1. UberPeople.NET - Independent community of rideshare drivers. It's FREE to be a person and enjoy all the benefits of membership. Sign-up HERE!

Is uber a monopoly?

Discussion in 'News' started by Jermin8r89, Dec 28, 2016.

  1. Jermin8r89

    Jermin8r89 Active Member

    Location:
    Massachussetts
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/2016/12/26/how--save--world-uber-and-amazon/95757208/

    BOSTON — During a recent ride with ride-hailing service Lyft in Boston, one of us struck up a conversation with the driver, Victor, about how he liked his job. His enthusiasm seemed genuine.

    He talked the entire way to the airport about the glories of Lyft – about how it cared about its drivers and wasn’t just transactional, like its competitor, Uber. Lyft paid more, for instance. But not if you drove just a little, only if you logged nearly a full time job’s worth of hours. So naturally Victor was working for Lyft exclusively and reaping the benefits.

    Lyft had Victor right where it wanted him. It had turned him into a “single homer,” as economists who study platform businesses would call him – a person who uses one service exclusively.


    It’s where every platform business – services that connect users on two or more sides of a market, like Facebook (users and advertisers), Apple’s iPhone (users and content producers), and Amazon (sellers and buyers) – would like to have each of us: locked in, and at their mercy. But we’d all be better off if Victor and the rest of us would go from being single homers to multi-homers. Here’s why.

    Lyft doesn’t pay near-full-time drivers like Victor more than Uber out of the goodness of its heart. Nor is it why credit cards offer cash back. No company wants to be your friend. Each is trying to keep you captive on their app, site, or card.

    Platforms’ search for ascendancy in any category involves a “virtuous” cycle of ever-more customers, making your platform ever more attractive than alternative options. Think of the telephone: one is useless for making calls, two is only slight more useful (“Mr. Watson, come here, I want to see you.”), but a few million, and you have a network that everyone wants to join. Amazon is your go-to e-commerce destination only if it really is the Everything Store, and indispensable to merchants precisely because it’s your go-to e-retailer.




    Amazon could be a lot bigger than we think


    Despite its $300B+ valuation, the company goes through streaks of making slim or even no profits, . Yet it continues to invest in efforts like Prime. Why? Most likely it’s because once it's got enough of us locked in, Amazon is going to raise prices (in fact, it already has for free-shipping minimums).

    Because once a platform is indispensable to both sides of a transaction – to the providers of a service and the purchasers – you have a license to print money. But it’s even more insidious than that. Once a platform vanquishes its competition, it’s near-impossible for a start-up to come in and challenge its dominance.

    Continue reading beloow




    You don't see Airbnb offering big discounts, because it doesn't have to.
    AFP/Getty Images
    We see the homesharing platform Airbnb exploiting its dominance already. It doesn't offer sweet discounts to lure customers or hosts, because it doesn't have to. It's already at least twice as big as the nearest homesharing competitor, HomeAway, so even without a discount it provides more value, given the greater choice offered to both hosts and guests.

    So we, as participants in platforms’ fight for world domination, have two alternatives. First, you can succumb, paying a little more for the convenience that loyalty to one platform can bring. Sure, things will eventually get worse and more expensive – perhaps at the same time. But you’re willing to forego future choice for immediate convenience. Think about a world where every service is run by the equivalent of your Facebook newsfeed algorithm.


    Then there’s option 2. Each of us can do our part to make sure Amazon and others never get to the point of ubiquitous domination. It might introduce a bit of hassle and inconvenience into your life, but only a tiny bit. But by taking on this challenge, you’ll be doing the job that antitrust authorities, in an ideal world, might take care of on our behalf – ensuring that consumers and workers, rather than the owners of capital and algorithms – get a piece of the surplus that’s created by new business ideas.

    Option 1 presents us with a pretty dire picture of what the future might look like. And option 2 – multi-homing – comes with very little downside, it’s easy to do, and can also help us to overcome our inertia to find ourselves better deals. Think about those credit card teasers we all get. As long as we keep businesses thinking they need to chase after us to try to lock us in, they’ll keep on handing value to us rather than using it to pad their bottom line
     
    danthaman235, whyza and tohunt4me like this.
  2. SEAL Team 5

    SEAL Team 5 Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Phoenix
    Driving:
    Livery
    No, Uber is not a monopoly. Uber is an addiction. A driver searching for his next juicy surge fare is just like a junky searching for his next big hit off the crack pipe. And in the end, both the driver and the junky only have the feeling that they need another.
     
  3. renbutler

    renbutler Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Indy North Suburbs
    Driving:
    UberXL
    I don't understand what the monopoly question has to do with the copy/pasted article.
     
  4. Grahamcracker

    Grahamcracker Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Honolulu, HI
    This is literally that best description of "The Uber Driver Experience" I had ever seen. You should write a book.
     
    melusine3, ziliano and iUBERdc like this.
  5. I_Like_Spam

    I_Like_Spam Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    Uber is hardly a monopoly, at least not yet.

