So in your example, the drivers quitting their jobs demanding more money aren't greedy? If the drivers quit, everyone, including them, are in a worse position. The drivers have less money than Uber as a corporation.
By the way, Taxi companies rely heavily on the government for monopoly privileges. That's why they're able to be so profitably.
Taxi companies charge about the same as Uber. There is no reason Uber can't make profit with human drivers. Especially since they pay them minimum wage, and bear no risk of owning billions in car inventory.
If the drivers quit then Uber will be forced to come to the negotiating table. No way Uber can survive if they even lose half of their drivers. Sure the drivers will hurt for a few weeks, but it will be worth it if they can form a solid union and have bargaining power, and a multi year deal. That's what strikes are all about.
Taxi companies, such as those in NYC for example, uses a medallion system to limit the supply of cars, which is distributed by the city government. Each medallion use to cost millions of dollars to buy before Uber brought that price down. Also, Most medallion are owned by politically connected Jewish millionaires. It's illegal for any non-yellow taxi to pick up any person up off the streets of Manhattan, giving people no other choice but to use it. By no means can we ever compare how Uber operates to the taxis.
Uber's purpose is not to provide jobs to people. It's to provide a service (a taxi service in this case) to customers. Getting mad about how much the drivers make is senseless when they wouldn't even have this job had it not been for Uber.
This is exactly where I think Apple have been heading with project Titan. I have never thought for minute that anyone would actually be able to buy and drive an Apple car. I think Apple will just let you hail one and ride in it, for a fee. Why make 5 M vehicles when you can make more money from 50 K of them.
Spot on. Ford, GM, Uber, Google. . . They're all looking at ride-sharing driverless services for totally autonomous vehicles in their immediate future and not self-driving cars you'll find on your dealer's lot.
I'm 100% in favor of driver-less cars. What about you?
Absolutely, tho it will be some time before they're ready for today's potential "not-drivers". They still have to figure out how to keep idiots (drunks, destructful juveniles, etc) from screwing things up.
But there's no doubt in my mind that human drivers are much more dangerous than autonomous vehicles will someday be. No one single day goes by without at least one traffic fatality within just a few miles of me. One of these days the chances are good that I'll be an accident victim and likely not of my doing. I'd rather take my chances with driverless.
The scheduling Oberführer will reserve a non-peak time period and will issue a command where upon it toddles off to a high amp charging station and gets itself hooked up and filled with 100% renewable energy courtesy of the national grid and the nearest coal/gas fueled power station.
has anyone done a study if electric cars are actually more enviromentally friendly? Talking about generating electricity and producing batteries.
Yes, but people prefer Unicorns to facts.
A diesel engine is about 35-42% efficient in turning fuel into energy. Coal/gas fired power stations are 32-42% efficient in turning fuel into energy, so electric vehicles powered from the national grid in any country that isn't largely geothermal or nuclear, are no cleaner or greener than a diesel powered car.
OK, that isn't probably entirely true as diesels spew out carcinogens while less efficient petrol engined cars spew out mostly water. Coal-fired power stations spew out carcinogenic dioxins so, ride a bike or walk, I guess.
Diesels are very popular in Europe, thanks to the CO2 global warming nut-jobs, so no one will be left alive to enjoy the nice warm weather because they will all have died of cancer before it arrives.
The Medieval warm period was the greatest time Europe has ever known: food was plentiful, (which is how all the cathedrals could be funded and built) the wine flowed, even in Scotland, and a damn fine time was had by all, for the most part.
Taxi companies, such as those in NYC for example, uses a medallion system to limit the supply of cars, which is distributed by the city government. Each medallion use to cost millions of dollars to buy before Uber brought that price down. Also, Most medallion are owned by politically connected Jewish millionaires. It's illegal for any non-yellow taxi to pick up any person up off the streets of Manhattan, giving people no other choice but to use it. By no means can we ever compare how Uber operates to the taxis.
Uber's purpose is not to provide jobs to people. It's to provide a service (a taxi service in this case) to customers. Getting mad about how much the drivers make is senseless when they wouldn't even have this job had it not been for Uber.
So instead of tens of thousands of drivers there will be just 1 CEO who makes Billions each year.
Sounds like a fair trade
If you think that automation reduces employment, you should look at companies like MS, Apple, Ford, etc. What grows jobs are successful business models, not bad ones.
Taxi companies charge about the same as Uber. There is no reason Uber can't make profit with human drivers. Especially since they pay them minimum wage, and bear no risk of owning billions in car inventory.
