Slashdot Mirror


Uber Said To Use 'Sophisticated' Software To Defraud Drivers, Passengers (arstechnica.com)

A class-action lawsuit against Uber alleges that Uber has "devised a 'clever and sophisticated' scheme in which it manipulates navigation data used to determine 'upfront' rider fare prices while secretly short-changing the driver," reports Ars Technica. "When a rider uses Uber's app to hail a ride, the fare the app immediately shows to the passenger is based on a slower and longer route compared to the one displayed to the driver. The software displays a quicker, shorter route for the driver. But the rider pays the higher fee, and the driver's commission is paid from the cheaper, faster route, according to the lawsuit." From the report: This latest lawsuit (PDF) claims that Uber implemented the so-called "upfront" pricing scheme in September and informed drivers that fares are calculated on a per-mile and per-minute charge for the estimated distance and time of a ride. "However, the software that calculates the upfront price that is displayed and charged to the Users calculates the expected distance and time utilizing a route that is often longer in both distance and time to the one displayed in the driver's application," according to the suit. In the end, the rider pays a higher fee because the software calculates a longer route and displays that to the passenger. Yet the driver is paid a lower rate based on a quicker route, according to the suit. Uber keeps "the difference charged to the User and the fare reported to the driver, in addition to the service fee and booking fee disclosed to drivers," according to the suit.

168 comments

  1. Uber at it again? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Funny

    Kudos Uber, maybe you've finally figured out a path to turning a profit...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:Uber at it again? by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you lie, steal, cheat, manipulate; and STILL cannot turn a profit, then you truly suck at business.

    2. Re:Uber at it again? by thesupraman · · Score: 2

      Or, alternately, the passenger sees the best route when they book, but that can change due to traffic, and the driver can therefore get a better (or worse!) Best route when they pick up. That's how up front charging works. Sigh.

      But no.. It must be some evil plan to defraud..

      Note the article says it can be longer, not that it always is.
      Uber is trash for a number of reasons, but this just sounds like another attack from the incumbent taxi scam.

    3. Re:Uber at it again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they know how to HIDE the profit, you know, like Hollywood studios. Does it cost billions to run a few servers, hire a few programmers, sysadmins and marketeers?

    4. Re:Uber at it again? by gnasher719 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or, alternately, the passenger sees the best route when they book, but that can change due to traffic, and the driver can therefore get a better (or worse!) Best route when they pick up. That's how up front charging works. Sigh.

      I thought Uber received a percentage of the amount the customer pays, and that was set in the contract between Uber and driver. If the calculated price somehow changes, then Uber should still receive the same, fixed percentage of what the customer pays. I'd say that if that is what the contract says, and Uber doesn't report the payment correctly and keeps the difference, that's just plain fraud.

    5. Re:Uber at it again? by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      I'm starting to think a ride sharing service should be based on open software, fully transparent including pricing algorithms, and run by the government or a non-profit.

    6. Re: Uber at it again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In my day they'd just put their thumb on the scales or short-change you. I'm impressed how the AI in Uber's software can recreate these ancient skills.

    7. Re:Uber at it again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Exactly.

      I'm starting to think a ride sharing service should be based on open software, fully transparent including pricing algorithms, and run by the government or a non-profit.

      They do have those, it's called a BUS.

    8. Re:Uber at it again? by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      Really? You don't get what I mean?

      Uber or Lyft aren't anything like a regular city bus services.

    9. Re:Uber at it again? by lucm · · Score: 1

      Does it cost billions to run a few servers, hire a few programmers, sysadmins and marketeers?

      No, but it's been well-documented that the bulk of their loss is caused by the money they're paying to drivers. Their business model will only work when they get autonomous cars.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    10. Re:Uber at it again? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      Then vote that your local government makes its own?

      Though to be honest, whenever people come up with this ideological shit, you typically end up with crap like Quaero.

    11. Re:Uber at it again? by Imrik · · Score: 1

      From the description it seems that the customer price is fixed when they put in the request and the driver payout is based on the actual route driven. If the two routes are the same, Uber would get a consistent price per mile or minute. If the routes are different Uber would be responsible for the difference, getting more if the driver beats the estimate, potentially losing money if things go badly.

      IMO, this seems a bit backwards, as it both encourages Uber to do stuff like this and encourages the drivers to waste time or take a longer route if they think they can justify it.

    12. Re:Uber at it again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? You don't get what I mean?

      Uber or Lyft aren't anything like a regular city bus services.

      Correct, I can get where I'm trying to go, at a reasonable rate, without hassle, quickly.. this isn't anything like a regular bus service.

    13. Re: Uber at it again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand how is Uber a ride "sharing" platform, when they hame people working full time as drivers, lease cars , they advertise the money a driver can make e month, have autonomous cars? I thought ride shareing meant that if a person goes from A to B puts out an announcement and interested people respond, and the passegers share the costs. I know people use fb groups for this kind of thing and work well.

    14. Re: Uber at it again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is it that suggesting a public sector personal transport network is an ideological thing?

    15. Re:Uber at it again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would that mean a driver taking a longer route than suggested (say, due to unforseen obstruction) can get more than the rider pays? I seriously doubt it.

    16. Re:Uber at it again? by sphealey · · Score: 1

      = = = Their business model will only work when they get autonomous cars. = = =

      Uber's attempt to build its own anonymous cars having run into a set of bars, it will shortly find out that even if another entity does manage to develop a general-purpose autonomous vehicle (unlikely) it will only see them to Uber for the full cost + profit. Unlike the current owner-operated model where Uber depends on the drivers not understanding that while modern cars are quite reliable the cost of wear and tear, maintenance, and depreciation will eventually catch up.

      sPh

    17. Re:Uber at it again? by mrclevesque · · Score: 2

      Yeah, a ride sharing service run by the government or a non-profit could be a very good idea.

    18. Re:Uber at it again? by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      "Then vote that your local government makes its own?"

      Not sure how you said that makes sense.

      "this ideological shit"

      What AC said, and if you call organizational transparency and open software ideological then so is closed software and administrative secrecy, ie what's the problem.

    19. Re: Uber at it again? by jbengt · · Score: 1

      When your ideology is that everything public sector is evil.

    20. Re: Uber at it again? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      The phrase "ride sharing" is a marketing buzzword in the case of Uber and its competitors.

      Some rural areas have car pooling parking lots along the highways (ex: MDOT Carpool lots). Basically it's a convenient place to meet on a commute. Theoretically you can setup an informal arrangement where someone drives and the rest split the gas. But I can't recall the last time I saw cars parked there as I passed by on the morning commute.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    21. Re:Uber at it again? by thomn8r · · Score: 1

      encourages the drivers to waste time or take a longer route if they think they can justify it.

