# Uber's business model and future plans require hiding destinations from drivers



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Fuber's entire business model and future plan to become a mega-conglomerate requires drivers to be paid rock-bottom pay rates until they can switch over to SDCs. (fuber announced they're resuming their SDC program)

Fuber CANNOT fund their "growth" scheme unless they can continue to pay the drivers 1970s taxi rates.

And the ONLY way they'll be able to continue to pay those horrible rates is to HIDE THE DESTINATIONS IN ADVANCE from the drivers.

Drivers knowing destinations in advance would cause a chain reaction that could very well be the end of fuber as we know it...

The first thing that would happen is a catastrophic increase in the number of stranded pax.

Fuber would have no choice but to pay the drivers a decent enough wage and/or incentives to get those pax picked up.

The increased driver pay would cost fuber MANY billions of dollars, which would deprive fuber of the revenue it needs for its conglomerate plans, forcing fuber to turn to its investors to make up the difference.

It's doubtful they'd do it.

So it's clear that fuber will do virtually ANYTHING to keep the drivers from knowing destinations in advance.


----------



## Wild Bill Yahoo (Jan 22, 2018)

Uhmmmm. Destinations are now known in advance to Platinum and Diamond members of Uber Pro.

So much for your theory.


----------



## Uber's Guber (Oct 22, 2017)

Wild Bill Yahoo said:


> Destinations are now known in advance to Platinum and Diamond members of Uber Pro.


What percentage of drivers does that include?


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Wild Bill Yahoo said:


> Uhmmmm. Destinations are now known in advance to Platinum and Diamond members of Uber Pro.
> 
> So much for your theory.


You don't know what you're talking about.

In order to see the destinations, they're required to maintain an 85% acceptance rate and no higher than a 4% cancellation rate.

Acceptance rate requirements are contradictory to the entire concept of seeing destinations in advance.

Lyft tried this same farce and it went nowhere.


----------



## Atom guy (Jul 27, 2016)

Nats121 said:


> Fuber's entire business model and future plan to become a mega-conglomerate requires drivers to be paid rock-bottom pay rates until they can switch over to SDCs. (fuber announced they're resuming their SDC program)
> 
> Fuber CANNOT fund their "growth" scheme unless they can continue to pay the drivers 1970s taxi rates.
> 
> ...


Of course. Uber is working for the booking fee on those short rides. They'd lose a ton of money if the driver's knew the rides were crap and forced Uber to pay them more to take them.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Uber's Guber said:


> Of course. Uber is working for the booking fee on those short rides. They'd lose a ton of money if the driver's knew the rides were crap and forced Uber to pay them more to take them.


No they wouldn't lose money.

With the advent of upfront pricing and the sky high booking fees, they're making bank on our rides and giving us crumbs.

Their cut is huge enough where they could pay the drivers a decent wage and STILL turn a profit.

But that's not good enough for fuber nor their investors.

They want to become an international behemoth, and why should we expect their zillionaire investors to spend their own money when they can rob the drivers of their money.



Uber's Guber said:


> What percentage of drivers does that include?


Acceptance rate requirements renders it useless.

Lyft tried that same come-on and it flopped.

Just imagine the wonderful rides fuber will send drivers who try to maintain the 85% acceptance rate.


----------



## Karen carpenter (Nov 7, 2017)

*Uber*, valued at $62 billion, *still loses money* on its rides. ... Without the gains, the company *still lost money*before taxes and depreciation, but the $304 million in red ink was half the amount from a year ago.May 23, 2018


----------



## touberornottouber (Aug 12, 2016)

The crazy thing is even if they showed destinations the minimum runs would still get picked up. In most areas they have too many drivers. Heck there are times when even I would take a minimum trip. Someone will take it.

The problem is when I don't want those rides they REALLY hit my morale. There are many days when I just go home after getting a $3 ride. It would be much better just to let me decide when I'm feeling up to it.

Even better though if they just paid a $5 minimum for every trip I would never complain about a short ride again. And this is VERY viable considering minimum rides are $7-$8 here.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Showing destinations in most places would be illegal. It's never going to happen & it shouldn't happen. If someone can't deal with that, they're in the wrong business.


----------



## Dan2miletripguy (Nov 3, 2018)

I would ask UBER why it is that drivers would choose to ignore short trips. We should be excited to take every trip regardless of length and that could be solved by increasing the minimum payout for a ride.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Uber wants " EMPLOYEES" without the RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOMPANYING LAWS.


----------



## emdeplam (Jan 13, 2017)

Yes


----------



## Wild Bill Yahoo (Jan 22, 2018)

All I know is that I can see the general direction and length of the ride. I still accept every ride, they all balance out at the end of the day. U/L was never intended to be a cherry picking gig. I love the feature in Uber Pro and love the new program in general.

Where else can you make money with NO schedule and work the times/ hours YOU want.

If you don't like rideshare.... turn off the dang app!


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

tohunt4me said:


> Uber wants " EMPLOYEES" without the RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOMPANYING LAWS.


This.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

touberornottouber said:


> The crazy thing is even if they showed destinations the minimum runs would still get picked up. In most areas they have too many drivers. Heck there are times when even I would take a minimum trip. Someone will take it.
> 
> The problem is when I don't want those rides they REALLY hit my morale. There are many days when I just go home after getting a $3 ride. It would be much better just to let me decide when I'm feeling up to it.
> 
> Even better though if they just paid a $5 minimum for every trip I would never complain about a short ride again. And this is VERY viable considering minimum rides are $7-$8 here.


Money is the biggest factor, but it isn't the only one.

I want to be the one to decide where I go and where I don't.

A $5 minimum isn't enough.



Dan2miletripguy said:


> I would ask UBER why it is that drivers would choose to ignore short trips. We should be excited to take every trip regardless of length and that could be solved by increasing the minimum payout for a ride.


Different drivers have different preferences for trip length, type of ride, location of ride, etc.

It should be up to the drivers to decide where, when, and how long the rides should be.


----------



## ubernonpro (Nov 3, 2018)

Demon said:


> Showing destinations in most places would be illegal. It's never going to happen & it shouldn't happen. If someone can't deal with that, they're in the wrong business.


just show approx fare

$4
$5
$6-10
$11-15
$15+
$20+
etc

some people don't like certain areas me personally i dont care what tbey are or where they going but im a MAN if it aint $10 (10+ miles)they not getting in my car unless I just cancelled 4 then ill take 1 for the team & instantly 1 star & unmatch

because if i get there & its not 10 miles I cancel no exceptions thats not a good experience for anyone

if math flunkies want to drive for 70s wages oh well i guess because its obvious no one cares or will do anything about it, i mean the fares are in writing anyone who made it past 3rd grade knows it costs a minimum $4 to drive 1-10 miles so anything less than $10 to driver is ridiculous

and we all know ubers not going to start paying $5+ more on minimum trips ever lmao its calculated to steal free labor & cars & the government is protecting them because $9000 a minute "burn"

it is what it is 90% ar 30% cr


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Demon said:


> Showing destinations in most places would be illegal. It's never going to happen & it shouldn't happen. If someone can't deal with that, they're in the wrong business.


You're wrong.

If it was illegal, fuber and gryft wouldn't be offering it to any driver.

This topic always brings out the shills.



ubernonpro said:


> just show approx fare
> 
> $4
> $5
> ...


No half-assed measures.

I want ALL the info about the rides BEFORE I accept them.

The vast majority of drivers feel the same way, which is why fuber and gryft hide the destinations.


----------



## ubernonpro (Nov 3, 2018)

Nats121 said:


> You're wrong.
> 
> If it was illegal, fuber and gryft wouldn't be offering it to any driver.
> 
> ...


they will never show destination because the projects & ghettos will never be served unfortunately, which i dont get cuz pizza places can say they wont deliver to certain areas dont know how they get around that

they dont even show em to the 1 outta 10,000 that will have platinum doo doo status they only show how many minutes the destination is and maybe direction.

even though independent contractors do have a right to that info without having to bow down like employees with impossible acceptence/cancel rates

with that being said if they charged actual costs people in the projects or ghettos wouldn't even use the service except to lure drivers there to rob em

cabs have partitions for a reason & its not to protect rider


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Karen carpenter said:


> *Uber*, valued at $62 billion, *still loses money* on its rides. ... Without the gains, the company *still lost money*before taxes and depreciation, but the $304 million in red ink was half the amount from a year ago.May 23, 2018


You don't know what you're talking about.

They're not losing money on their rides, they're making money on them.

They're grabbing a bigger cut than ever before.

The "losses" are due to their many investments in scooters, SDCs, flying cars, world wide expansion, etc, etc.



ubernonpro said:


> they will never show destination because the projects & ghettos will never be served unfortunately, which i dont get cuz pizza places can say they wont deliver to certain areas dont know how they get around that
> 
> they dont even show em to the 1 outta 10,000 that will have platinum doo doo status they only show how many minutes the destination is and maybe direction.
> 
> ...


They'll never show destinations unless they're forced to.

That's why I said both companies will fight tooth and nail to prevent it.


----------



## ubernonpro (Nov 3, 2018)

Wild Bill Yahoo said:


> All I know is that I can see the general direction and length of the ride. I still accept every ride, they all balance out at the end of the day. U/L was never intended to be a cherry picking gig. I love the feature in Uber Pro and love the new program in general.
> 
> Where else can you make money with NO schedule and work the times/ hours YOU want.
> 
> If you don't like rideshare.... turn off the dang app!


96% do by design lmao used for their free labor & car till the next sucker signs up & youre ok with that? means youre no different or better than Uber

hope no one abuses your grandmother you do know 24+% of new hires are senior citizens that uber/lyft target right? you ok with that too? its elder abuse better call saul

you ok with 50+% immigrants because $3 an hour beats $2 a day back home being preyed on as well?

uber works for me to, i picked homebase for best rides, so i do 3 a day & clear $120 after gas from the bed, used to he 150, 3ish hours driving had to change my wake & bake schedule from squawk box to first take but for close to 50K a year its a sacrifice ill make lol

this last cut they called an increase means $400 less a month, but i highly doubt most drivers can just move to the few spots in the city it actually works & it shouldn't be like that

im sure every market the ants all gather in just a few areas, why you think they took away the6 destination filters & geo filters? pretty sure EVERY driver in my market set it to airport you know why because it took 1 week for them to recalibrate it to where you couldn't set destination to airport lmao, so no one at uber said hey why is EVERYONE setting df to airport? duh its the only ride that pays its literally worth 10-20 rides & only takes an hour round trip instead of 10, then all the drivers only selected certain areas

why dont they let drivers opt out of pool anymore? because EVERYONE would opt out so do they remove something literally no one wants to do, no they force drivers to get pool pings knowing after an hour of nothing the desperate will say ef it & accept a pool

everything they do is calculated evil against drivers period, yes some can figure it out but the core of the app is self preservation im not quitting till fired & already have another account lined up because duh i figured out how to make an easy $40x-75xl per hour, while ants that commute, idle staying warm/cold & circle where i live all day come & go while i watch tv play ghost car, ignore & cancel,

if you dont cherry pick chances are you will fail & it is by design ubers not stupid they know it costs least $4 but they'll send you a 15+ minute 4.6 ping going 1 mile that costs you $7 but pays you $4 thats beyond illegal if not pure evil but it happens millions of times a day & they get away with it

people will work for $3 an hour cuz it beats zero still illegal

these are humans theyre stealing from & its a game to them, thing is jobs arent games

youre a stand up guy though.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Nats121 said:


> You're wrong.
> 
> If it was illegal, fuber and gryft wouldn't be offering it to any driver.
> 
> ...


I'm right.

It's illegal in NYC to refuse a ride anywhere in the city. If all a driver sees is the destination, and he refuses a ride to any point in NYC, that driver is breaking the law.


