# What comes after Uber and Lyft?



## Lissetti (Dec 20, 2016)

Excellent read. I think this is a very plausible idea. The payment process would have to be done differently than how its currently done with Uber/Lyft, where all proceeds go straight to them, to be divvied up with pennies trickling down to the drivers.

Drivers using Square may be an option to keep profits in the driver's pockets.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

We need to put together a playlist for Uber execs. This would be a good starting track.


----------



## Kurt Halfyard (Dec 13, 2017)

I'd be curious if people would have faith in a physical service if there is 'nobody to sue' if something goes catastrophic.

There is a big difference between 'hosting web traffic' in opensourced Linux, and physically getting into a car with nobody responsible. It may very well be that the autonomous vehicle (which U/L so desparately pine for) would enable this in a far better way than a driver. An A.I. driving the car isn't got to 'scam' / long-haul / sexually assault / creep / shuffle / etc. I think there will be an open-source ridehail when A.V.'s are a thing. 

For now, it's a chicekn-egg problem like Facebook and Twitter, and other social media. You need a certain size to entice people to give it a try and attract enough drivers. That is why these systems have in the past cost Billions to set up. However, lower cost rides with higher driver pay would be the key to unlock massive-adoption of a service like this.


----------



## Lissetti (Dec 20, 2016)

I don't know...I know a lot of former Select drivers who built their own private customer service who originally were their pax. These drivers use Square readers and of course the pax are aware not having Uber to "protect them?" Laughs, because Uber is notorious for turning a blind eye to complaints from both pax and driver. Their GoTo solution is a few free ride credits and then no more response is heard from them until the pax takes it to the media.


----------



## Kurt Halfyard (Dec 13, 2017)

Lissetti said:


> I don't know...I know a lot of former Select drivers who built their own private customer service who originally were their pax. These drivers use Square readers and of course the pax are aware not having Uber to "protect them?" Laughs, because Uber is notorious for turning a blind eye to complaints from both pax and driver. Their GoTo solution is a few free ride credits and then no more response is heard from them until the pax takes it to the media.


For a premium "Select" service. I can see this. These are monied people who want to spend money. Uber was the golden child when they were a premium-service. Drivers were making money, pax were happy, Uber Was growing, and thus happy.

It was only when UBER went full into "X" service and "POOL" that everything went wrong, because people wanted the limo service at city-bus prices. Entitlement and scale killed Uber's Halo, and thus the race to the bottom began.


----------



## Lissetti (Dec 20, 2016)

Kurt Halfyard said:


> For a premium "Select" service. I can see this. These are monied people who want to spend money. Uber was the golden child when they were a premium-service. Drivers were making money, pax were happy, Uber Was growing, and thus happy.
> 
> It was only when UBER went full into "X" service and "POOL" that everything went wrong, because people wanted the limo service at city-bus prices. Entitlement and scale killed Uber's Halo, and thus the race to the bottom began.


True, for this to succeed, Pool cannot be an option. The X platform would have to be restructured. After all we would want a service that's available to the "working man" as well.

The Select drivers I know, have left the rideshare apps completely and built enough of a client base to work independently of U/L. At first it was "monied" people, but these drivers have worked out a way to do a "sliding scale" fee for their services. They built their client base up primarily from word of mouth as well as handing out business cards.


----------



## ThrowInTheTowel (Apr 10, 2018)

Kurt Halfyard said:


> I'd be curious if people would have faith in a physical service if there is 'nobody to sue' if something goes catastrophic.
> 
> There is a big difference between 'hosting web traffic' in opensourced Linux, and physically getting into a car with nobody responsible. It may very well be that the autonomous vehicle (which U/L so desparately pine for) would enable this in a far better way than a driver. An A.I. driving the car isn't got to 'scam' / long-haul / sexually assault / creep / shuffle / etc. I think there will be an open-source ridehail when A.V.'s are a thing.
> 
> For now, it's a chicekn-egg problem like Facebook and Twitter, and other social media. You need a certain size to entice people to give it a try and attract enough drivers. That is why these systems have in the past cost Billions to set up. However, lower cost rides with higher driver pay would be the key to unlock massive-adoption of a service like this.


Most companies try to protect their brand to the fullest. That is why instead of flooding the market with as many drivers as possible, making it easy for anyone to qualify and drive including scam leases and car rentals, Uber/Lyft should of treated their 5 star drivers like gold. That is the key to success. Loyalty.

All the tools were their to establish a reputable brand with safety and customer service as a top priority. Ratings should have been used for their true intentions. Bad drivers removed from the platform. Bad passengers removed from the platform. They chose to give passengers a free pass but pressure drivers to take abuse or risk deactivation. It is a privilege to use the Uber/Lyft platform not something people are entitled to. They truly screwed up everything.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Wow, there's lots to unpack here. In your article you touch on rideshare 2.0 after Uberlyft, autonomous vehicles, income inequality, open source software, decentralised computing, the democratic system of government, unions, and crowdfunding! Lots of buzzwords, but without anything that coherently ties them together or offers any insight, unfortunately. In order to tackle this meandering and unfocussed haze of ideas, I'll leave out referencing everything that is not related to technology and rideshare.

You ask, "how can technology be run by the people?". This is impossible to answer given that it is undefined what "technology being run by the people" actually means. If you mean that people should have access to technology then, well... that is already true. I have a laptop, I have a copy of Windows on it, and I have a copy of Linux on it. Anyone can have this, and they have had access to it for at least the last 20 years.

You go on to say that open source software threatens "the 1% who control the world with their monetary rule of governance, goods, and services". However, open source vs proprietary software is not a factor in determining who owns wealth or production. Software is simply a tool; a means of building systems, nothing more. The type of tool used does not affect the behaviour of the tool user, or the environment in which he operates. For example, a carpenter can either use a plane or he can use a file in building a cabinet. His choice of which tool to use will not affect what he builds, whom he sells to, the prices he charges, his competitors, the market or any other element outside the very specific ambit of the method he uses to build the cabinet. For the users of software tools who use them to build technology and automation solutions, the same is true - the only difference between using proprietary vs open source is having to pay for it vs not having to pay.

Your claim that open source software threatens "the 1% who control the world with their monetary rule of governance, goods, and services" is incorrect. A society-owned collective organisation using open source software isn't going to threaten a company that uses proprietary software because and only because it uses open source software. You confuse open source with decentralisation. Again, open source refers to the tool used to build it; decentralised refers to how and where you build it, and who owns it.

Next you ask, "How can rideshare be decentralised?" You say, _"the will of the people, through collaborative goals, planning, development, and optimization, can create a system that works far better for those using it"_. That's all well and good, but how? The question you asked was _how_ to do this, and your answer just says that it can be done. Great! How? Who will create it? How will they build it? Who will pay for it? How will it work? You then say, _"it takes time, but we are talking about an enormous pool of people with talents and perspectives that share a common purpose"_. Again, sorry, but this is just fluff. It is like a politicians non-answer. You leave your question, "How can rideshare be decentralised?" totally unanswered.

Your next question is, "What is rideshare without a company like Uber?". Again, the answer you provide is very hazy. Again, you allude to some kind of cooperative not owned by Uber, in which _"a decentralized platform will only make the rides cheaper by cutting out the central entity (Uber)."_, _"passengers pay less and drivers make more"_, and _"an open-source app can be tailored to meet drivers needs if it's governed by those very drivers"_. Again, lots of buzzwords and fluff but no explanation of the ownership structure of the organisation, how customer pricing would work, who builds the system, who maintains it, how it would pay drivers (employee or IC), how insurance would work etc etc etc.