      This is why I fucking hate cabs.

    22. Re:Uber at it again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was a joke, and it was funny, just laugh with us and move on

    23. Re:Uber at it again? by tattood · · Score: 2

      Yeah, a ride sharing service run by the government or a non-profit could be a very good idea.

      I'm sure that was a sarcastic comment, but the problem with that is now you have multiple different ride sharing services, all of which are probably under-funded, and low quality. Take Austin, for example. They have banned Uber and Lyft, and they have 3 different "community-based" ride sharing apps. I've looked at all 3 of their apps on the app store, and they all have horrible reviews for either sleazy drivers or poor app performance.

      --
      WTB [sig], PST!!!
    24. Re:Uber at it again? by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      Obviously I was not in the mood for that, then.

    25. Re:Uber at it again? by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      I wasn't being sarcastic, I was being literal because I wasn't sure of the intentions or meaning of the post I was responding to.

      "they have 3 different "community-based" ride sharing apps. I've looked at all ..."

      Three competing "community-based" projects isn't necessarily the way to go about it, and of course knowing Uber's management and some of their supporters, maybe a lot of negative votes for the Austin 'ride-sharing' apps come from them.

    26. Re: Uber at it again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think the government would do a better job, you are fucking delusional

    27. Re: Uber at it again? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Or when your ideology is that everything public sector is good.

    28. Re: Uber at it again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The driver often gets more than the passenger pays. It's a shady business practice that allows Uber to undercut the prices of competitors who don't have a billion dollars of QE money in the bank. That's how Uber loses such stupendous piles of money despite their core app being pretty cheap to operate.

    29. Re:Uber at it again? by chipschap · · Score: 1

      Correct, I can get where I'm trying to go, at a reasonable rate, without hassle, quickly.. this isn't anything like a regular bus service.

      I rely a lot on bus service. Where I live (Honolulu) it can

      1) Generally get me where I want to go, or at least fairly close, but in a smaller number of cases not close at all

      2) With a hassle factor no less than medium and ranging up to tremendous

      3) Quickly? Never. Typically three times as long as driving

      4) But it's cheap. Extremely cheap compared to any other option, including driving, even on short trips if you consider the total cost per mile of driving and not the incremental cost

      Uber claims to save you money, and while it's a little less expensive than taxis, it certainly isn't economical.

  2. i believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At this point in time i won't be surprised by anything that Uber allegedly do.

    next story will be how they pressure drivers to sell their organs or something like that.

  3. More proof that drivers are employees by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If this claim is true, the claim that Uber merely facilitates the agreement between the driver and passenger and takes a commission is clearly bogus.

    Also, if Uber specifies the route and demands that the driver takes that specific route, that may be exerting too much control of the drivers for them to be contractors.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:More proof that drivers are employees by reanjr · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure the driver can take any route they (or the passenger) like. Which is probably why Uber is padding the up front cost.

    2. Re:More proof that drivers are employees by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      > Pretty sure the driver can take any route they (or the passenger) like. Which is probably why Uber is padding the up front cost.

      As best I can tell, Uber and Lyft and other services monitor the routes _actually_ taken by the drivers quite closely. It's part of how they aggregate data about shortcuts, blocked roads, and other useful mapping informaiton.

      I've not seen this with Lyft, which I've used extensively for the last few years. Can other Slashdot readers confirm that they're seeing the route they're being driven does not match the route they were shown when they contacted Uber?

  4. Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is Uber's woes a surprise to anyone? We learned these lessons as a society when taxis were new.

    Uber shows up, avoids regulation, offers cheap fares, accuses the existing infrastructure off being too bloated, and makes a bunch of money. Then it's noticed they are doing the same thing that taxis used to do before formal regulation.

    Things like: overworking drivers, fudging rates, opaque accounting practices, etc.

    I have to snicker when those in their 20's seem to think Uber is revolutionary and doesn't need to be "old skool" regulated, then quickly complain when things don't work out by saying, "they shouldn't be allowed to do that."

    1. Re:Regulation by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      and makes a bunch of money.

      Uber is losing money. Hand over fist.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said fist...

    3. Re:Regulation by Altus · · Score: 1

      The crazy thing is, they are still way cheaper than a taxi despite all the BS...

      We just can't have nice things...

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    4. Re:Regulation by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      I don't know if "I can actually get one to pick me up" is revolutionary, but that's why I prefer Uber over Taxis.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Regulation by PraiseBob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uber's Investors are losing a bunch of money. Uber's executives are making a bunch of money. Uber's "contractors" are in massive amounts of debt to the company.

    6. Re:Regulation by msauve · · Score: 5, Informative

      "they are still way cheaper than a taxi despite all the BS"

      Hard figures needed. Because, although the rider may pay less, Uber heavily subsidizes rides, and those subsidies must be included as part of the true cost when comparing with taxis.

      It's said that Uber subsidizes over half the cost of a ride, so the true cost would be at least double.

      So, we should expect the price to the rider to be less than half the cost of a taxi if they're truly cheaper. But, that doesn't appear to be the case. In fact, only when you add a 20% tip for the taxi driver, and only in one city, does that hold true (numbers are old, feel free to dig up more recent ones). In some cases, Uber is more expensive, even without considering the subsidies.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    7. Re:Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine that, regulations being completely necessary after all? Somewhere a Republican catches fire spontaneously.

    8. Re:Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but the only surprise here really is that Uber seemed to think they could get away with this without being noticed. In other words, its Uber that is 'forgetting the lessons of history' not the 20-somethings that think 'ride-sharing services' and other 'gig' economy services are great. In fact using the free market to attack Uber's etc. 'bad practices' is the way it should work and NOT over-regulation.

    9. Re:Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see this enough that I have to really wonder where the hell people are living that they can't get a taxi? I haven't been to NYC, but I've been all over the world, Paris, Hong Kong, lived in the San Francisco Bay Area a while & I've NEVER had a problem getting a taxi. If I want one to come get me I call & it comes & gets me usually + or - 10 minutes from the time identified by the dispatcher, nothing to scream about. In Paris you hang out at the 'taxi sign' a bit & 'O look here comes a taxi' (the actual taxi ride is FAR more an adventure than getting one...fun really and mainly simply due to the crazy ass nature of driving in Paris!)...

      So where exactly are these places that taxis are so hard to come by?

    10. Re:Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The crazy thing is, they are still way cheaper than a taxi despite all the BS...

      I too can provide cheap service by not complying with laws, overworking and underpaying employees, being under- or uninsured, and burning venture capital. Just remember to give me my bonus, and watch me undercut competition.

