[n0us]

I'm not the one who downvoted, but I would imagine this is why.

* Overnight is a bit too quick. Uber's service has grown so quickly partly because they have an organization behind it to fight against regulations which is part of what made their rapid growth possible.

* Implementing a standardized "blockchain" protocol to guarantee all of those things is a non trivial task

* Go outside of SF Bay, whip out your phone with a group and tell them that you're about to order a "distributed reputation system cab" and they're just going to look at you like "wat" then open the Uber app and get an Uber that already works with their credit cards and lets them split the fare. They maybe have heard of Lyft, and most likely have Uber, not the blockchain app.

* Uber has hordes of information available that lets them tell drivers where to be and when, it also prices the rides based on demand. The block chain app has none of that.

* Traditional cab drivers are terrible, the cars smell, they don't show up on time, they drive you in circles to up the fare, sometimes they take off when they hear where you want to go. An app is not going to change this overnight, though eventually the reputation system might change it.

* Rent seeking is annoying but they are still much cheaper than traditional cabs, at least everywhere I have used them.

Maybe it's winner takes all, maybe not. It remains to be seen whether the legal system has just been slow to react to Uber and its ilk or if it will not react at all. I think the end of this in the short run is that Uber takes > 90% of the market, Lyft takes the majority of the rest, and the cab companies continue to operate at a smaller scale with less profits. This is after local and state governments wake up and impose more modern, but less restrictive taxi-style regulations on these companies to enforce some level of accountability for when the shit hits the fan or whatever.

The end of this market in the much longer term seems to be self driving cars and some form of shared ownership. I could see premium ride sharing clubs where you pay more to ride in an Audi or something with common ride sharing clubs where you ride in a van. It is this much longer term that I see Uber having more potential competition.

[frandroid]

> Go outside of SF Bay, whip out your phone with a group and tell them that you're about to order a "distributed reputation system cab" and they're just going to look at you like "wat"

If your friends trust you, they'll humour you; when your order comes through, your friends will ask you what app you used. I remember when I first saw the "Google" name and logo, I also went 'wat'. But then I used it and I never looked back. Reputation matters but reputations are made by delivering the goods.

[danielnaab]

Good points. I meant "overnight" loosely, but I have a few other comments.

* Any software may be branded - no one needs to know the word "blockchain" when they use a well-designed app. If a driver may have more take-home pay from an open network, there is no reason they wouldn't list themselves there in the same way many drivers are on both Uber and Lyft.

* The blockchain would record all transactions in a manner that any software could get something similar to Uber's intelligence, with some allowances for the privacy of the rider.

* I've taken Uber rides that reek of cigarette smoke. If anything, many cab companies have standards that you can't guarantee with the closest Uber. But like you say, reputation systems could address those issues.

I agree, though, that the technical challenges are real and not trivial. In particular, the privacy concerns seem very real. I just find it difficult to believe that a multi-billion dollar industry will allow a middleman to take all their customers away when really the only thing that Uber sells is UX.

[Grishnakh]

>* I've taken Uber rides that reek of cigarette smoke. If anything, many cab companies have standards that you can't guarantee with the closest Uber. But like you say, reputation systems could address those issues.

Did you downrate the driver and complain? If not, the reputation system isn't going to work.

[jdhzzz]

>The end of this market in the much longer term seems to be self driving cars and some form of shared ownership. I could see premium ride sharing clubs where you pay more to ride in an Audi or something with common ride sharing clubs where you ride in a van. It is this much longer term that I see Uber having more potential competition.

I see it looking much like air travel today. Some will opt for fractional/full ownership like netjets and the like, but most commoners will simply pay-as-you go. I hope it evolves like travel by horse with the endpoint being only the very rich will be able to own their own car and there will be restrictions keeping them off important travel arteries because they would be relatively slow, stupid, and dangerous.

[Grishnakh]

It won't happen quite that way. With driverless cars, the rich peoples' cars will also be driverless and would be just as fast as all the others, so there'd be no reason to have any restrictions. The difference will be that while you're riding in some self-driving van you don't own with some other strangers and paying a fare for the ride, the rich guy will be riding in his self-driving Aston Martin drinking scotch and listening to whatever music he wants in some very luxurious seats.