----------



## ubernonpro (Nov 3, 2018)

Demon said:


> I'm right.
> 
> It's illegal in NYC to refuse a ride anywhere in the city. If all a driver sees is the destination, and he refuses a ride to any point in NYC, that driver is breaking the law.


if you speed/text while driving you are breaking the law which action actually endangers lives?

if you feed someones expired parking meter you are breaking the law

if you give a homeless persin a sandwich you are breaking the law

just saying personally if a kkk driver doesn't want me in his car id rather not be in it or give him any of my money but thats just me

if im getting least $10 ill take ya anywhere within a few miles, if your black white briwn red yellow purple service mutt regular mutt to a brothel, crack house, meth den, ammo depot makes me none

for $2-9 im cancelling

to each they own

but i bet you break the law & cabs have partitions to travel into war zones btw they can also ccw to protect themselves, they dont have partitions to protect the riders


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

ubernonpro said:


> if you speed/text while driving you are breaking the law which action actually endangers lives?
> 
> if you feed someones expired parking meter you are breaking the law
> 
> ...


That's all super, but has nothing to do with what I wrote.


----------



## ubernonpro (Nov 3, 2018)

Demon said:


> That's all super, but has nothing to do with what I wrote.


if you say so


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

ubernonpro said:


> if you say so


Cool. If you want to have a conversation about a different topic start a thread about it.


----------



## Emp9 (Apr 9, 2015)

Demon said:


> I'm right.
> 
> It's illegal in NYC to refuse a ride anywhere in the city. If all a driver sees is the destination, and he refuses a ride to any point in NYC, that driver is breaking the law.


you are talking about discriminating based on race, there is no law that says an uber driver has to take every ping he gets. bs its our car we are "ICs"


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Emp9 said:


> you are talking about discriminating based on race, there is no law that says an uber driver has to take every ping he gets. bs its our car we are "ICs"


No, I'm not. I'm talking about discriminating based on destination. No one is saying a driver has to take every ping, I'm just saying in NYC it's illegal to refuse based on a destination in the city. If you pull up to the pax and they're covered in kitchen grease, a driver could refuse based on that, but in NYC it's illegal to refuse on destination.


----------



## OtherUbersdo (May 17, 2018)

Wild Bill Yahoo said:


> All I know is that I can see the general direction and length of the ride. I still accept every ride, they all balance out at the end of the day. U/L was never intended to be a cherry picking gig. I love the feature in Uber Pro and love the new program in general.
> 
> Where else can you make money with NO schedule and work the times/ hours YOU want.
> 
> If you don't like rideshare.... turn off the dang app!


 I used to think they all balanced out in the end too . They don't . If you aren't selective in accepting pings you will have more wear and tear , more aggravating passengers and more time sitting in traffic . An added bonus is lower ratings and earnings .


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Demon said:


> I'm right.
> 
> It's illegal in NYC to refuse a ride anywhere in the city. If all a driver sees is the destination, and he refuses a ride to any point in NYC, that driver is breaking the law.


Your previous post didn't say it was illegal to REFUSE rides, you said it was illegal for fuber to SHOW the destinations in advance.

You seem to have forgotten what you wrote.

Some locales have laws against refusing rides, but there are no laws that ban rideshare companies from SHOWING destinations in advance.


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

Demon said:


> It's illegal in NYC to refuse a ride anywhere in the city. I


1. It is not illegal to show the driver the destination. Anywhere.

If the driver illegally discriminates, that's the drivers problem.

2. Since when has Uber been concerned about what is illegal or not?


----------



## Pusher (Mar 7, 2017)

Chicago Market has had it where they do not show rider ratings nor destination (estimated time to destination) , with this new program it goes to show that they have had the ability the entire time to do so.

It is discrimination to the drivers and manipulation of drivers to maintain and to take just about all rides with this new “incentive” program. Because if they will now selectively show estimated destination times only to the select ones who meet their requirements, but fail to do so to those who fall below it goes to show that the entire time that Uber had the ability to do so.

Even under this new program those in the Chicago Market still are unable to see the rider ratings.


----------



## AllGold (Sep 16, 2016)

Karen carpenter said:


> *Uber*, valued at $62 billion, *still loses money* on its rides. ... Without the gains, the company *still lost money*before taxes and depreciation, but the $304 million in red ink was half the amount from a year ago.May 23, 2018


As Nats already pointed out, Uber does not lose money on rides. But even if Uber wasn't flushing billions down the toilet on their other ventures, and if instead they actually did lose money on rides, then the blame would be on Uber's corporate management. There's nothing preventing the business model of a rideshare company taking only 25% from making a profit. Nothing except management incompetence, that is.



Wild Bill Yahoo said:


> All I know is that I can see the general direction and length of the ride. I still accept every ride, they all balance out at the end of the day. U/L was never intended to be a cherry picking gig. I love the feature in Uber Pro and love the new program in general.
> 
> Where else can you make money with NO schedule and work the times/ hours YOU want.
> 
> If you don't like rideshare.... turn off the dang app!


I agree that the flexibility is the best part of the gig. But are you actually *making* money or just getting *paid* money in exchange for destroying your car, with little or no actual profit?


----------



## FlashedBlaze (Sep 30, 2018)

Demon said:


> I'm right.
> 
> It's illegal in NYC to refuse a ride anywhere in the city. If all a driver sees is the destination, and he refuses a ride to any point in NYC, that driver is breaking the law.


Even if it was illegal, it is extremely hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver was discriminating. The driver would have to openly say it out loud with his mouth with his dashcamera that he is discrimination unless otherwise proven.

Even if the driver gets charged with discrimination and he decides to use his head and plead the 5th, the judge would immediately toss it out just like that, because they is no compelling evidence against him that he was discriminating.

I highly bet you that law enforcement would even care enough to take legal or appropriate action against the driver for discriminating.


----------



## Wild Bill Yahoo (Jan 22, 2018)

AllGold said:


> As Nats already pointed out, Uber does not lose money on rides. But even if Uber wasn't flushing billions down the toilet on their other ventures, and if instead they actually did lose money on rides, then the blame would be on Uber's corporate management. There's nothing preventing the business model of a rideshare company taking only 25% from making a profit. Nothing except management incompetence, that is.
> 
> I agree that the flexibility is the best part of the gig. But are you actually *making* money or just getting *paid* money in exchange for destroying your car, with little or no actual profit?





AllGold said:


> As Nats already pointed out, Uber does not lose money on rides. But even if Uber wasn't flushing billions down the toilet on their other ventures, and if instead they actually did lose money on rides, then the blame would be on Uber's corporate management. There's nothing preventing the business model of a rideshare company taking only 25% from making a profit. Nothing except management incompetence, that is.
> 
> I agree that the flexibility is the best part of the gig. But are you actually *making* money or just getting *paid* money in exchange for destroying your car, with little or no actual profit?


What difference does it make? If you choose to participate in rideshare, you agree to the terms U/L dictate. If you don't like the terms, simply turn off the app.



ubernonpro said:


> 96% do by design lmao used for their free labor & car till the next sucker signs up & youre ok with that? means youre no different or better than Uber
> 
> hope no one abuses your grandmother you do know 24+% of new hires are senior citizens that uber/lyft target right? you ok with that too? its elder abuse better call saul
> 
> ...


Like I said... simply turn off the app. All your problems will go away. Rideshare is a side gig, not a full time job. It works for the part timers. If you don't like it, quit and start a livery business.


----------



## ubernonpro (Nov 3, 2018)

Wild Bill Yahoo said:


> What difference does it make? If you choose to participate in rideshare, you agree to the terms U/L dictate. If you don't like the terms, simply turn off the app.


illegal terms in contracts arent binding

96% do turn off the app by design lmao

what person making 2 tacos a trip can sue a company burning $9000 a minute? thats literally 900 johnnie cochrans an hour

the ic vs employee law suits has been being continued for 3+ years aint nobody got time for that while they bribe everyone who matters

its some real disgusting ignorant happy to let others get exploited people on here

you can't agree to work for free uber doesn't supersede the 13th amendment

if the trip says before you accept it $2 & an idiot still decides to take it & theres no punishment for cancelling fine

but hiding everything is effin illegal theyre doing nothing but tricking idiots into driving for free

independent contractors have the rights to see details of their contract



Wild Bill Yahoo said:


> What difference does it make? If you choose to participate in rideshare, you agree to the terms U/L dictate. If you don't like the terms, simply turn off the app.
> 
> Like I said... simply turn off the app. All your problems will go away. Rideshare is a side gig, not a full time job. It works for the part timers. If you don't like it, quit and start a livery business.


i don't have problems i make $40-74 profit per hour long round trip from my bed after gas

96% of other drivers do, the seniors, the immigrants, the desperate someone needs to spread the truth for them theyre human beings who just want an honest days pay

they didn't sign up for charity to be billionaire coke heads human loss leaders & to play games driving for points, stars, badges lmao none of which put gas in their tanks


----------



## Wild Bill Yahoo (Jan 22, 2018)

ubernonpro said:


> illegal terms in contracts arent binding
> 
> 96% do turn off the app by design lmao
> 
> ...


Dude.. your clueless. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. No one is being forced to drive for Uber. Simply delete the app and all your problems with it go away. There will never be a winnable class action lawsuit. You agreed to the terms of service. So you agreed to accept pings of unknown destinations. No one is being exploited. They are choosing to drive under their own free will.


----------



## AllGold (Sep 16, 2016)

Wild Bill Yahoo said:


> Dude.. your clueless. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. No one is being forced to drive for Uber. Simply delete the app and all your problems with it go away. There will never be a winnable class action lawsuit. You agreed to the terms of service. So you agreed to accept pings of unknown destinations. No one is being exploited. They are choosing to drive under their own free will.


Actually, the terms (and rates) most of the experienced drivers originally agreed to are not the current terms.

There is nothing wrong with drivers wishing for, and trying to affect positive change. Your "delete the app" schtick is a little tired. Do you think you're going to get agreement and validation on a forum for drivers or are you just trolling?


----------



## Wild Bill Yahoo (Jan 22, 2018)

AllGold said:


> Actually, the terms (and rates) most of the experienced drivers originally agreed to are not the current terms.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with drivers wishing for, and trying to affect positive change. Your "delete the app" schtick is a little tired. Do you think you're going to get agreement and validation on a forum for drivers or are you just trolling?


As the original terms changed you were not forced to accept them. All I am doing is pointing out the obvious. *****ing about the current terms won't change anything. When the gig no longer works, quit.

How is that trolling? There are many more drivers currently driving and liking the gig, than there are disgruntled drivers on the complaint board. Other threads throughout the board confirm that.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Wild Bill Yahoo said:


> As the original terms changed you were not forced to accept them. All I am doing is pointing out the obvious. @@@@@ing about the current terms won't change anything. When the gig no longer works, quit.
> 
> How is that trolling? There are many more drivers currently driving and liking the gig, than there are disgruntled drivers on the complaint board. Other threads throughout the board confirm that.


It appears you're unaware that this is the Complaint forum, whose purpose is for drivers to air out their complaints.

Why do you care if drivers criticize fuber?


----------



## wonderfulcarscent (Aug 26, 2018)

Wild Bill Yahoo said:


> All I know is that I can see the general direction and length of the ride. I still accept every ride, they all balance out at the end of the day. U/L was never intended to be a cherry picking gig. I love the feature in Uber Pro and love the new program in general.
> 
> Where else can you make money with NO schedule and work the times/ hours YOU want.
> 
> If you don't like rideshare.... turn off the dang app!


I have diamond status. I like it too, in addition to the 6% increase on pay for miles and time, and priority airport pickups.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> Fuber's entire business model and future plan to become a mega-conglomerate requires drivers to be paid rock-bottom pay rates until they can switch over to SDCs. (fuber announced they're resuming their SDC program)
> 
> Fuber CANNOT fund their "growth" scheme unless they can continue to pay the drivers 1970s taxi rates.
> 
> ...