    11. Re:Regulation by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I see this enough that I have to really wonder where the hell people are living that they can't get a taxi? I haven't been to NYC, but I've been all over the world, Paris, Hong Kong, lived in the San Francisco Bay Area a while & I've NEVER had a problem getting a taxi.

      In the San Francisco bay area, actually. Not in the city, though: I've never had a problem in the actual city.

      Most of the places you listed are big cities or heavy metropolitan areas. If you live in Amsterdam, there's no problem getting a taxi. If you're in New York's central park, there's no problem getting a taxi. If you're in Eindhoven, it's tougher.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:Regulation by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 2

      You might want to let Uber know about making a bunch of money, because according to their accountants they're losing it at a pretty astounding rate.

    13. Re:Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uber is pretty revolutionary in terms of a smartphone app selecting the nearest driver(s) (likely resulting in a short and predictable wait), basically telling up front what the cost will be, and doing all the billing without exchanging anything directly with the driver. None of that is locked into being only with Uber, it can be with all taxis, but taxi industry & cities are really, really slow on the uptake. Right now for the most part you have to select one of maybe dozens of taxi companies, who calls the closest of THEIR cars which might be much much further than the closest of any taxi, so the mandated rates build in that half of the driving could be with an empty car (for the pickup or returning from destination). We really need a nationwide service that does the same as uber but with real taxis, with a timeline to adjust the rate structures for the increased efficiency 2017 whole fleet GPS mapping has over 1950's pay phone and radio dispatch model.

      Part time driving is the only tricky thing left, you have to reward the drivers who keep taxis available at odd hours and not let the surge drivers swoop in and snag too many of the fares that the full time drivers need to pay their rent. But that's probably a simple matter of an algorithmic subsidized pay that's taken out of the surge rates.

    14. Re:Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see this enough that I have to really wonder where the hell people are living that they can't get a taxi? I haven't been to NYC, but I've been all over the world, Paris, Hong Kong, lived in the San Francisco Bay Area a while & I've NEVER had a problem getting a taxi. If I want one to come get me I call & it comes & gets me usually + or - 10 minutes from the time identified by the dispatcher, nothing to scream about. In Paris you hang out at the 'taxi sign' a bit & 'O look here comes a taxi' (the actual taxi ride is FAR more an adventure than getting one...fun really and mainly simply due to the crazy ass nature of driving in Paris!)...

      So where exactly are these places that taxis are so hard to come by?

      Try getting a cab in SF after 6pm when you are black and then you can tell me about your life experiences...

    15. Re:Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of services that tried to do this with taxis. (Including a company that was a founding member of). There is insufficient revenue to make this sustainable. We had service in 13 states and then the industry imploded when the twin towers were hit. It took more two years for the travel industry to marginally recover and as time has progressed and predatory companies like Uber have risen it has become a non-starter for any legitimate business to survive. Uber is also ultimately destined for failure, they just have a lot more money to throw at this to prolong the inevitable.

    16. Re:Regulation by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As a rider, I don't give a fuck WHY it's cheaper for me. Cab companies here flat suck. I suffered permanent injury because of one stranding me, forcing me to walk several miles in bad conditions before Uber.

      In general it's less than half what the cab companies charge here (south florida). Not counting tips.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    17. Re:Regulation by swb · · Score: 1

      I don't even care about the cost, it's getting the goddamned ride to show up when I want it. Taxi service in Minneapolis always sucked -- the ONLY time it was reliable was airport to home because the cabs were lined up and waiting.

      At least when I get an uber ride I've never waited more than 10 minutes and its seemed really reliable. I've had fucking cabs not even show up at all when I booked AM rides to the airport. Where I used to work we had an account with a Town Car-type limo company because the cabs were so unreliable.

    18. Re:Regulation by jeremyp · · Score: 2

      You should give a fuck because if it is cheaper because Uber have found a way to do taxis significantly more cheaply than existing taxi companies or they are subsidising every taxi journey their customers take.

      If it's the former, everybody is happy except the traditional taxi companies. If it is the latter, Uber is going bust which means your cheap rides will soon come to an end.

      Hint: Uber loses something like $2 billion per annum. I really don't think they are going to be around for more than a few years.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    19. Re:Regulation by LVSlushdat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I gotta funny feeling taxis EVERYWHERE suck!! My one experience with either of the major ride-shares was last October from the airport home via Lyft.. Since I'd never used either service, when my plane landed late and I decided I didn't want to wake the wife to come get me, I installed the Lyft app from GooglePlay and signed up for an account. Total time from loading the app to hopping into a nice Nissan Altima with a lovely lady driver was less than 10 mins, including my derp-out of not being in the right location for pickup and the driver having to make another circuit of the drive. All in all I was seriously pleased with Lyft and the driver, who I found out was a recent immigrant from Russia, doing Lyft as a side-gig.. The fare was $14 and I gave her a $7 tip.. Found out later had I taken a taxi, I would have paid close to $50 withOUT a tip.... After reading all of the horror stories about Uber, I believe I'll stick with Lyft in the future, should I need a ride somewhere...

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    20. Re:Regulation by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

      So where exactly are these places that taxis are so hard to come by?

      Try Las Vegas, for one... They ALL run up/down the strip (locals call it the "resort corridor"), and just *try* to get one to come out into the areas where those of us who LIVE here actually LIVE... Its like pulling teeth.. I'm sooooo glad we now have Lyft (the only one I've actually used.. with all the bad-vibes about Uber, I'm kind of afraid to) and Uber...

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    21. Re: Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When all is said and done Uber will be a RICO act prosecution defended by venture capital investments.

    22. Re:Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You snicker when people complain that company shouldn't be allowed to commit fraud? What are you a Republican?

    23. Re:Regulation by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      no, uber contractors stupid enough to lease a car through Uber are in massive amounts of debt. Especially if they don't understand basic car maintenance.

    24. Re:Regulation by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > Uber is losing money. Hand over fist.

      It's irrelevant to the management who are collecting salaries and collecting options. The options may not be worth a lot to rank and file employees, but when the company is finally bankrupted or sold off, those can still turn a tidy profit for managers. I saw this done by various manipulative means in the dotcom era.

    25. Re:Regulation by msauve · · Score: 1

      "As a rider, I don't give a fuck WHY it's cheaper for me. Cab companies here flat suck. I suffered permanent injury because of one stranding me, forcing me to walk several miles"

      So, it's all about you, and blaming others for things you won't take personal responsibility for. With that attitude, you'll never have a happy life.

