Comment on Everything old is new again.

• Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Do they have to run at a loss? They could take 20% rather than ubers 30%.

  source

  • friendlymessage@feddit.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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

    source

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • friendlymessage@feddit.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments