hckrnws

As a Waymo-booster on HN for a while now, here's my latest anecdote. I tried to figure out how to take Waymo to LAX even though it's not actually in their territory yet just because I value the experience so much. I was borderline going to take it within walking distance (about half a mile), but got lazy at the last minute. I took Lyft instead, and, as if the universe cursed my laziness, I booked a "comfort" car for $3 more than the base level Lyft. At first I was going to get a Tesla Model Y to take me, but that cancelled. Instead, what must have been a first generation Honda Pilot picked me up, suspension creaking and muffler that had seen better days. Did Lyft recognize what they sent instead of the "comfort" they promised and therefore charge me $3 less? Of course not. When I tried to contact customer service I ran into what I'm sure plenty of HN people have, which is a dead end where you report the issue and they (programmatically?) adjudicate the complaint on the spot. Their determination? I wasn't entitled to a $3 refund. Ironic that the rideshare app with human drivers doesn't allow me to contact their customer service whereas Waymo has no problem with it (yeah, yeah, I get it, "we'll see once they reach a huge scale." But today the experience is so much better than Uber or Lyft that while it lasts I will bask in its driverless glory).

I've had a couple bad experiences with Lyft recently, including one time the driver must have clicked that they picked me up while a block away, because I could see the lyft driving to the destination without me. I tried to get a refund since I was obviously waiting my start location the whole time, but the system claimed the drive went from start to finish (even though I wasn't in the car), so no refund.

Same thing happened to me, and the support system automatically decided nothing was wrong whatsoever despite my phone certainly sending a very different location from the driver. And the madness was I couldn't even book another ride as I was technically in one.

So I ended up getting it resolved via the security panic button which did put me through to a real person who was empathetic to the issue.

> ended up getting it resolved via the security panic button which did put me through to a real person who was empathetic to the issue

For both Uber and Lyft this is what I do. Which is wild since the only other company I auto-escalate-to-cancellation with is Comcast.

Waymo isn’t winning because it’s automated. It’s winning because the major players left the premium segment of the market for grabs.

Comcast gives you the illusion of being able to talk to a human being if you are persistent enough.

What ends up happening is at some point they send you a link to talk to their support bot and tell you they are hanging up on you.

Threatening cancelation is the only way. The only reason they will not care is because of their captive markets. This is what you get with no competition.

Is this some sort of a scam? The driver cannot even mark the ride as completed without being in the area right? So they have to drive it anyway. I can’t imagine they would be on the platform for long if this happened on a regular basis. I would say it’s probably an accident but how could this behavior be accidental? Someone might accidentally say that they picked you up, but they couldn’t accidentally then drive an empty car to the destination.

My experience in DC is GPS can be spotty due to the buildings and the app glitches when it says you are in one spot but you are not there.

Also DC has rules for certain streets on what side of road you are allowed to be picked up on.

Maybe they picked up the wrong person and neither of them realized?

Has anybody tried "driving" for one of these companies using GPS spoofing? You could fake the location of your phone. I suppose it'd only work a few times before the number of reports gets you banned, but I wonder whether on a laragr enough (and automated) scale it would be profitable for scammers

I had a driver commit GPS spoofing on me: I was standing outside and there were no car to be seen anywhere even though the app showed the driver was there and had been "driving" to it

I tried to report a security incident to Uber, but not sure what happened. It would likely be easier to complain today, as now all taxis (which Uber technically is in Norway) need to be part of a Taxi dispatch central

I had to go in person to verify my documents to drive for Uber

Given that they track you every inch of your route, it'd be a pain in the butt to attempt to fake it.

I've gotten a refund on food before because my driver picked up my food and then went spend a half hour in a gas station before returning to their route even though my home was 2 minutes away.

>Given that they track you every inch of your route, it'd be a pain in the butt to attempt to fake it.

Pain for a single app developer when no such app exists, but a spoofing app will dutifully draw anyone any number and length of travel.

Uber lets you enable a PIN for each ride. The driver can't say they picked you up until they punch in the random 4 digit PIN the app gave you for the ride.

This is good, but why can't these firms determine when your phone and the drivers phone are far apart?

It's not unusual to call a taxi for another person. Or to make a multi-stop journey where some people get out before others. You can even send a parcel across town in a taxi.

Checking phone proximity might be helpful in some cases, but it's not a silver bullet.

Too many people order Ubers for other people so it won’t work.

GPS does not work everywhere, and not every device support BLE beacons.

I never give location permissions to any app if I can avoid it (indeed I don't even have the spyware app if I can avoid it; e.g. I use the web to order an Uber)

I don’t know why they don’t require it. Every Uber in Porto Rico uses the PIN but I’ve only had one in the mainland USA ask for it.

