Everything old is new again.
Everything old is new again.
That said, Taxi drivers have something Uber drivers don't- a union.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Taxi_Workers'_Alliance
You're viewing a single thread.
Yes but don't forget about the shareholder value that Uber is bringing! Or will bring when they bankrupt all the competition and then ratchet up the prices so the hedge funds can recoup their losses
Who needs fire when everything is on fire?
Things kindle naturally, that's what they'll tell ya.
What is stopping an uber competitor?
The capital required to run at a loss for x amount of years, until Uber goes bankrupt.
Do they have to run at a loss? They could take 20% rather than ubers 30%.
Uber was bleeding money for years, they were not profitable until very recently. How would a competitor be profitable if they exploit their drivers less? Especially because Uber only had to fight Taxis, a competitor would have to fight Taxis and Uber
Uber seems to be a middleman that can be removed by technology
It sounds so plausible but it doesn't exist. There must be a fatal flaw, but I can't see it.
Oh my god, I fought the urge to stop reading when I read Blockchain and read further and it kept getting worse.
Uber takes over some tasks that a distributed system cannot easily do:
- Handle disputes between driver and customer
- Vetting drivers
- Monitoring cars so that if a driver abducts you authorities can find you
- Taking over development and maintenance of the system
- Marketing
The article shows no practical solution for any of these problems. Many of the so-called solutions are down-right comical. For example:
As soon as the driver adds the basic information, the legal authorities are notified through smart contracts to perform background checks on the created profile.
So vetting shall be done by the state instead of a company. So instead of customers, tax payers should pay for it. I'm sure governments will be lining up to take on the responsibility and for me as a tax payer: hell no! I want my taxes to go into public transport and not into this bullshit.
Also, let's be gracious and assume that blockchains and smart contracts in general solve a problem that actually exists, you would need smart contracts in case there is no neutral third party that can verify the validity of something. Why would you need that for a process where legal authorities are already involved? If you have an actual authority involved there's an easier and faster solution: a database. Doesn't sound as sexy does it?
Similarly, the legal authorities would conduct the same due diligence checks for the riders to ensure the safety of drivers as well.
Lol, sure they will.
When the rider reaches the desired destination, the ride will end automatically. The payment from the rider’s wallet will be deducted automatically through smart contracts and transferred to the driver’s wallet.
GPS locations can be forged easily. How would such a system reliably without a third party authority determine whether the ride ended? Scams in this system from both parties would be rampant.
And from a customer perspective: why would I need a crypto wallet for this shit? I want to use my credit card! So I need a third party to handle the payment and I sure as hell am not trusting a random driver with no oversight with my credit card information.
So to sum it up: that system solves actually none of the problems. You still need third parties involved such as payment providers and authorities, stuff Uber handles for you. You still need a third party handling disputes, which is unsolved in this article and you still need massive investment in R&D (more than a classical system) and marketing but now without a business model as an incentive for anyone to actually do this. Then you get even more problems because now you need to get government authorities involved. As you have no company with resources backing this, there is nobody capable of negotiating with these governments. Not to mention tech support to actually set up the system.
- Handle disputes between driver and customer
Agreed. This human service is required, but it's not worth 30% of every fare.
Vetting drivers
Not sure this is necessary. A reputation system can be built from drivers, customers and IoT devices.
Monitoring cars so that if a driver abducts you authorities can find you
Uber has no advantage in this area.
Taking over development and maintenance of the system
Yes, this could be the main stumbling block.
Marketing
Less relevant in today's world. How much marketing did chatgpt need.
The article shows no practical solution for any of these problems.
I don't think it was meant to. It was just to introduce the possibility of an Uber killer.
So vetting shall be done by the state instead of a company.
Agreed. A dedicated company (or series of companies) could do this one off service, rather than the state.
you would need smart contracts in case there is no neutral third party that can verify the validity of something.
Agreed. A human arbitration service would be useful. AI isn't good enough yet.
Why would you need that for a process where legal authorities are already involved?
Agreed. Escalation to the proper legal authorities is an option for both Uber and this theoretical competitor.
If you have an actual authority involved there's an easier and faster solution: a database. Doesn't sound as sexy does it?
No. Databases don't do arbitration.
GPS locations can be forged easily.
Not on multiple devices including WiFi data.
How would such a system reliably without a third party authority determine whether the ride ended?
When both parties agree. Like they do now.
Scams in this system from both parties would be rampant.
No different from now.
Why would I need a crypto wallet for this shit? I want to use my credit card!
Why would I need a credit card for this shit? I want to use my crypto wallet and pay less fees to middlemen.
So I need a third party to handle the payment
With a credit card, yes.
I sure as hell am not trusting a random driver with no oversight with my credit card information.
Are now arguing for crypto?
You still need third parties involved such as payment providers
False
and authorities,
Always true.
You still need a third party handling disputes
Agreed.
now you need to get government authorities involved.
Disagree.
Not to mention tech support to actually set up the system.
Yes, this is probably the killer. The people setting this up can't profit from it.