If the drivers quit then Uber will be forced to come to the negotiating table. No way Uber can survive if they even lose half of their drivers. Sure the drivers will hurt for a few weeks, but it will be worth it if they can form a solid union and have bargaining power, and a multi year deal. That's what strikes are all about.
Taxi companies, such as those in NYC for example, uses a medallion system to limit the supply of cars, which is distributed by the city government. Each medallion use to cost millions of dollars to buy before Uber brought that price down. Also, Most medallion are owned by politically connected Jewish millionaires. It's illegal for any non-yellow taxi to pick up any person up off the streets of Manhattan, giving people no other choice but to use it. By no means can we ever compare how Uber operates to the taxis.
Uber's purpose is not to provide jobs to people. It's to provide a service (a taxi service in this case) to customers. Getting mad about how much the drivers make is senseless when they wouldn't even have this job had it not been for Uber.
So instead of tens of thousands of drivers there will be just 1 CEO who makes Billions each year.
Sounds like a fair trade
Why do you suddenly have an issue with a company becoming wealthy? I've never seen you complain before about companies finding ways to reduce costs to achieve or maintain a high (sometimes VERY high) profit margin.
If you think that automation reduces employment, you should look at companies like MS, Apple, Ford, etc. What grows jobs are successful business models, not bad ones.
You still have not answered my question why Uber can't be profitable with human drivers. They can. But they are greedy.
You know saying someone is greedy doesn't mean anything right? Everyone's greedy, including the Uber drivers. Let me guess, you're a Barnie Sanders supporter?
Why do you suddenly have an issue with a company becoming wealthy? I've never seen you complain before about companies finding ways to reduce costs to achieve or maintain a high (sometimes VERY high) profit margin.
If Apple all of sudden fired 10,000 Apple Store workers and replaced them with robots I'd be complaining also.
Also I don't like Uber the company. They pay their drivers less than minimum wage and still charge so much. Uber is making BILLIONS just for making a decent App.
When did Uber become profitable worldwide? They lost $3 billion in China and only recently broke even in the U.S. Their biggest cost is, you guessed it, labor.
So instead of tens of thousands of drivers there will be just 1 CEO who makes Billions each year.
Sounds like a fair trade
Why do you suddenly have an issue with a company becoming wealthy? I've never seen you complain before about companies finding ways to reduce costs to achieve or maintain a high (sometimes VERY high) profit margin.
If Apple all of sudden fired 10,000 Apple Store workers and replaced them with robots I'd be complaining also.
Also I don't like Uber the company. They pay their drivers less than minimum wage and still charge so much. Uber is making BILLIONS just for making a decent App.
Then what are you complaining about Uber for? They didn't "suddenly fire 10,000 workers" either. Nor are they making $B's in operating profits by aggressively controlling component and labor costs like some techs do. Not saying they wouldn't like to, of course they would.
This story is related to Tim and Jony's Apple because they may or may not come up with a related or similar product 5 years or better in the future?
I know this will offend a lot of folks here but a more relevant story would be the lack of innovation coming out of Cupertino the last year or so and how that reflects on management that has been paid top dollar. The efforts and results of Tim and Jony's 115,000 minions have been absent for far too long and it's upsetting...not just to Wall Street.
welcome to the 2016 Troll Olympics! let's get down to judging, shall we?
If you think that automation reduces employment, you should look at companies like MS, Apple, Ford, etc. What grows jobs are successful business models, not bad ones.
You still have not answered my question why Uber can't be profitable with human drivers. They can. But they are greedy.
1) When did you address that question to me?
2) When did I ever say that they can't be?
3) Why assume that a company making future plans is indication of anything that is "impossible" today? Would you not find it annoying if the iPhone 7 does, in fact, remove the 3.5mm port in favor of Lightning headphones and you see someone ask, "Why can't Apple be profitable with a 3.5mm audio port?" Obviously they can, but they are moving in a direction that dramatically shift to obfuscate that port. This year looks like the year, but if it's not, it will be soon enough. This is how technology flows.
4) Your definition of greed is subjective. The employees or subcontractors can always choose not to work for Uber. If you're talking about illegal actions where Uber is altering records in order to pay their employees and subcontractors less than the agreement in which each party has agreed, then we use the law to state they are being greedy, and have something resembling a fact in which to back up your opinion. Since they don't have a monopoly on transportation, and, have actually opened up the market for more free trade, you can't claim that free market business practices are greedy and sound like a reasonable person.
I applaud Uber moving technology forward. For the hater jobs are not going to disappear. It will be a long time before drivers are completely removed from the picture so chill out. This will create many jobs on the backside in terms of support and creation. The end game for self driving cars is a safer more efficient society so I am all for it.
