Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

YorgiTheMagnificent t1_isg6mts wrote

Is all tech entrepreneurship based on creating a middleman where none is needed? Just call it "disrupting" and laugh all the way to the bank...

107

Slggyqo t1_ish88vv wrote

No.

But many are—especially the ones that are directly public facing.

They’re basically just trying to add a technology dimensions to things that already exist, and convince investors and customers that it isnt just incremental improvement, but a qualitative leap.

26

IvanIsOnReddit t1_ishzi0r wrote

So often their market is not the end user, it’s the company that will buy them out.

12

66Hanuman99 t1_isggtfk wrote

So true, Just like the NYC Taxi Medallion owners who had there lives turned upside down by Uber and Lyft while the city looked the other way..

4

[deleted] t1_isgj7j9 wrote

[deleted]

40

[deleted] t1_ishogxw wrote

[removed]

1

the_lamou t1_isibcpd wrote

Who would act occupied any time he saw a black person looking for a ride?

And made sure he took a couple of extra turns when he got tourists?

And would "accidentally" turn the meter on during a flat fare ride?

And cleaned his car once a month if that?

And would refuse to take people to three outer boroughs?

Now, maybe your uncle was the one decent cabbie in the city. Maybe he really was an honest, great dude. But that doesn't change the fact that before Uber, taking a cab fucking sucked, because the entire industry was a racket with zero accountability and no fucks to give.

22

BiblioPhil t1_isjeoit wrote

The problem is that Uber replaced all these problems with their own equally racist drivers, exploitative pricing and Wal-Mart-but-not profitable business model

0

[deleted] t1_ishzozo wrote

[deleted]

7

Heythatsmybikeeeee t1_isig1h6 wrote

And credit cards! Amazingly every medallion cab in nyc seems to have a dysfunctional credit card machine when you get to your destination

8

Zlec3 t1_isi0dus wrote

Uber ain’t much cheaper nowadays

6

[deleted] t1_isia583 wrote

[removed]

−8

[deleted] t1_isiaget wrote

[deleted]

9

66Hanuman99 t1_isibn3s wrote

every industry is corrupt. even religion is corrupt. Society makes that possible when people (like you) fail to see the point. That point being that the city allowed itself to betray a contract with the drivers who it had sold it's medallions to by failing to properly regulate them to their benefit and finally allow idiot tech bro's lobby them to look the other way while they turned their backs completely on them. this isn't case, it merely serves as an example of a systemic problem of elected politicians not standing up for the people's interests they are supposed to represent.

−7

saltyguy512 t1_isis2zg wrote

“Even religion is corrupt.” Really going out on a limb there…..

1

pejeol t1_isj5br0 wrote

Probably still wouldn’t drive to the Bronx.

3

Substantial_Review81 t1_isgk0bc wrote

Why do you think Uber took away business from the Taxi Medallion owners?

2

Johnnadawearsglasses t1_isgl7s7 wrote

Because they offered a premium service at the same price as a cab. Contactless, no hailing, less scamming. The works.

The only issue is that the “same price” was just venture capital funded losses. It actually costs much more to operate a ride sharing app business model. A recent test in NYC showed cabs are now anywhere from 35-83% cheaper. The airport run differences are even bigger.

So now we have many fewer taxis and Uber / Lyft priced as the luxury services that they actually are.

What does this mean for middle income users? Back to the subway unless and until taxis get back on the roads.

36

Substantial_Review81 t1_ishcgy9 wrote

I don’t know about you, but the streets are FULL of yellow cabs. Literally wall to wall yellow cabs. Maybe in the outer boroughs, I don’t know. But in manhattan, there is no shortage of yellow cabs…

1

Johnnadawearsglasses t1_ishdjou wrote

Interesting. I live in Manhattan and can go 5 minutes on a major thoroughfare and see zero. The number of cabs on the road is 50% or less than pre pandemic levels, and many seem to just congregate at all times at the airports and midtown

7

HashtagDadWatts t1_isgmac0 wrote

Transit is better than using a private car anyways, so call it a net benefit.

−3

sternfan1523 t1_isgwkyt wrote

Not for every destination. Plenty of places I go it’s very hard to get there with mass transit

7

HashtagDadWatts t1_isgyrdw wrote

General statements should be construed generally.

0

BiblioPhil t1_isjf05l wrote

"Paper is better than rock."

"Unless you're up against scissors"

"Hey! How dare you construe my general statement like that!"

