jump to navigation

About Uber, Friction, and Life June 28, 2017

Posted by Peter Varhol in Technology and Culture.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

No matter where you are in most major or even minor cities around the world (yes, there are significant exceptions), you can pull out your smartphone, press a couple of buttons, and have an Uber taxi meet you at your location in a few minutes.  You compare the driver with the photo you received, and you have a measure of security.  The driver already knows your destination, and you know that you don’t have to pass him (or her) some cash at the end of the process.

And that’s the way it should be, in this day and age.  The technology has been there, and Uber, Lyft, and their ilk are bringing it together.

But let’s take an honest look about what we are trading off, because there are always tradeoffs.  In this case, we are trading off friction.  By friction, I mean the hassle of hailing a commercial taxi, finding the phone number and calling a taxi company, or getting to a location where taxis tend to congregate.

(And as I was told in Stockholm last month, all taxis are not created equal.  “Don’t take that one,” the bell captain at a hotel said.  “They will gouge you.”)

All of this sounds like a good thing.  But it turns out it is part of the life learning process as a person.  For the first twenty-three years of my life, I never saw a taxi, or a train, or a subway.  I grew up in rural America.  Today I am comfortable finding and navigating all of the above, in any city in the US or Europe.  Why?  Because I had to.

(And incidentally, no matter the payment method, I always tip in cash.  These folks work for a living, and deserve the discretion of how and where to report their tips.)

I have grown as a person.  That’s difficult to quantify, and certainly given a more frictionless path in the past I might well have chosen it.  But the learning process has built my confidence and yes, my worldliness.  I am more comfortable navigating cities I have never been to before.  I don’t stay in a bubble.

If you are using Uber (and Lyft) as an excuse for not interacting with others, especially others who are different from you, then you are not learning about the world, and how to interact with it.  And as your life winds down, you may come to regret that.

Uber Must Die June 6, 2017

Posted by Peter Varhol in Technology and Culture.
Tags:
add a comment

I dislike saying that, and I will get there in an indirect way.  I have a friend whose father recently passed, and as the executor she is required to bring his financial affairs to a conclusion.  She is dealing with utilities, banks, and a variety of other contact points, increasingly frustrated at the difficulty of closing, cancelling, or transferring accounts.  Her own company actually shut off the electricity to his condo, where she was now living.

The only exception is Fidelity, for retirement accounts.  She called Fidelity, expecting more of the same.  She got actionable advice, and the names and direct phone numbers of people who were willing to help her still further.  As a result, she wants to move not only his but all of her retirement assets into Fidelity accounts.

I would like to think that we tend to gravitate to companies that have good reputations, and provide good customer service.  Uber seems to be different, in that its users are able to divorce their use from the service from their understanding of the underlying company.

This is very wrong, of course.  I simply lack the fundamental understanding of why people frequent a company whose founder and CEO talked of starting an Uber-based dating service called “Boober.”

If you stand for anything at all, you must rail against this.  Yet people who use Uber don’t, oddly.

In fairness, Uber has done some things right.  It has provided a way to hail a taxi (even though that is still not what they claim to be) without knowing the local number of a taxi company.  People, oddly, don’t want to actually contact someone to get their ride.  But if you are a Uber user, you must know that your ride is subsidized, at around 60 percent, and someday they will have to significantly increase their prices.  Are you still onboard?

The problem is that the VCs are so financially invested that they can’t let it die, and will do anything to take it to an exit strategy.  So the VCs can’t get out.  Guess what?  You can.  Delete the app.  Take the additional friction of finding a cab.  You will grow as a human being.

But Uber is poison.  Beyond an initial goal to upend the taxi industry, it has no redeeming value.  Most of us care about the companies we do business with.  If you don’t care about Uber, you are very wrong.

Please Explain to Me Why Uber Isn’t Toast May 5, 2017

Posted by Peter Varhol in Software development, Technology and Culture.
Tags: ,
1 comment so far

Uber is in the process of transforming the taxi industry. In general, that’s a good thing.  Mostly (more on that in a later post).

Everything else about Uber is a very bad thing.

First, it is about professional drivers, not ride sharing. Anyone who hasn’t figured that out by now needs to go directly to jail, and not pass Go.  When was the last time you personally shared your car with strangers, seriously?  This is absolutely not about ride sharing, and you know that, despite the drivel coming out of the company.

Second, it is about treating their drivers as poorly as possible, but keeping them onboard until they can get to driverless vehicles. Its CEO has already told us all how he treats his drivers.  All drivers will be jettisoned at the moment driverless cars become viable.  And, yes again, this is about professional drivers, not ride sharing.