Next you ask, "Why does anyone start an open sourced or decentralised platform?" You then say that such an organisation could be started in someone's basement or by crowdfunding. This shows a lack of appreciation of the costs involved in starting this kind of business. Tryp believed that it could start a rideshare business on a shoestring. Its executives even went on record saying they believed that they could start in new cities "with just one driver". Needless to say, Tryp was a failure to launch.

In your "Now is the time" section, yet more fluff is to be found. _"We can hope that stress will cause the production of new seeds that will germinate and flourish into an evolved "rideshare v2.0", for the people. We must move towards systems that work for the people that use them"_. That would be good. But again, no details are given. As above, you leave your original title of _"What comes after Uber and Lyft"_ totally unanswered.

It's not my intention to do a hatchet job on your article. But if you're going to write an article that purports to answer questions... answer the questions.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

entire deal with RS 2.0, kinda for full time drivers only and that's due to the climb of commercial insurance. That hill too steep for me. It would force me to work way way too many hours just to break even; no thanks. If Uber goes offline for whatever period of time that is that. I do have HopSkipDrive, but that depends on face to face learning and that ain't happening in Calif, for the like 90% of the students. Oh well.


----------



## Cynergie (Apr 10, 2017)

1. The return of SANITY and FAIRNESS in the transportation industry
2. Smaller better companies that will rise from the ashes of the corpses of these 2 malignant leviathan monopolies. And will fiercely compete with each other. Thereby giving drivers and pax alike the best fares & rates
3. The end of all desperate, fake #WOKE letters from Dara

Because too little, too late.

#DieLyfUberDie


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Whatever form it takes, a lasting rideshare 2.0 will have to be self-sustaining. The billions of dollars of investor money made the rideshare industry balloon. Without those billions and now with AB5, I think rideshare would shrink heavily, both in terms of driver numbers and coverage area. It will be centred on the lucrative runs along the city-to-airport corridors and within the cities themselves. Getting a rideshare vehicle out in the suburbs will become difficult.

In short, rideshare 2.0 may look a lot like taxis.


----------



## lOOKATmE (Mar 18, 2020)

Cultivator said:


> View attachment 498325
> 
> 
> Since Uber and Lyft are talking about leaving California we can take this moment to say "please do." As 2020 unravels, the roots of America's shortcomings expose the core issues that connect to the trunk of inequality. Technological progress since the industrial revolution has allowed resources to be aggregated exponentially more efficiently, but socio-economic inequality continues to fester like a virus with no hope for a vaccine. Yet there is hope for a cure, and it's right in front of us. We must power people with technology instead of allowing it to be leveraged by those at the top for greed and control. Technology can work for the people and for the greater good.
> ...


I still miss Sidecar !


----------



## Tony73 (Oct 12, 2016)

Hopefully a company that keeps jobs in America? Did I say **** Uber yet?


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

Thoughtful article. It's a shame that Ride Austin did not last long enough to see how sustainable that model is.

Just a slightly different take here, given that some above have well articulated the primary reaction to the notion of an app-for-the-people. In my experience most all (if not virtually all) systems corrupt over time. Governments, religion, corporations, etc. Need leads to fear. Fear leads to greed. Greed leads to corruption. Corruption leads to the dark side. You know.

There are likely examples of groups of evolved, high-minded people forming healthy, sustainable systems. But there is not yet enough of those folks to serve the needs of mass humanity at scale, albeit rideshare or any other system. The key is in the evolution of human consciousness. The more we humans can evolve past our perceived need for "stuff" the more systems in general will work. As we evolve, our problems -getting from Point A to Point B, or whatever- may naturally dissipate.

Some feel that C19 and its effects are helping to trigger a step-change in human consciousness. We will see. In the meantime, on a personal level we can choose to behave in as high-minded a fashion as we are capable. A rising tide floats all boats.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Cultivator said:


> View attachment 498325
> 
> 
> Since Uber and Lyft are talking about leaving California we can take this moment to say "please do." As 2020 unravels, the roots of America's shortcomings expose the core issues that connect to the trunk of inequality. Technological progress since the industrial revolution has allowed resources to be aggregated exponentially more efficiently, but socio-economic inequality continues to fester like a virus with no hope for a vaccine. Yet there is hope for a cure, and it's right in front of us. We must power people with technology instead of allowing it to be leveraged by those at the top for greed and control. Technology can work for the people and for the greater good.
> ...


Cut out the







Middle Man !


----------



## simont23 (Jul 24, 2019)

I had forgotten about open source software. An IT guy in my taxi once told me that for every software we pay for to do something for us, someone has written free software that can do the same job. Out of the goodness of their hearts, and to give the fingers to the 1%.
So the future is open source software driven independent drivers. Just have government regulated licences that include a good character component, properly policed. Then get the drivers to get together in groups for common marketing, fare pricing, and disciplinary issues. Then introduce telephone despatching as well for the vast majority of taxi customers who don't use an app.
But wait. Our town already has that. Plus we have our own petrol, diesel, and EV technicians. Our own upholsterers and tyre shop. We have negotiated ridiculous discounts off the fuel companies. We have been going since the 1970s.
We are all in Uber as well so that with 30 cabs out on shift, any real Uber out only gets 1/31 of the Uber work and the few out never last. we are working on simultaneous signing out at regular intervals to bring on surge pricing. People stupid enough to use Uber deserve this. We then give them our business cards and our app, with the info on the price if they had used us initially.
So now we wait, doing perfectly okay until Uber runs out of suckers to finance them, and then carry on. That's capitalism, folks!


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks (Aug 5, 2019)

simont23 said:


> So the future is open source software driven independent drivers.
> drivers to get together in groups for common


Your town is a fine example of a decentralized unit, with you drivers working in harmony already.

The open source part would connect your crew with the crew in other towns under one database for easy use by public.

Both the decentralized unit and the open source mainframe can be operated under a cooperative model.

I like your town.✌


----------



## simont23 (Jul 24, 2019)

Queenstown, New Zealand. Look us up.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

simont23 said:


> So the future is open source software driven independent drivers.


No. The article writer does not have a good grasp of what either open source software or decentralisation are.

Uber is not software that can either be open source or not. Open source software projects are discrete pieces of software that do one specific task or group of tasks. The Linux operating system, for example, is only an operating system. It is not a database or a programming language. MySQL is an open source database, and it stores data. A ridesharing organisation is not software - it is an organisation comprised of many different functional areas that use many, many different software applications and architectures. There are real-time transactional and back end systems. There are driver, passenger and rides databases. There are payment systems, mapping systems, ride allocation systems and customer service systems. Then there are the driver and pax apps for both Android and Ios.

The majority of software that Uber uses is open source. A community-based rideshare organisation would have access to the same free, open source software tools that Uber uses - MySQL, Riak and Apache Cassandra databases. Python, Node.js and Java for building transactional engines, and the Linux operating system. However, these are simply the tools with which to build all of the required systems mentioned above. It's like trying to build a house with free tools that someone gave you. So you've got the tools. Great, you still have to build the house.

Yes, there are developers interested in contributing to open source projects, but what would their motivation be to work on an open-source rideshare project? As an ex-software developer, I would not give my time for free to work on such a project, and I can't see many developers wanting to. There are many reasons why people contribute their efforts to open source, but I don't see any compelling ones here. Also, who would coordinate the project? Who would pay for it? Even if developers give their time for free, there are still infrastructure costs / cloud hosting costs, and hardware costs.

Finally, the systems side of the organisation is only one part of the organisation. Who would write the business plan and obtain funding? Who would set up and run the organisation's marketing? The service may be great but if nobody knows about it then it's not going to go anywhere. Who's going to set up and run customer service? Accounting and finance? Legal? Operations? IT? Insurance? All of these functions are required for the organisation to operate. Who is going to pay for this? If I go to 1000 drivers and ask them for money to set up a company that they will have no ownership of, how much money are they likely to gift me?