You need to enable it on your account.

That's must be annoying to say the least. In India drivers require an OTP to start a ride.

The OTP is the same for a user across rides, so I have mine memorised which is nifty. No fiddling with the phone during boarding.

On security: exploiting this would require the driver to stay in my vicinity the next time I book a ride, and also get the ride assigned to them. In a high population density area, it's rare - I've never had the same driver twice.

Uber in India gives me a different OTP for each ride. A different ride-hailing app I use occasionally uses a PIN tied to a user.

OTPs are a simple solution to fraudulent rides that it's surprising it's not implemented universally, given all the complaints in this thread.

An OTP that's reused?

Omni-time password

It solves the problem for 99.99% of the time. Drivers are not going to memorize your OTP; and it is unlikely that an OTP list will be leaked/used anytime soon.

Maybe, but there's OT in OTP. So if it's not changing then it's not OTP, just P.

For that driver, it's effectively an OTP although probably not very pseudorandom.

It changes every time. You can also just have it at night, which I have. Prevents drunk wrong riders.

An MTP

I mean it _technically_ isn't an OTP, but you know what I mean - just a code only the user knows that they need to share with the rider.

The threat model is sufficiently low to justify the much better UX of not having to look the code up everytime.

The acronym you are looking for is "PIN", a Personal Identification Number.

I’ve heard the story from the other side as well: App reports ride is arriving, people get in, they go the wrong way and see their original ride stating that you are not there and leave again.

So it may not be intentional. Just coincidence and poor verification.

I waited 40 minutes for a Lyft at an airport because the driver made up a story about an accident and traffic, in the airport. No one else seemed to be affected by this traffic- so eventually I tried booking an Uber. It arrived 3 minutes later.

20 minutes after that the Lyft driver keeps texting me “where are you?!”. Their turn to wait!

Saw later they just started the ride without me and drove to my hotel.

Lyft said “this trip was completed, no refund”. Welp, app deleted.

I've had several cases of drivers just not picking me up. Reading their time to move anywhere at all, driving away and keep getting further and further away, it driving towards me only to turn some other direction. I always just cancel on them and have never had to pay a cancellation fee. I think once or twice they "picked me up" a block away. I'm pretty sure I was able to cancel or end the ride on that too, definitely was never charged though I don't recall if I had to use the support. But I never let it actually complete the trip when I wasn't riding. But I was always very miffed when anything like that happened as I did not appreciate them wasting my time.

On Uber I paid for priority pickup and watched as a driver drove within two blocks of my home and then sat in a neighborhood for 10 minutes. I finally message "Everything OK?" and get no reply but they finish their journey to my place.

The car reeked of weed.

Charge back with your credit card if Lyft isn't willing to help you. Keep businesses in check.

In my experience, you should prepare for retaliation when you do a charge back.

Whether one cares depends very strongly on what "retaliation" means. If they ban your account, not a big deal - you were getting bad service and didn't want to do business with them anyway. If they send an armed hit squad to kill you, that would be worth being concerned about though.

I "purchased" a digital game once on the PlayStation Store. It wasn't clear from the description that it was completely useless without an active subscription to PSN, so I tried to return it. They said no way, sales are final and you've already launched the game. I did a chargeback, and they basically locked down my account until I filed a support ticket and had to lie, saying someone else made a purchase on my account.

If you really want to delete the app, a chargeback is the surest way to permanently remove yourself from the platform.

Companies that cheap out by not performing the basic obligations of business end up paying more for small claims court - provided their ripped-off customers actually take them to small claims court. Did you?

Tip: You can take Waymo to just outside the economy lot, then hop on the shuttle to the terminals. The shuttles have their own dedicated lane for going around the loop, so this isn't even that much more time. It's my new favorite way to get to LAX.

> Their determination? I wasn't entitled to a $3 refund.

Frustratingly, Lyft’s position on this is that if you don’t like the car that arrives you should reject it when it arrives, otherwise you’re not entitled to a (even partial) refund, even when they know on their end that the car they sent doesn’t match what you paid extra for.

This seems... interesting, legally speaking. I imagine the idea is that you're implicitly accepting alterations to the previous contract by opting to take the car? Would that argument hold water, legally?

If I've learned anything from watching startups on HN, the US is a lawless wasteland where as long as you've got a couple of billion in VC funding you can do anything. I eagerly await the first murder-for-hire startup.

“By visiting our affiliate’s website (adorable-puppy-photos.com), Mr. Doe agreed to our terms of service which specify we may terminate his bodily functions at any time.”