Third, it is about a scofflaw culture that operates illegally, then claims it is misunderstood, or that laws are simply things that get in its way, or something that makes it superior.

Last, it is an employer that celebrates the bro culture, that takes everything that it can from its employees and delivers nothing in return, especially those who are not white, male, and affluent. Especially affluent.  Except for its drivers.  Let’s keep them poor and hungry.  Until the time we cut them all loose.

I realize that none of this is a damnable business problem (sometimes business itself is damned). But it should be, and it will be, in the not-to-distant future.

For you VCs out there, I fully appreciate how Uber is upending an industry. But it is poison as a company and an investment.  Get out if you can; no, get out at any cost.

I Am Disgusted with Tech February 23, 2017

Posted by Peter Varhol in Technology and Culture.
Tags: ,
add a comment

Well, no, not really, especially since it pays me well to do what I do. But I seem to be surprised and amazed (in a negative sense) daily with their behavior, both on the public stage and behind the scenes.

But Uber seems to be bound and determined to support its bro culture and its combative approach to opening new markets. “We’re hurting.”  Seriously?  This is about as juvenile as it gets, and for a company that’s purportedly worth north of $60 billion, is completely uncalled for.  And oh by the way, let’s attack by name the woman who had the courage, and the evidence, to speak out against that culture.

And getting former assistant attorney general (and current revolving door ambulance chaser) Eric Holder to investigate them is like getting the fox to investigate why chickens have disappeared. I can write his report right now:  “This company is the paragon of virtue, although it does have random pockets of sexism and racism.  They don’t really have to do anything about that, because they are so good otherwise.”  If Uber pays Holder enough money, CEO Travis Kalanick won’t even be required to do a public mea culpa.

Uber has done some good, upending an industry that needed to be upended. But it has done so in a way that has created an entirely new class of working poor drivers, and a class of upper-income users who sadly don’t actually have to talk to anyone to get a ride.  Or tip anyone (I am sorry, the Uber drivers work for a living, and deserve courteous treatment.  Instead, Uber continues to not include a tip function on their app.)

Sadly, I don’t think that Facebook has done any good whatsoever. It has created a mass worldwide addiction that can never be satiated.  I see no innovation or value there.  And Zuckerberg?  He continues to deny what Facebook is and has become, all the while bringing in billions in market value for himself.  And uses it to buy his privacy, which he denies Facebook users.

Uber and Facebook, if you are looked upon as the adult supervision of Silicon Valley, then I can’t imagine what is happening elsewhere. It does not have to be like this, but this is what you wanted, and it is so very wrong.

Uber Bullshit Disapproved October 28, 2016

Posted by Peter Varhol in Software platforms, Technology and Culture.
Tags: ,
add a comment

I think it’s safe to say that Uber is full of BS. In this report, it heralds the availability of providing personal aircraft commuting options to consumers by 2020.  The article actually treats it as serious news.  I want to giggle.

I don’t even know where to begin. The article cites regulatory issues, but it is far more than simply that.  The regulations exist largely for safety and identity purposes, and any talk of regulation has to devolve into the many very good reasons behind them.  These are regulations that Uber can flout, as they have so many others.

It actually says that the costs are feasible, as long as the aircraft are self-piloting. Um, no, they aren’t.  Here’s why.

Pilots. That is the one cost that is actually manageable.  There is a plethora of 23-year old pilots with their newly-minted commercial ticket who would rather be doing this than picking up an occasional buck giving flying lessons.  They are not the expensive part of flying; they will do this for $20 an hour.  The actual manufacturing cost of the planes isn’t the gating factor either, even though even the most basic new private plane goes for about a quarter of a million USD.

Where is the cost? Liability insurance.  Liability insurance makes up over 30 percent of the cost of a new private plane, which is why private planes are no longer made in the US.  All of our private aircraft come from companies in Europe, where liability laws are different, and presumably much less expensive.

I know something about flying and aviation. I also know something about the history of personal flight, thanks to my father’s 1960s-era subscriptions to Popular Science magazine.

In a larger sense, we regulate aviation because unregulated flying is, well, dangerous. Flying is a serious endeavor that does not easily lend itself to simply getting a ride.  If your plane runs out of gas or has a mechanical issue, you can’t simply pull to the side of the road.  When I got my driver’s license, the instructor said, “Now you have the right to get yourself into an accident.”  When I got my pilot’s license, it was considerably more involved and serious.  No one wanted me to get killed; it would involve too much paperwork.

