←back to thread

Scale Ruins Everything

(coldwaters.substack.com)
175 points drc500free | 3 comments | 14 Oct 24 17:34 UTC | HN request time: 0.002s | source
Show context
daxfohl ◴[14 Oct 24 20:15 UTC] No.41841448[source]▶
Given that we've been throwing cash at every conceivable idea for the last ten plus years, yet when speaking of unicorns we still have to refer back to airbnb and uber, seems like we're well past "peak unicorn" and well into the "horse with a mild concussion" era.
replies(5): >>41841513 #>>41841659 #>>41841909 #>>41842899 #>>41848537 #
Terr_ ◴[14 Oct 24 20:21 UTC] No.41841513[source]▶
It's also disconcerting how much their success seems to hinge on using technology as a lever to break laws or social expectations, as opposed to technology as something that itself empowers humans to be more productive.
replies(5): >>41841716 #>>41841766 #>>41841888 #>>41842312 #>>41842349 #
CalRobert ◴[14 Oct 24 20:43 UTC] No.41841766[source]▶
Getting a taxi in my college town in 2005 was agony. Make a phone call from a loud bar and shout at some guy who can barely tell what you're saying that you want a taxi and then maybe if you're lucky they show up in an hour and cost 3 times as much as you expected (and that's on a good night!) vs. "press a button, get a ride" (and have a feedback mechanism for horrible drivers or gross cars, etc.).

Uber has issues but honestly it's night and day compared to what taxis were like. And they decrease DUI's.

replies(8): >>41841876 #>>41841948 #>>41841975 #>>41847873 #>>41848584 #>>41850447 #>>41851296 #>>41881401 #
Terr_ ◴[14 Oct 24 20:53 UTC] No.41841876[source]▶
Sure, but there's a difference between "that kind of success" and "any success". To illustrate, imagine an alternate timeline with a company called "Rebu", which provides all the same phone-apps and servers and whatnot for thousands of taxi-services across the world to adopt, replacing their shitty old "computerized dispatch" systems.

Do you believe Rebu could that have managed to draw the same level of venture-capitalist money and unicorn-ness and hype, even sharing the same core technologies, code, and product features?

I don't think it would, and I'm asserting that comes from business-plans, labor relations, legal challenges, government lobbying, investor marketing, etc., which in several cases have been, er, ethically-problematic.

replies(5): >>41842163 #>>41842304 #>>41842313 #>>41843630 #>>41844917 #
tristor ◴[14 Oct 24 21:21 UTC] No.41842163[source]▶
You're right, but you're treating that as a net-negative. The reality is that the government regulations structured taxi services in most cities in the world into cartels that operated in a way that was to the detriment of their customers. Uber broke the taxi cartel, and yes, it broke the law to do it, but it wouldn't have been possible to do this way if they'd tried to work with the existing taxi companies, because their anti-customer cancer would have infected Uber while it was young and before it could even scale. Part of their value proposition is their scale, itself.
replies(1): >>41842326 #
1. deltarholamda ◴[14 Oct 24 21:42 UTC] No.41842326[source]▶
Services like Uber and AirBnB have also introduced a concept through technology that was previously almost unheard of in the private sector: a nationwide blacklist.

Bob Smith annoyed enough Uber drivers in Milwaukee that now he can't get a ride in Poughkeepsie. Maybe that's valid, maybe it's not. But it is pretty new, and I doubt it was in the slide deck when Uber hit up the VCs.

The social aspect of these sorts of things can't help but get entangled with the politics of social mores. Maybe Bob was giving the Uber drivers wet willies. A lot of people would think he caught that ban fairly. Maybe Bob was too politically incorrect for the Uber drivers. Not quite so sure he deserves to be sentenced to hoof it until the Sun burns out. How do we know the bans are of the fair former and not the latter? We don't. It's a private company, they can be as opaque about this as they want.

Good, bad, who knows, but it certainly makes for a completely different landscape.

replies(1): >>41842407 #
2. kelnos ◴[14 Oct 24 21:52 UTC] No.41842407[source]▶
I agree that this sort of thing is a problem, but it's not a fundamental problem with the existence of these services. It's just a problem to be solved, perhaps through legislation on how suspensions and bans are allowed to work, and how people ought to be able to appeal them.

The legacy taxi services had this problem too, though, as you note, not on a global level. Pre-Uber, there was one taxi service that stopped taking my calls. I have no idea why. I had no way to appeal this, or to even get in touch with them to find out what was going on.

In the meantime, Bob still probably has public transit or local old-school taxi services to fall back on (which somehow still exist). Many areas even have local ride-hailing apps. Worst-case, Bob will have to rent a car when visiting other cities.

replies(1): >>41843190 #
3. deltarholamda ◴[14 Oct 24 23:12 UTC] No.41843190[source]▶
>I agree that this sort of thing is a problem, but it's not a fundamental problem with the existence of these services.

Well, it kinda is a fundamental problem, with regard to the original article's premise that scale is a problem. These services can't operate on VC's terms without scaling up to a national or global level. And this, by its nature, means your Uber problem in California follows you to Georgia, and possibly to Uzbekistan.

What if Uber shares its ban list with Toasttab? Or if Uber buys Toasttab?

Laws may be able to address this, but laws always lag. Sometimes by a lot.