I mean, isn't Disney arguing that court should drop a case about someone dying at a Disneyland resort because their partner agreed to Disney+ terms and conditions?

I ran into a similar arbitration with a condo I rented for a long weekend. There was a significant issue and they weren't able to provide another place. We stayed there and had contractors in and out for the next couple of days. They refused to refund me, so I tried through my credit card to get a refund and they said "well you should have just left, then we would refund you. But since you stayed, the contract is fulfilled."

Credit card disputes don't always match up with the law, so I wouldn't put too much weight on this from a legal standpoint, but good anecdote nonetheless.

Especially since you may have no time to wait for another car. There’s an element of “duress” here

Yes, when you’re tired after a flight with heavy bags, you’re very much being forced to compromise. Any consumer could easily argue why they didn’t have a choice and had to go with what was available.

If you’re just off a flight, you could just use a normal yellow cab.

You could but there are multiple reasons why Uber dethroned taxis and probably the most important ones are that you get a route to your destination and a fixed price to get there.

My first trip to Paris many years ago, I felt that I was getting the "scenic tour" to my hotel from the airport but I wasn't sure where I was and certainly didn't know the best way between the two. There were other variations in other cities.

For a while, I lived near an airport and taxi drivers would be angry because they'd waited a long time to do a short ride and now would have to go back to the end of the line.

It’s plain bait and switch.

You paid a premium for promised X, specifically. Y showed up. This is the equivalent of buying a first class ticket, and getting put in economy.

Someone should class action this bs.

Uber has done that to me. You pick a class but what you get seems unrelated.

I need more space for luggage and such and ... some "mid-sized" SUV picks me up that has about as much space a regular sedan anyway ... often the same type of vehicle that picked me up the previous day as a regular vehicle.

I paid extra and scheduled an Uber with a child seat. After waiting 30 minutes, when the car showed up, there was no car seat so the driver canceled right away and drove off. Lesson learned.

I'm pretty sure by now the various "classes" of service offered by Lyft and Uber are instead just ways for the customer to donate money to Lyft and Uber. There's no difference in what kind of yahoo shows up in what kind of beater.

I pretty much just use it to book black cars these days - at least in my local city where those require licensed livery drivers. Good experience there for the most part. Most of the time I’m using Uber it’s either a business expense to the airport or I’m booking for a large party anyways.

That and I guess UberXL - otherwise it’s pretty fungible.

The interesting bit is that black is often pretty much the same price a UberX about a third of the time.

What does "licensed driver" mean? The driver has a valid driving licence?

Assuming OP is in the UK, they're talking about hackney carriages which are subject to more stringent regulation than other private hire vehicles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackney_carriage

I think this would be similar to the medallions of yellow NYC cabs

It won't be a full-blown Hackney license, Hackney licensing is because unlike these "ride sharing" apps and what the UK would call a "mini cab" service, which require only a "public hire" license - the Hackney license authorises you to literally pick up strangers on the street, which was of course a completely normal way to use a taxi in a major city decades ago and is still somewhat common at say airports. That's what the glowing "Taxi" sign on the roof is for.

This needs more driver quality insight because e.g. passenger gets in your vehicle, you drive them to some secluded spot and their body is found the next morning - there's no records for murder cops to start from, unless there was a witness there may not even be a description of your vehicle. The UK has had this happen, but it's very rare because the sort of person likely to escalate to murder is not going to get licensed.

In contrast a mini-cab or Uber-style driver has records of who was dispatched to pick up somebody, where they were picked up etc. So if you take to murdering your fares the murder detectives will show up at your door with company records implicating you.

It's also impossible to book an Uber with 2 child seats so, i guess i'm effed then.

search "mifold grab and go booster" on amazon

Uber operates in 71 countries. That booster seat is available in 1 country. So it solves 1.4% of the problem.

Also that's a booster seat, not a child care seat, so can't be used if your kids are under 4.

Assuming 71 countries of equal Uber using population.

And assuming that even if you want it you'd be too lazy to cross ship.

That does not look like a legal child seat

Same here. To alter-quote The Simpsons, "My eyes! The classes do nothing!"

Shortly after pandemic, I noticed "corridor fees" on vastly different routes which, mysteriously, bumped-up the price by the same percentage across each route--but only after the ride had completed. The price I was quoted was not remotely close to the price I was charged.

I did the customer service messaging thing. The first time, they removed it. The second and third time, they declined to remove it.

I now "decline" riding Uber unless there's no other option.

As much as I love to hate on Uber and Lyft, tacked on fees like this are often due to state / federal government, and the rideshare service hands are tied. Uber tags on a very long list of random fees when I Uber out of SFO, but when I investigated them, they were all random taxes from the city / state.