      Hint: walking a few miles is NOT a hardship, it's part of life.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    26. Re:Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'll stay afloat if the local governments mandate the taxi companies use it or if all the taxi companies agree to it as a level playing field.
      Servers are cheap to host. Revenue will come from the fact that the taxis would have Uber's efficiency (ie closest empty taxi, not closest taxi from some specific dispatcher) and convenience, but regular taxi rates, not uber rates.

    27. Re: Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

    28. Re:Regulation by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 1

      If you suffered *any* injuries from walking a few miles, you have bigger problems.  See a doctor, quickly !

    29. Re:Regulation by gsslay · · Score: 3, Funny

      But you don't understand! They have an app! People can call them up and track them on their phone! On their phone!

      Any similarity with the old style industry is extremely tenuous, and only similar in that they also put people in the back of a car, drive them some place, then charge them. This is an entirely new industry, Industry v2.0 if you will. All the old rules don't apply and can be ignored because all those old fart legislators don't understand these new things that the youngsters have invented.

    30. Re:Regulation by houghi · · Score: 2

      You are aware that taxi companies need to pay the airport to be able to be there, right?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    31. Re:Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I suffered permanent injury because of one stranding me, forcing me to walk several miles in bad conditions before Uber.

      In most jurisdictions, drivers can only eject a passenger for safety reasons. What was the response from the local taxi commission or transportation authority to the complaint you filed?

    32. Re:Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pittsburgh. There are like 3 taxis here. Uber is the first really viable public transportation in Pittsburgh.

    33. Re:Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are losing a ton of money, I have to snicker at people who think Uber isn't losing 2 billion a year.

      Snark is not a toy.

    34. Re:Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a rider, I don't give a fuck WHY it's cheaper for me.

      If they are cheaper because Uber looses money on them then it wont last. It is an age old trick to kill of local competition that cannot survive without income and Uber does not need one, it has investors. Usually it is followed by buying the last surviving remains and ends with a price explosion. Basically the endgame is that your choice is walking or paying whatever Uber wants.

    35. Re:Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      although the rider may pay less, Uber heavily subsidizes rides, and those subsidies must be included as part of the true cost when comparing with taxis.

      Bullshit.

      I get it... you are a wanna be pseudo-intellectual trying to sound like you payed attention in econ101. But seriously nobody gives a fuck. If it cost less, it is cheaper.

    36. Re:Regulation by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      I too can provide cheap service by not complying with laws...

      So, just like taxis have done for decades?

    37. Re:Regulation by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      Well, that's hardly fair. Try walking a few miles through a recently-harvested corn (maize) field, for example. Or over hot lava.

      Dude did say he was in South Florida, so he may have been attacked by an alligator while walking. Or run over by a retiree. Or maybe there was a hurricane.

      Of course, when I were a lad, we had to put up with such things on our daily trek to school. And did we complain? Well, yes, but mostly about having to work in the salt mine after class.

    38. Re: Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. A million times this. Cabs are only useful when you don't really need to be anywhere at a specific time.

    39. Re: Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you implying that to be a reasonable thing that I should definitely be paying for?

    40. Re:Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your in Eindhoven fuck the taxi, get on the fucking train and go somewhere nicer (which is most places)

  5. Re:Oh boy, here we go again by msauve · · Score: 2

    Hopefully, Uber is the one who will pay for all their nefarious deeds.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  6. Re:Oh boy, here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Another anti-Uber story. Who's paying for all these?

    Uber's customers and drivers.

  7. Uber cares nothing about drivers by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Not just states and cities they defraud, but the drivers themselves.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Uber cares nothing about drivers by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

      Uber. We defraud the driver and pass the savings along to you.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    2. Re:Uber cares nothing about drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uber has made it pretty clear that their goal is to be a transportation company without drivers. Drivers (today) are simply a means to fund their (the drivers) elimination.

    3. Re:Uber cares nothing about drivers by msauve · · Score: 1

      In this instance, they're defrauding the customer. They pay the driver based on the shortest route, and if they charged the customer for the same, it would be fair. But they don't, they charge the customer for a longer than necessary route. So unless they're making up impossibly short routes, it's the customer, and not the driver, they're stealing from.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    4. Re:Uber cares nothing about drivers by frovingslosh · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, they are actually defrauding both the customer and the driver. It's the Uber way. Verizon is jealous.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    5. Re:Uber cares nothing about drivers by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      They're not using drivers to fund any research. That would imply that they were actually making money on them. At best, they're using drivers to make it look like they actually have a business so they can get more loans and venture capital.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  8. Re:Oh boy, here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another anti-Uber story. Who's paying for all these?

    Uber is? They are trying to distract everyone from the really bad stuff over there by letting leak the merely annoying stuff over here?

  9. Re:Oh boy, here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe Über drivers???

  10. Re:Oh boy, here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are they really "Über", or just decent drivers...

  11. Cue the CEO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Hey, we need to do way better. I need to do way better."

  12. Someone MUST go to jail... by bogaboga · · Score: 1

    ...And not just the company heads, but the coders themselves.

    Here's why: They authored code that when used as intended, would defraud innocent folks by default.

    I must add that going to jail for a crime like this isn't that certain at present in these United States, sadly.

    1. Re:Someone MUST go to jail... by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Manager: Programmer#1, I need you to create a function named Charge_Customer() to calculate the most scenic and pleasant route for our beloved customers.
      Programmer#1: OK boss.

      Manager: Programmer#2, I need you to create a function named Pay_Driver() to calculate the shortest and fastest route possible for our beloved drivers.
      Programmer#2: OK boss.

      Manager: Programmer#3, I need you to write a program Win_Win that calls Charge_Customer() and Pay_Driver().
      Programmer#3: OK boss.

    2. Re:Someone MUST go to jail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of the 'ol answering machine message:

      "Hi I'm not home- but if you're a bill collector I have no money! If you're my girlfriend, I have plenty of money! And if this is my parents, please send me money!"

  13. Taxis by fluffernutter · · Score: 0

    TAXI DRIVERS ARE SO CORRUPT.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Taxis by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      You have a fare to pick up, guy. Snap to it.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
  14. TINLC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It'd be weird if they were paying for lawsuits against themselves.

    Really I suspect it's another Ty Cobb, wherein an imperfect but average person is made into a monster by those who have deep inkwells and deep grudges.

    I wonder when we get to see the new Journolist leaks? I guess they don't call it that any more, but whatever. It's not like it's hard to see what's going on.

    What I really wonder is how many of them have figured out how to short Uber?

    1. Re:TINLC by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

      Bravo for the insightful Ty Cobb comment!!

    2. Re:TINLC by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Or it could be that Uber is run by a bunch of scofflaw assholes. It happens. Their attempts to end-run around laws don't inspire much confidence in me.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  15. Who carries the risk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It sounds like Uber charges an up front fixed price fee with a risk margin built in. If the driver takes less time then Uber keeps this margin, however if the driver takes longer is Uber out of pocket? If so this is pretty much like all fixed price work.