Anytime someone here claims such intimate knowledge of Ubers plans and business model, i am tempted to ask. Were you in the board meetings? Or on the planning committees? Wouldn't you need to be some sort of shill, to be privy to all that?

Their model will likely continue to be funded by venture capitalists, until their IPO, then we will see if they thrive and for how long. Don't under estimate the amount of venture capital out there. Lots of very wealthy in the world are looking to fund things if they think an IPO is going to produce a profit

Do any of us have a seat at the table? Hell no. If you did, you would be under an NDA and probably have enough common sense to not make such things public.

If you're not on the inside you are just espousing opinions.

One more thing, plenty of companies are built with the ultimate goal of their founders being to sell. Not that they care if it even lives beyond that sale. They take their golden parachutes and bail. It sinks or swims.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

UberBeemer said:


> Anytime someone here claims such intimate knowledge of Ubers plans and business model, i am tempted to ask. Were you in the board meetings? Or on the planning committees? Wouldn't you need to be some sort of shill, to be privy to all that?


I say if you feel my points are wrong, go thru them one by one and tell me which which ones you believe are erroneous.

I don't need to be in the board meetings to get a good idea of how they operate.

Common sense, street smarts, observing their actions, and researching their past actions provides plenty of info.

Shills don't have to have vast knowledge of how fuber works to do their jobs of spreading company propaganda. Their lack of knowledge shows itself in debates with fuber critics when shills frequently have to resort to telling the critics they should quit if they don't like fuber.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Nats121 said:


> In order to see the destinations, they're required to maintain an 85% acceptance rate and no higher than a 4% cancellation rate.
> 
> Acceptance rate requirements are contradictory to the entire concept of seeing destinations in advance.


Exactly. There's limited benefit to being able to see a destination if you're still required to take it to maintain the mandatory acceptance rating level.



wonderfulcarscent said:


> I have diamond status. I like it too, in addition to the 6% increase on pay for miles and time, and priority airport pickups.


I don't know. Seems to me as though "priority" airport pickups are predicated on defrauding every driver that agreed to get into the airport queue based on the number of people currently in the queue. Those numbers are bait and switch if they're allowing other drivers to cut in front of the line to pickup people at the airport. Probably explains why it takes so long to get a ping at a lot of airports.

And if you think about it that might seemingly explain why they give a queue number range instead of a number in the queue like lyft does.


----------



## Fozzie (Aug 11, 2018)

Uber isn't going to make more money with self driving cars. They make more with the current driver scheme. 

A self driving car needs to be paid for by Uber. A self driving car needs to be maintained by Uber. A self driving car needs gas that's currently paid for by a driver. A self driving car has to be continually monitored by real people to ensure the vehicle is safe and clean enough to run. A self driving car will require that Uber pay for insurance rather than drivers. 

Overall, a switch to self driving cars will result in higher operating costs for Uber, and move much of the actual costs of doing business from drivers to Uber. It's more profitable to shift costs to drivers than to pay for it themselves. Someday the lemmings will accept that reality and abandon the delusional belief that the future is in autonomous vehicles.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Fozzie said:


> A self driving car needs to be paid for by Uber. A self driving car needs to be maintained by Uber. A self driving car needs gas that's currently paid for by a driver. A self driving car has to be continually monitored by real people to ensure the vehicle is safe and clean enough to run. A self driving car will require that Uber pay for insurance rather than drivers.


I read something a while back where the discussion was that individuals would own the autonomous cars and lend them to services like uber and lyft to pimp them out for a profit. I can see that being highly profitable for uber and lyft because they would essentially get complete control of the vehicle and would promptly proceed to abusing them far more than a driver would allow their car to be abused by the demands of the service.

But uber and lyft both seem to be pushing towards a, from their point of view, utopian society in which they own the vehicles, and pax must approach them for transportation at any rate they deem fit.

To me that's a dystopian society, but I'm sort of picky that way.

You're right they're going to have to hire a lot of full time staff to monitor the vehicles and clean up after a lot of rides. That's not likely to be cheap, but I'll bet they contract that out and offer the gigs probably like they do with drivers now.


----------



## ANT 7 (Oct 14, 2018)

Fozzie said:


> Uber isn't going to make more money with self driving cars. They make more with the current driver scheme.
> 
> A self driving car needs to be paid for by Uber. A self driving car needs to be maintained by Uber. A self driving car needs gas that's currently paid for by a driver. A self driving car has to be continually monitored by real people to ensure the vehicle is safe and clean enough to run. A self driving car will require that Uber pay for insurance rather than drivers.
> 
> Overall, a switch to self driving cars will result in higher operating costs for Uber, and move much of the actual costs of doing business from drivers to Uber. It's more profitable to shift costs to drivers than to pay for it themselves. Someday the lemmings will accept that reality and abandon the delusional belief that the future is in autonomous vehicles.


You just saved me a lot of typing.

SDV's will cost more than private cars.

Initial vehicle fleet acquisition costs, insurance, fuel, scheduled maintenance, depreciation, cleaning, unexpected repairs, loss of use time, etc, none of that is going to go away. Next up will be the physical infrastructure needed to operate and maintain the fleet in each city. Buildings and employees.....etc.

UBER will be around until the IPO then it's game on once the VC's get their money back from the float.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> I say if you feel my points are wrong, go thru them one by one and tell me which which ones you believe are erroneous.
> 
> I don't need to be in the board meetings to get a good idea of how they operate.
> 
> ...


So, you admit, you don't really know any of this. Your statements just conjecture. Right?

I mean, you would have to be a plant, otherwise. And since you demand others "prove" their statements, when you don't seem to be able to? How can we take you seriously? All this stuff you say, amounts to guesses, doesn't it?


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Nats121 said:


> I say if you feel my points are wrong, go thru them one by one and tell me which which ones you believe are erroneous.
> 
> I don't need to be in the board meetings to get a good idea of how they operate.
> 
> ...


You seem to have attracted a fan Nats121. You know they really like your work when they go looking for them. Careful though you may wish to let the relatives take care of the rabbit for a while, you know, just till you know noone's trying to make rabbit stew.

Like you though I eagerly await the point for point rebuttal.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> You seem to have attracted a fan Nats121. You know they really like your work when they go looking for them. Careful though you may wish to let the relatives take care of the rabbit for a while, you know, just till you know noone's trying to make rabbit stew.
> 
> Like you though I eagerly await the point for point rebuttal.


Don't hold your breath on getting one anytime soon, lol



Fozzie said:


> Uber isn't going to make more money with self driving cars. They make more with the current driver scheme.
> 
> A self driving car needs to be paid for by Uber. A self driving car needs to be maintained by Uber. A self driving car needs gas that's currently paid for by a driver. A self driving car has to be continually monitored by real people to ensure the vehicle is safe and clean enough to run. A self driving car will require that Uber pay for insurance rather than drivers.
> 
> Overall, a switch to self driving cars will result in higher operating costs for Uber, and move much of the actual costs of doing business from drivers to Uber. It's more profitable to shift costs to drivers than to pay for it themselves. Someday the lemmings will accept that reality and abandon the delusional belief that the future is in autonomous vehicles.


At least publicly, uber and some of the financial analysts claim SDCs will be MORE profitable than using human drivers.

In a truly free market, SDCs would most likely be LESS profitable for fuber.

With that in mind, for the last three years fuber has been part of a cabal which is scheming to ban privately owned SDCs from city streets...
https://gizmodo.com/uber-and-lyft-have-a-hot-new-idea-for-screwing-over-cit-1822661060


----------



## JJUberman (Nov 14, 2018)

Wild Bill Yahoo said:


> Uhmmmm. Destinations are now known in advance to Platinum and Diamond members of Uber Pro.
> 
> So much for your theory.


I've said this before and if you addressed it elsewhere then I apologize as I must have missed it but....Once again I ask; How exactly does rough direction and an estimate distance translate to a destination ? Or am I supposed to whip out my Googler and attempt to triangulate ?
50 miles North by Northwest just simply doesn't "seem" like spelling out the destination to me. You know, as opposed to "Rider heading 30 miles North to Clinton Howard Johnson's on West Main Street Clinton, CT". 'Zat make sense, or is it just me ?


----------



## 155839 (Jul 28, 2018)

Demon said:


> Showing destinations in most places would be illegal.


WTF Are you taking about? Why would it be illegal?


Demon said:


> It's never going to happen & it shouldn't happen.


A. It may happen, with government intervention or the threat thereof. B. Why shouldn't it happen?


Demon said:


> If someone can't deal with that, they're in the wrong business.


"You should consider yourself lucky to be earning any money at all! There are people starving in Africa!"



Wild Bill Yahoo said:


> Where else can you make money with NO schedule and work the times/ hours YOU want.


Amazon Flex, DoorDash, GrubHub, PostMates, Busking on street corners, Begging...



Wild Bill Yahoo said:


> If you don't like rideshare.... turn off the dang app!


"America, love it or leave it!"


----------



## Fozzie (Aug 11, 2018)

Nats121 said:


> Don't hold your breath on getting one anytime soon, lol
> 
> At least publicly, uber and some of the financial analysts claim SDCs will be MORE profitable than using human drivers.
> 
> ...


Self driving cars will cost more than standard passenger vehicles due to their self driving "suite" of sensors, etc., and will need to be replaced much more often since they'd most likely be putting on twice as many miles as current drivers do. Assuming a $50k vehicle that needs to be replaced every 2.5 years, your vehicle purchase expense alone would be over $2,000 per month. Couple that with gas expenses and maintenance costs that drivers currently absorb, and their expenses soar as their profits tank. Do the math using the numbers YOU personally experience, then show me how a company like Uber can do it better. Hell, they can't even get their stupid ass app to work properly!


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Fozzie said:


> Uber isn't going to make more money with self driving cars. They make more with the current driver scheme.
> 
> A self driving car needs to be paid for by Uber. A self driving car needs to be maintained by Uber. A self driving car needs gas that's currently paid for by a driver. A self driving car has to be continually monitored by real people to ensure the vehicle is safe and clean enough to run. A self driving car will require that Uber pay for insurance rather than drivers.
> 
> Overall, a switch to self driving cars will result in higher operating costs for Uber, and move much of the actual costs of doing business from drivers to Uber. It's more profitable to shift costs to drivers than to pay for it themselves. Someday the lemmings will accept that reality and abandon the delusional belief that the future is in autonomous vehicles.


I have always thought that by the time self driving cars are allowed the level of autonomy that would make sense for uber, there would have to be significant changes in safety laws, and regulations. In addition to the ethical problems of allowing a machine the decision of life or death situations, you have a lot of legal wrangling yet over who is responsible when auto pilot results in fatalities.

I also tend to think that the cost to a company to deploy a fleet of robots would be prohibitive. Having enough cars on the road would be one thing. But imagine the cost of infrastructure to maintain them. They would most likely be EV's, so you would need two or three times as many, in order to keep the fleet running all hours.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Fozzie said:


> Self driving cars will cost more than standard passenger vehicles due to their self driving "suite" of sensors, etc., and will need to be replaced much more often since they'd most likely be putting on twice as many miles as current drivers do. Assuming a $50k vehicle that needs to be replaced every 2.5 years, your vehicle purchase expense alone would be over $2,000 per month. Couple that with gas expenses and maintenance costs that drivers currently absorb, and their expenses soar as their profits tank. Do the math using the numbers YOU personally experience, then show me how a company like Uber can do it better. Hell, they can't even get their stupid ass app to work properly!


I can't say I necessarily disagree with what you're saying. I mean if they took on the work themselves and hired employees to accomplish simple maintenance that would add tremendous expense to the process, not to mention facilities costs in major cities with large fleets.