I don't see how you come to any of those conclusions. The people who drive cars for a living are not the people who will get jobs designing automated driving systems, just as coal miners don't get jobs designing or installing windmill farms and former factory workers don't become computer programmers.
And I'm not so sure that self-driving cars actually will be safer and even if they were, I don't see Americans in particular accepting them. I have no faith in an industry that releases products with tons of bugs and thinks nothing of it. When my browser slows down because Flash is doing something stupid, I can go into a panel and eliminate Flash from running, but if my car slows down, it can lead to death. We've already had at least one Tesla death, although that seems to have been the driver's fault. But when there are more deaths from automated cars, even if the rate is far less than from conventional vehicles, people and politicians are going to freak out and such cars are going to be banned in numerous locales.
One of the reasons why Americans (outside of a few older city centers) don't use mass transit is because the American macho man wants to be independent and "in control", even if that means sitting in endless traffic jams. Also, I would assume that self-driving cars won't permit drivers to break driving laws and therefore won't drive over the speed limit. I can't see most American drivers accepting that.
While I do believe we have to move ahead technologically and can't preserve obsolete jobs, especially those that endanger the environment, when every company desires to eliminate as much labor as possible and there are few jobs for workers, especially those without special skills, we have a society where very few can afford to purchase the products and services of those very companies. It's a suicide plan for corporate America, but each company only cares about its own profits. So Uber figures that those laid-off drivers would have never spent money on Uber anyway so they don't care. But when other companies lay off their people because they've implemented more automation, those people won't be using Uber either. CEO's only care about the next quarter, but if they looked at the long term, they'd realize that unless they make things better for workers, they're actually in a death spiral (unless you're a company who only sells to the rich).
fallacy of the false dichotomy -- no one has suggested all human driven cars must be replaced with autonomous. an autonomous car can be successful in a market also containing normal cars.
Why do you suddenly have an issue with a company becoming wealthy? I've never seen you complain before about companies finding ways to reduce costs to achieve or maintain a high (sometimes VERY high) profit margin.
If Apple all of sudden fired 10,000 Apple Store workers and replaced them with robots I'd be complaining also.
Also I don't like Uber the company. They pay their drivers less than minimum wage and still charge so much. Uber is making BILLIONS just for making a decent App.
1) Whaaa?! So many logical and argumentative fallacies. Let's remember that Apple has "taken" countless jobs from various fields because they built various HW and SW that was previous done more mechanically by skilled laborers. Why aren't you up in arms about that, Mr. Ludd?
2) I don't care for Uber, which is why I don't utilize their services. I would also never work for them for the same reasons. The free market workforce works If others also feel they aren't getting paid enough and are therefore able to find work elsewhere that insures a higher net wage. This doesn't seem to be the case with Uber at this point.
3) Why can't they make money but others can? Is this because you don't like them? That's not an objective position to take. And why should a smartphone app that works on Android and iOS be a reason Apple gets a percentage? Should all the companies that make HW and SW in your car also get a cut of the money you make from your car after you purchase your car? If Apple did change their policies to tack on a vig to every Apple customer that makes money from using their Apple products... you won't find Apple selling nearly as many products. Guess whom that hurts right in the wallet?
I wonder what the plan is for refuelling cars when they're completely driver free.
partner with gas stations who will run out and fill. done.
in NJ you're not even allowed to pump your own gas today.
By the time driver-less cars are in full swing I am guessing that electric will be, too. I can even see that fuel + self-driving not being an allowed combination for one of many bureaucratic reasons.
This is exactly where I think Apple have been heading with project Titan. I have never thought for minute that anyone would actually be able to buy and drive an Apple car. I think Apple will just let you hail one and ride in it, for a fee. Why make 5 M vehicles when you can make more money from 50 K of them.
1) Whaaa?! So many logical and argumentative fallacies. Let's remember that Apple has "taken" countless jobs from various fields because they built various HW and SW that was previous done more mechanically by skilled laborers. Why aren't you up in arms about that, Mr. Ludd?
2) I don't care for Uber, which is why I don't utilize their services. I would also never work for them for the same reasons. The free market workforce works If others also feel they aren't getting paid enough and are therefore able to find work elsewhere that insures a higher net wage. This doesn't seem to be the case with Uber at this point.