1

HashtagDadWatts t1_isjf5qx wrote

More like:

"Paper is better than rock"

"There is a mystical rock known to the ancients that is greater than any paper"

"...ok"

3

Johnnadawearsglasses t1_isgquvi wrote

Nyc as a luxury product is never a good thing. If you don’t want cars in spaces, ban them.

5

HashtagDadWatts t1_isgt3qs wrote

I don't think outright banning of cars is the right policy decision. There are occasions when it is necessary or makes sense. I do, however, think that's steps like congestion pricing and eliminating subsidized parking are appropriate insofar as they force car users to bear the cost of their choice.

3

66Hanuman99 t1_ishg2a2 wrote

tell that to the NYC Taxi medallion owner's who paid nearly $1,000,000 for the exclusive right to drive a taxi in NYC and were then undercut by Uber and Lyft. I think I remember at least a couple of dozen NYC Taxi medallion owners who have committed suicide because they could not make payments or support themselves or their families anymore since 2016.

In essence they paid $1,000,000 for a right that Uber and Lyft drivers got for practically free.

How would that make you feel?

2

HashtagDadWatts t1_ishihhr wrote

Happy to do so. People make bad business investments every day. It's a shame that some folks overextended themselves so badly, but we shouldn't make bad public policy choices because they did.

5

66Hanuman99 t1_ishmxyi wrote

Maybe a little more context would help you understand my point.

Simply saying it was a "bad business decision doesn't cut it.

There was an implied contract between The City of NY and the Owners of NYC Taxi medallions. Before Uber and Lyft came along it was illegal to take a paying passenger fare without a NYC Medallion and a approved vehicle.

So in essence the were drivers were secure in knowing that the City Medallions issued by the TLC were regulated and their investment was secure.

That is until they were lobbied by Lyft and Uber to allow them to completely barge in and "disrupt" the implied agreement the medallion owners had payed for and counted on to make a living.

5

Run_0x1b t1_isjg1gi wrote

“Waaaa our legally enforced monopoly got disrupted and we actually had to improve our product and compete for our customer’s business.”

Only a complete bozo would construe this as a bad thing.

3

Paid-Not-Payed-Bot t1_ishmytm wrote

> owners had paid for and

FTFY.

Although payed exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:

  • Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. The deck is yet to be payed.

  • Payed out when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. The rope is payed out! You can pull now.

Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.

Beep, boop, I'm a bot

0

HashtagDadWatts t1_ishnye5 wrote

Regulatory risk is part of analyzing a business decision. It's not uncommon for investments to turn south because of a regulatory shift. It happens.

0

IvanIsOnReddit t1_ishytqm wrote

When that happens (regulatory shift), they tend to lobby the shit out of it to maintain the status quo.

3

BiblioPhil t1_isjesg1 wrote

Because they operated at a loss while staying afloat on VC money for years. Same thing Wal-Mart did to small retail in every American town, except with investor money instead of economies of scale

3

Substantial_Review81 t1_isjguhy wrote

You’re not answering the question.

The answer is that they were cheaper. So of course consumers chose Uber.

1

IvanIsOnReddit t1_ishy4ys wrote

Compared to medallion taxis, Uber is libertarian capitalism in its purest form. Make of that what you guys will.

2

wwcfm t1_isi1ksq wrote

At least Ubers pick up black people.

7

samtresler t1_isk3ge8 wrote

Yes.

You can still pick up the telephone.

They make money by making the process easier, and charging you a premium. (Or using your eyeballs for advertising).

But - believe it or not - no one is doing this for free.

1

StAugustine94 t1_ishdxho wrote

Landlords are already a middleman who is unneeded lmao, this shit is a nightmare

−5

samtresler t1_ishm88v wrote

How are owners unnecessary middlemen?

If you can buy, no one is stopping you.

4

IvanIsOnReddit t1_ishz6lu wrote

Possible meaning: they will bid higher on a property because they have a higher purchasing power.

Alternative: corporate owner contracts a management company, management company takes a significant cut of the rent

2

StAugustine94 t1_isi0lil wrote

…except for all the landlords who buy everything out and rent them out for exuberant prices

0

samtresler t1_isinjkj wrote

If your problem with the housing market is, "someone else will pay more than me", it is with supply and demand, not specifically owners.

I sorta agree with you. NYC fails at its affordable housing mandate. Still not buyer's fault.

3

Thursty t1_ishemjc wrote

The market decides if it's needed.

−5