I think though that they'll probably attempt to have independent contractors provide the ancillary services expecting that they'll subsequently eat the cost, no doubt at a long term loss. Not sure how they'll be able to hide the inherent costs enough to get independent contractors to agree to do the work upfront.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Fozzie said:


> Self driving cars will cost more than standard passenger vehicles due to their self driving "suite" of sensors, etc., and will need to be replaced much more often since they'd most likely be putting on twice as many miles as current drivers do. Assuming a $50k vehicle that needs to be replaced every 2.5 years, your vehicle purchase expense alone would be over $2,000 per month. Couple that with gas expenses and maintenance costs that drivers currently absorb, and their expenses soar as their profits tank. Do the math using the numbers YOU personally experience, then show me how a company like Uber can do it better. Hell, they can't even get their stupid ass app to work properly!


Some of the analysts claim that the price of the vehicles will drop over time, and their maintenance costs will be lower than gas powered vehicles.

Like I said in my previous post, in a truly free market where anyone can compete, fuber would have keep their prices so low that profit margins would be small at best. It's for that reason among others that fuber wants to create a govt-enforced cartel which would eliminate competition in the same way as taxi medallions.


----------



## Fozzie (Aug 11, 2018)

I've been waiting for the price of vehicles to drop since I got my driver's license in the mid 70's. If it hasn't happened yet, it won't happen in the future. (Yay for free markets!) 

The only way self driving cars would work would be by requiring everyone to give up their vehicles and pay Uber/Lyft to transport them everywhere. Good luck with that. The odds of me giving up my car are as slim as the odds of me giving up my firearms. NOT going to happen.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Wonkytonk said:


> You seem to have attracted a fan Nats121. You know they really like your work when they go looking for them. Careful though you may wish to let the relatives take care of the rabbit for a while, you know, just till you know noone's trying to make rabbit stew.
> 
> Like you though I eagerly await the point for point rebuttal.


There will be no point for point. Nats is posting a bunch of guesswork as fact, then telling us we have to disprove what he didn't offer proof of to begin with. Then calling people a shill, or telling others "you dont know what you're talking about" when they don't see it his way.

You are all entitled to express your theories, but get my attention when employing the method of trying to diminish other members when they don't agree.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Fozzie said:


> I've been waiting for the price of vehicles to drop since I got my driver's license in the mid 70's. If it hasn't happened yet, it won't happen in the future. (Yay for free markets!)
> 
> The only way self driving cars would work would be by requiring everyone to give up their vehicles and pay Uber/Lyft to transport them everywhere. Good luck with that. The odds of me giving up my car are as slim as the odds of me giving up my firearms. NOT going to happen.


As the article stated, fuber has been working behind the scenes to ban privately owned SDCs from city streets.

I've read that some states including Texas are taking steps to prevent that type of cartel law from taking place.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> It's for that reason among others that fuber wants to create a govt-enforced cartel which would eliminate competition in the same way as taxi medallions.


I don't follow this assertion. A cartel? Sounds like they're dragging kids out of school to be mules. We all entered into this willingly, whether we like to admit it or not.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

UberBeemer said:


> There will be no point for point. Nats is posting a bunch of guesswork as fact, then telling us we have to disprove what he didn't offer proof of to begin with. Then calling people a shill, or telling others "you dont know what you're talking about" when they don't see it his way.
> 
> You are all entitled to express your theories, but get my attention when employing the method of trying to diminish other members when they don't agree.


Instead of debating about fuber, you want to make the debate about debating tactics, which doesn't interest me in the least.

You're the one who said it's against the rules of Upnet to call people shills, and yet you keep using that term in your posts.

I don't know if you're trying to goad me or not, but right now YOU'RE breaking the rules on being confrontational.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Wonkytonk said:


> I can't say I necessarily disagree with what you're saying. I mean if they took on the work themselves and hired employees to accomplish simple maintenance that would add tremendous expense to the process, not to mention facilities costs in major cities with large fleets.
> 
> I think though that they'll probably attempt to have independent contractors provide the ancillary services expecting that they'll subsequently eat the cost, no doubt at a long term loss. Not sure how they'll be able to hide the inherent costs enough to get independent contractors to agree to do the work upfront.


Companies like hertz, for example, contract with firestone for maintaining their cars that are due for oil changes or need tires. Hertz has fewer and fewer of their own service bays. But you're going to need more. Charging stations. Cleaning stations. Maybe they could also be robotic. But this is an enourmous undertaking. Think of a major city. How many miles does a busy driver cover in a shift? How many miles is even a tesla good for on a charge? They will have to limit the miles, to ensure their cars get to a charger without stranding someone. And, they do break down. I get they expect EVs to come down in price, but over time, but do you think even if they become as affordable as a camry, by that point it is still expensive to own and operate hundreds of thousands?



Nats121 said:


> Instead of debating about fuber, you want to make the debate about debating tactics, which doesn't interest me in the least.
> 
> You're the one who said it's against the rules of Upnet to call people shills, and yet you keep using that term in your posts.
> 
> I don't know if you're trying to goad me or not, but right now YOU'RE breaking the rules on being confrontational.


I am asking questions to make a point. I never called you a shill, even though you've tossed that at me more than a few times nats. If you can refrain from that, and make a point that you can own as an opinion without being condescending, you won't get called out.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

ANT 7 said:


> SDV's will cost more than private cars.
> 
> Initial vehicle fleet acquisition costs, _*insurance*_, fuel, scheduled maintenance, depreciation, cleaning, unexpected repairs, loss of use time, etc, none of that is going to go away. Next up will be the physical infrastructure needed to operate and maintain the fleet in each city. Buildings and employees.....etc.


You bring up a good point. I wonder what their insurance costs will be for autonomous vehicles. I'm betting that at least initially liability coverage will cost them quite a bit per vehicle. In time they may be able to convince insurers that the vehicles are safer, but I doubt they'll get a discount initially.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

UberBeemer said:


> I don't follow this assertion. A cartel? Sounds like they're dragging kids out of school to be mules. We all entered into this willingly, whether we like to admit it or not.


Look up the definition of a cartel.

Our relationship with fuber is an entirely different topic, and if you knew what a cartel is, you wouldn't have brought that into this discussion.

Taxi medallion systems is an example of a govt-enforced cartel.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> Look up the definition of a cartel.
> 
> Our relationship with fuber is an entirely different topic, and if you knew what a cartel is, you wouldn't have brought that into this discussion.
> 
> Taxi medallion systems is an example of a govt-enforced cartel.


I don't think i introduced the term into the discussion. You seem to use the term to paint a negative picture. Call it a cartel, but it is a needed regulation, don't you think? Would you rather it just be a free for all?


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

UberBeemer said:


> I don't think i introduced the term into the discussion. You seem to use the term to paint a negative picture. Call it a cartel, but it is a needed regulation, don't you think? Would you rather it just be a free for all?


You brought fuber drivers not being forced to drive into a discussion about SDC cartels, which is a whole different topic.

In my view, govt-enforced cartels are most definitely a negative.

They enrich the few at the expense of the many.

Denying people the opportunity go to into their occupation of choice is certainly a negative, which goes against two of the pillars of our country, which are liberty and equal opportunity.

Any regulation that takes away either of those things should be an absolutely last resort, and the burden should be on the govt to make a compelling case why it should be implemented.

One of the worst things govt does is denying people the opportunity to compete.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> You brought fuber drivers not being forced to drive into a discussion about SDC cartels, which is a whole different topic.
> 
> In my view, govt-enforced cartels are most definitely a negative.
> 
> ...


Some other members have posted that there needs to be a higher bar to clear in this industry than we currently have. Regulations are designed to do two things. One, provide a framework for operating that hopefully makes the operation of a for hire auto service safely. And, they create a revenue stream for supporting the regulations. Transit authorities cost money. You need regulations, or some fools would drive 20 hours each day and put people at risk. But you can't uphold those laws on a shoestring. Administrative Courts need clerks and judges, and prosecutors.

I like the idea of smaller government, but too small is anarchy. And in that environment, companies like Uber get to run the table at our expense.

I don't know how old you are. But i recall a time when almost half the cars in downtown chicago were cabs.


----------



## 155839 (Jul 28, 2018)

Wild Bill Yahoo said:


> What difference does it make? If you choose to participate in rideshare, you agree to the terms U/L dictate. If you don't like the terms, simply turn off the app.
> 
> Like I said... simply turn off the app. All your problems will go away. Rideshare is a side gig, not a full time job. It works for the part timers. If you don't like it, quit and start a livery business.


That's right! If your kids are doing well in school, or your wife isn't a very good cook, leave them! No need to try to help them improve. Just forget about them!
Are your elected officials doing a lousy job? Just move to another country! Don't vote or campaign for better candidates.
Is your car making a weird noise? Just ditch it on the side of the road. Don't bother trying to fix it.


----------



## IR12 (Nov 11, 2017)

Bam!
There is a way to beat uber/lyft at its own game (Lyft's easier) you just have to think about what your objective is and not U/L's. 

You need not be a geek to manipulate these apps. 

Destination mode:

Omg! I can't believe driver's haven't figured out.. they can have as many destination modes as they like without using but one INITIAL destination mode. In other words you can make 1 destination mode last all day.
Think!


----------



## 155839 (Jul 28, 2018)

Fozzie said:


> Uber isn't going to make more money with self driving cars. They make more with the current driver scheme.
> 
> A self driving car needs to be paid for by Uber. A self driving car needs to be maintained by Uber. A self driving car needs gas that's currently paid for by a driver. A self driving car has to be continually monitored by real people to ensure the vehicle is safe and clean enough to run. A self driving car will require that Uber pay for insurance rather than drivers.





Wonkytonk said:


> You're right they're going to have to hire a lot of full time staff to monitor the vehicles and clean up after a lot of rides. That's not likely to be cheap, but I'll bet they contract that out and offer the gigs probably like they do with drivers now.





ANT 7 said:


> SDV's will cost more than private cars.
> 
> Initial vehicle fleet acquisition costs, insurance, fuel, scheduled maintenance, depreciation, cleaning, unexpected repairs, loss of use time, etc, none of that is going to go away. Next up will be the physical infrastructure needed to operate and maintain the fleet in each city. Buildings and employees.....etc.





Nats121 said:


> In a truly free market, SDCs would most likely be LESS profitable for fuber.





Fozzie said:


> Self driving cars will cost more than standard passenger vehicles due to their self driving "suite" of sensors, etc., and will need to be replaced much more often since they'd most likely be putting on twice as many miles as current drivers do.


Apparently, nobody understands how corporate bookkeeping works.
Do SDC's cost more than the equivalent legacy vehicle? Yes. The initial purchase price is higher.
But, the purchase price of capital equipment is not how corporate entities calculate the expense. They depreciate and amortize over a period of years. That $50k vehicle shows as a $10k expense per year for 5 years. (That is a simplification, as it isn't evenly split. But, you get the idea.)
As for maintenance, it will most likely be contracted to companies who also employ "gig" workers. Or, they will use their own low-payed employees.
Fuel costs? EV's and hybrids will keep it relatively low.
And, they will now be keeping 100% of the fares. That 50-65% that's been going to drivers? It's theirs now. All of it.
Will they be making more profit from their rideshare operation with 100% SDC fleet than they do now with human drivers? Yes. Certainly on paper. Probably in actuality, as well. But, paper is really all that counts.



IR12 said:


> Bam!
> There is a way to beat uber/lyft at its own game (Lyft's easier) you just have to think about what your objective is and not U/L's.
> 
> You need not be a geek to manipulate these apps.
> ...


All that does is limit your trips to an approximate direction. It doesn't cut down on shorties at all. In fact, you can get nothing but shorties all day, as long as they are in the approximate direction of your destination.
It won't cut down on undesirable pickups or dropoffs either, if they fall within a few miles of your destination route.
So, your amazing OMG solution that nobody has ever figured out, hasn't been suggested for a reason. (Multiple reasons, actually.)