And no, a rideshare organisation can't be decentralised, because it is not software. A rideshare organisation is a complex system comprised of many interdependent components including disparate IT systems and functional areas run by humans. The reason that Bitcoin and Defi can be decentralised is because they are automated software systems. The day will surely come when entire organisations can be replaced by autonomous artificial intelligence, but that day is still far in the future.

Setting up all the systems required in addition to all of the business functions necessary for a rideshare organisation is a huge undertaking and a huge amount of work. Are we are saying that rideshare drivers are going to plan, fund and execute all of this? Seriously? A kum bay ya community-based organisation to provide work and rides for all and to "stick it to the man" sounds wonderful, but landing back down in the real world, it's neither practical nor probable.


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks (Aug 5, 2019)

The Gift of Fish said:


> No. The article writer does not have a good grasp of what either open source software or decentralisation are.
> 
> Uber is not software that can either be open source or not. Open source software projects are discrete pieces of software that do one specific task or group of tasks. The Linux operating system, for example, is only an operating system. It is not a database or a programming language. MySQL is an open source database, and it stores data. A ridesharing organisation is not software - it is an organisation comprised of many different functional areas that use many, many different software applications and architectures. There are real-time transactional and back end systems. There are driver, passenger and rides databases. There are payment systems, mapping systems, ride allocation systems and customer service systems. Then there are the driver and pax apps for both Android and Ios.
> 
> ...


Well put. I think OP is outside of rideshare and a researcher, academic, activist of sorts.

I also can't wrap my mind around how to use open source Software in a operation organization. Like you explained a organization has costs of operation even using free software.

The closest thing is a organization that is built on for profit model but socially responsible. It would take participation from government through funding grants or subsidy to even discuss the idea.

Even if 100 drivers invest 10 k each. That is 1 million. What do they get if they get a share and it's not for profit?
Im not putting 10 k.

I would if it was driver owned, socially responsible, environment friendly and a for profit model.

The profit would be lower than other companies due to the fact of minimal fees and higher worker pay. But if the worker is also the investor, then this model would be superior to a multinational corporate model. without worker and investor at odds with each other.

In ride-share means of production should not be in the hands of the State, nor the investor. It can possibly be in the hand of workers in my understanding.

Either way open source is a tool as you said, not a operational organization with costs.

Two possible ways to set up the organization OP is calling open source in example below. They actually work and exist today Under Capitalism and I would invest 10k in as a worker investor.

*What is the Difference Between Benefit Corporations and Social Purpose Corporations?*
by Ryan Shaening Pokrasso | Sep 24, 2014 | Social Enterprise








Benefit Corporations and Social Purpose Corporations are entity types that were established in California with an eye towards allowing for-profit companies to engage in socially-minded activities traditionally carried out by non-profit organizations. Such activities are typically frowned upon by traditional corporation shareholders and the law.



simont23 said:


> Queenstown, New Zealand. Look us up.


i found your taxi on google satellite! Is this you?


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> I also can't wrap my mind around how to use open source Software in a operation organization. Like you explained a organization has costs of operation even using free software.


It's easy to see how open source software could be used in a rideshare operation - Uber is already doing just that - the vast majority of software that it uses is open source.

In my career I always used proprietary software because that's what all of my clients (all were traditional blue chip corporations) used. These clients would spend millions per year on Microsoft licences, Oracle licences, Hyperion licences etc, but these costs were a drop in the ocean to them. If I were running a rideshare startup, or any startup for that matter, I would definitely use open source software in order to save money.


> The closest thing is a organization that is built on for profit model but socially responsible. It would take participation from government through funding grants or subsidy to even discuss the idea.


Yes, I don't think that a non-profit model would work. Non-profits are focussed towards charitable or social needs endeavours, and I'm not convinced that hauling pax around falls into either of these. A driver-owned corporation would be better.

The difficulty with this is the amount of financial resource needed to start and run a rideshare company. If Uberlyft is replaced by the likes of Chinese Didi, for example, which would have billions of dollars available to expand into the US market, then we're right back where we started. No driver-run cooperative would be able to compete. I would really like to see such a cooperative work and see the end of exploitative companies such as Uberlyft., but I don't see it happening.


----------



## seepastyournose (Aug 18, 2020)

Ride Austin is an interesting example. They operate as a "non-profit". Their platform was announced as open-source but it's not available on github today. Looks like they shut down their services for coronavirus. They had big funding to get going. Arcade City, whatever happened to them? A new one trying to come on in London has been at it this year and looks like they had a meeting this past week with drivers.

https://decrypt.co/18155/the-decentralized-ride-sharing-disruptors-taking-on-uber
Decentralizing Uber does have some big obstacles. AirBnB has less moving parts and would be easier. There is an illusion of safety that these big brands bring. People are always apprehensive about anything new. Remember craigslist? Online dating? Meeting people online has become much more socially acceptable. I remember when I first started AirBnB people thought I had a death wish for hosting strangers in my spare bedroom. Then it became so trendy five years later I had to lower my price despite the fact housing had gone up 50%.

Payments and insurance are easy to solve. Most Uber drivers are under-insured as it is. That issue should have been fixed a long time ago. Anything that's going to compete with Uber has to have easy payments. I can setup a web app to take payments in 5 minutes. Stripe is 2.9% + 30cents per transaction. The more difficult issues to handle are things like disputes. Although there are a lot of platforms out there that don't do much to manage the transactions they facilitate. Craigslist comes to mind. Or Tinder for that matter. You get ripped off or raped you go to the cops. It's the same with Uber, you would be lucky to get a response from Uber unless you tweet them and the media.

Was reading this week USPS is in the process of obtaining a blockchain patent for voting. Go figure.


----------



## hooj (Aug 18, 2018)

Cultivator said:


> View attachment 498325
> 
> 
> Since Uber and Lyft are talking about leaving California we can take this moment to say "please do." As 2020 unravels, the roots of America's shortcomings expose the core issues that connect to the trunk of inequality. Technological progress since the industrial revolution has allowed resources to be aggregated exponentially more efficiently, but socio-economic inequality continues to fester like a virus with no hope for a vaccine. Yet there is hope for a cure, and it's right in front of us. We must power people with technology instead of allowing it to be leveraged by those at the top for greed and control. Technology can work for the people and for the greater good.
> ...


What about..... FACEDRIVE!


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks (Aug 5, 2019)

hooj said:


> What about..... FACEDRIVE!


Looks like Facedrive will send a driver out for a 5 $ minimum ride and take 15%. Also keep the 2.75 order fee.

So a driver can still drive 15 minutes to get 4.25$ before expenses. While Facedrive gets 3.50$.









*Facedrive Sedan*

Base Fare:
$2.50
Per Minute:
$0.18
Per Km:
$0.81
Cancellation Fee:
$5.00
Minimum Fare:
$5.95








*Facedrive Suv*
Base Fare:
$5.00
Per Minute:
$0.35
Per Km:
$1.50
Cancellation Fee:
$5.00
Minimum Fare:
$5.95
*Tips, Fees, and Payment Methods

Tipping Option? *

Yes, riders have the option to tip in app or in cash

*Method of Pay *

Direct deposit through Stripe.com

*Surge Pricing? *

None

*Standby Rate? *

None

*Long Pick Up Fee? *

None

*Tolls?*

Toll fees will be remitted to the driver entirely

*Cleaning Fee? *

Not Available

*Frequency of Pay? *

Weekly

*Commission and Service Fees*

15%


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Cultivator said:


> View attachment 498325
> 
> 
> Since Uber and Lyft are talking about leaving California we can take this moment to say "please do." As 2020 unravels, the roots of America's shortcomings expose the core issues that connect to the trunk of inequality. Technological progress since the industrial revolution has allowed resources to be aggregated exponentially more efficiently, but socio-economic inequality continues to fester like a virus with no hope for a vaccine. Yet there is hope for a cure, and it's right in front of us. We must power people with technology instead of allowing it to be leveraged by those at the top for greed and control. Technology can work for the people and for the greater good.
> ...