    1. Re:Who carries the risk? by Tihstae · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nope, If the route is longer than expected. Say construction detour, uber will recharge the passenger.

    2. Re:Who carries the risk? by sstrick · · Score: 1

      In that case, its dodgy

      --

      "Do you think we could wipe out world hunger forever if scientists figured out how to make AOL's Free CD's edible?"-
    3. Re:Who carries the risk? by bluegutang · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's arguably even worse. It means that drivers are being paid per mile/minute of driving they do, while passengers are paid per trip they get. In other words, for entirely different things. That indicates Uber is NOT facilitating contracts between riders and drivers, but rather, they are providing rides while paying the driver a salary. No different from your local city bus. Once all those drivers are classified as employees, it's immediately obvious that Uber is violating a million employer laws.

  16. Who carries the risk? by sstrick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It sounds like Uber charges an up front fixed price fee with a risk margin built in. If the driver takes less time then Uber keeps this margin, however if the driver takes longer is Uber out of pocket? If so this is pretty much like all fixed price work.

    Uber could make or lose money on each job.

    --

    "Do you think we could wipe out world hunger forever if scientists figured out how to make AOL's Free CD's edible?"-
  17. Re:Oh boy, here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their customers since they are the ones getting screwed

  18. And here's the issue with excessive regulation. by green1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Taxis have all sorts of regulations, most of them are for the good of society, such things as:
    - maximum prices
    - accountable billing practices
    - enhanced driver licensing requirements
    - vehicle inspections
    - hours of service regulations
    - insurance requirements

    But then governments went overboard and also added regulations that do not help society at all such as:
    - minimum prices
    - limits to the number of taxis

    The end result is that while most people applaud the items in the first list, the abhor the regulations in the second list. That list is why society as a whole is screaming for "ride-sharing" services to come in to their cities. That's why everyone is willing to pretend that these aren't taxi services, it's to try to get around the ridiculousness of those excessive regulations that are hated by all but the taxi industry themselves.

    Problem is, you end up "throwing out the baby with the bathwater". If governments had stuck to regulating the safety and price gouging aspects of taxis, without artificially constraining supply or forcing artificially high prices, there'd be no demand for "ride sharing" services.

    Any smart government would start over, and regulate anyone carrying passengers for hire the same, without limiting who can do it, or setting a minimum price. You'd get as free a market as possible, while still ensuring everyone plays fair and safe. Uber would hate you, but they'd have a really tough time getting the public on their side if the local taxi industry was already competitive (which they'd have to be if there were no limit on the number of taxi licenses).

    1. Re:And here's the issue with excessive regulation. by jediborg · · Score: 0

      YES, YES, YES! This is how it always starts, the government starts regulating in the name of 'safety'. Then they later go overboard either in search of power, or they are "captured"/bought out by companies that pay them to over-regulate in order to maintain a monopoly.

      If more citizens understood this process, we could have more nuanced debates than 'I want government regulations cause safety and evil companies'/'ALL GOVERNMENT IS EVIL TAXATION IS THEFT'

    2. Re:And here's the issue with excessive regulation. by Serge_Tomiko · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Price floors are always a good thing, and are the hallmark of civilized society.

      The limit to the number of taxis is also, generally, a good thing.

      taxi regulation began in the world because everyone with a car started to pick up fares during the Great Depression. It really was total chaos, especially in Manhattan where all this regulation began.

    3. Re:And here's the issue with excessive regulation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Price floors are always a good thing, and are the hallmark of civilized society.

      The limit to the number of taxis is also, generally, a good thing.

      Simply stating your opunions as if they are facts that don't require any explanation is not as persuasive as you think it is.

    4. Re:And here's the issue with excessive regulation. by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

      Price floors are always a good thing, and are the hallmark of civilized society.

      I agree. Price floor on the inhalation of oxygen and transmission of bytes per mile transmitted over the Internet are a good thing.

      The limit to the number of taxis is also, generally, a good thing

      Artificial scarcity tends to erode legitimacy. Nobody ever benefits from this save an entrenched few and everyone else suffers as a result of longer wait times, unnecessarily high costs or proliferation of criminal enterprise.

      History is rife with examples of what happens when governments leverage their monopoly on violence to enforce artificial scarcity. Organized crime growing out of prohibition. Shutting down legal prostitution has contributed to sprawling global human trafficking networks and the war on drugs have pushed states to the brink of failure. The drug trade is the worlds largest enterprise.

      You can't rule by consent AND make laws that ban shit a sufficient number of people are willing to do anyway regardless of its legality. This can only work against outliers otherwise society generally suffers as a result.

      The mere fact ride sharing was so explosive and popular is evidence enough government has got it wrong.

    5. Re:And here's the issue with excessive regulation. by Imrik · · Score: 1

      You left out monopolies. Around here at least, the lack of competition lead to the taxis still using credit card imprints until Uber and Lyft came through. The added hassle meant some cabbies asked up front and refused service to those not paying in cash, worse, some would kick people out when they found out part way through the ride.

    6. Re:And here's the issue with excessive regulation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The limit to the number of taxis is also, generally, a good thing.

      You are taking a rare case, pretending it is the norm, and then saying a particular solution is the only solution. Clear your head and think that one through again, you'll be glad you did.

      In rare cases (like Manhattan in the Great Depression) it might have been a good thing. In the vast majority of cases there are better ways to deal with car congestion if taxis ever cause it.

    7. Re:And here's the issue with excessive regulation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are essentially describing taxis in Sweden, it was deregulated around 1990 and we have everything in the first list except maximum prices but none of the items in your second list.

      The only thing that happened when Uber showed up here was that the apps of the taxi companies got better. Uber is operating as a taxi company here, except that it is slightly more expensive than a taxi from one of the larger Swedish companies. I have been using taxi services here since the late 80's and the deregulation was really good. Nowadays I have chosen to get billed each month for my rides and I always choose the fixed price option since it is easier to check what they are charging me.

      Oh, Uber tried Uber Pop here for a while but that was deemed illegal by courts on multiple instances.

      Also, since it is deregulated you have a small amount of independent taxis charging up to ten times the "normal" amount. You have to pay attention to the price list posted on the outside of the taxi if you are unwise to not go with one of the big taxi companies. These taxis circle the airports and tourist areas trying to lure people to take a ride with them.

    8. Re:And here's the issue with excessive regulation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Claiming facts to be "opunions" [sic] does not make them so. If you need an explanation, find out why the laws where made. No law is ever made without some sort of justification.