3) Why can't they make money but others can? Is this because you don't like them? That's not an objective position to take. And why should a smartphone app that works on Android and iOS be a reason Apple gets a percentage? Should all the companies that make HW and SW in your car also get a cut of the money you make from your car after you purchase your car? If Apple did change their policies to tack on a vig to every Apple customer that makes money from using their Apple products... you won't find Apple selling nearly as many products. Guess whom that hurts right in the wallet?
Apple should get a cut out of Uber sales done on the App because people 'buy' the Uber App on Apple's store. That's like expecting Best Buy not to get a cut of a product they sell on in their store.
Uber obviously gets a benefit for selling their App on the App Store and it being run on iOS. That is a fact. And Uber should have to pay for that benefit like everyone one else.
If Apple took Uber off of its App store Uber would be in deep crap. That right there shows how valuable a service Apple is giving Uber. If Uber is off of the App store it won't hurt Apple at all.
1) Now you're making even less sense. Apple has very well defined rules for what it charges a fee for developers who profit from in-app purchases. These purchases made within an app refer to subscription services and additional code loaded into the app to increase features. This does not include physical services.
You don't have to be a developer to know why Apple would charge a percentage fee when it comes to buying apps, in-app features, widgets, keyboard, and subscriptions hosted and curated by their App Store, but not when it comes to physical services that are outside the scope of their business. I don't even think Apple should be charging the same 30% for subscription services that are executed outside of their ecosystem, and that's something they recently addressed at WWDC.
2) If I buy a Mac and FCPX, why should I then have to pay Apple for any profit made from a film I edited on that machine? I don't have to, and I wouldn't agree to such terms.
1) Whaaa?! So many logical and argumentative fallacies. Let's remember that Apple has "taken" countless jobs from various fields because they built various HW and SW that was previous done more mechanically by skilled laborers. Why aren't you up in arms about that, Mr. Ludd?
2) I don't care for Uber, which is why I don't utilize their services. I would also never work for them for the same reasons. The free market workforce works If others also feel they aren't getting paid enough and are therefore able to find work elsewhere that insures a higher net wage. This doesn't seem to be the case with Uber at this point.
3) Why can't they make money but others can? Is this because you don't like them? That's not an objective position to take. And why should a smartphone app that works on Android and iOS be a reason Apple gets a percentage? Should all the companies that make HW and SW in your car also get a cut of the money you make from your car after you purchase your car? If Apple did change their policies to tack on a vig to every Apple customer that makes money from using their Apple products... you won't find Apple selling nearly as many products. Guess whom that hurts right in the wallet?
Apple should get a cut out of Uber sales done on the App because people 'buy' the Uber App on Apple's store. That's like expecting Best Buy not to get a cut of a product they sell on in their store.
Uber obviously gets a benefit for selling their App on the App Store and it being run on iOS. That is a fact. And Uber should have to pay for that benefit like everyone one else.
If Apple took Uber off of its App store Uber would be in deep crap. That right there shows how valuable a service Apple is giving Uber. If Uber is off of the App store it won't hurt Apple at all.
Oh look, Apple's market share worldwide just declined from 12 to 8 % while Android's marketshare increased to 91%. Analyst says Uber took Apple for a ride.
This story is related to Tim and Jony's Apple because they may or may not come up with a related or similar product 5 years or better in the future?
I know this will offend a lot of folks here but a more relevant story would be the lack of innovation coming out of Cupertino the last year or so and how that reflects on management that has been paid top dollar. The efforts and results of Tim and Jony's 115,000 minions have been absent for far too long and it's upsetting...not just to Wall Street.
welcome to the 2016 Troll Olympics! let's get down to judging, shall we?
Apple should get a cut out of Uber sales done on the App because people 'buy' the Uber App on Apple's store. That's like expecting Best Buy not to get a cut of a product they sell on in their store.
Uber obviously gets a benefit for selling their App on the App Store and it being run on iOS. That is a fact. And Uber should have to pay for that benefit like everyone one else.
If Apple took Uber off of its App store Uber would be in deep crap. That right there shows how valuable a service Apple is giving Uber. If Uber is off of the App store it won't hurt Apple at all.
1) Now you're making even less sense. Apple has very well defined rules for what it charges a fee for developers who profit from in-app purchases. These purchases made within an app refer to subscription services and additional code loaded into the app to increase features. This does not include physical services.
You don't have to be a developer to know why Apple would charge a percentage fee when it comes to buying apps, in-app features, widgets, keyboard, and subscriptions hosted and curated by their App Store, but not when it comes to physical services that are outside the scope of their business. I don't even think Apple should be charging the same 30% for subscription services that are executed outside of their ecosystem, and that's something they recently addressed at WWDC.
