Uber is losing up to $200m every quarter on its driverless car business--to say nothing of their other losses:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/19/technology/uber-self-driving-cars.html …
-
-
So, hear me out: what if the driverless car aspect never works out? Uber can either stick with its old plan and go under, or they can charge rates that actually pay for the cost of providing service, while still being cheaper than taxis (and with a more widely available fleet!)
Show this thread -
This would work out better for the drivers, better for the investors, and while it'd be an imposition for the riders, it would probably go over better than losing Uber entirely.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The size of this gap varies significantly by city, I think. To me it has always seemed very small to non-existent in N.Y.; big in Boston; medium sized in D.C.
-
interesting--here in Western MA, the difference is striking: a ride home from the bar is down to $7 instead of $11, a ride to the next town is down from $30 to $11~15, and a ride to the nearest city is down from $70~80 to $25~30
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
can you elaborate a bit here
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They were/are able to charge less than taxis because VCs are subsidizing all those cheap rides. Once the money runs out it's ggwp.
-
this would be true if taxi fares didn't have any bogus cost that could be attributed to rent seeking from their privileged licensing position
-
Sure, agree with you there. But there has to be an alternative between taxis and uber. some sort of decentralised network of car owners carpooling, idk.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.