ETERNAL DAMNATION

comes after Uber & Lyft.

Uber & Lyft are practice . . .


----------



## hooj (Aug 18, 2018)

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> Looks like Facedrive will send a driver out for a 5 $ minimum ride and take 15%. Also keep the 2.75 order fee.
> 
> So a driver can still drive 15 minutes to get 4.25$ before expenses. While Facedrive gets 3.50$.
> 
> ...


The Canada/Toronto thread is well on top of this...


----------



## Judge and Jury (Oct 19, 2019)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Wow, there's lots to unpack here. In your article you touch on rideshare 2.0 after Uberlyft, autonomous vehicles, income inequality, open source software, decentralised computing, the democratic system of government, unions, and crowdfunding! Lots of buzzwords, but without anything that coherently ties them together or offers any insight, unfortunately. In order to tackle this meandering and unfocussed haze of ideas, I'll leave out referencing everything that is not related to technology and rideshare.
> 
> You ask, "how can technology be run by the people?". This is impossible to answer given that it is undefined what "technology being run by the people" actually means. If you mean that people should have access to technology then, well... that is already true. I have a laptop, I have a copy of Windows on it, and I have a copy of Linux on it. Anyone can have this, and they have had access to it for at least the last 20 years.
> 
> ...


OP is gambling on unicorns.


----------



## Unkar's Muffins (Mar 9, 2017)

Cultivator said:


> View attachment 498325
> 
> 
> Since Uber and Lyft are talking about leaving California we can take this moment to say "please do." As 2020 unravels, the roots of America's shortcomings expose the core issues that connect to the trunk of inequality. Technological progress since the industrial revolution has allowed resources to be aggregated exponentially more efficiently, but socio-economic inequality continues to fester like a virus with no hope for a vaccine. Yet there is hope for a cure, and it's right in front of us. We must power people with technology instead of allowing it to be leveraged by those at the top for greed and control. Technology can work for the people and for the greater good.
> ...


Oh God...more progressive academic bullshit.

Look, there are things about Lyft and Uber I don't like, but turning everyone into employees was not the answer most of us wanted. Lyft and Uber are playing chicken with the government, because bought-and-paid-for assholes like CA Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez and her union donors decided they didn't like 3rd parties ignoring with their symbiotic relationship. Tack on dufus drivers who thought they were somehow entitled to benefits and sick pay when that was OBVIOUSLY not part of the deal when signing up, and you have what we have today: A showdown.

The ultimate democratic showdown is at the polls. Let voters decide. Trying to force a showdown in the middle of a pandemic is the dumbest ****ing thing ever, with people losing jobs, losing businesses, etc., the last thing you want to do is make it hard for the businesses that ARE still operating to get customers and hard for nurses to get to work to help people with COVID19.

Lyft and Uber are part of the transportation ecosystem, now. They are relied upon as much as the bus, maybe more. Just because people CAN adapt if they suspend doesn't mean the pain of doing so is justified to satisfy power-hungry liberal legislators, unions, and idiot drivers who are used to spread a narrative.


----------



## simont23 (Jul 24, 2019)

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> Well put. I think OP is outside of rideshare and a researcher, academic, activist of sorts.
> 
> I also can't wrap my mind around how to use open source Software in a operation organization. Like you explained a organization has costs of operation even using free software.
> 
> ...


Note the vomit resistant seats. No seatbelts for easy passenger ejection. Low tech window winders. Impact resistant fenders. Not actually mine. Not actually my town either. Looks lovely though. Our water taxis are actually orange.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Cultivator said:


> View attachment 498325
> 
> 
> Since Uber and Lyft are talking about leaving California we can take this moment to say "please do." As 2020 unravels, the roots of America's shortcomings expose the core issues that connect to the trunk of inequality. Technological progress since the industrial revolution has allowed resources to be aggregated exponentially more efficiently, but socio-economic inequality continues to fester like a virus with no hope for a vaccine. Yet there is hope for a cure, and it's right in front of us. We must power people with technology instead of allowing it to be leveraged by those at the top for greed and control. Technology can work for the people and for the greater good.
> ...


The flaw in the 'open source' and 'linux' model is that there has to be drivers. and, if there are too many RS companies to choose from, no one makes money and driver's flee. In big cities, independent cab companies can survive because they are allowed to work city cab stands appointed to major hotels. That doesn't exist for rideshare, a customer base is needed. and if there is open source, and more entries into the market, then the problem becomes 'who ya gonna call' ? You got 20 operators of RS in a city? No one will make money because in order to deliver good service, you need a ton of cars covering the city. 20 operators will not allow any of them to have the kind of coverage one would require to operate a decent transportation business. Operators will have to go the shuttle route, which is a whole different business model. Open source means someone has to manage the software and managing transportatin business software requires constant maintenance and a staff of technicians, there will be costs.

The simple fact of the matter is that, given that RS is not profitable, it is not viable business model, and it will eventually disappear.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Oscar Levant said:


> The flaw in the 'open source' and 'linux' model is that there has to be drivers. and, if there are too many RS companies to choose from, no one makes money and driver's flee. In big cities, independent cab companies can survive because they are allowed to work city cab stands appointed to major hotels. That doesn't exist for rideshare, a customer base is needed. and if there is open source, and more entries into the market, then the problem becomes 'who ya gonna call' ? You got 20 operators of RS in a city? No one will make money because in order to deliver good service, you need a ton of cars covering the city. 20 operators will not allow any of them to have the kind of coverage one would require to operate a decent transportation business. Operators will have to go the shuttle route, which is a whole different business model. Open source means someone has to manage the software and managing transportatin business software requires constant maintenance and a staff of technicians, there will be costs.
> 
> The simple fact of the matter is that, given that RS is not profitable, it is not viable business model, and it will eventually disappear.


As I mentioned above, Uber already heavily uses open source software including Linux and many others. Whether or not an organisation chooses to build its systems with open source development tools and applications or with paid-for software has no bearing on the organisation's structure, business model, profit motives, treatment of its workers etc. It literally has nothing to do with any of these.

It seems that people are getting very confused by open source software and are confusing it with organisational structure.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Wow, there's lots to unpack here. In your article you touch on rideshare 2.0 after Uberlyft, autonomous vehicles, income inequality, open source software, decentralised computing, the democratic system of government, unions, and crowdfunding! Lots of buzzwords, but without anything that coherently ties them together or offers any insight, unfortunately. In order to tackle this meandering and unfocussed haze of ideas, I'll leave out referencing everything that is not related to technology and rideshare.
> 
> You ask, "how can technology be run by the people?". This is impossible to answer given that it is undefined what "technology being run by the people" actually means. If you mean that people should have access to technology then, well... that is already true. I have a laptop, I have a copy of Windows on it, and I have a copy of Linux on it. Anyone can have this, and they have had access to it for at least the last 20 years.
> 
> ...


I think you have it right here. In order to provide quality service in rideshare, you need lots of drivers to provide enough coverage in a city for it to be a viable operation. In order to get rides to the drivers so they can afford to make enough money to survive requires being well known. Well, getting well known costs a ton of money and organization, and I don't see a rag tag group of anarcho-syndicalists getting their shit together to pull off some kind of decentralized operation. So, in short, the article reads like fantasy, when the rubber hits the proverbial road.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Oscar Levant said:


> I think you have it right here. In order to provide quality service in rideshare, you need lots of drivers to provide enough coverage in a city for it to be a viable operation. In order to get rides to the drivers so they can afford to make enough money to survive requires being well known. Well, getting well known costs a ton of money and organization, and I don't see a rag tag group of anarcho-syndicalists getting their shit together to pull off some kind of decentralized operation. So, in short, the article reads like fantasy, when the rubber hits the proverbial road.


