the Libertarian.

    We are easy to find — just go, where truth is.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Truth has a Libertarian bias by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      "just call a competitor and be on your way..."

      False, no level playing field, no competition.

    2. Re:Truth has a Libertarian bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found the Libertarian.

      We are easy to find — just go, where truth is.

      Well, the truth maybe out there, but I never expected to find it on /.

      /sarcasm

      I'll see myself out, thank you.

    3. Re:Truth has a Libertarian bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      just go, where truth is

      Would you like to raise awareness of the truth? Or would you rather prevent the market from operating efficiently by hiding that information so you can extract a greater profit?

      There's a difference between libertarians and "I've got mine you're on your own"ians. The ones who actively call for distorting the market to protect their business arrangements don't fall in the first group.

    4. Re:Truth has a Libertarian bias by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      We are easy to find — just go, where truth is.

      The X-Files called and want their truth back.

    5. Re:Truth has a Libertarian bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you retarded? Bus, cab, and Lyft are all competition. There is little barrier to entry (it's not like you need some huge science lab to set the shit up...just do some fucking research).

    6. Re:Truth has a Libertarian bias by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      I was replying to a general Libertarianist's statement that all "competition" is good competition.

      But if you want to make a specific argument, say that Uber is competing on level grounds with cabs go ahead.

    7. Re:Truth has a Libertarian bias by mi · · Score: 0

      False, no level playing field, no competition.

      As I said, the market for this kind of transportation still is reasonably free in the US. Official taxis (and the rent-seeking townhalls, that sell "medallions") fight Uber and Lyft and others equally. The playing field is quite level and the competition certainly exists.

      Some other markets — such as insurance, Internet-service provision, or education to name a few — aren't as free, but the solution there is not to add more regulation, but to lower barriers to entry to encourage new players appearing.

      The same utility poles, that carry Verizon's and Comcast's cables to houses on my block, can easily support cables of 5 more providers, for example. But governments make it too hard for would-be newcomers. Just look at Google Fiber's map — they've rolled out primarily in the "flyover country", because those "rednecks" still prefer their government smaller than the "urban sophisticates" of the coastal metropolises.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    8. Re:Truth has a Libertarian bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're trying to argue against a libertarian position that free market works by pointing out that Uber is operating without regulation, and is able to do so more efficiently than its competitor that is saddled with regulation from the government? /facepalm

    9. Re:Truth has a Libertarian bias by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Throw me into that briar patch farmer Brown!

      Yes, Uber has been showing that all that regulation is rather useless compared to a free market solution that follows some reasonable rules/regulations.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    10. Re:Truth has a Libertarian bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a free market solution that follows some reasonable rules/regulations.

      a free market means there are no rules / regulations. The instant you put rules and regulations on it, it is no longer a free market, it is a regulated market.

    11. Re:Truth has a Libertarian bias by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      No. It's really quite simple. In the first sentence I was simply stating he misunderstood what I was talking about. In the second sentence I was simply stating that if he wanted to try and argue something like "Bus, cab, and Lyft" all compete on a level playing then I was listening.

    12. Re:Truth has a Libertarian bias by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      "The playing field is quite level and the competition certainly exists"

      Quite level isn't good enough.

      If one team has to wear lead shoes and the other one doesn't it isn't anywhere near a free market.

    13. Re:Truth has a Libertarian bias by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

      We are easy to find — just go, where truth is.

      The truth is that there has never been a "free market" and that there has never been a successful society based on libertarian principles. Go ahead, name one. I'll wait.

      Libertarian are basically anarchists who want police protection from their slaves. It helps conservatives pass off a patently probusiness political agenda as a noble bid for human freedom.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    14. Re:Truth has a Libertarian bias by mi · · Score: 1

      Quite level isn't good enough.

      Nothing is ever perfectly level — quite level is sufficient.

      If one team has to wear lead shoes and the other one doesn't

      You now have to demonstrate, how Uber is so advantaged over competition, that your lead shoes metaphor applies.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    15. Re:Truth has a Libertarian bias by dywolf · · Score: 1

      that's easy.
      its a taxi company, that willfully ignores taxi regulations.
      regulations that its competition, taxi companies who follow the rules, have to follow.
      that is its business model and the source of its profitability, as the other stuff (phone app, etc) is incidental and even taxi co.'s are getting in on that.

      even you know that...as even you have stated such before.
      so you can drop this burden of proof fallacy that you insist on engaging in all the time.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    16. Re:Truth has a Libertarian bias by dywolf · · Score: 1

      you misspelled delusion.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    17. Re:Truth has a Libertarian bias by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      # Nothing is ever perfectly level #

      Of course

      # quite level is sufficient. #

      I need a more reliable definition of 'quite level' before I can say it is sufficient for fair competition, on the specific case of Uber I agree with dywolf

    18. Re:Truth has a Libertarian bias by mi · · Score: 1

      its a taxi company, that willfully ignores taxi regulations.