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

gaijinpen said:


> Apparently, nobody understands how corporate bookkeeping works.
> Do SDC's cost more than the equivalent legacy vehicle? Yes. The initial purchase price is higher.
> But, the purchase price of capital equipment is not how corporate entities calculate the expense. They depreciate and amortize over a period of years. That $50k vehicle shows as a $10k expense per year for 5 years. (That is a simplification, as it isn't evenly split. But, you get the idea.)
> As for maintenance, it will most likely be contracted to companies who also employ "gig" workers. Or, they will use their own low-payed employees.
> ...


You're overlooking the extremely important competition factor.

Right now, uber and lyft have the field almost entirely to themselves, and with it, control over pricing.

That will change with SDCs as both big and small players jump in, and is the reason uber is conspiring to ban privately-owned SDCs from city streets.

So even if their costs go down, fares will also go down, unless they can establish a govt-backed SDC cartel.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

gaijinpen said:


> As for maintenance, it will most likely be contracted to companies who also employ "gig" workers. Or, they will use their own low-payed employees.


Not sure why you quoted that extract from my post since I essentially stated exactly what you posted here. It's not rocket science, of course they're going to try to shift the costs off themselves. Hiring their own workforce for this will most likely be a last resort employed only if they can't find someone else to eat the costs for them like drivers do now.


----------



## Fozzie (Aug 11, 2018)

gaijinpen said:


> Apparently, nobody understands how corporate bookkeeping works.
> Do SDC's cost more than the equivalent legacy vehicle? Yes. The initial purchase price is higher.
> But, the purchase price of capital equipment is not how corporate entities calculate the expense. They depreciate and amortize over a period of years. That $50k vehicle shows as a $10k expense per year for 5 years. (That is a simplification, as it isn't evenly split. But, you get the idea.)
> As for maintenance, it will most likely be contracted to companies who also employ "gig" workers. Or, they will use their own low-payed employees.
> ...


They can amortize however they want, but the realistic lifespan of a dedicated self driving vehicle will not exceed 3 years. (Probably closer to 2 years) Such rapid depreciation can't be ignored.

Could they use electric vehicles? Sure, but keep in mind that electric vehicles will cost MORE, and will have much more downtime because of limited charge and recharge. If you rely on a car to travel to make money, can you really afford to be hindered by charging downtime? They're also going to fight government regulation, since self driving vehicles will undoubtedly compete directly with mass transit supported by public funds.

Oh, and that huge profit margin they're going to gain by cutting out drivers? LOL. Ask any driver how huge that margin really is. As competition increases, prices and margins will undoubtedly fall even more.


----------



## CarpeNoctem (Sep 12, 2018)

Putting on my Alex Jones hat...

Look at the current market. Uber has gone from 0 to big in a few years. They lower the price and the cab companies are starting to squeal. They have disconnected what we are paid from what the riders are charged. The rates are so low that the cab companies are made insignificant. By insignificant I mean they are still around like some limo companies but little business (compared to the cab companies of old). Once the cab companies are decimated then uber can up the price for the riders but still keep the fare disconnect in place for the drivers. This means they can pay us in peanuts while the uber execs eat caviar. Once this happens then they could theoretically use SDC for their fleet. There will be no other competition so they could just about set their own prices to cover the cost of the SDC's.

However, like others have stated, they will probably outsource all the recharging and maintenance for the SDC's to the lowest bidder.

Yeah, I know, conspiracy theories.


----------



## 155839 (Jul 28, 2018)

Fozzie said:


> They can amortize however they want, but the realistic lifespan of a dedicated self driving vehicle will not exceed 3 years. (Probably closer to 2 years) Such rapid depreciation can't be ignored.
> 
> Could they use electric vehicles? Sure, but keep in mind that electric vehicles will cost MORE, and will have much more downtime because of limited charge and recharge. If you rely on a car to travel to make money, can you really afford to be hindered by charging downtime? They're also going to fight government regulation, since self driving vehicles will undoubtedly compete directly with mass transit supported by public funds.
> 
> Oh, and that huge profit margin they're going to gain by cutting out drivers? LOL. Ask any driver how huge that margin really is. As competition increases, prices and margins will undoubtedly fall even more.


Okay then. I guess you know more about the financial aspect of this than their team of accountants, their comptroller, and their CFO. They obviously haven't given much thought to the financial impact of moving to a SDC model, and only thought of how cool it will be.
You got me.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> You're overlooking the extremely important competition factor.
> 
> Right now, uber and lyft have the field almost entirely to themselves, and with it, control over pricing.
> 
> ...


I am still not sure what your statement of "government backed" is intended to mean, Nats. The government backing of uber is limited to assessment of certain municiple fees and safety regs.

What are you seeing it as? These regs and fees are the same for any tnp in a given area. They don't discourage competition.



Fozzie said:


> They can amortize however they want, but the realistic lifespan of a dedicated self driving vehicle will not exceed 3 years. (Probably closer to 2 years) Such rapid depreciation can't be ignored.
> 
> Could they use electric vehicles? Sure, but keep in mind that electric vehicles will cost MORE, and will have much more downtime because of limited charge and recharge. If you rely on a car to travel to make money, can you really afford to be hindered by charging downtime? They're also going to fight government regulation, since self driving vehicles will undoubtedly compete directly with mass transit supported by public funds.
> 
> Oh, and that huge profit margin they're going to gain by cutting out drivers? LOL. Ask any driver how huge that margin really is. As competition increases, prices and margins will undoubtedly fall even more.


The ratio of income to expense increases greatly even if the company outsources maintenance. It would be interesting to know what the lifespan of an EV might be. Will they last 100, 200k miles?


----------



## Alexxx_Uber (Sep 3, 2018)

To all who say showing the destination is illegal:
Is it really illegal? So for example if you get a cab in NYC and you tell the driver that you want to go to a far distance like Washington DC, he has no right to tell you that he won’t give you ride?


----------



## VictorD (Apr 30, 2017)

Wild Bill Yahoo said:


> Uhmmmm. Destinations are now known in advance to Platinum and Diamond members of Uber Pro.
> 
> So much for your theory.


No, they're not. Only direction and estimated trip time are provided to Platinum and Diamond Pro drivers.

So much for your retort.


----------



## Fozzie (Aug 11, 2018)

gaijinpen said:


> Okay then. I guess you know more about the financial aspect of this than their team of accountants, their comptroller, and their CFO. They obviously haven't given much thought to the financial impact of moving to a SDC model, and only thought of how cool it will be.
> You got me.


How many of those accountants, comptrollers and CFOs have spent ANY time driving for a rideshare company? Everything they "know" is what's spoon fed to them by those with existing financial agendas. Why look at real world scenarios when Dara can tell you everything he wants you to know? That he has hundreds of millions riding on a successful IPO doesn't matter, right?

My "experience" is from driving for Uber and Lyft for multiple years. From living through the challenges, and from understanding the real world restrictions that these companies will face. It doesn't matter, though. I guess we should all just trust the companies that we know are lying to us and robbing us blind.


----------



## ANT 7 (Oct 14, 2018)

There is no question that GAAP regulations will be pushed and/or broken.

You are now allowed to deduct 100% of an asset purchase in year 1. 

Gonna be a lot of paper profit upfront, and cash flow issues later on, once VC dries up and things get built out. Should keep the share float profitable enough for 2 years or so, in order that this pig can go from the VC funders on to the eventual general public who will be the losers in the stock market.

UBER is the biggest tech unicorn by far.........


----------



## 155839 (Jul 28, 2018)

Fozzie said:


> How many of those accountants, comptrollers and CFOs have spent ANY time driving for a rideshare company?


Irrelevant, as far as corporate PnL is concerned.


Fozzie said:


> My "experience" is from driving for Uber and Lyft for multiple years. From living through the challenges, and from understanding the real world restrictions that these companies will face.


Also, irrelevant, as far as corporate PnL is concerned. They have teams of financial experts poring over the numbers involved as it relates to Revenue, PnL, EBITDA, etc.
Knowing about the BS drivers put up with does not have any bearing whatsoever on the numbers they need to be concerned with.


Fozzie said:


> It doesn't matter, though.


You're right. It doesn't matter.


Fozzie said:


> I guess we should all just trust the companies that we know are lying to us and robbing us blind.


Nobody here said we should.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

UberBeemer said:


> There will be no point for point. Nats is posting a bunch of guesswork as fact, then telling us we have to disprove what he didn't offer proof of to begin with. Then calling people a shill, or telling others "you dont know what you're talking about" when they don't see it his way.
> 
> You are all entitled to express your theories, but get my attention when employing the method of trying to diminish other members when they don't agree.


Please do not attempt to engage me in discussion unless you agree publicly upfront to abstain from taking moderator actions on any discussion in which you are engaged.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

UberBeemer said:


> I am still not sure what your statement of "government backed" is intended to mean, Nats. The government backing of uber is limited to assessment of certain municiple fees and safety regs.
> 
> What are you seeing it as? These regs and fees are the same for any tnp in a given area. They don't discourage competition.
> 
> The ratio of income to expense increases greatly even if the company outsources maintenance. It would be interesting to know what the lifespan of an EV might be. Will they last 100, 200k miles?


You're getting hung up on the word cartel, which conjures up images of OPEC or Mexican drug lords.

A cartel is an organized group of companies or entities that fixes prices usually by agreeing to limit the production or quantity of a product or resource such as oil.

Cartels are illegal under anti-trust laws in many parts of the world including the US... but not when the govt decides to create one, such as in the taxi industry.

Cartels are similar to monopolies with the difference being there's more than one company in a cartel.

Cartels don't last in free markets.

But govt-backed cartels can last for long periods of time, like taxi cartels in the US.

Fuber has been working behind the scenes to convince cities to ban privately owned SDCs from city streets, with the result being only a limited number of companies would be allowed to operate SDCs in cities.

Like taxis, fares would be regulated by the govt, and would be artificially high due to the lack of competition.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Wonkytonk said:


> Please do not attempt to engage me in discussion unless you agree publicly upfront to abstain from taking moderator actions on any discussion in which you are engaged.


If you violate the TOS, i will moderate, as would any of the mod team. Otherwise you have nothing to fear.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

UberBeemer said:


> If you violate the TOS, i will moderate, as would any of the mod team. Otherwise you have nothing to fear.


Moderating on discussion in which you take part is a blatant conflict of interest which escalates astronomically when you start taking moderation actions against the individuals in the discussion with which you disagree.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> You're getting hung up on the word cartel, which conjures up images of OPEC or Mexican drug lords.
> 
> A cartel is an organized group of companies or entities that fixes prices usually by agreeing to limit the production or quantity of a product or resource such as oil.
> 
> ...


I am not really hung up on that word or connotations of drug cartels. I was interested in what you mean by government backing. Seems to me you're talking about regulation, which seems inevitable. I am also curious as to the source of your stating that the company is working with cities to ban privately owned SDC's. Isnt the cat out of the bag with things like Teslas autopilot? Those cars are already fully capable of autonomous operation. They have a "summon" feature that could, if local laws allow eventually, the car to start, open your garage, and pull around to your door. And companies like GM, Ford, FCA, Toyota, Nissan, etc., who would fight that, don't you think?



Wonkytonk said:


> Moderating on discussion in which you take part is a blatant conflict of interest which escalates astronomically when you start taking moderation actions against the individuals in the discussion with which you disagree.


If you ask me, you are rejecting reality and substituting your own. Have fun.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

UberBeemer said:


> If you ask me, you are rejecting reality and substituting your own. Have fun.


I wasn't asking.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Ok. Have fun anyway.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

UberBeemer said:


> I am not really hung up on that word or connotations of drug cartels. I was interested in what you mean by government backing. Seems to me you're talking about regulation, which seems inevitable. I am also curious as to the source of your stating that the company is working with cities to ban privately owned SDC's. Isnt the cat out of the bag with things like Teslas autopilot? Those cars are already fully capable of autonomous operation. They have a "summon" feature that could, if local laws allow eventually, the car to start, open your garage, and pull around to your door. And companies like GM, Ford, FCA, Toyota, Nissan, etc., who would fight that, don't you think?