    9. Re:And here's the issue with excessive regulation. by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      Limits to the number of taxis are necessary in certain places (like Manhattan) where taxis form a large part of street congestion.

    10. Re:And here's the issue with excessive regulation. by houghi · · Score: 1

      The minimal pricing is to make the things in the first part possible. It is so people can make a living. The thing is that how low might be an issue, just as how limited the number of taxis should be.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    11. Re:And here's the issue with excessive regulation. by jbengt · · Score: 1

      They don't really have a minimum pricing, at least not that I'm aware of.
      The maximum price is regulated, and all the taxis charge the maximum, because charging less would not be an advantage: When you're hailing a cab on the street, it would be pretty hard to know which cab had the lower price (and it might be the only cab around, anyway).
      Now that even the taxi companies are starting to use phone hailing apps, maybe they could get rid of the maximum pricing regulations.
      YMMV

    12. Re:And here's the issue with excessive regulation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Price floors are always a good thing, and are the hallmark of civilized society.

      Well that is easy. Things cost money, if someone asks for less money than something costs, possibly less then doing business you get into dodgy territory. There are enough documented cases of companies drowning out the competition with insanely low prices and tanking the losses until only they were left standing, resulting in a local monopoly that could raise prices as it wanted and lowering prices only when a new competitor tried to enter the field.

      The limit to the number of taxis is also, generally, a good thing.

      That is also good if done correctly. You don't want taxi drivers stuck to constantly live at the edge of poverty. Competition is good, having people whose financial security depends on it fight on the streets or rob people to make a living might not be so good.

    13. Re:And here's the issue with excessive regulation. by green1 · · Score: 1

      No, I didn't leave out monopolies, that was covered on the limit to the number of taxis. Without that limit, there'd be competition.

      Already since Uber came to town the taxi companies around here are making major changes, they've never had to compete before.

    14. Re:And here's the issue with excessive regulation. by green1 · · Score: 1

      The limit will enforce itself. If there are no fares, there will be no taxis. Nobody's going to drive around empty for long.
      Conversely, if you have to wait 4 hours for a taxi (not at all uncommon around the holidays here) someone will put a car on the road to get those frustrated customers.

      Limiting the number of taxis is patently absurd. Unless of course you're a taxi driver trying to avoid having to compete....

    15. Re:And here's the issue with excessive regulation. by green1 · · Score: 1

      The price here was both a maximum and a minimum. It was illegal to charge any other price period. That was one of the things that Uber successfully changed when they came to town. Originally they got in trouble from the government for charging too little, they fought it, and the law was changed to specify only a maximum, and no minimum. Ever since then the Taxi companies have started reducing their fares to compete.

      And no, you don't need minimum pricing. If it's not profitable to drive a taxi, don't drive a taxi! if nobody can make a living at a certain price point, the price point will naturally increase until people can. This is one place where the free market would sort things out quite well, if the government would let it. The only pricing rules you need are around transparent pricing.

    16. Re:And here's the issue with excessive regulation. by green1 · · Score: 1

      The limit will enforce itself. If there are no fares, there will be no taxis. Nobody's going to drive around empty for long.
      Conversely, if you have to wait 4 hours for a taxi (not at all uncommon around the holidays here) someone will put a car on the road to get those frustrated customers.

      Limiting the number of taxis is patently absurd. Unless of course you're a taxi driver trying to avoid having to compete....

      Unless you propose limiting how many people can drive at any one time in general (why focus only on taxis?) then there's simply no point.

    17. Re:And here's the issue with excessive regulation. by green1 · · Score: 1

      The laws here were made to benefit a few hundred taxi drivers, at the expense of over a million citizens. It was due entirely to greed and lobbying by taxi companies.

      We don't owe taxi drivers a living. If somebody is willing to do the job for less money, let them. If there are enough customers to allow more taxis to make money, let them. This is something that will sort itself out very quickly, and reach an equilibrium. In fact, Uber is proving that right now. The taxis are so hard to come by, and so expensive, that the public is screaming for Uber to succeed, despite all Uber's issues.

  19. WOW! Just WOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously? How dirty/underhanded are these guys really trying to be? If true this is an amazing demonstration of our-right fraud. If the lawsuit should prove successful there should be some SERIOUS fraud charges filed by the government...either major fines or preferably someone going to jail.

  20. what a shock.. by evolutionary · · Score: 1

    Okay, we know a few things. First, that some drivers will deliberately take longer routes if a driver thinks they can get away with it. Next, an app can show whatever it wants to any person. I would assume (I don't use uber), that it doesn't break down the route for the passenger. Had the app been required by law (and it should) to breakdown the route (similar to the way google does when you get directions) as well as the price per/mile or km, a moderately observant passenger would notice that the route shown to the passenger is different from what the driver is taking and questions would asked. There was an article that claimed Uber had enough data to indicate what times of data a passenger would be indifferent to the fare charged, implying that Uber might have a "premium charge" for say, rush hour. As we know Uber ignores laws (see self-driving cars new reports) around the world, the Uber president has actually be abusive to his own driver on camera. Given this as well as the data collection on the uber app (which needs to be curbed a lot, we are seeing case after case of abuse), it would only be reasonable to assume Uber will try any scheme it can get away with. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but behavior patterns qualify as supporting evidence in count in court and in real life. If you see someone repeatedly exhibiting unethical behavior, it's reasonable to assume that individual entity is likely doing similarly unethical actions that you aren't aware of.I just read an article about a town in Ontario Canada using Uber as a cheap substitute for a proper bus system. But a quick look at the user fees + city subsidies per trip suggest the combined amount might be more than the standard Uber fare using public money and leaving the financial challenged to get a phone or be unable to use this "public" transit. (or course the telecommunication companies love this) Seems to me Uber will take advantage of the unaware, the mentally lazy and the gullible. My question is, when do we all wake up and start questioning our blind use of Uber. Better yet, when do we start creating competition and/or regulating this kind of business to keep it honest..

    --
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
  21. Just ditch Uber already by Jedi+Holocron · · Score: 1

    Use Lyft, it's better for the driver and better for the passenger.

    If all the drivers who complain about Uber would just go to Lyft, the passengers will follow. Same for passengers.

    Sign up to drive: https://www.lyft.com/drive-wit...

    Get free passenger ride credits: https://www.lyft.com/signup/PO...

    1. Re:Just ditch Uber already by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      Well I'll use either service depending on what I'm doing but I do prefer Lyft because I can tip with the app and not carry cash.

      Most drivers I've met drive for both.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    2. Re: Just ditch Uber already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you tip with the app? The driver and you already agreed on a cost for a service. Now the driver expects more than the agreed upon price, but also expects to not communicate just how much more. Quit tipping random people and making things harder for everyone else, damn it.