2) If I buy a Mac and FCPX, why should I then have to pay Apple for any profit made from a film I edited on that machine? I don't have to, and I wouldn't agree to such terms.
Exactly. And to expand on the Best Buy analogy, there's a Best Buy app where you can purchase items. Should Apple get a cut of everything they sell through the app? Of course not. The developer fee is for apps, in-app purchases for app features, subscriptions bought in-app.. not for a physical purchase separate from the app.
Comments
Uber's purpose is not to provide jobs to people. It's to provide a service (a taxi service in this case) to customers. Getting mad about how much the drivers make is senseless when they wouldn't even have this job had it not been for Uber.
But there's no doubt in my mind that human drivers are much more dangerous than autonomous vehicles will someday be. No one single day goes by without at least one traffic fatality within just a few miles of me. One of these days the chances are good that I'll be an accident victim and likely not of my doing. I'd rather take my chances with driverless.
A diesel engine is about 35-42% efficient in turning fuel into energy. Coal/gas fired power stations are 32-42% efficient in turning fuel into energy, so electric vehicles powered from the national grid in any country that isn't largely geothermal or nuclear, are no cleaner or greener than a diesel powered car.
OK, that isn't probably entirely true as diesels spew out carcinogens while less efficient petrol engined cars spew out mostly water. Coal-fired power stations spew out carcinogenic dioxins so, ride a bike or walk, I guess.
Diesels are very popular in Europe, thanks to the CO2 global warming nut-jobs, so no one will be left alive to enjoy the nice warm weather because they will all have died of cancer before it arrives.
The Medieval warm period was the greatest time Europe has ever known: food was plentiful, (which is how all the cathedrals could be funded and built) the wine flowed, even in Scotland, and a damn fine time was had by all, for the most part.
Originality: 3
Writing ability: 7
Entitlememt: 8
Snark: 1
Total: 4.75
2) When did I ever say that they can't be?
3) Why assume that a company making future plans is indication of anything that is "impossible" today? Would you not find it annoying if the iPhone 7 does, in fact, remove the 3.5mm port in favor of Lightning headphones and you see someone ask, "Why can't Apple be profitable with a 3.5mm audio port?" Obviously they can, but they are moving in a direction that dramatically shift to obfuscate that port. This year looks like the year, but if it's not, it will be soon enough. This is how technology flows.
4) Your definition of greed is subjective. The employees or subcontractors can always choose not to work for Uber. If you're talking about illegal actions where Uber is altering records in order to pay their employees and subcontractors less than the agreement in which each party has agreed, then we use the law to state they are being greedy, and have something resembling a fact in which to back up your opinion. Since they don't have a monopoly on transportation, and, have actually opened up the market for more free trade, you can't claim that free market business practices are greedy and sound like a reasonable person.
fallacy of the false dichotomy -- no one has suggested all human driven cars must be replaced with autonomous. an autonomous car can be successful in a market also containing normal cars.
partner with gas stations who will run out and fill. done.
in NJ you're not even allowed to pump your own gas today.
1) Whaaa?! So many logical and argumentative fallacies. Let's remember that Apple has "taken" countless jobs from various fields because they built various HW and SW that was previous done more mechanically by skilled laborers. Why aren't you up in arms about that, Mr. Ludd?
2) I don't care for Uber, which is why I don't utilize their services. I would also never work for them for the same reasons. The free market workforce works If others also feel they aren't getting paid enough and are therefore able to find work elsewhere that insures a higher net wage. This doesn't seem to be the case with Uber at this point.
3) Why can't they make money but others can? Is this because you don't like them? That's not an objective position to take. And why should a smartphone app that works on Android and iOS be a reason Apple gets a percentage? Should all the companies that make HW and SW in your car also get a cut of the money you make from your car after you purchase your car? If Apple did change their policies to tack on a vig to every Apple customer that makes money from using their Apple products... you won't find Apple selling nearly as many products. Guess whom that hurts right in the wallet?
They'll harvest electricity from their unwitting human passengers just like in the Matrix.
You don't have to be a developer to know why Apple would charge a percentage fee when it comes to buying apps, in-app features, widgets, keyboard, and subscriptions hosted and curated by their App Store, but not when it comes to physical services that are outside the scope of their business. I don't even think Apple should be charging the same 30% for subscription services that are executed outside of their ecosystem, and that's something they recently addressed at WWDC.
2) If I buy a Mac and FCPX, why should I then have to pay Apple for any profit made from a film I edited on that machine? I don't have to, and I wouldn't agree to such terms.
That's it, I'm going to the gas station and show them who's the vainest country on the planet!!!