Rideshare organisations cannot be decentralised in the manner that the OP suggests. And even if they could, California's TNC regulations on rideshare would not permit it. The CPUC regulatory body requires that each rideshare organisation exert the following control, directions and enforcement over individual drivers:

- Driver Training Program - TNCs must ensure all drivers are safely operating their vehicle prior to the driver being able to offer service.
- TNCs must ensure that drivers' review of customers will not be used in a manner that results in discrimination, including any policies that will be adopted and any monitoring that will take place by the TNC to enforce this requirement.
- TNCs must adopt a policy for drivers that service animals will be accommodated.
- TNCs shall terminate drivers in which, on two occasions, a credible report of service animal refusal is made against the driver.
- Promptly after a zero-tolerance complaint is filed by a passenger, the TNC shall suspend the driver for further investigation.
- TNCs must ensure that their drivers' Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) records have no more than 3 points with the preceding 3 years, no "major violations" (reckless driving, hit and run, or driving with a suspended license conviction) within the preceding 3 years, and no driving under the influence conviction within the past 7 years.

A free-for-all decentralised cooperative with nobody in charge would fail on regulatory non-compliance alone.


----------



## Gone_in_60_seconds (Jan 21, 2018)

Cultivator said:


> View attachment 498325
> 
> 
> Since Uber and Lyft are talking about leaving California we can take this moment to say "please do." As 2020 unravels, the roots of America's shortcomings expose the core issues that connect to the trunk of inequality. Technological progress since the industrial revolution has allowed resources to be aggregated exponentially more efficiently, but socio-economic inequality continues to fester like a virus with no hope for a vaccine. Yet there is hope for a cure, and it's right in front of us. We must power people with technology instead of allowing it to be leveraged by those at the top for greed and control. Technology can work for the people and for the greater good.
> ...


This is an excellent time to purchase those dirt cheap Taxi plates that are gathering dust for the retired drivers. If Uber and Lyft never come back, driving Taxi will become profitable again.


----------



## 195045 (Feb 2, 2020)

Cultivator said:


> View attachment 498325
> 
> 
> Since Uber and Lyft are talking about leaving California we can take this moment to say "please do." As 2020 unravels, the roots of America's shortcomings expose the core issues that connect to the trunk of inequality. Technological progress since the industrial revolution has allowed resources to be aggregated exponentially more efficiently, but socio-economic inequality continues to fester like a virus with no hope for a vaccine. Yet there is hope for a cure, and it's right in front of us. We must power people with technology instead of allowing it to be leveraged by those at the top for greed and control. Technology can work for the people and for the greater good.
> ...


Drivers are not losing they just relocate but Uber &Lyft losing all.. next will be in another big city and another country will follow-up ..


----------



## Cultivator (Aug 14, 2020)

The current model has 4 parties. Labor (driver), customer (passenger), corporation (Uber), state (governments).

As it stands the transaction works best for the customer. The customer values ease of use, response time, and price. Uber takes a big cut of all rides but can't cut a profit. This is not due to server costs or engineer salaries. It's due to the VC rapid expansion model of debt, obtuse executive pay, marketing, and legal costs. All of which are avoidable with a decentralized model.

If Uber is cut off the transaction then drivers stand to benefit substantially. This site is full of rhetoric of the abuse from Uber and their lack of support for drivers. It's surprising there isn't more thinking on how to move towards a better system that works for those out in their cars every day taking the risks, depreciating their cars, and being compensated poorly for doing so.

Open source is not limited to "tools" like Linux, PHP, and Python.

Here is Ride Austin's code which includes iOS, and Android apps as well as the server side platform.

https://github.com/ride-austin
It would need to be modified to work in a decentralized or co-op or driver owned model, but the licensing allows for modification and commercial or private use.


----------



## ntcindetroit (Mar 23, 2017)

Thought Ride Austin is the way to go for the US. It's a shame they shut down right before U/L threaten to shut their operations in Ca. Could it be reactivated by flip a switch on? 

Can Ca. riders/drivers/Gov. petition Ride Austin to relocate or expand if u/l got deactivated by the judge in future ruling?


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks (Aug 5, 2019)




----------



## mbd (Aug 27, 2018)

Uber Lyft comes after Uber Lyft.


----------



## ntcindetroit (Mar 23, 2017)

Gone_in_60_seconds said:


> This is an excellent time to purchase those dirt cheap Taxi plates that are gathering dust for the retired drivers. If Uber and Lyft never come back, driving Taxi will become profitable again.


 We'd buy up all the available medallions for sale cheap from nyc and hanging them up in the memorial hall of SF as losers of the revolution of public transportation post pacific war. Chapter I of RS revolution is near ending in the hands of gov. and judges. Stay tuned, drivers and riders.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Cultivator said:


> The current model has 4 parties. Labor (driver), customer (passenger), corporation (Uber), state (governments).
> 
> As it stands the transaction works best for the customer. The customer values ease of use, response time, and price. Uber takes a big cut of all rides but can't cut a profit. This is not due to server costs or engineer salaries. It's due to the VC rapid expansion model of debt, obtuse executive pay, marketing, and legal costs. All of which are avoidable with a decentralized model.
> 
> ...


This notion of a decentralised rideshare operation is still very hazy. California requires each transportation network company (TNC) to essentially act as its proxy in enforcing state regulations on drivers. In your decentralised operation, who would be this enforcer be?

And what about decision making? For example, who makes operational decisions regarding which insurer to use? How are IT systems development and maintenance performed, and by who? Who does the organisation's accounting and who is responsible for submitting its tax returns? Is there any quality control over drivers, or can each driver do as he pleases? Is there a customer service function, and if so, who performs it? Who owns the organisation? Who pays for its initial startup and development costs?

Maybe you can give a clearer idea of your decentralised rideshare operation.


----------



## Cultivator (Aug 14, 2020)

If anyone had the answers to all of the questions you ask we would be driving and riding in our new decentralized rideshare platform while Uber stock plummets to zero. This article was written to present the idea of an alternative to the mega-corp business model, that is undoubtedly popular around the world, but in many's opinion less than ideal for those at the bottom of the ladder out on the roads doing the majority of the work.

It is not likely a change in employment status will significantly alter this job for the better. Many think it could be worse to be made employees. Current operations have governments wanting more control and more money (except in cities like NYC) and yet as it stands Uber is not profitable. If regulators increase their cut and Uber has none to give, where does that come from? Drivers or customers. The way it is setup now drivers will always be squeezed to their limit, a race to the bottom already witnessed by drivers over the past 6 years.

This idea of a new model revolves around the intention of reducing the state's possible involvement, eliminating the company, and giving drivers more money while potentially charging customers less. Hopefully anyone reading this can realize the purpose of this piece is to look forward to alternative solutions that benefit those doing the work and see that creating such a platform does not happen overnight, is not developed by one person, and requires a lot of thought, collaboration, and forward thinking.

*California requires each transportation network company (TNC) to essentially act as its proxy in enforcing state regulations on drivers. In your decentralised operation, who would be this enforcer be?*

The state always wants their piece of the action. However, in a truly decentralized model there is no TNC to regulate. That's one of the real beauties of decentralized transactions. The corporate middleman is cut out of the equation. The real concept of "rideshare", a meeting of persons through technology for the sharing of a service, is realized. This is the very grey area that Uber exploited to upend the taxi business and sidestep regulators across the world. With a decentralized platform it would be best to take the states (and all regulators who have jurisdiction) rules into consideration, and where appropriate, implement them. The idea is not to create a criminal enterprise, it is to create a real sharing economy. It is a viewpoint that Uber is the criminal enterprise. It should be noted that this is a huge potential benefit of a decentralized model - the state has no one target to control or capture revenues from.