Setting up cartel is an extreme form of regulation which slams the door shut on competition and enriches the select few who are allowed to operate in it. That's the reason NYC taxi medallions used to sell for more than $1 million before rideshare came to town.

Govt enforced cartels are the ultimate form of crony capitalism and I'm very much opposed to them for reasons I've already stated.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> That's the reason NYC taxi medallions used to sell for more than $1 million before rideshare came to town.


Nats, It may be true that the government issues those medallions, but they are a transferable license, which is why they became so expensive. Investors took advantage of that and drove up the prices by creating near monopolies. I think the government limiting the numbers of badges issued was intended to regulate so that the companies could not flood the street with cabs.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

UberBeemer said:


> Nats, It may be true that the government issues those medallions, but they are a transferable license, which is why they became so expensive. Investors took advantage of that and drove up the prices by creating near monopolies. I think the government limiting the numbers of badges issued was intended to regulate so that the companies could not flood the street with cabs.


First, govt issued permits should never be transferrable, whether they're taxi medallions, liquor licences, or anything else.

Whenever the govt engages in crony capitalism, there's always an innocent sounding reason, usually public safety.

The NYC system was set up during the 1930s depression as a response to "too many cabs" on the streets causing chaos.

Even if the initial reason was valid, the market should have been opened once the "crisis" passed. It wasn't opened, and the rest was history.

Travis and fuber presented themselves as the David free market alternative to the Goliath taxi industry. Now as we can see, it was yet another of fuber's lies.

They're WORSE than the taxi industry ever was with their scheme to prevent people from using there own cars in cities. The taxi industry never tried to take people's cars away.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Some licenses should be transferable. If you owned a nightclub and wanted to sell it, you should be able to transfer your operating licenses so long as the new owners aren't disqualified.

And states have already preempted the ban initiatives. Plus, i bet the automakers would be able to prevent that type of ban on the basis of impeding their commercial interests.


----------



## 155839 (Jul 28, 2018)

This talk of Uber creating a gov't ban on privately-owned SDC's is ridiculous. Ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

UberBeemer said:


> Some licenses should be transferable. If you owned a nightclub and wanted to sell it, you should be able to transfer your operating licenses so long as the new owners aren't disqualified.
> 
> And states have already preempted the ban initiatives. Plus, i bet the automakers would be able to prevent that type of ban on the basis of impeding their commercial interests.


I disagree.

A license is govt property, which means it's the people's property, and as such should not be transferrable, especially when the transferability makes the license unaffordable to most people.

That's one of the big flaws of taxi medallions. The average taxi driver had no hope of ever owning their own cab in NYC

Doctor's licences aren't transferrable, and neither should liquor licences.

If someone wants to open a nightclub or purchase an existing one, they can apply for their own license and face the same approval process.

Virginia liquor licences aren't transferrable and restaurants get bought and sold all the time.

In an earlier post I mentioned that Texas and other states are taking steps to block the SDC initiative, but that doesn't mitigate the fact that Uber would attempt it in the first place and they're still attempting it.

Even if they ultimately fail to ban privately owned SDCs from city streets, their initiative calls for SDCs to be limited to fleets, which means they'll try to shut individual and small businesses from starting SDC rideshare companies.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> I disagree.
> 
> A license is govt property, which means it's the people's property, and as such should not be transferrable, especially when the transferability makes the license unaffordable to most people.
> 
> ...


I agree that a professional license should not be for sale. That MD or JD or CPA or what have you, earned that. And you can't buy that knowledge from someone. But a business license? I think the application process could be expedited for a change of ownership. It would just be good business. A taxi i would agree with you, should be something that an investor could not hoard, and drive the price up for. That's bad for business.

Now, when it comes to Uber or Lyft joining the zipcar effort to monopolize SDCs, that was a bad idea, but i understand from a business perspective. Which isnt the same as condoning it. But given the citizen's united attitudes prevailing, you have to expect power grabs to be attempted.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

We don't need to guess if self driving vehicles are the future.

Most car collisions are due to human error. I don't think computer error has been calculated yet. Car computers will get smarter over time. Insurance for a self driving car should be cheaper in the future.

Electric vehicles are where its at. I've been flying radio controlled planes for > 30 yrs. Back in the day, 99% of planes were wet fuel powered. Today, 99% of new planes are electric. Electric motors are simpler, cleaner, quieter, and should last longer than their internal combustion counterparts. Range is the limiting factor right now but it will increase.

The average new car costing $32,000, driven for 5 years at 15,000 miles per year will cost about $0.55 per mile to operate. The cost includes depreciation, maintenance, repairs, taxes, fees, and insurance as a personal vehicle. If one owns a fleet of vehicles, it should be cheaper due to economies of scale.

If a drivers drives for 6 hours and 120 miles, they should gross $100. Do that 365 times a year and the driver grosses $36,500 while driving 43,800 miles. That's $24,090 in costs leaving a net of $12,410 for the driver (less than minimum wage - don't drive a new car). 

If a computer drives for 18 hours and 360 miles, it should gross $300. Do that 365 times a year and the computer generates $109,500 while driving 108,000 miles. At the rate of $0.55 per mile for costs (it should be much cheaper for a fleet vehicle) that's $59,400 in costs leaving $50,100 in profit to the computer owner.

In this scenario 1 self driving car replaces 3 drivers.

So, Uber's future plans include drivers staying home. It won't be next week. It won't be next year. But soon.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Pusher said:


> Chicago Market has had it where they do not show rider ratings nor destination (estimated time to destination) , with this new program it goes to show that they have had the ability the entire time to do so.
> 
> It is discrimination to the drivers and manipulation of drivers to maintain and to take just about all rides with this new "incentive" program. Because if they will now selectively show estimated destination times only to the select ones who meet their requirements, but fail to do so to those who fall below it goes to show that the entire time that Uber had the ability to do so.
> 
> Even under this new program those in the Chicago Market still are unable to see the rider ratings.


Of course they've had the ability. They showed destination when they started.



UberBeemer said:


> I have always thought that by the time self driving cars are allowed the level of autonomy that would make sense for uber, there would have to be significant changes in safety laws, and regulations. In addition to the ethical problems of allowing a machine the decision of life or death situations, you have a lot of legal wrangling yet over who is responsible when auto pilot results in fatalities.
> 
> I also tend to think that the cost to a company to deploy a fleet of robots would be prohibitive. Having enough cars on the road would be one thing. But imagine the cost of infrastructure to maintain them. They would most likely be EV's, so you would need two or three times as many, in order to keep the fleet running all hours.


If uber owns the cars it will cost them too much. If the cars are owned by the public then after the first few deaths caused by them and the resulting lawsuits, (suing the owner as well as uber) potential owners will lose interest. It's one thing to be on the hook as a driver, since everyone THINKS they will never be the one causing the accident. It's another to send out your car without you and HOPE the tech works or you'll be sued.

I still want to know how an SDC will pick up my drunk pax who is 2 blocks away, in a crowd of drunk people at Halloween, who are all wandering around in the middle of the road.

I'm also looking forward to the 8 pax who will get in the little EV to avoid paying for an XL. Can the SDC count?


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

They will have this at the exit of every club...


----------



## Pusher (Mar 7, 2017)

One thing no one is taking into account in this discussion, is the fact that our current infrastructure is not suited for autonomous vehicles. Currently our road system is in poor shape, and this alone as we all are well aware of is added cost in maintenance to any vehicle fielded. 

Now add in the fact that our current networks are near their limits as far as cellular coverage. Sure they are upgrading at an increasing rate, but as they continue to do so, the demand upon them are equally keeping pace. Sensors would also need to be installed in the grid to help with automated vehicles. Currently many city’s have revamped much of their exaisting grid to accommodate bike lanes and bus lanes strictly dedicated to these vehicles.

While I can not speak for all markets; I will highlight some examples that a dedicated autonomous vehicle will both struggle, as well as face maintenance issues:

Chicago: 90 percent of side streets have speed bumps (hills) that are at times near impossible to see with the naked eye, let alone sensors. These are not marked on any GPS and Uber’s Nav sends routing in most cases down these side roads as cut streets. Let alone the fact that if hit at posted speed limits the fact that suspension failure would be inevitable, but the vast majority of these streets once met at mains have no traffic control to easily access or cross exaisting roadways in heavy traffic.

Nav currently routes down alleyways; this poses many issues that are challenging for newer drivers let alone a slaved AI to the Nav. Alleyways are notorious for being blocked, dead ends, and a whole host of other issues.

Pedestrian traffic: in the larger markets like Chicago and NYC this is one of the biggest factors that is faced in the downtown business districts. While humans make mistakes; the computing power of an AI can not deal with the fact that the amount of pedestrian traffic navigating crossings will be near impossible.


----------



## Pusher (Mar 7, 2017)

Add in the fight for flight that is ingrained in a human that an AI does not have you bring a whole new set of issues. An AI would not be able to handle a quarter of the situations faced on a daily basis.

The real market that an autonomous vehicle would excel at would be in the Uber’s Pool Express offering. Set routes with set pick up and drop off locations would be viable. This also holds true for public transportation and would be dirrectly up against the city’s and municipalities in this market. As such bigger city’s such as Chicago, Boston, New York would limit the market licensing for such.

Can you say Uber Bus? Or Uber Van? Running out in suburban routes may be a viable option as well since the vast majority of public transport in many suburban markets are currently lacking in timely service and routes. Many riders just like the taxies further out have always had these issues for viable reduced cost of transportation as well as reliably repetitive operations. I know in this market the Pace system does not run on a sceduale or routing that viable services without heavy subsidies a service for riders. This holds equally true to the smaller markets such as Rockford in Illinois and Madison in Wisconsin.. towns of these size struggle with these services.


----------



## 155839 (Jul 28, 2018)

Pusher said:


> Add in the fight for flight that is ingrained in a human that an AI does not have you bring a whole new set of issues. An AI would not be able to handle a quarter of the situations faced on a daily basis.


This.
While computers can perform calculations way faster than humans, they cannot make judgements as fast as humans. Plus, SDC's will be programmed for safety, to err on the side of caution.
I can just picture the poor pax sitting in the back of an Uber/Lyft SDC, as it tries to merge onto the highway, or in any Yield situation, as all the human drivers take advantage of the SDC's safety-first programming. They'll be sitting there all day!  It'll be beautiful.
Unfortunately, the fatalities based on programming or hardware errors won't be quite as beautiful.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

gaijinpen said:


> This.
> While computers can perform calculations way faster than humans, they cannot make judgements as fast as humans. Plus, SDC's will be programmed for safety, to err on the side of caution.
> I can just picture the poor pax sitting in the back of an Uber/Lyft SDC, as it tries to merge onto the highway, or in any Yield situation, as all the human drivers take advantage of the SDC's safety-first programming. They'll be sitting there all day!  It'll be beautiful.
> Unfortunately, the fatalities based on programming or hardware errors won't be quite as beautiful.


Given their past history of shady programming I think maybe you're underestimating the aggressiveness with which they'll program the ok for merging and whatnot, but I do get your point.

They can program a metric ton of if then parameters in their programming, but those are limited both to the level of experience, and imagination of the programmers, they won't be able to envision every possible scenario. The learning curve is going to be steep there I think with a significant loss of life and limb in the process.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Of course they've had the ability. They showed destination when they started.


Do you know the approx date when uber and lyft stopped showing destinations in advance?

How much backlash did they get from the drivers?



UberBeemer said:


> I agree that a professional license should not be for sale. That MD or JD or CPA or what have you, earned that. And you can't buy that knowledge from someone. But a business license? I think the application process could be expedited for a change of ownership. It would just be good business. A taxi i would agree with you, should be something that an investor could not hoard, and drive the price up for. That's bad for business.
> 
> Now, when it comes to Uber or Lyft joining the zipcar effort to monopolize SDCs, that was a bad idea, but i understand from a business perspective. Which isnt the same as condoning it. But given the citizen's united attitudes prevailing, you have to expect power grabs to be attempted.