If they want to jack up the prices they can just increase them - they don't need to add random fees.

Not knowing what you'll pay for something until the moment you actually pay is considered normal only in the US.

Where I am, Uber shows a price, I pay that price. Whatever fees are included is not my problem.

The main problem here is that the stated and billed sums were much different.

Sure the state and Uber can add whatever fee they like. But not after I accept the ride.

SFO is not really municipal. It's a private commercial property.

If we don't like we can choose a competitor /s

I believe they bin vehicles by available seating and not by things like luggage.

+1 So you may get say a 7 seater where the seats are folded in the trunk, so you can carry 7 people XOR 5 people + light suitcases

There is no option to say “send me a mini van”

There is a newer option that is closer to that - "Uber XXL." (https://www.uber.com/newsroom/airport-travel/)

...XOR?

So it can carry the 2 extra people, it can carry some luggage, it can't carry both, and it can't carry neither?

^ Pedant detected

I suppose, but I only responded because they went out of their way to say xor, and put it in all caps too.

XOR in common programmer speech is ambiguously used to mean XOR or NAND, so I think their use of XOR was casually correct, while not technically correct.

While NAND is technically correct, it's just not commonly used as a grammatical conjunction.

This may be among common programmers who don't deal with any bit twiddling or low-level stuff, but having worked on embedded and also on network stack stuff, it is certainly not the case there. Using the wrong term there will at best confuse your colleagues, at worst result in a logic error in the code, and a potentially nasty one at that depending on how common the low-low case is.

It is?

I thought it was just used for, like, a couple jokes that you get from “intro to digital logic” class. The joke is funnier if it is correct, I think.

Book a maxi-cab or a dedicated airport transfer service.

Agreed. I want van.

Uber seems wilfully deceptive in so many ways. The initial listing of rides including details of vehicles and prices, which looks like an actual offer, but the app then goes off to try and find something similar. Try being a shop, selling someone an item and then going out back to rummage around and see if you actually have anything like what you sold. And then the 'fixed price' you agreed on gets arbitrarily changed on half the trips if traffic gets worse or the driver takes a different route. If I book a trip from the airport, the airport's charge for rideshare lane usage isn't an "unanticipated expense". It's just skeezy.

Before Uber and Lyft destroyed the functioning taxi market, you got Mercedes by default for a traditional, regulated taxi in many EU countries.

You didn't have to argue, interact with a surveillance company, interact with customer service etc. All you needed to do is pick up the phone and get a luxury ride without tracking or surveillance.

My experience in my first-world country is that all I needed was to spend 10min on the phone to be told there’s no taxi available, or to be told it’ll take 30min and actually it take 1h30. Drivers aren’t any more amicable than uber drivers either (less, if anything).

Not to speak of many countries where taxis are outright scammers and getting into one is taking a real danger.

Lol. Before Uber 'destroyed' the functioning taxi market in Amsterdam, getting a taxi after going out meant waiting for sometimes up to 45 minutes. It meant standing in a line and when someone cut the line in front of you, saying something about it could get you in a fight. Taxi drivers often were (former) criminals who cashed in their savings of black money to get a taxi license and a quiet life. Occasionally tourists were robbed or taken on detours, good luck to get your money back in those days. And I'm not even mentioning the outrageous prices yet for a taxi drive in the city in those days.

Uber might not be 100% perfect but it has been a real blessing, a salvation of all the misery that we had to endure in the 'functioning' taxi market.

I often tried taking taxis after reading about shady practices of Uber and Lyft. I usually came away saying “never again.”

You wait too long to get picked up by a smelly dirty old car and then they pull stuff like pretending the card reader is broken to get you to stop at an ATM so they can avoid taxes.

The worst experiences were in SF. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that these companies started there. Of course SF is uniquely dysfunctional in many ways.

I’ve read many comments online over the years to the effect that people would pay more for Uber and Lyft to destroy the taxi industry.

What’s wrong with the taxi industry is that it’s a cartel, especially in major cities, and everyone knows when you have a monopoly or a cartel everything starts to suck.

The surveillance is exactly why Uber and Lyft works. If drivers misbehave, evidence is all there. I’d honestly trade reliability over a temporary luxury ride in a Mercedes.

Before Uber, in France half of the time you got an irascible driver who never had change and whose credit card terminal was non functional.

Uber and Lyft priced out those needless amenities and transferred into their profit margin. If customers has properly priced those in, the market would see that they are retained. Efficien-en-en-ent!

Yeah, before Uber and Lyft I would get a Mercedes.