      So does Lyft. Fail.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    19. Re:Truth has a Libertarian bias by mi · · Score: 1

      on the specific case of Uber I agree with dywolf

      Dywolf is a Statist asshole, who stalks my postings with meaningless follow-ups. To paraphrase Mark Twain, when you find yourself on the side of Dywolf, it is time to reform.

      Lyft is a direct and fierce competitor of Uber — both ignore taxi regulations and neither is obviously advantaged over the other.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    20. Re:Truth has a Libertarian bias by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      # Official taxis ... fight Uber and Lyft and others equally. #

    21. Re:Truth has a Libertarian bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mental contortions you must've gone through to come up with this demonstrably false narrative are truly astounding, sir.

      How do you refute the argument that any pure libertarian system will inevitably wind up as a closed monopolistic cartel, as bad actors take over and do whatever they want? They can even take the monopoly on violence over if the government is too weak to prevent it. The most hilarious notion of Libertarianism has always been its underlying assumption that everyone will act in good faith. Once the first person decides "F you, I've got mine", the entire system begins to unravel.

      Simply put, there's a reason there's nowhere in the world actually using such a system - it doesn't work, and is in fact much worse than what the U.S. has now.

  21. Democracy against Free Market? by mi · · Score: 1

    In a democracy, the "free market" can kiss my ass.

    Could you elaborate on what this means? Do you wish for companies to be controlled by voters rather than shareholders? Or something completely different?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Democracy against Free Market? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      What about we do it the way we've done it since capitalism and democracy in their current forms began, both? The voters can decide who sets the laws, the legislators can legislate, and the investors can decide what businesses they want to fund in that environment?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re: Democracy against Free Market? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But how can big investors invest with little to no risk if they don't have guarantees like monopolies and regulatory capture?!

    3. Re:Democracy against Free Market? by mi · · Score: 1

      since capitalism and democracy in their current forms began, both

      The US is not a Democracy, but a Republic. The rule of the majority in our country is limited by the Constitution. For example, a majority may some day decide, that hate-speech ought to be illegal. But, as long as the First Amendment exists, no such law can be passed.

      But, yes, we can continue doing it... Still waiting for period3 to elaborate on his "Insightful" proposal, though.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  22. Nope. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Uber's surge pricing is the same as paying for a REAL towncar service. I'll pay for a towncar and ride in comfort and style.

    Uber is banking on people being stupid and not know about alternatives.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Nope. by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      You need to do more research. A $15 Uber ride is $150 in a limo. In other words, Uber needs to be at 10x surge pricing before that's true. And I've never seen 10x in Uber.

  23. Free markets and price gouging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Free market in a civilized society can only be free to a degree, cf. Martin Shkreli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli and Daraprim. One can start charging $10 / gal for gas in a hurricane evacuation zone but must be prepared that the indignant public will trample their establishment over and get the fuel for free...

  24. Know how I stopped Uber? by bjamesv · · Score: 2

    through information Uber accidentally shared with ME, I stopped them from unfairly learning the state of my mobile's battery!

    After I signed up for their service, the Uber webpage asked me to install an Android app I've never seen the source code for. (actually, send me to a 'Play store' web page for a 'Play store' program I've never installed or seen the source code for.)
    There was no clear way to use their service without this program. (No website, no phone# to call)

    I went back to my web browser, searched for and called a local cab company. $13 and 20min later I was at my destination, easy! Take that Uber! : )

  25. my new business model... by bobmajdakjr · · Score: 1

    while(batt > 0.1) { } show_prices();

  26. Marketing got this figured out already... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    When you have a captive audience, you can charge the hell out of them. Movie theaters with concession stands. Vending machines at convention centers. And... drum roll, please... Uber cars with dying cellphones. On that note, don't expect Uber cars to offer plugins to recharge cellphones.

  27. Never used them but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have never used one of these ride sharing companies but, if I chose to, I would pay whatever it costs. You have a choice, you can use a service (any service) or not use it. That service is and should be allowed to set their prices however they want. If you installed the app, then you consented to them collecting certain information. You can continue to use the app (and the service) knowing that they collect certain data or you can remove the app and not use the service. The choice is yours. If you don't want them charging premium rates due to data they have collected or for any other reason that they choose to raise the price, then vote with your wallet and don't use them, call a taxi instead.
    They have every right to charge whatever they want and to set those prices however they want just like you have the choice of using their services or not.

  28. Re:iPhone more than Android too by PRMan · · Score: 0

    People with iPhones get quotes for hotel reservations higher than Android.

    Dude, that was in 2000. Sixteen years ago.