*And what about decision making? For example, who makes operational decisions regarding which insurer to use?*

"Decentralization enhances the democratic voice." There would certainly need to be decision making systems. Voting is easy to integrate into apps. Most would agree that governance of a decentralized platform should be democratic. All decisions could be theoretically done through the app. What do you imagine the Uber execs are doing now? They send emails, maybe slack, probably a lot from mobile. It's really no different, except that instead of executives sitting at home in their underwear donig emails for 30 hours a week for $250k, the drivers (and potentially passengers) decide how the platform evolves. A forum, like this one, or community for drivers to share ideas can foster the network that propels the platform. Statistically the number of executives compared to drivers is staggering. 99% of the work is being done by drivers, while executives take 50%. Seemingly they spend most of that 50% on costs for now, but that's not sustainable and certainly not where they are heading on their "path to profitability."

For insurance specifically there is room for much improvement over Uber's current model in which most drivers are underinsured and misinformed of both their risk and liability. A simple standard of required appropriate coverage obtained by the driver would drastically serve to better the current risk most drivers are taking today. Insurance coverage could be by mile, by day, or by more standard premium (month, 6 month). While this increases the average cost of insurance for drivers the costs seen are not going to kill the drivers business and the entire system is bettered by being run with proper coverage for the business.
*
How are IT systems development and maintenance performed, and by who?*

This is where open-source can be a solution. Who specifically would adapt Ride Austin's code or work on creating new code is perhaps less important a question than why do they do it. At least at this stage of dreaming. For many it's hard to understand why anyone would use their computer programming skills pro-bono to develop a platform. That's why Linux and open-source projects were brought up as an example. For decades people have contributed to such inititiatves to create and maintain software and systems and to make those systems free and open for anyone to use. Realistically it would only take a small group of developers to launch the system, and with worldwide interest those developers are likely not hard to find with a clear concept and some momentum.

*Who does the organisation's accounting and who is responsible for submitting its tax returns?*

In a truly decentralized model there would be no organization, thus no tax returns. Drivers would still be responsible for income tax and the system would generate pay totals, as well as mileage, or other app generated stats relevant to tax obligation.

*Is there any quality control over drivers, or can each driver do as he pleases?*

Ratings. In a truly decentralized model ratings would likely be the one of the crucial elements. Much could be considered on how to make ratings more effective. One thought is to have a more weighted ratings system. Users with more experience in the system have a higher weight with the ratings they give. The ratings algorithms could also account for users who always rate high or always rate low. Any ratings system could be gamed, but there could also be community oversight and checks and balances.

Background checks. A similar automated background check that Uber uses could be implemented with thresholds set that admit or deny drivers from the platform.

*Is there a customer service function, and if so, who performs it?*

Likely no. Anyone who has dealt with Uber's customer service knows they are practically worthless. Most interactions with customer service are designed to discourage the customer (Driver or passengers). These support systems are moving towards automation. Think of it this way - do you have customer support for craigslist? Online dating? At some point dispute issues are enough to warrant law enforcement. Other than that I think there is good argument that customer support at this point is a facade that corporations maintain to fulfill some traditional business model.

Uber gives an illusion of safety and oversight. Read the news or twitter and you can see their business is wrought with complaints and horror stories. A more effective ratings system could potentially improve on cutting the bad actors out of the system.

*Who owns the organisation? Who pays for its initial startup and development costs?*

Ideally nobody owns it and it could be built by volunteers. Look at moderators on the internet who volunteer their time to foster healthy communities around the internet. While 99% of people may have no interest in starting something or putting their time and effort into such an endeavor it only takes a very small percentage who are to get it going. It's possible that grants or other funding could also be obtained to cover startup costs. There are a lot of ways to make this work and decentralizing is only one concept. We have seen other concepts like MLM fail miserably. It does seem though that it's a natural solution to move towards a system of using technology to empower people instead of give control and profit to a small group of people who control it. It is that premise that has the potential to change these systems substantially to better serve the people who use them.

For those reading this and interested it would be great to hear more skepticism. It would also be great to couple that skepticism with some thinking outside of the box. Present a facet of the operation that Uber provides and present a solution to replace that function while eliminating the need for a company. Driver owned, co-operative, decentralized, the options are there for something better. Uber has proven that app based ridehail has a large demand from consumers, but over almost a decade they have not proven that they have created a sustainable business. It is really worth considering what rideshare really means and how to make it happen.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Cultivator said:


> If anyone had the answers to all of the questions you ask we would be driving and riding in our new decentralized rideshare platform while Uber stock plummets to zero.


Not necessarily. Design does not equal implementation; it is possible to design things without building them.


> This idea of a new model revolves around the intention of reducing the state's possible involvement, eliminating the company, and giving drivers more money while potentially charging customers less.


The state is not currently involved in the running of Uber. Uber, like all other companies, must operate within the laws created by the state. 


> The state always wants their piece of the action. However, in a truly decentralized model there is no TNC to regulate.


From what I can make out, your idea for a decentralised rideshare outfit removes the rideshare company from the equation and therefore, by definition, the intermediate layer between drivers and the state and between drivers and pax. As stated before, the state relies on the TNCs to be their proxies in helping to administer drivers and also track and enforce driver compliance with TNC regulations. With the likes of Uber gone, the state would then be the administrator, monitor and enforcer for 100,000 drivers directly. In your model, in order to provide service legally, each individual driver would be his own TNC. I am not convinced that the state would want or be capable of taking on that role. There are currently 16 licenced TNCs currently in California. Having six thousand times more TNCs to regulate and administer would likely be unfeasible for the state.


> With a decentralized platform it would be best to take the states (and all regulators who have jurisdiction) rules into consideration, and where appropriate, implement them.


So you would advocate picking and choosing which rules are "appropriate" and discarding the rest? Then all you are doing is creating Uber 2.0 with respect to rule breaking. I would hope that the next generation of rideshare companies would be law-abiding, for a start.


> This is where open-source can be a solution. Who specifically would adapt Ride Austin's code or work on creating new code is perhaps less important a question than why do they do it. At least at this stage of dreaming. For many it's hard to understand why anyone would use their computer programming skills pro-bono to develop a platform.


Maybe it's more important; maybe it's less important. But the question remains, who will do it? There are many different reasons why people contribute to open source software, but I don't see that any of them would apply to this project. I think your idea is indeed still in dream stage. There's nothing wrong with dreaming, but there are still too many unanswered questions to get a real feel for what it is that you have in mind.


> In a truly decentralized model there would be no organization, thus no tax returns. Drivers would still be responsible for income tax and the system would generate pay totals, as well as mileage, or other app generated stats relevant to tax obligation.


It's naive to believe that "the system" can exist independently as its own entity without an underlying human-operated organisation to support it. Linux is supported by the Linux Foundation, Python is supported by the Python Foundation, Apache is supported by the Apache Foundation and so on and so forth. There would have to be some kind of organisation to coordinate initial development of the software and subsequent development.


> For those reading this and interested it would be great to hear more skepticism.


I wouldn't call it skepticism as much as unanswered questions and lack of perceived detail.

At present, pax have the confidence of knowing that if they make a complaint about a driver, the TNC will side with them and support them. Customer confidence in a service is vital for that service to succeed. It's one of the reasons that Amazon has done so well. Their customer support is excellent and customers know that if there is a problem, they will be taken care of. Contrast that with your model, where there is no company to provide customer support. This would certainly negatively impact drivers in terms of earnings. I, for example, no longer order from DoorDash because I know that their support is extremely bad and that when there are problems with an order they are very unlikely to be resolved.