And weather. Enough said.  The ability to fly under instrument conditions is an entirely different kettle of fish, both for the plane and the pilot.  It takes years for a pilot to fully comprehend flying in inclement weather.

Leave it to automation, you say? Um, no.  Ultimately, there has to be a human in the loop, and that won’t change for at least half a century, if ever.  And remember that this problem is at least a factor of ten (probably more like a factor of 100) more difficult than self-driving cars, which have the luxury of operating in only two dimensions.

I could go on further, but this is already fantasy.

I’m not sure why Uber felt the need to commission and publish such a study, but it is nonsensical.

Is a Car Just a Car? August 12, 2016

Posted by Peter Varhol in Technology and Culture, Uncategorized.
Tags:
add a comment

At this time of my life, yes. My transportation is an 18-year old Subaru that just starts every time.  But 25 years ago, I owned a classic Corvette.  L-82, large bore V-8.  If I could think it, that car could deliver on it.  As a teen, I had an old Chevy sedan that moved okay, and let me join the other teens in doing whatever we did with cars.

Uber entire business model is based on the assumption that a car is only transportation.  I can hail a whatever sedan Uber sends me to get from here to there.  I am pretty much in sync with that, because I need to get from here to there, reliably and more or less on time.  I certainly don’t do it in any fancy way.

But I am not everyone. Most news/magazine websites still have an automotive section, and paper magazines like Car and Driver and Automotive News still sell well.  Many people like cars, and have an emotional attachment to them.  There is a certain beauty in the lines of many cars, and car ownership still remains a reachable dream for youth and adults alike.

If Uber fails, here is where it will happen. For some, perhaps many, travel is not a commodity.  The journey is the reward, as Steve Jobs had once said.  To many, this is the literal truth.

Uber is selling a way to get from here to there. That’s not a bad thing.  But in the case of cars, it is nowhere near everything.  Chevy sells tens of thousands of Corvettes every year.  Other attractive, fast, and functional cars sell in the millions.  They do so not because people need them, in many cases, but because they want them.

Uber works when the alternative is hailing a cab, and its advantage there will be reduced once it starts charging full price, rather than providing a subsidy on its rates.

But some people (many people?) need more than that. I don’t happen to be one of them, at this point in my life (though given my location, I still don’t use Uber), but I can still appreciate the sentiment.  I don’t know that Uber will fail, because there is still a significant population that requires only occasional transport from one point to another.

But it is a crack in the business model. I don’t think any cultural shift that occurs will happen that fast or that completely to make cars simply transportation for many people.  How many people could decide whether Uber is a global force or merely a taxi company.

I’m Talking About You, Uber September 10, 2015

Posted by Peter Varhol in Software platforms, Technology and Culture.
Tags:
add a comment

The question is what am I talking about. You are so not about a “sharing economy”. Virtually all of your drivers aren’t sharing their daily cars, on their normal day to day business, to accommodate the occasional rider. Instead, they are buying extra cars to turn themselves into the modern equivalent of the taxi driver, without the taxi provided by the company. Calling this the sharing economy is a dangerous misnomer. This is a service, just like a taxi is a service.

But that’s okay, even if you’re not honest about it. At the same time, that’s the drivers’ decisions to make. I don’t think anyone is forcing them into what is essentially a part time business. And most taxi drivers are so-called independent contractors anyway, and are charged by the taxi company for the use of the car.  I am not clear on the economics, but it must work for many.

And certainly the occasional local ride concept was due for some significant disruption. Taxi service is fundamentally stuck in operations that are at least half a century old. It doesn’t work for the consumer any more. Uber works better for the rider (mostly), and can have some advantages for the driver. As well as some disadvantages, depending on decisions made by individual drivers.

The technology makes a difference. You no longer have to call a taxi company; instead, you signal from the app, tell them where you are and where you want to go, and they are generally pretty responsive.

But the technology only enables the work shift you are attempting. My short term guess: you will continue to be pretty successful, because almost everyone who uses taxis also uses smartphones. My long term guess: this is a transitional technology that will be put out of business decisively by the driverless car. I’m sure you’ve thought of that, and are looking to eliminate the middleman; i.e., the driver. This ultimately isn’t a new model for employment, or the so-called sharing economy. You will be first in line for the mass-produced Google car.

I’m not criticizing that, but I am criticizing your fundamental dishonesty in long term goals. You are not about the worker or the so-called sharing economy. You are about the disruption. You continue to lie, but that’s what you’ve done since your inception.