> Zimmer likes to compare the dynamic between Uber and Lyft to AT&T and Verizon. When both cell networks hit three bars of coverage, people start to see them as equivalent, and base their spending decisions on other factors, such as brand values and customer experience.
That's the key quote in the article. In San Francisco, Lyft and Uber have both long passed the "good enough" bar. They both get to you in ~5 minutes and take you where you want to go very reliably. They have parallel product lines, identical pricing, and similar surging tendencies.
This leaves room for brand preference. I know I am not the only one of my friends to choose Lyft whenever possible because I believe they are friendlier. Uber has a reputation for being profit-driven sharks. They're very professional, but don't get in the way of their money. Lyft has the feeling of taking a ride in a friend's car. I personally like the latter, and I think there are enough people who agree with that to keep two players in the market.
Horrible. For me the absolute #1 feature of these apps was not having to think about the stupid tipping economy. Officially charge a more expensive base fare, hell make it 2x, I don't care; but turn it into a social poker game where increasingly there are a set of unwritten rules about what you're "supposed" to pay, and I just want to find the first alternative out there.
As an European I find it horribly annoying to have to tip in the US. If I do not like the the food I still have to tip because otherwise the nice waiter gets nothing? Or is that old information? Or was it always a lie? I only want to tip when I really like something, not as a kind of guilt trip with an unwritten minimum. Wish they would change that.
American server here. Yeah, if I provide shitty service, you shouldn't have to tip me. Personally, as someone who has served and has gotten paid less than 'minimum wage' (service industry is different in some states), even if I'm the one getting shitty service, I leave 2-3 dollars on a $60 bill. I understand shitty days and putting up with hungry people. But it definitely is a culturally economic thing too. So if someone provides excellent service, or I see them as an extremely hard worker toward the guests around me, I leave them extra. Although I definitely agree that the tip should be included in the menu items and servers should be paid more than $15 (min wage is $9 where I live) in the more populated cities.
> If I do not like the the food I still have to tip because otherwise the nice waiter gets nothing?
I actually don't think your parent was asking about shitty service, I think they were asking about if the service was good but the food itself was bad, in which case yes, they should still tip, right? Which I guess could seem unfortunate but that doesn't seem worse than no-tipping systems for that case, so.
Bad food---> Ask to see a manager and complain, leave appropriate tip (20%).
Bad service---> leave little or no tip.
Long wait for food---->If server says nothing, leave little or no tip. If server apologizes and says they're having issues in the kitchen ask to talk to manager and leave an appropriate tip.
I appreciated that Uber eliminated tipping. But from reading driver forums, it seems like Uber drivers increasingly expect a cash tip, and retaliate against passengers who don't tip by assigning low ratings.
Despite the seemingly representative anecdote in your last link, I'm very hesitant to believe that most Uber drivers in San Francisco expect a cash tip. This hesitance is based primarily on the fact that I have never heard of tipping with cash, and I know very few (if any) people here that routinely carry cash, especially small bills. But perhaps the practice really is more common and expected in other demographics, like tourists.
Not sure how that is supposed to help them get tips in the future when the vast majority of passengers don't know their own rating number and probably aren't even aware that such a number even exists.
I would assume it's so future drivers see the bad rating and, while not knowing the underlying reason, will give preference to someone with higher rating(more likely to tip).
I disagree. The situation with Uber is this "well, should I tip in cash?" limbo. I've seen a bunch of articles recently about how some travelers are shocked to learn they have a less than 5 star rating from Uber drivers because they don't tip.
> The situation with Uber is this "well, should I tip in cash?" limbo.
No, just refuse to tip. It's not built in to the app because tipping is a stupid practice which needs to die.
Drivers, of course, like tips. Of course they're going to push a narrative that you need to tip. Everyone answers yes when you ask if they'd like to get paid more.
That doesn't mean you ever need to tip. Tipping is a stupid practice which needs to die, and Uber is helping to kill it. I've never tipped in Uber and I've also never had trouble getting a ride.
But now you're paying more than the competition just to have a better driver. Also the driver can rate the person who took the car lower if they don't tip. So the tip essentially becomes a way to extort one another.
> In fact I don't even have to pay (the tip) if I don't want to. I still get a better driver, because they try to get me to tip.
You'll begin to get the reputation that you don't tip. Why would anyone pick you up then? You're essentially forced to tip if you want continued, good service.
> Well, that's easy to solve: don't allow drivers to rate passengers.
That's not a solution though; that's a hack to remove an undesirable affect from another feature (tipping). Just like drivers can be rated by passengers the inverse is also very important. These are still people's private cars after all; do you really want no way to rate the guy who trashes someone's car or is just an asshat?
Isn't Uber's entire business model (and its ridiculous valuation) based on the idea that they were going to become a monopoly? (and thus recoup the huge investment costs by raising fares?)
I can't see them accepting a competitor in the long term. A competitor will keep margins slim and the VCs invested in Uber won't be very happy with that. I wouldn't be surprised if Uber ups the ante and cuts fares to absurd levels in order to try to drive Lyft into the ground.
They lose millions of dollars a quarter still. I don't see how Uber can dominate the market in the long run, when they'll have to raise prices to a profitable level and thus make it easier for competition to undercut them. Drivers can work with multiple services at the same time, and the barrier for consumers to install another app or navigate to a web app is pretty small.
edit:
If the regulatory environment doesn't clear up, though, I could see that making it easier for Uber to dominate the market. They have the wherewithal to challenge regulators in courts of law and public opinion, and to comply with whatever red-tape is imposed on them. New entrants would have a much harder time.
I believe that in the markets they've been in the longest, they're profitable. It's expanding to more and more markets that makes them unprofitable on the whole.
But isn't Walmart's success just the classic example of economies of scale? While there are obviously some economies of scale in Uber's business, I would expect them to be far less significant than in Walmart's business.
They will kick the drivers to the kirb when auto driven cars are available. Currently they are just getting the people trained to use apps for calling taxis.
But do you think the strategy of cutting fares could actually work? I wouldn't think so. It appears that investors are willing to fund the second largest player now, and I see no reason that wouldn't continue for at least as long as Uber's investors are willing to throw money at them to subsidize fares.
That's the key quote in the article. In San Francisco, Lyft and Uber have both long passed the "good enough" bar. They both get to you in ~5 minutes and take you where you want to go very reliably. They have parallel product lines, identical pricing, and similar surging tendencies.
This leaves room for brand preference. I know I am not the only one of my friends to choose Lyft whenever possible because I believe they are friendlier. Uber has a reputation for being profit-driven sharks. They're very professional, but don't get in the way of their money. Lyft has the feeling of taking a ride in a friend's car. I personally like the latter, and I think there are enough people who agree with that to keep two players in the market.