There are way too many occupations that require licenses. Flower arranging? Interior decorating? Gimme a break.

As I stated earlier, if and only if the govt can make a compelling case should permits be instituted, and the purpose of the permits should be limited to public safety and protection against fraud.

As I said about limiting taxi (or rideshare) permits, the ONLY time they should be used is as a temporary and last resort to prevent chaos or total gridlock on public streets, and as soon as the crisis is aleviated, the free market should once again take over.

Permits should never be used as an instrument of crony capitalism (protecting incumbent businesses from competition).

The moment permits are allowed to be transferrable is the moment they become expensive barriers to entry for people of limited means.

That applies to taxi medallions, liquor licenses, push cart permits, etc. In places such as NYC, liquor licenses and push cart permits sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars each.

Permit transfers are an expensive and corrupt practice.


----------



## AllGold (Sep 16, 2016)

Fozzie said:


> Uber isn't going to make more money with self driving cars. They make more with the current driver scheme.
> 
> A self driving car needs to be paid for by Uber. A self driving car needs to be maintained by Uber. A self driving car needs gas that's currently paid for by a driver. A self driving car has to be continually monitored by real people to ensure the vehicle is safe and clean enough to run. A self driving car will require that Uber pay for insurance rather than drivers.
> 
> Overall, a switch to self driving cars will result in higher operating costs for Uber, and move much of the actual costs of doing business from drivers to Uber. It's more profitable to shift costs to drivers than to pay for it themselves. Someday the lemmings will accept that reality and abandon the delusional belief that the future is in autonomous vehicles.


(I can't even begin to remember where I read it, or even if it was only supposition rather than fact, but...)

I read that Uber has no intention of owning SDCs. They want another company (or companies) to own and maintain them and Uber will pay that company for use of the vehicles. That way, among other advantages, Uber can squeeze the SDC company(s) and maximize their (Uber's) profit.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

AllGold said:


> (I can't even begin to remember where I read it, or even if it was only supposition rather than fact, but...)
> 
> I read that Uber has no intention of owning SDCs. They want another company (or companies) to own and maintain them and Uber will pay that company for use of the vehicles. That way, among other advantages, Uber can squeeze the SDC company(s) and maximize their (Uber's) profit.


Makes sense that they would want that. Their whole thing is about letting others do the work, take the risks.



Wonkytonk said:


> Given their past history of shady programming I think maybe you're underestimating the aggressiveness with which they'll program the ok for merging and whatnot, but I do get your point.
> 
> They can program a metric ton of if then parameters in their programming, but those are limited both to the level of experience, and imagination of the programmers, they won't be able to envision every possible scenario. The learning curve is going to be steep there I think with a significant loss of life and limb in the process.


You might be interested in reading about Elon Musk's proposal to fund a high speed, autonomous transit system for cities like chicago, that would operate in tunnels.

The level of autonomy in Tesla vehicles is pretty remarkable. It it limited by law, right now. But the cars can be summoned remotely. Their autopilot has resulted in a few fatal crashes though, but i think they have been instances when the driver was reading, watching TV, or otherwise not prepared to override to avoid collision.

I still would not feel comfortable with a machine making life or death decisions though.

For example, a boeing or an airbus jetliner each have auto pilot. But boeing's is biased toward pilots intervention in case of emergency. Airbus puts more faith in the computers. I think i prefer the former to the latter.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

gaijinpen said:


> WTF Are you taking about? Why would it be illegal?
> A. It may happen, with government intervention or the threat thereof. B. Why shouldn't it happen?
> "You should consider yourself lucky to be earning any money at all! There are people starving in Africa!"
> 
> ...


In some places it's illegal to deny a ride based on destination. So if all the driver gets is destination, and declines the ride, the driver would be violating the law. Why would the government intervene?


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Demon said:


> In some places it's illegal to deny a ride based on destination. So if all the driver gets is destination, and declines the ride, the driver would be violating the law. Why would the government intervene?


So they'd be violating the law. So what?

Taxi drivers violate that law a zillion times a day.

How many drivers would you estimate get in trouble for it? My guess is very few.

And anyway, you've been correctly told by several posters that there's no law against a rideshare company showing drivers destinations in advance.

Uber and Lyft hide the destinations because they CHOOSE to, not because they're required to.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> So they'd be violating the law. So what?
> 
> Taxi drivers violate that law a zillion times a day.
> 
> ...


They choose to comply with anti-cherry picking regs. It is tge easiest, possibly only, way for them to demonstrate compliance. It puts the burden on the individual driver, who could theoretically be deactivated. Deactivation is probably the only consequence for being caught. It isnt a criminal offense.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Nats121 said:


> So they'd be violating the law. So what?
> 
> Taxi drivers violate that law a zillion times a day.
> 
> ...


We're not talking about taxi drivers, try to stick to the subject.

I never claimed a law like that existed, please don't ascribe positions to me that I've never adopted.

Uber & Lyft don't tell the destination because they'd be sued out of existence if they did.

If you don't like it, don't drive for either company.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Demon said:


> We're not talking about taxi drivers, try to stick to the subject.
> 
> I never claimed a law like that existed, please don't ascribe positions to me that I've never adopted.
> 
> ...


Don't pull the stick to the subject routine garbage. We do similar work as taxis and some taxi regulations such as destination discrimination apply to BOTH taxis and rideshare.

On numerous occasions you've said it was illegal, and several posters have rebutted you when you've said it.

Who would sue them out of existence?



UberBeemer said:


> They choose to comply with anti-cherry picking regs. It is tge easiest, possibly only, way for them to demonstrate compliance. It puts the burden on the individual driver, who could theoretically be deactivated. Deactivation is probably the only consequence for being caught. It isnt a criminal offense.


Gimme a break.

Don't try to pass the buck onto the govt as the reason they hide the destinations. You're not naive enough to believe that uber objected to being included in destination discrimination laws are you?

Contrast that with fingerprinting of drivers, which they oppose and they've been able to prevent in most places.

You seem to forget that uber and lyft are "demonstrating" non-compliance via their platinum or whatever program in which they show destinations to certain drivers.

What makes you think that every state or municipality has destination discrimination laws anyway?

They hide destinations because their entire scummy business model and future plans of becoming a super-conglomerate would be at serious risk of imploding if drivers were able to pick and choose where they want to go.

Drivers seeing destinations would cost uber BILLIONS of dollars in higher payroll costs.

Uber's hope is to run out the driver-exploitation/govt crackdown clock until they can get the SDCs ready for primetime.

It'll be truly sweet justice if their plans are ruined.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

What business doesn't want maximum market share? 

I know you are convinced of this model where Uber is controlling government decisions. But at least in chicago, the blocking of destination and other info is a direct result of the city counsel's telling Uber what's what. Like i said, the easiest way for them to claim they don't allow cherry picking is to remove the details from Drivers' view. 

The other things you mention, like finger printing, etc., are under consideration. If the city makes that law, Uber will have to comply, or face losing their ability to operate in chicago.

Alderman Beale is very friendly with the taxi and limo interests, and has been insturmental in rideshare regulations here.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Regarding whether or not Uber argues the idea of destination discrimination is irrelevant, because they have to comply in order to operate in a given city. And whether all locations have laws governing the discrimination by location? My guess is any large city does. 

Regarding licensing, and certifications, these give the consuming public a level of confidence that a seevice provider is actually qualified. So i think there needs to be a bit of exclusivity for them to be of any value at all.


----------



## Pusher (Mar 7, 2017)

The true crackdown will be if and when these platforms are recognized for what they truly are.

They are not Technology companies.

They are Transportation Brokers. As such they DO need to fall in line with exaisting rules and reg's currently on the books, as well as have their "partner" owner operators fall into compliance.

Many on here may disagree with that and that is their right to do so, but the platforms were built upon skirting Federal, State, and Local regulations in so many instances. That day of reckoning is fast approaching and it is a train that's going to slam into the gate as far as these platforms are concerned.








We have been saying now for some time that the cowboy days are fast approaching an end.

Be this as it may, this is a small gesture and indication that these platforms are recognizing that stricter times are to come. I will not be surprised that Lyft likewise sends out a similar notice soon.

It is long past due for lobbyists on behalf of drivers become involved as well. Federal, State, and Local agencies are finally coming around to recognize these platforms for what they are.

I ask that people print out copies of the attached image and start to educate minors and parents to the real rules that apply for transportation of minors. It is a small step, and I really feel we need to go into the schools and engage administrators to these rules as well.

Uber is playing the window dressing game with this notice, but they are also covering their backside by doing so. With the "Pro" program they are still using intimidation and manipulation against the drivers to comply. With this they can wash their hands when a driver violates, but at the same time the methods in place encourages drivers to violate; especially those that are newer.

I get people may be against certain requirements and regulations, but what most do not understand is that it also allows higher earnings potential as well.

The cap system that some places like NY have proposed is to flawed. It's much like the old madalion system for one, but if you have minimum threshold requirements to be allowed on to the platforms that go along with other transportation guidelines, rules, and regulations it severely eliminates how Uber currently floods markets as many would not be able to qualify for one reason or another. It also eliminates the whole stigma of unprofessional drivers as well once you have in place many of the reg's other transportation operations require.

Uber was built upon skirting regulations or at the very minimum playing them as window dressing, but never enforcing them. At some point, and that day is fast approaching Federal, State, and Local Transportation is and will start cracking down and recognize that Uber is a Transportation company.

They do not market nor sell a technology service; they market and sell a transportation service and as such they need to fall under that classification and all that it entails. It's "Partners" likewise will have to come into compliance and this will rock the current model in place.

I understand many on here would oppose and disagree, and that is their right, but understand something with more legitimacy comes better earning opportunities as well.

I will even go so far as to include all transportation related "gig" in this. Amazon Flex and all the quasi delivery and messanger services as well. If it is Transportation related and competing with companies like Fed Ex and UPS for example then they should all fall under the same rules and reg's that those companies have to abide by. Traditional messanger services such as Chicago Messanger and Vetrans Messanger have MC Numbers that have to be displayed on their "partners" vehicles. They charge a small fee for that right, but they are still required to do so.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Nats121 said:


> Don't pull the stick to the subject routine garbage. We do similar work as taxis and some taxi regulations such as destination discrimination apply to BOTH taxis and rideshare.
> 
> On numerous occasions you've said it was illegal, and several posters have rebutted you when you've said it.
> 
> ...


I can't tell you to stick to the subject, if you actually stick to the subject. U & L are hired cars, but there is documentation on where the pax wanted to go & who the driver was, that's different from a street hail.

Now you're changing your story about what laws I've said existed.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Demon said:


> I can't tell you to stick to the subject, if you actually stick to the subject. U & L are hired cars, but there is documentation on where the pax wanted to go & who the driver was, that's different from a street hail.
> 
> Now you're changing your story about what laws I've said existed.


I'm gonna bluntly repeat where I stand so that even you won't get confused...

There is NO law that prohibits rideshare drivers from SEEING destinations in advance

Some locales have taxi laws that have been updated to include rideshare that prohibits "destination discrimination".

As an alleged independent contractor, I demand to know the pickup address, the dropoff address, the pax fare/driver payout, and the pax rating BEFORE I decide to accept or decline a ride offer, and to not be penalized in any way for declining offers.

In other words, I demand to be able to give the rides that I want to give, period

I don't give a rat's ass if customer service suffers as a result, and I don't give a rat's ass if it's illegal to engage in "destination discrimination" either.

Uber and lyft have one hell of a nerve to expect poorly paid drivers whose income continues to fall to perpetually "take one for the team" at the same time their executives and investors grow richer, to the point where there's a possibility of a $120 + billion dollar IPO next year.

Is that clear enough for you?


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Nats121 said:


> I'm gonna bluntly repeat where I stand so that even you won't get confused...
> 
> There is NO law that prohibits rideshare drivers from SEEING destinations in advance
> 
> ...