    Not only are there other ride sharing apps, there are plenty of other options, craigslist, cabs, limos, rickshaws, jitneys, hotel courtesy vans for those who need a ride.
     
    melusine3 and iUBERdc like this.

  6. renbutler

    renbutler Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Indy North Suburbs
    Driving:
    UberXL
    If anything, Uber destroyed the taxi monopoly.
     
  7. I_Like_Spam

    I_Like_Spam Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Pittsburgh

    Taxis were hardly a monopoly either, the competition was cutthroat between the brother cabbies, limos, jitneys, etc.
     
  8. renbutler

    renbutler Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Indy North Suburbs
    Driving:
    UberXL
    The point is that they had special deals with cities to try to prevent competing forms of transportation.

    Anyway, with heavy regulation, it's hard to compete, at least based on price.
     
    melusine3, Danny3xd and UberSchmuber like this.
  9. Jermin8r89

    Jermin8r89 Active Member

    Location:
    Massachussetts
    Its more of small buisnesses r struggling cuz of big corrparations comeing into our life more and more. U bring up "ride" in facebook then it thinks u need and uber. Amazon and eats take away from other buisnesses for their delievery. Its not much of a problem yet but when autonimous comes into play less and less workers will be working and struggling to find other work. Theres only one train service in boston run by keosk and they run the prices up now it seems twice a year now. Uber could do price hikeing once SDCs take away peoples jobs.
     
  10. SEAL Team 5

    SEAL Team 5 Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Phoenix
    Driving:
    Livery
    Of course they are. Travis is just like that little monopoly man. He tells you what you have to pay, he tells you what you have to drive, he tells you when you have to drive and he tells you to "Go to jail, go directly to jail. Do not pass go and DEFINITELY do not collect $200".
     
  11. tohunt4me

    tohunt4me Well-Known Member

    Location:
    new orleans , la.
    Uber
    Uber is trying hard to be a monopoly by forcing low rates by subsidising rides and forcing drivers to subsidise rides against their will through rate cuts & market flooding of drivers.
     
    HotSniper, Tnasty, melusine3 and 4 others like this.
  12. I_Like_Spam

    I_Like_Spam Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    Running a tight ship isn't the same as a monopoly. Plenty of bosses micromanage, some to good effect- others not so much.


    Right now, as we speak, numerous people run car services of one sort or another- Uber isn't the only game in town
     
    aluber1968 likes this.
  13. I_Like_Spam

    I_Like_Spam Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    I'd agree with that, but its going to be a tough situation to maintain. If people aren't making very much money at the "awesome ultimate side hustle", they 'll sit at home, drink beer and watch football games.
     
    ABC123DEF and tohunt4me like this.
  14. tohunt4me

    tohunt4me Well-Known Member

    Location:
    new orleans , la.
     

    Attached Files:

  15. Jermin8r89

    Jermin8r89 Active Member

    Location:
    Massachussetts
    Well uber is internationaly controled. They r fleeing out smaller taxie services. Maybe higher but u pay cash and u watch ur price on ticker.
    Uber is beginning to remind me of the federal reserve.
    Provideing certin transportation policy the streets for "safety" and regulateing the transportationg market. Stealing money from its workers and customers as they gonna influeance the quality reliability privacies of many people as time goes on.
    Uber we all know they r someone who u wouldnt trust
     
    melusine3, whyza and phillipzx3 like this.
  16. SmokestaXX

    SmokestaXX Active Member

    All ride-sharing companies are illegal. Somehow it rides the gray area and regulators turn a blind eye.
     
  17. LA Cabbie

    LA Cabbie Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Is your avatar a pic of you?
     
    Tedgey likes this.
  18. Grahamcracker

    Grahamcracker Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Honolulu, HI
    Exactly how are ridesharing companies illegal when they are not identified as anything that has been regulated? That is why Uber fights soo hard against being called a taxi company. They would then have to be regulated as a taxi company. It's a technicality that hasn't been addressed yet.
     
  19. SmokestaXX

    SmokestaXX Active Member

    You're asking me how and then agreeing they work under a technicality??? If u serve the general public and take money, you're a business and should be subject to rules/regulations. IE...commercial insurance, business licensing, etc. My background is from the trucking industry. If I lease my truck onto a company, I'm issued commercial plates&insursnce...
     
    Brooklyn likes this.
  20. Grahamcracker

    Grahamcracker Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Honolulu, HI
    Let's not get side tracked here. I am referring to this message. There are currently 36 states that have regulations established for rideshare companies. There are more coming. However, the term "rideshare company" or TNC is new term and regulations have not been fast to regulate "rideshare companies or TNC". Just because regulators are slow to pass regulations, doesn't make the business illegal and yes I agree that they are subject to regulations. Still doesn't make them illegal.
     

Share This Page