Furthermore, would there be buy-in from drivers for such a model? Uber currently provides drivers with many services, apart from being the interface between the driver and the state's regulations. There is the customer service function mentioned above. At present, Uber handles all customer service requests from pax. Pax are not able to even contact drivers in most instances now, but that would certainly change. Uber also handles all payments from customers. With no Uber, each driver would have to set up and run a business bank account and a credit card merchant account. He would have to deal with chargebacks and fraud, and eat these costs. Each driver would have to arrange his own insurance, given that there is no organisation to organise it for him. All of the above could certainly be done by each driver, but would each one want to? Or would they prefer to let a company take care of all of it in exchange for a fee?

As also stated, there would need to be some kind of not-for-profit organisation set up to handle the build and maintenance of the software.
There would be costs involved, even if you could get developers to build the software for free. There would be hardware costs and cloud storage costs / server farm costs, for example. You would need to find someone to donate the money for that.

I see the main barriers to your plan being (1) getting 100,000 or so licences to operate from the California authorities, (2) finding the expertise willing to donate their time and for free, (3) getting the donations required to purchase the hardware required and to host the software, and (4) getting enough drivers interested in doing all of the work currently done for them by Uber.


----------



## rushbudgie (Nov 7, 2016)

What comes after Uber & Lfyt?.... pax late for work, airport, meetings etc


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Wow, there's lots to unpack here. In your article you touch on rideshare 2.0 after Uberlyft, autonomous vehicles, income inequality, open source software, decentralised computing, the democratic system of government, unions, and crowdfunding! Lots of buzzwords, but without anything that coherently ties them together or offers any insight, unfortunately. In order to tackle this meandering and unfocussed haze of ideas, I'll leave out referencing everything that is not related to technology and rideshare.
> 
> You ask, "how can technology be run by the people?". This is impossible to answer given that it is undefined what "technology being run by the people" actually means. If you mean that people should have access to technology then, well... that is already true. I have a laptop, I have a copy of Windows on it, and I have a copy of Linux on it. Anyone can have this, and they have had access to it for at least the last 20 years.
> 
> ...


Well said. And thanks for reminding us about Tryp which sounded like a guaranteed failure the first time I heard of it.


----------



## MasterAbsher (Oct 16, 2019)

What comes next? You get your dignity back


----------



## GreatOrchid (Apr 9, 2019)

travis already dumped all his stock

if your holding that your a fool

you deserve to go to zero


----------



## IRME4EVER (Feb 17, 2020)

Lissetti said:


> Excellent read. I think this is a very plausible idea. The payment process would have to be done differently than how its currently done with Uber/Lyft, where all proceeds go straight to them, to be divvied up with pennies trickling down to the drivers.
> 
> Drivers using Square may be an option to keep profits in the driver's pockets.


I used square when I was driving a cab, great tool but they rip you off big time. Missing money, loss of transactions. I quit using square!!



Cynergie said:


> 1. The return of SANITY and FAIRNESS in the transportation industry
> 2. Smaller better companies that will rise from the ashes of the corpses of these 2 malignant leviathan monopolies. And will fiercely compete with each other. Thereby giving drivers and pax alike the best fares & rates
> 3. The end of all desperate, fake #WOKE letters from Dara
> 
> ...


 Flying cars like the Jetsons!! Thought it would never happen as a kid growing up watching the Jetsons, but here we are today.


----------



## Lissetti (Dec 20, 2016)

IRME4EVER said:


> I used square when I was driving a cab, great tool but they rip you off big time. Missing money, loss of transactions. I quit using square!!


In Seattle many of the drivers used them when working concert venues way out in the boonies, where cell phones reception was almost non existent. Desperate pax would walk up to any car and offer large amounts of money to get back to Seattle. Likewise when Uber did away with our surge multipliers, many drivers switched to using their own clientele base they accrued throughout the years, and a Square reader. I've not heard any complaints, but maybe the drivers don't do it often enough for Square to try ripping them off without being noticed.


----------



## TDR (Oct 15, 2017)

If no Uber, than no Uber forum. We see😉


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

tohunt4me said:


> ETERNAL DAMNATION
> 
> comes after Uber & Lyft.
> 
> ...


Me in my amateur porn days &#128540;


----------



## ChillinLA (May 19, 2020)

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-09-20/dumpling-alternative-for-uber-lyft-drivers


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

lOOKATmE said:


> I still miss Sidecar !


I recently sent a tweet to Sunil Paul, the founder of SideCar. I think I got a four word response. He sold SideCar long ago to some giant company that promptly shelved it. Sadly though, their bidding-style platform was exactly the right model in terms of transparency and fairness. But people like the "easy button" Uber offers. That and artificially cheap prices.


----------



## 1995flyingspur (Aug 18, 2016)

Lissetti said:


> Excellent read. I think this is a very plausible idea. The payment process would have to be done differently than how its currently done with Uber/Lyft, where all proceeds go straight to them, to be divvied up with pennies trickling down to the drivers.
> 
> Drivers using Square may be an option to keep profits in the driver's pockets.


A platform all drivers simply pay a monthly fee, but all transactions are carried out by the driver.

The monthly fee goes for platform maintenance, insurance, etc...


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Cultivator said:


> View attachment 498325
> 
> 
> Since Uber and Lyft are talking about leaving California we can take this moment to say "please do." As 2020 unravels, the roots of America's shortcomings expose the core issues that connect to the trunk of inequality. Technological progress since the industrial revolution has allowed resources to be aggregated exponentially more efficiently, but socio-economic inequality continues to fester like a virus with no hope for a vaccine. Yet there is hope for a cure, and it's right in front of us. We must power people with technology instead of allowing it to be leveraged by those at the top for greed and control. Technology can work for the people and for the greater good.
> ...


I'd say, what comes after Uber and Lyft is most likely to be another version of Uber and Lyft; only this time, they would need to build something actually works for drivers. The first step would be to defeat Prop 22. Then other possibilities may emerge.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

What comes after "uber" in Websters dictionary is 'ubiquitous'. 
Which means "present, appearing, or found everywhere."
Kind of related ... dontcha think?


----------



## sasu66 (Sep 7, 2020)

Cultivator said:


> The third party centralized systems are broken and only stand to amplify socio-economic inequality with technology. An alternative can be crowd-funded or started in someone's basement. Multiple versions could come to fill this need and be sorted out by natural selection. If the core tenets of a platform that only benefits those actually sharing the ride can be realized it can be a socio-economic gamechanger and this is the opportunity to make it happen.


 It's doable. Post covid, there will be a new normal.


----------



## dnlbaboof (Nov 13, 2015)

let us hope, but in SF they charged 250k for medallions, and made 750 billion off them. So we know they will ban any attempt for drivers to be independent. At least with Uber you can set you're own fare and they pay for your commercial car insurance and hook you up with millions of riders.........

Basically nothing good will come out of uber leaving CA, because the gov will screw drivers even more........Since the Ca is concerned about drivers instead of forcing 77% of drivers to be fired, losing all flexibility and paying them min wage as a reward, they could let you convert your car to a taxi, get fingerprinted and charge a reasonable fee for this perhaps 1k not 250k! youll have to hail rides on your own or post online but remember the state wont let you do this, unless you pay them 250k!


----------



## Friendstellfriends2tip (Nov 5, 2020)

I’m not trying to be inconsiderate to the full timers, but what skill do you really have? Oh, you can drive just like every 16 year old in the world? You’re in a position to make garbage money while the rest of it goes to investing in technology specifically designed to take your job (which they already have self driving cars for hire in my city). If you don’t like it there’s an entire population with your same skill set; we can find a replacement until drivers are a thing of the past. Remember when a cashier checked you out at the grocery store? Remember when your ordered at the restaurant instead of your app? Remember when the milkman brought you milk to your home and now you grab it yourself and take it to the self checkout.