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  29. data mining by large corporates by u19925 · · Score: 1

    "Data about user batteries is collected because the app uses that information to know when to switch into low-power mode."

    This is what really scars me. Every app collects lots of data on one or the other pretext and then they use this data for entirely different and highly invasive purpose. Google reads your chat and email. Next what, it will start showing diaper ads when it determines you are pregnant? Uber can start charging 10 times when your battery is low. Maybe google and uber can collaborate and determine when you are running late for your flight and surge the price to 10 times as well.

    The funny thing is that, gadget minded young generation don't care. For them, the corporations are benevolent dictators.

  30. Promises, promises by jargonburn · · Score: 1

    The company insists that it won't use this information against you.

    Ahahahahahahahahahaha! Ha!

  31. Company says... by wwalker · · Score: 1

    The company insists that it won't use this information against you.

    Yep, sure. It won't be used *against* you. Not at all. It will be used for your convenience, to make it easier for you to find a ride at competitive price. Don't worry, we'll find a positive spin to put on it in the future. We don't want a publicity shitstorm, no siree! These are not the droids you are looking for.

  32. in other news by heson · · Score: 3, Funny

    In other news, your phone now gets mysteriously hot when you leave the home.

  33. Re:iPhone more than Android too by pj2541 · · Score: 1

    People with iPhones get quotes for hotel reservations higher than Android.

    Dude, that was in 2000. Sixteen years ago.

    Amazing time travel story: Using an IPhone for hotel reservations 7 years before it was released. Do your homework before posting.

  34. Hooray for capitalism! by fieldstone · · Score: 1

    Now can we please figure out a system where stealing from people isn't legal for corporations?

    1. Re:Hooray for capitalism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now can we please figure out a system where stealing from people isn't legal for corporations?

      Corporatism.

  35. They know this how? by Holi · · Score: 1

    "We absolutely don't use that to kind of like push you a higher surge price"

    Then exactly how do they know that you will pay up 9.9 times more if they haven't used it? Or is it that they don't use it against you anymore? Or are they just lying?

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    1. Re:They know this how? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Data-mining a correlation is different from implementing the causation. That said, of course they're going to use it in the future. This announcement is the first step of normalizing the idea of charge-based-pricing. Step 10 or so is implementing it.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  36. Re:50 attourneys general would like a word with yo by Ichijo · · Score: 1

    Except when the same thing happens in an eBay auction.

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  37. Re:50 attourneys general would like a word with yo by Solandri · · Score: 1

    Supply and demand would like to have a word with your interpretation of "price gouging." If there are 100 people wanting to get a ride via Uber, but only 25 Uber drivers currently roaming the streets, 75 people are going to have to wait a long time, 50 of them a really long time, and 25 of them a really really long time.

    If demand for a product exceeds supply, the market responds by increasing the price to encourage more production of supply. Uber raises the price, and suddenly 25 Uber drivers who were instead having dinner decide to head out to the streets and pick those people up. They raise the price some more and 25 drivers who were settling in to watch their favorite TV show decide to DVR it instead and head out to pick up people. They raise it even more and 25 drivers who were about to get some nookie decide it can wait and head out to pick up people. And the 100 people wanting rides don't have to wait.

    As for reading the battery level, there are two ways to interpret it. One is that Uber is using info that shouldn't be available to them to price gouge you.

    The other is the Uber notices your phone's battery is about to die, and as a courtesy raises your fare to encourage the next free driver to go pick you up instead of the Uber customer closest to him. That way you're more likely to get a ride before your phone dies and you're unable to call for another ride or coordinate if your location was somehow incorrect. (This isn't to say Uber is completely innocent in all this. Ideally, their surge and low-battery pricing would give you the option of paying the higher price, or just waiting for a regular ride at the regular price. In fact, that's probably the perfect market model - allow people wanting rides to bid how much they're willing to pay. Drivers can them pick them up according to how close the pickup is and how much they'll be paid. And the price will naturally arrive at the "correct" level for supply, demand, and urgency.)

  38. Never by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The answer is never, because I don't use Uber.

  39. Federal Trade Commission.... by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    ...Federal Trade Commission should not be accepting money from us because they don't provide meaningful benefit for the American people.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  40. Will the app be in low power mode while charging? by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Because if not, there is a trivial workaround...

    Buy one of those portable USB charge extenders, plug your phone into that, and the phone will believe it is charging. Unplug it once you have established a set fare.

  41. Re:50 attourneys general would like a word with yo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except that according to the laws you are referencing, this ISN'T price gouging. Even the wikipedia definition you referenced makes it pretty clear that this doesn't qualify as price gouging.

  42. 60 percent of the time it works every time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Uber has figured out exactly when you are more likely to pay double or triple"

  43. Xprivacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You need it.

  44. Re:50 attourneys general would like a word with yo by mmell · · Score: 1
    Do you drive for Uber, or are you a member of their management?

