|
|
|
|
|
|
by kbenson
3017 days ago
|
|
|
> You're essentially claiming that the value of these services is all based on the innovation of the _hailing_ functionality To me it just looked like an anecdote. > I'm just so tired of all the mental gymnastics defending them. Perhaps you're seeing people defending them when other people are just trying to share their experience? If so, I agree, that would get tiring. |
|
|
The context of when they choose to share experiences casting Uber as a catalyst for significant improvements provides a lot of evidence that it's not just an anecdote in a vacuum, but rather is meant to defend Uber.
I'm all for positive experiences, and I _really want_ ride hailing services to somehow be profitable, because it could add competition and create various experiences that I am willing to pay (the current subsidized prices) for.
What's tiring is seeing repetition of the positive anecdotes without the necessary accompanying asterisks that qualify it based on the _inherent_ profitability issues with any service that tried to solve these problems. Then we can at least acknowledge that the nice, upgraded experiences from these apps is purely a _donation_ from a group of investors, which means it's irrelevant as a comparison with prior taxi experiences unless those investors are willing to make it a permanent donation.