  22. sophisticated software by vtcodger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Uber Said To Use 'Sophisticated' Software To Defraud Drivers, Passengers"

    Really now. You wouldn't expect a high tech company like Uber to use unsophisticated software to rip off its customers and employees ... ehrr .. independent contractors?

    --
    You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
  23. I am running out of excuses by jediborg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am running out of excuses for Uber's behavior. As a Libertarian i love their disruptive technology. I cheered them on when they took on over-regulated cities that basically monopolized (in my view) taxi cab services. I cheered on them using the free market to drive down prices. I truly did (and still mosty do) think the uber/lyft business model increases freedom for all, allowing anyone to obtain extra income without having to interview, sign a bunch of paperwork, and punch a 9-5 clock everyday and do exactly as ordered by a manager.

    That said, if you are going to tackle regulators and try to bring free-market reforms, a certain percentage of the population is going to perceive that as immoral. In order to stand up against the fierce winds of authoritarianism you better darn make sure your service is as safe and convenient as possible and make sure your business is run in such a way that it stands up against the fiercest of ethical scrutiny.

    When you have cars that are killing people, contractors being accused of sexual assault, MANAGERS being accused of sexism/racism in the workplace, and a CEO with a cringe-worthy temper AND evidence that your pricing models are not as transparent and honest as you led people to believe, you are just further reinforcing socialist's/communist's opinions that all companies are greedy, immoral, and care about nothing more than the bottom line. Instead of being a force for good and promoting libertarian ideals, you are just contributing to the decline of freedom and encouraging an excessive bureaucratic government to continue regulating our rights away

    1. Re:I am running out of excuses by namgge · · Score: 2

      I find Uber useful because whenever I am confronted with an ethical dilemna I can make the right decision by asking myself "What wouldn't Uber do?"

    2. Re:I am running out of excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Its almost enough to make one question the faith of libertarianism.
      When a company named after Ayn Rand's own theology turns out to be just another Galt's Gulch of perfidy, what hope is there?

    3. Re:I am running out of excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      isn't it more straightforward to just ask yourself "What would Uber do?"

    4. Re:I am running out of excuses by Zaelath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, individual judgment, and self-ownership. So sayeth Google, so sayeth we all.

      You can use your individual judgement and freedom of choice to voluntarily associate yourself with a pack of vicious scumbags, or not.

      Mind you, the idea what people will generally act decently given that freedom of choice is just SO ADORABLE.

      Libertarians are so cute, yes they are, yes they are!

    5. Re:I am running out of excuses by barc0001 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      > you are just further reinforcing socialist's/communist's opinions that all companies are greedy, immoral, and care about nothing more than the bottom line

      Really, you think 1) that's just an opinion instead of a nearly universal fact and 2) that only socialists and communists think that way?

    6. Re:I am running out of excuses by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Socialists and communists are the ones that believe that companies being that way is a bad thing to be fixed rather than a part of a working society.

    7. Re:I am running out of excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh-huh, welcome to America, where everyone is either a libertarian or a socialist/communist. In the rest of the real world, there is a wide range of public transport options with varying amounts of regulations and oversight (plenty of places have plenty of regulation and very little oversight, plus a little bribery on the side). Around these parts, taxi costs have been inflated largely by an effective monopoly, there are several cab 'companies' and 'co-ops', but if you follow the money trail they all go back to one family. I'm surprised Uber can't compete with that, and make money, without being such assholes.

    8. Re:I am running out of excuses by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      you are just further reinforcing socialist's/communist's opinions that all companies are greedy, immoral, and care about nothing more than the bottom line.

      Isn't it weird that companies do this every single time they're given the chance? It's almost like the socialists are right. Weird huh?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    9. Re:I am running out of excuses by swillden · · Score: 1

      evidence that your pricing models are not as transparent and honest as you led people to believe

      I'm not sure that's the case. This upfront price is a fixed price and fixed prices carry risk, and it's perfectly reasonable -- indeed, necessary! -- to offset risk with some upside. I guess the question is what happens if the driver runs into unexpected delays or detours, and the actual fare is higher. If Uber eats the loss in that case, then it's a perfectly reasonable business model. The driver gets paid the same as if the rider hadn't opted for the up-front price (except that perhaps they have a rider when they wouldn't otherwise), the rider gets to make the decision based on a known price rather than an estimated range, and if all goes well Uber may make a little more money in exchange for the risk they take.

      As for the rest of it. Yeah. Sigh.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    10. Re:I am running out of excuses by swillden · · Score: 1

      Oh, one more comment: If Uber is just up-pricing to cover risk, they should be doing it in a more straightforward way. They should do it by adding a simple percentage onto the best estimate of the expected best route. They can then tune that percentage so that they consistently break even or come out a little ahead. They could, and should, IMO, show both prices and let the customer choose.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    11. Re:I am running out of excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, plenty of liberals, moderates, and conservatives feel that way, too.

    12. Re:I am running out of excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Mind you, the idea what people will generally act decently given that freedom of choice is just SO ADORABLE.

      Who said that?

      Libertarians believe a completely free market will have both scumbag and ethical companies. It is up to you to decide what you prefer to fund with your money.

      Who told you that libertarians believe anything else?

    13. Re:I am running out of excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time we in the USA had a Libertarian love fest was Deadwood, 1865.
      It was a shithole.
      The ills are still seen to this day.

      Basically your problem is that you're asking people to act with-in the best interests of society first, which is not Linertarianism.

    14. Re:I am running out of excuses by jediborg · · Score: 1

      Watch me generally act decently with my freedom by no longer doing business with Uber and switching to Lyft, joining an already ongoing market correction of lower revenues for Uber and more for Lyft until the Morally unacceptable company goes out of business and the morally acceptable one gets more profits.

      Free market wins again! And yeah people DO generally act decently given freedom of choice, this is why America gives more and has more charities than any other country in the world. And while dueshbaggery companies rise up from time to time, the overall trend is that a 'successful' company is only one that produces a product or service of the highest quality and lowest price while also respecting the social morals of the local culture in which they operate.

    15. Re: I am running out of excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, instead of naively using a fixed percentage, they could develop a sophisticated algorithm which identifies the probability of a deviation and its likely magnitude. You know, like what they actually did.

    16. Re: I am running out of excuses by swillden · · Score: 1

      Or, instead of naively using a fixed percentage, they could develop a sophisticated algorithm which identifies the probability of a deviation and its likely magnitude. You know, like what they actually did.