    Just askin'.

  45. "Hi. I'm a Johnny Cab!" by mmell · · Score: 1

    We all know how that ended, right?

  46. Laughing... by markdavis · · Score: 1

    May I now laugh loudly, yet again, at all the people who claim they "have nothing to hide"?

    I will say it over and over and over again- knowledge and data are POWER. You can't predict how or when it will be used against you, and thus the need for privacy is very IMPORTANT. People really need to wake up about this stuff. It is unacceptable how much data Google, Apple, Microsoft, web sites, phone vendors, employers, government agencies, etc, have about you.

    And I will also remind everyone that just because a business or government SAYS they won't do this or that with the information they collect is absolutely no guarantee they will either now or in the future... and especially when the information is stolen, lost, shared, or hacked. The only truly safe information you have is that you don't give to anyone.

  47. Pedantic correction for the pedant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A republic -is- a type of democracy, Mr. Pedant.

    A republic is -not-, however, a -direct democracy-, which happens to be yet another type of democracy.

    Please disabuse yourself of the notion that the USA is not a democracy, and quit telling other people this tripe.

    More detailed explanation from a law professor below:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/

  48. Then use a taxi?! by valnar · · Score: 1

    OK, I admit I rarely use Uber and can't remember the last time I used a taxi, but at 9.9x the price, surely the cost of just calling for a taxi becomes much cheaper?

    1. Re:Then use a taxi?! by Shados · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to think how much $ a ride must cost before I'm willing to deal with a normal taxi driver... That's a lot of $.

      The main question is how far from home must I be that I rather take a taxi than just walk home...

      Yeah, I really fucking hate taxis.

  49. Carry a spare battery by maharvey · · Score: 1

    I'm all for it, if having a low battery means I get gouged, but a full battery means they'll entice me with competitive pricing. Easy discount.

  50. That only concerns Android users by melted · · Score: 1

    Apple doesn't allow apps to see your battery status.

  51. Re:iPhone more than Android too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    which is why I use my crap-ass netbook to look for fares, not the apple.

  52. Re:iPhone more than Android too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And that wheel's value will drop by 25% the moment Gork rolls out of the neolithic wheel dealership! Gork should have leased!!

  53. Re:50 attourneys general would like a word with yo by pla · · Score: 1

    Supply and demand would like to have a word with your interpretation of "price gouging."

    What does battery condition have to do with "supply and demand"?


    as a courtesy raises your fare

    I half took you seriously until that gem - Get your corporate master's dick out of your mouth before trying to talk again, 'kay?

  54. Re:50 attourneys general would like a word with yo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > and as a courtesy raises your fare

    Well, putting aside the fact that this whole story is about them saying that they won't do that, there's nothing courteous about that. Being courteous would be asking you whether you'd like to pay more to encourage a ride to come sooner, and to present you with that option regardless of whether your battery is low.

    Hell, that should probably always be the case. I mean, say you need to get somewhere today, but it really doesn't matter when you get there... Wouldn't it make sense to put in a lower bid for the ride such that no one takes it until they happen to be dropping someone off in your area and so it's more convenient for them to pick you up?

  55. Re:50 attourneys general would like a word with yo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Supply and demand would like to have a word with your interpretation of "price gouging."

    Sadly, the people making these laws don't care. They just see milk selling for $10/gallon and think "there ought to be a law..."

    The crazy thing is that the price gouging is likely to actually help the situation. Not only, as everyone else always mentions, does it encourage conservation of local resources, but it also encourages people outside the local area to bring in more supplies, and it even encourages local people in an area that may be hit by a disaster to put in the effort to stockpile supplies, since if the supplies are needed then they "win," and that offsets the expense of stockpiling the supplies in the event that the disaster doesn't hit. Such laws against price gouging are effectively telling these people not to stockpile supplies in case of emergency because they won't be allowed to profit from their foresight, and thus such efforts are at best break-even and likely to result in a loss when they stockpile supplies only to end up with a stockpile of supplies they have to liquidate at a loss.

  56. discrimination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So basically surge pricing will follow the same concept as fast food.

    People who are living min to min, always running late, living paycheck to paycheck are likely folks letting their phones run til the end from habit of lack of planning. And likely dependent on the service cause it normally cheap (like fast food).

    And look were most fast food joints are located to exploit their customers......

    Sure the 1% does not have a problem paying surge pricing, cause they can afford to be ignorant. That's likely not the majority...

  57. only one more reason by superwiz · · Score: 1

    Permissions on phone apps should allow users to force OS to report fake information to the apps if the apps won't install without being allowed to have those permissions.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  58. silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are people too stupid to go into the nearest restaurant and ask to borrow a charger cord-every employee in those places packs a phone and half of them are charging them at any 1 time