You've been very clear that you're not above engaging in criminal behavior, in this thread and others.

I've never said there is a law preventing U or L from showing the destination. It's just in their, your & the pax best interest not to show destination.

You don't demand anything. If you were demanding it, you'd stop doing business with U or L until they showed the destination.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Demon said:


> You've been very clear that you're not above engaging in criminal behavior, in this thread and others.
> 
> I've never said there is a law preventing U or L from showing the destination. It's just in their, your & the pax best interest not to show destination.
> 
> You don't demand anything. If you were demanding it, you'd stop doing business with U or L until they showed the destination.


I really don't want to waste my time doing it, but I'm tempted to try to find out how to display previous posts so I can show all the times you said it was illegal to show drivers the destinations in advance.

It's in my best interest for uber not to show me destinations in advance?

OK, whatever you say pal.


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

Money Talks Faster Than a Car Can Crash. ~ TBM's Blue.


----------



## 123dragon (Sep 14, 2016)

Nats121 said:


> As an alleged independent contractor, I demand to know the pickup address, the dropoff address, the pax fare/driver payout, and the pax rating BEFORE I decide to accept or decline a ride offer, and to not be penalized in any way for declining offers.


If you decide to not accept an offer because you don't like the dropoff address that is destination discrimination. As I have pointed out it is a violation for Arlington county and although I haven't cited is also the same for Washington DC.

This has nothing to do with being an independent contractor and is more about the regulatory requirements to operate in a locality. DC and Arlington have made it required that if you want to operate as a for hire driver in their area's in order to be licensed to do so you will not discriminate against a passengers drop off location.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Pusher said:


> The true crackdown will be if and when these platforms are recognized for what they truly are.
> 
> They are not Technology companies.
> 
> ...


You're correct.

The entire "rideshare" business model is a scam, starting with the service being called "rideshare"

What we do is NOT rideshare.

Rideshare is synonymous with carpooling, or picking up someone who's going in your direction.

Driving many miles and many minutes out of your way to pick someone up for money is NOT rideshare, it's taxi driving.

Uber's contract is filled with lies, such as stating that the fare charged to pax is merely a "suggested rate" collected on the "driver's behalf" (does that behalf include surges we aren't paid, the booking fees we aren't paid, the high upfront prices we aren't paid, etc).

It says the suggested fare is a default rate "in absence" of a driver/pax negotiated fare.

As you're well aware, if a driver dares to attempt doing what the contract says as far as negotiating their own fare, they'll be deactivated so fast their head will spin.



123dragon said:


> If you decide to not accept an offer because you don't like the dropoff address that is destination discrimination. As I have pointed out it is a violation for Arlington county and although I haven't cited is also the same for Washington DC.
> 
> This has nothing to do with being an independent contractor and is more about the regulatory requirements to operate in a locality. DC and Arlington have made it required that if you want to operate as a for hire driver in their area's in order to be licensed to do so you will not discriminate against a passengers drop off location.


As has been stated several times, there's no law in Arlington or anywhere else against uber SHOWING destinations in advance.

Being expected to blindly accept wherever the company wants you to go may be part of the job for employees such as a UPS drivers, Fedex, or mail carriers, but as an IC I expect to have all pertinent info BEFORE I accept a work offer.

NYC also has laws against DD, and like every locale that has them, zillions of drivers do it 24/7

Having a law on the books is one thing, enforcing and proving discrimination is something else.

It's truly corrupt how uber's been able to get away with picking and choosing the taxi laws that benefit them such as DD laws, and exempting themselves from taxi laws that are harmful to them such as fingerprinting and background check laws.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> It's truly corrupt how uber's been able to get away with picking and choosing the taxi laws that benefit them such as DD laws, and exempting themselves from taxi laws that are harmful to them such as fingerprinting and background check laws.


You have to admit that they make their rules based on local laws. And that they don't so much pick them, as try to devise ways to comply that are self serving, to the extent possible. Its not really corruption, its capitalism.


----------



## 123dragon (Sep 14, 2016)

Nats121 said:


> Being expected to blindly accept wherever the company wants you to go may be part of the job for employees such as a UPS drivers, Fedex, or mail carriers, but as an IC I expect to have all pertinent info BEFORE I accept a work offer.


That is the crux of it all. If I am Arlington or DC and I have a law that requires no destination discrimination, you can't expect destination in order to be allowed to work in either of those areas. Uber and Left need a license to operate in this area. It is no different then when VIA tried to operate in only the wealthy parts of DC and was almost evicted. If you truly want to change that then you need to amend the locality law first. You are demanding Uber provide you with something so that you can perform criminal activities breaking the law. Yes taxi drivers have done it in the past and that why Uber now exists and is thriving.

This has been brought up in DC with cancels. https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/...-Finding-Out-Final-Destination-408432315.html


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

123dragon said:


> That is the crux of it all. If I am Arlington or DC and I have a law that requires no destination discrimination, you can't expect destination in order to be allowed to work in either of those areas. Uber and Left need a license to operate in this area. It is no different then when VIA tried to operate in only the wealthy parts of DC and was almost evicted. If you truly want to change that then you need to amend the locality law first. You are demanding Uber provide you with something so that you can perform criminal activities breaking the law. Yes taxi drivers have done it in the past and that why Uber now exists and is thriving.
> 
> This has been brought up in DC with cancels. https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/...-Finding-Out-Final-Destination-408432315.html


First of all, it's not a "criminal activity", at worst it's a civil infraction.

Your excuse for uber hiding destinations doesn't hold water.

Their new uber pro program allows selected drivers to see destinations in advance if they meet certain conditions, and Chicago is one of the test markets.

It's a very good bet that Chicago has laws against destination discrimination, so uber's program is encouraging drivers to break the law.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

UberBeemer said:


> You have to admit that they make their rules based on local laws. And that they don't so much pick them, as try to devise ways to comply that are self serving, to the extent possible. Its not really corruption, its capitalism.


They do a lot more than merely base their rules on local laws.

With the extremely favorable-to-uber provisions in the TNC law, you'd have to be awfully naive to believe that uber didn't at the very least influence the writing of the law if not outright wrote the law and submitted it to the Virginia General Assembly.

The Virginia TNC law refers to as drivers "partners", which is not a legal term but rather a title created by uber and/or lyft

The law refers to the network as a "digital platform", again it's a term created by uber and/or lyft

The law requires all fares must go thru the app.

Destination discrimination is illegal.


----------



## peteyvavs (Nov 18, 2015)

Noticed that there are more Uber/Lyft shills on these boards lately.


----------



## nouberipo (Jul 24, 2018)

Wild Bill Yahoo said:


> Uhmmmm. Destinations are now known in advance to Platinum and Diamond members of Uber Pro.
> 
> So much for your theory.


Yes and so as soon as they see they are being taken into the ghettos where they will wreck their car, get a one star rating, and make next to nothing, they will not accept the ride (the intelligent ones) which ironically will contribute to their acceptance rate going down and then not being the "Platinum and Diamond" members. Give it a rest. This is just one more illogical game that Uber plays with the drivers who don't take the time to actually see what they are doing. It would be fascinating to know how many "Platinum and Diamond" members (I would be embarassed to say I was one) stay that way since they know the destination and will likely cancel....or is it that Uber KNOWS they love their "Platinum or Diamond" made up status so they will be more likely to take the ghetto rides instead of risking their "status". LMAO.


----------



## Tnasty (Mar 23, 2016)

Anyone remember when you could stay in a region?I forgot how you did it but you set it so you'd stay in a large area.


----------



## bettercallpaul (Dec 18, 2018)

123dragon said:


> That is the crux of it all. If I am Arlington or DC and I have a law that requires no destination discrimination, you can't expect destination in order to be allowed to work in either of those areas. Uber and Left need a license to operate in this area. It is no different then when VIA tried to operate in only the wealthy parts of DC and was almost evicted. If you truly want to change that then you need to amend the locality law first. You are demanding Uber provide you with something so that you can perform criminal activities breaking the law. Yes taxi drivers have done it in the past and that why Uber now exists and is thriving.
> 
> This has been brought up in DC with cancels.


cool dont show destination, i personally dont care if they going to a crack house, the projects, a meth den, a trailer park... i only care if it covers cost + a legal wage period if its not they dont get in my car i take the $1-2 loss instead of a $2+ loss

simple math for me, my costs are minimum $4 a trip so i need $10+ or no soup for you, im not a child

show me approx fare or whatever they showed rider as fare

$2-9 decline illegal
$10-20 maybe but since so many illegal depends on mood
$20+ accept

has been my m.o for 4 years

or like for the diamond doo doo status drivers show approx miles & direction

the poor desperate math flunkies can take all the $2-9 rides their heart desires & the adult independent contractors can earn a legal wage

independent contractors have the rights to see the details of their contracts before having to enter into them or being bound by them & if the blank contract doesnt cover costs, the independent contractor is protected by the 13th amendment & should have the right to cancel it without fear of termination

most drivers dont give 2 doo doos where a pax going i cancel all rides that dont go 10+ miles because im not a child in the 1970s & refuse to be paid like one

paying illegal wages from the 1970s is illegal

not paying labor at all or labor losing money providing it is illegal

fireing or threatning to fire someone for refusing to work for free is also illegal

robbing hundreds of thousands of humans of $1-6 millions of times a day with an app instead of a gun is also illegal

violating the 13th amendment of the constitution millions of times a day is illegal

theyve already paid a billion in fines for illegal activity

thats rico & organized crime which is also illegal

murdering homeless jaywalkers is illegal

way more illegal then destination discrimination

wars were started between the north & south for one & people actually died for minimum wages for the other

the latter people just were late to where they had to go

there are levels to illegality lol



nouberipo said:


> Yes and so as soon as they see they are being taken into the ghettos where they will wreck their car, get a one star rating, and make next to nothing, they will not accept the ride (the intelligent ones) which ironically will contribute to their acceptance rate going down and then not being the "Platinum and Diamond" members. Give it a rest. This is just one more illogical game that Uber plays with the drivers who don't take the time to actually see what they are doing. It would be fascinating to know how many "Platinum and Diamond" members (I would be embarassed to say I was one) stay that way since they know the destination and will likely cancel....or is it that Uber KNOWS they love their "Platinum or Diamond" made up status so they will be more likely to take the ghetto rides instead of risking their "status". LMAO.


96% of drivers fail so at least 96% of drivers will never get to the 3000 points to get the "rewards" of diamond doo doo status

brilliant & bloggers called it rewards for drivers when it was another 20% pay cut

but maybe just maybe in my louis ck voice if i saw a short trips destination & was actually headed that way or needed something in that area id take it, i might not go downtown in rush hour & cancel but another drivet might live there or need to be that way & it benefits them

i mean i already ignore 90+% & cancel 30+% so hiding details doesnt effect me any


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

bettercallpaul said:


> cool dont show destination, i personally dont care if they going to a crack house, the projects, a meth den, a trailer park... i only care if it covers cost + a legal wage period if its not they dont get in my car i take the $1-2 loss instead of a $2+ loss
> 
> simple math for me, my costs are minimum $4 a trip so i need $10+ or no soup for you, im not a child
> 
> ...


Why are you doing business with a company that's doing so many illegal things?


----------



## Erkan Balaban (Dec 2, 2018)

ubernonpro said:


> 96% do by design lmao used for their free labor & car till the next sucker signs up & youre ok with that? means youre no different or better than Uber
> 
> hope no one abuses your grandmother you do know 24+% of new hires are senior citizens that uber/lyft target right? you ok with that too? its elder abuse better call saul
> 
> ...


Thank you for telling one more time what's going on to stupid people who thinks uber is still good. Uber screwed my life like many other millions of low income people. I was a driver before uber and I still drive for this scam. By the way I'm homeless I sleep and work with same car... Probably this is your end too


----------