      We don't know what they did, but simply choosing a longer route does not identify the probability of a deviation. Depending on how the select the longer route, it may or may not identify likely magnitude.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  24. Re:Oh boy, here we go again by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

    Lyft. xD

  25. Re:Oh boy, here we go again by jedidiah · · Score: 2

    Screwed? You must be joking. Do you know how expensive the alternatives are? How crude? How seedy?

    On their worst day, Uber is cheaper and the driver is far less creepy than any cabbie you will ever encounter.

    Perhaps drivers are getting screwed. Not the customers.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  26. Doesn't ring true. by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 2

    Now I normally take shorter rides, but I've never once seen the proposed/priced route be anything other than I would expect. The price has (unless I absolutely had to get a ride at peak) been anywhere near excessive.

    I have had drivers (mostly Haitian cabbies moonlighting or trying to switch) that do not use the Uber provided guidance (or any at all since they're using their phone to talk to their families in Creole) and take typical cabbie routes instead (way too long for the trip). Those drivers get a 1 to get them out of the pool as fast as possible.

    --
    "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
  27. Some real life data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's some real life data to put this into perspective:
    A few days ago, I took a trip from JFK to my home in Long Island.
    Fare displayed by Uber before trip: ~$73
    Fare charged to me: $73
    Fare Uber told the driver they charged me: $58
    Share of Fare Uber gave to driver: $38

    So they took roughly half of what I paid to them.

    1. Re:Some real life data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uber's contract with the driver specifies what percentage of the fare he receives. They are giving him less than that.

      If the contract specified payment according to time/distance, their payments would be correct---but that's not what they promised the drivers.

      They are lying when they present the lower amount as the fare because that is not what they are charging the passenger. And, by definition, lying to obtain financial gain is fraud.

      Assuming everything is happening as described in the article, this is very clear and egregious fraud.

    2. Re:Some real life data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uber's contract with the driver specifies what percentage of the fare he receives.

      Contract rules don't apply to fares obtained via fraudulent means, like this case.

      If the contract specified payment according to time/distance, their payments would be correct

      Payments ARE based on time/distance the driver spent/covered. So the driver should not get anything extra. The extra money should go back to the passenger (along with a fine).

    3. Re:Some real life data by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      What's the fraud against the passenger? GP was told the trip would cost $73, and GP did indeed pay $73. Unless Uber had assured GP that the trip would be less at some point in the past, it's a matter of buying a service at a known price. It may be an inflated price, but that isn't fraud. The driver is contractually supposed to get a certain percentage of what the passenger pays, and didn't. That is illegal, and since Uber lied to the driver it's also fraud.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    4. Re:Some real life data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the fraud against the passenger? GP was told the trip would cost $73, and GP did indeed pay $73.

      The fraud is Uber selected the $73 route when it fully knew a more efficient route would cost the passenger only $58. This technique is employed by many scummy taxi drivers who take the long, scenic route to gouge extra from the passenger.

    5. Re:Some real life data by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'm still not seeing it. Uber fares can vary, such as when surge pricing is on. The passenger was offered a certain ride for a certain price, and agreed to it. The passenger didn't know how the price was calculated. Does Uber widely advertise how its fares are calculated, to the extent that deviating from the algorithm is fraud?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  28. That's not what they're being accused of by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    they're being accused of giving different information to the Driver & Rider to manipulate the drivers into working more for less.

    They could charge whatever they want, but that's not what they're doing. They're effectively telling a Rider the fee is $20 bucks, telling the Driver it'll be $18 and pocketing that $2. Assuming this is true (and it's easy to prove) They're lying to the Driver and almost certainly committing fraud by doing so.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  29. Re:Oh boy, here we go again by Imrik · · Score: 2

    They're really Über, they only drive on elevated roadways.

  30. Ah Real Disruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uber collectively believe laws are there to be broken, especially if the chance of getting caught is low. They can pay fines with VC money til the cows come home. Scary people control things there without a conscience; as they may have done at the Ivy Leagues or boarding school. Not the any decent person wants to associate with. Stealing is one thing, but systematically on a grand scale is conspiracy. And more serious charges I don't know, not a lawyer.

  31. I don't think this makes sense. by Togden · · Score: 1

    Why would they do this instead of raising their commission? The effect should be similar, the same at Ubers scale of operation, cheaper to achieve and easier to control.

  32. malware by helga+the+viking · · Score: 1

    So essentially the uber software is malware. It classifies as the definition of malware. Goodbye Uber.

  33. Louis DePalma? by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Does Uber have Louis working for them?

  34. Re:Oh boy, here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If its true, which is questionable at this stage, then jail terms for the directors is not enough.

    There is potentially a strong case here for public lynchings, or possibly heads on sticks.

    A plea of "not guilty by reason of corporate insanity" just won't do this time!

    --
    You have the right to remain stupid.

  35. Fraud against its contractors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So:
    1. If uber is to be belived that its drivers are not employees, and are contractors.
    2. Uber is paying the contractor a portion of its revenues in order to facilitate a task.
    3. Uber is falsifying data on how much they are actually gaining in revenue on a task.

    This would then, as is my understanding, constitute widespread fraud against its 'contractor' drivers.

    If this is true, and prosecutor has the wherewithal to actually process it, this would be a huge corner uber has painted itself into.

    Either:
    1. Uber drivers are contractors, and are have widespread fraud perpetuated against them, fraud being an actual criminal charge and someone at uber (or multiple someones) having to go to actual jail, as well as the company being liable for a class action fraud case equal to the total number of rides delivered, ever.

    2. Uber drivers are employees with fees not ultimately related to the distance driven (and then must provide there employees the proper securities and benefits relevant to there position)

  36. Re:Oh boy, here we go again by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Another anti-Uber story. Who's paying for all these?

    The now-legendary Taxi Cartel-ZOG over-arching conspiracy.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  37. WTF!? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Why? What is the point? Lets look at this. Client A shows up with a path of how to get their destination and the price-sub-0. Driver B has a different path to the destination and a price-sub-1. Awkward. There was never a meeting of the minds! This is basic contracts first semester. At this point there is no contract. Maybe Driver B can renegotiate the contract with Client A. Why should Uber get a dime of this transaction?

  38. Re:Oh boy, here we go again by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

    I've encountered plenty of cabbies that were not creepy at all, so unless all Uber drivers have negative creepiness, your claim is a load of bullshit.

  39. Data Point for a single city by FeelGood314 · · Score: 1

    I'm in Ottawa, Canada. Uber is almost exactly half the price of a Taxi, the Uber rides are more pleasant, and the cars are clean and well maintained. My suspicion is the Uber drivers are taking home more per hour than taxi drivers. They sure as heck aren't working 16 hour days like the taxi drivers who are working the first 8 hours just to pay the medallion rental.