[tgv]

As if you could ever get $10 in advertising for a single person in a short amount of time. If Uber, or some other Wolf-of-Wallstreet-funded cash grabber, starts using the installs-for-cash scheme on a large scale, advertisers will no longer be willing to pay that amount of money. They won't subsidize your cab trip.

> So how would you push the prices even lower than UberPool?

By exploiting drivers harder?

But this sentence drove home the value of this article to me:

> (Special thanks to Chris Liu collaborating on these great mockups that really make the discussion in this essay pop!)

Those are not great mockups. They are Waze or Google Maps screenshots with an ad pasted onto them. If you're that addicted to hyperbole, your article should probably be taken with more than a grain of salt.

[rieTohgh6]

YT now shows 6 ads, for 10 minutes video, they share 50:50 with creator, who gets about 10$(+/-100% depending on viewers demographic) for 1000 views - it is nowhere close to cover the cost of Uber drive.

[d3vmax]

Andrew Chen / A16z team / Crypto - All hyperbole. Take with pinch of salt.

[alkonaut]

And even $10 is still pretty low for driving someone even a short distance, if the car isn’t junk and the driver has holidays, sick leave, pension and health insurance.

[cube00]

I could see hospitals paying $10 to lure a potential patient in.

[dspillett]

Ah, the black-mirror-esk horror that is the American medical system, which we'll be moving to once our government finally kills what is left of the NHS…

Though more generally I think the only other industry that would pay enough to make the ads worthwhile if not very targetted at the individual passenger, is the industry that the cabs wouldn't want to that visibly be associated with if trying to maintain a wholesome company image.