----------



## oishiin driving (Feb 24, 2020)

A lot could change by a simple addition of a third rideshare company.
One that can’t be bought.


----------



## Nitedriver (Jun 19, 2014)

https://www.ridealto.com/


----------



## 208476 (Nov 15, 2020)

Cultivator said:


> View attachment 498325
> 
> 
> Since Uber and Lyft are talking about leaving California we can take this moment to say "please do." As 2020 unravels, the roots of America's shortcomings expose the core issues that connect to the trunk of inequality. Technological progress since the industrial revolution has allowed resources to be aggregated exponentially more efficiently, but socio-economic inequality continues to fester like a virus with no hope for a vaccine. Yet there is hope for a cure, and it's right in front of us. We must power people with technology instead of allowing it to be leveraged by those at the top for greed and control. Technology can work for the people and for the greater good.
> ...


Suicide for many, take a look at NY city, many Uber/Lyft drivers off themselves.


----------



## simont23 (Jul 24, 2019)

Sounds like the Robinhood people versus the Hedge Funds. The little people use the free software to beat up Uber and Lyft charging a fortune to everybody using their version of the same software. I suspect all Uber drivers have to do is download the free software, and get their Uber customers to do the same, as they come across them in the course of their shifts, and run both until it is unnecessary to use Uber anymore. I am not sure of Uber's charges, but it may be worth getting the customers to cancel their Uber job after they get in, and deduct that amount from the new fare, on the free app. I can see Uber and Lyft grinding to a halt surprisingly quickly.


----------



## indytd (Aug 29, 2016)

When they merge most likely Luberyft,


----------



## simont23 (Jul 24, 2019)

Kurt Halfyard said:


> For a premium "Select" service. I can see this. These are monied people who want to spend money. Uber was the golden child when they were a premium-service. Drivers were making money, pax were happy, Uber Was growing, and thus happy.
> 
> It was only when UBER went full into "X" service and "POOL" that everything went wrong, because people wanted the limo service at city-bus prices. Entitlement and scale killed Uber's Halo, and thus the race to the bottom began.


What utter rubbish! Everything went wrong right from the start of the Uber project. Everyone who needed transport in the Uber manner was already being looked after. All standards of safety and reliability have plummetted after Uber's deliberate lossmaking entry into the market. Regulation of the taxi industry in many countries has been thrown out to cater for the Uber bullies. We are all just waiting for them to run out of people who can invest other peoples' money for a good commission, which goes straight to their executives and current creditors. Then it will shut down, leaving a lot of disgruntled investors and creditors. We will be left with all the already existing taxi companies, which have mysteriously not gone broke with Uber's "competition". We will also be left with good hearted open source ride share software, which will work without Dara and his mates taking their 30% of the gross. Life will go on with a bitter lesson in obvious thievery being learned by the Uber investors.


----------



## Safar (Mar 23, 2020)

Lissetti said:


> I don't know...I know a lot of former Select drivers who built their own private customer service who originally were their pax. These drivers use Square readers and of course the pax are aware not having Uber to "protect them?" Laughs, because Uber is notorious for turning a blind eye to complaints from both pax and driver. Their GoTo solution is a few free ride credits and then no more response is heard from them until the pax takes it to the media.


Those same passengers will sue the pants out of the drivers if they get injured in accident. There is no good thing that comes out of illegal taxi service AKA Pirate Cab or *********. Pirate cabs work in Africa, not in America.


----------



## Safar (Mar 23, 2020)

oishiin driving said:


> A lot could change by a simple addition of a third rideshare company.
> One that can’t be bought.


Take taxis. I don't take Uber/Lyft, haven't used them for a good 3 years now. I take taxis. Took a yellow cab in Seattle the other day. What a good guy. Gave him the whole pie, it felt good. It cost me the same as Uber/Lyft.
Help small businesses, don't help these crooks!


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

simont23 said:


> Life will go on with a bitter lesson in obvious thievery being learned by the Uber investors.


If/when Uber runs out of money and goes bust, I would not be surprised if there are governmental enquiries into whether or not investors were defrauded by Uber.

Uber's path to profitability with which it hooked in investors was to be its planned fleet of autonomous vehicles. While Uber's claims that it would have tens of thousands of driverless autonomous cars operating in cities by 2019 were clearly ridiculous even at the time they were made in 2013-2014, this does not necessarily make them fraudulent.

Uber's behaviour would only have been fraudulent (or "thievery", as you put it) if Uber management knew that these claims and others claims about future profit were false, and if they had the intention to deceive. And therein lies the problem - it would be hard to prove what Kalanick and his board knew about both the viability of its autonomous program and any possibility that Uber would reach profitability without it. Kalanick is an intelligent man - many of us suspect that he knew all along that his claims and projections were BS. But merely suspecting something does not make it true. Proving it is another matter.


----------



## simont23 (Jul 24, 2019)

The Gift of Fish said:


> If/when Uber runs out of money and goes bust, I would not be surprised if there are governmental enquiries into whether or not investors were defrauded by Uber.
> 
> Uber's path to profitability with which it hooked in investors was to be its planned fleet of autonomous vehicles. While Uber's claims that it would have tens of thousands of driverless autonomous cars operating in cities by 2019 were clearly ridiculous even at the time they were made in 2013-2014, this does not necessarily make them fraudulent.
> 
> Uber's behaviour would only have been fraudulent (or "thievery", as you put it) if Uber management knew that these claims and others claims about future profit were false, and if they had the intention to deceive. And therein lies the problem - it would be hard to prove what Kalanick and his board knew about both the viability of its autonomous program and any possibility that Uber would reach profitability without it. Kalanick is an intelligent man - many of us suspect that he knew all along that his claims and projections were BS. But merely suspecting something does not make it true. Proving it is another matter.


The lesson in obvious Uber thievery may well be a moral one! As you say, these thieves are smart, and it is normally only dumb crooks who get caught. But that does not mean that their thievery is not obvious to all of us except, equally obviously, any of those infamous New York judges, and fund managers being paid huge commissions by Uber to throw other poor sods' money at Uber. The beginning, current middle, and end of Uber in the near future are an awfully interesting story.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

simont23 said:


> The lesson in obvious Uber thievery may well be a moral one! As you say, these thieves are smart, and it is normally only dumb crooks who get caught. But that does not mean that their thievery is not obvious to all of us except, equally obviously, any of those infamous New York judges, and fund managers being paid huge commissions by Uber to throw other poor sods' money at Uber. The beginning, current middle, and end of Uber in the near future are an awfully interesting story.


----------



## Dammit Mazzacane (Dec 31, 2015)

After? Simple: Merger. “NewCo”


----------



## indytd2 (Jun 15, 2021)

The rideshare drivers because they are always getting screwed by Uber/Lyft and when you're getting screwed you normally "come" second.


----------



## jeanettelenanichols (4 mo ago)

all reasonable for driver app companies seem to have disapeared.there was one in san francisco just 1 month ago seem to be ghosted.100% to driver as money made thru ads. scary.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

jeanettelenanichols said:


> all reasonable for driver app companies seem to have disapeared.there was one in san francisco just 1 month ago seem to be ghosted.100% to driver as money made thru ads. scary.


No matter how many times a business is started with socialist ideas and fails, they just don't learn.
There was a small café here in my town. They served off a menu, and the food was good ... but they didn't put prices on the menu. You paid whatever you thought it was worth, or whatever you could afford.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx. The principle refers to free access to and distribution of goods, capital and services.
The theory is "if you got a lot, then spend it to help those who don't have as much."
I heard comments like "It only costs them two or three bucks to make that plate of eggs and toast, so I'll give them five bucks. Sounds fair." 

The rich guy didn't eat there. The poor guy was entitled and didn't pay.
Yea, know how long it lasted?
Minutes.


----------

