HAHAHA. OMG - as one who doesn't drive, and took taxis in the Bay area (South Bay - Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Redwood City) for 7 years (2003 - 2010) - pretty much everywhere - let me tell you that taxis on the Peninsula are the most poorly managed, poorly responsive, and incredibly bad service imaginable. Fully 30-40% of taxis just never show up when you call them. That number gets even higher after 9:00 PM if you are down near Fremont. . Taxis took an absolute minimum of 30 minutes to arrive - I never understood how that was possible given they worked on a zone reservation system, and I presumed you would check into the zone you were geographically present in. The drivers were, as a class - horrible. They wouldn't last a month on Uber - neither their vehicles, nor the drivers themselves - they'd be rated out immediately.
I think the mistake that Uber and Lyft are making here is just not charging market rates that will let their drivers make a good living. If it turns out that costs 50% more than a taxi - fine. People then have a choice of Public Transit, Taxis, or Uber/Lyft. Their race to the bottom and attempt to price each other out of the market is what led us here.
Where they erred originally is trying to build a business model that didn't provide a good living to their key employees - and lets face it, Uber/Lyft drivers are employees.
> I think the mistake that Uber and Lyft are making here is just not charging market rates that will let their drivers make a good living.
Aren't the rates basically set by the drivers? I've never driven for Uber or Lyft but my impression was that drivers have a choice of whether to accept each request or not. If the offered price for a ride is "too low" (but someone still accepts it) that just highlights the fact that your idea of "too low" is not the only one that matters. Maybe your competition isn't relying on this for a living. Maybe they've found other ways to reduce their costs. Either way, I don't really see a problem aside from certain parties' unrealistically high expectations.
Personally I feel a bit sorry for all of the people that deliberately chose to take on these gig jobs as freelancers who are now being pressured into becoming employees to salve the overactive consciences of people who aren't even involved. Not everyone wants to be classified as an employee, with all the restrictions that entails.
True Story: Before Uber and Lyft, a nice guy, who worked at a company in my building in SF, got so desperate to hail a cab he stepped off the curb to attract the cab's attention, and got killed by a Muni bus.
Taxis, even in San Francisco, were woefully inadequate prior to Uber. Further, it not as if taxis were driver friendly. The majority of the money went the the medallion holder. The medallion holders artificially constricted service to keep rates high via a monopoly. So, there was no pre-rideshare paradise to return to.
Taxi drivers pay the company for a shift upfront and absorb the risk on not getting enough rides to break even. And they are independent contractors without benefits.
So yeah, what parent was talking about doesn't exist.
I think the mistake that Uber and Lyft are making here is just not charging market rates that will let their drivers make a good living. If it turns out that costs 50% more than a taxi - fine. People then have a choice of Public Transit, Taxis, or Uber/Lyft. Their race to the bottom and attempt to price each other out of the market is what led us here.
Where they erred originally is trying to build a business model that didn't provide a good living to their key employees - and lets face it, Uber/Lyft drivers are employees.