←back to thread

Scale Ruins Everything

(coldwaters.substack.com)
175 points drc500free | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
daxfohl ◴[] 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_ ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
ToucanLoucan ◴[] No.41841975{3}[source]
It's a better experience for sure, and that's why they got the viral start that gave them the opportunity to eat the world, but presenting that as "worth it" seems pretty dubious considering:

- Tons and tons of users buying vehicles they can barely afford to drive for them

- Tons of restaurants already struggling to get by saddled with needing an iPad or two at their counter to intercept online orders, and needing to charge more and anger customers just to break even on the fees

- Huge amounts of sexual assaults because Uber didn't vet drivers

And lest we leave it merely implied: Uber is worth what Uber is worth because it's a taxi company that owns no Taxis and pays no taxi drivers a proper wage. That's why it's a billion dollar unicorn. Same as AirBNB is a hotel chain that owns no hotels, UberEats/Doordash are food delivery services that don't own restaurants, Instacart is a grocery chain that doesn't own grocery stores.

Honestly if you want to really be cynical about it, the true path to finding the next tech unicorn is figuring out how to be a $business that owns none of what a $business normally does, and hires no employees that $business usually does, and then wrap that up in an app, and convince poor people to do the work for you because they have no other options. Boom, unicorn.

The way taxi companies had languished in obsolescence was definitely a problem, but I struggle to consider if Uber was the best way to solve that on any front.

replies(3): >>41842959 #>>41844505 #>>41866219 #
PaulDavisThe1st ◴[] No.41842959{4}[source]
Lots has been written about how way too much contemporary US business is about value extraction not value creation.

Put differently, a common business model in late 20th century and early 21st century US capitalism is to find a transaction that is already happening "at scale" and figure out how to insert your own company into the transaction and extract some percentage of the value.

The primary way of accomplishing this is to create a (new) story to tell about the value you claim you are adding to the transaction ("it's so easy", "we have an app for that", "so much quicker") even though in many cases nobody (or very few people) were asking for whatever you bring to it.

This does not mean that there is no value added. What these companies do not represent are new transactions: no new products, no new macro-scale services ("but you get a car with your phone now!" still boils down to "someone will drive you where you want to go").

replies(3): >>41843114 #>>41847083 #>>41848134 #
1. bumby ◴[] No.41848134{5}[source]
Honest question from a non-economist: where is the distinction drawn between "value extraction" and "rent seeking"?

Even the canonical example of lobbyists can make some ambiguously defensible position that they add some value; e.g., "We make sure constituents have a conduit to their representative"

replies(1): >>41849087 #
2. PaulDavisThe1st ◴[] No.41849087[source]
"Rent seeking" requires that you own ("control") a thing people want/need and will/can pay for.

"Value extraction" almost implies non-ownership, and represents more of a contractual arrangement whereby you provide X to a set of transactions that would happen without you, and in return you receive Y. Obviously if Y is universally of less or equal value to X, nobody is harmed. But if Y is of significantly more value to a given demographic or particular circumstances, then it is not clear that this is a win for society overall.

Where they overlap is if you have managed to create sufficiently high barriers to entry in the field of "providing X". This is tantamount to ownership of a resource that people want, and you're the only provider (or one of just a few).