Except that it took forever. I had no idea when anyone would show up. The driver was annoyed and drove like an insane person. The few times I've actually feared for my life have been on highways with taxi drivers. It was incredibly expensive.

Oh, and half the time they ripped you off.

Yup. And there was no tracking. So if that person wanted to say, drive an insane route? Enjoy. Take a detour. Done. Or dump your body in the woods. You were totally at their mercy.

The taxi system was horrible. The pinnacle of protectionism carving out its niche of crap.

>the functioning taxi market

Was it? In many EU countries a lot of taxi drivers act like scammers: take you the long way around, they don't issue you receipt by default because they do tax fraud or steal from their employer, you can't pay by card because suddenly the card machine "doesn't work" so they drive you to an ATM, then you pay cash and they try to keep the change, they don't speak English or even the local language, they don't know the local streets or landmarks you're referring to because they're not from there, etc. All that is super annoying. Multiply it if you're a tourist or on a business trip or job interview.

Ride sharing fixed all that since you just punched in the destination in the app (in your own language) and got the price upfront and shielded you from the antics of scammy drivers and the friction of getting to your destination. That's why ride sharing apps were so successful initially.

It wasn't about the price, it was about the friction or lack thereof.

>you got Mercedes by default for a traditional, regulated taxi in many EU countries

Mostly IIRC Berlin, Brussels, Stockholm and some other rich countries, definitely not EU wide.

In the Mercedes running countries taxi rides are also something you do very rarely because they cost a lot.

The rest are like the poster above me described. In Romania, the taxi drivers tried to strike in the capital when Uber showed up and everybody basically laughed at them.

[dead]

pfah, I remember my Mercedes trip to Paris airport where I had a physical fight with the driver (10 years ago). SO glad to see the taxi business go down the toilet. Easily over 50% of them were scamming tourists.

Charges for goods not delivered as agreed falls under the protection of the Fair Credit Billing Act. If you made a good faith attempt to resolve with the merchant (which you did) you should use your credit card to charge back the amount (some let you request a partial charge back, but if not you can request a full one and explain in the extra info that you want a partial one).

This might not seem worth it for $3, but if they get a lot of these the credit cards/banks might start giving them a hard time about it, so I think it's worth the minor hassle (everything can be done via the credit card app usually)

And then you're forever barred from using the service.

I once did a chargeback of almost $5k to PayPal when someone scammed me (and PayPal sided with scammer). I still have my account, though I don't use it for anything I'd actually need protection on now.

On the other hand I did get banned from an online local selling site (rhymes with Canary) for charging back a small purchase where the wrong thing was delivered and their system for reporting it was broken and they refused to refund. I even tried having a roommate create an account (same address) and they banned that when they made a purchase.

Why would you want to continue using a service that is ripping you off? If you're at the point where your only recourse is to charge back, that's kind of a bridge burning moment.

> Why would you want to continue using a service that is ripping you off?

For the same reason that I'm going to continue using Uber despite them ripping other people off, as described in this very thread. People systematically overweight their own negative experiences and underweight those of others; I believe that every single negative story about Lyft and Uber I've read in this thread is likely to be true. In other words, they do sometimes rip people off. On the other hand, am I likely enough to be ripped off the next time I use Uber that it doesn't make sense to use it? (And do what instead, walk?) No. It's unfortunate, and I support social solutions to the problem like better regulation of businesses, but if I personally dropped every company I think sometimes rips people off, I would do business with no one ever.

I have many times walked home when I didn’t trust the bus timetable or the taxi equivalent. Always expected to get mugged but it hasn’t happened yet. I guess people often think someone walking is someone to not be messed with. Very place dependent obviously

You get barred from a whole suite of services. Anything Google/Alphabet owns or may acquire in the future. People often don't have a choice here.

We are talking about Lyft in this example ("I took Lyft instead") so your point is somewhat moot but a good reason to never charge back Google!

I took Google to a tribunal (think Australian equivalent of small claims) a few years ago, over a defective Pixel they refused to repair 2 years and 1 month after purchase.

Under Australian Consumer Law, I wanted to make the case that a premium phone should last more than 2 years.

Google’s representatives initially sent letters arguing that the license agreement forces me to arbitrate, to which I responded by adding another claim that binding arbitration is an unfair contract provision under the same ACL and should be declared void.

A couple days before the case, I received an offer to settle for a brand new phone and my filing fees, to which I accepted.

No chargebacks, no ban, just the legal system working as it should while being accessible to everyday folks.

That's a fantastic outcome, and honestly, a bit of a unicorn from my perspective here in the US. Your story about the Australian Consumer Law having actual teeth is a breath of fresh air. Here in the US, it feels like we're playing a whole different ball game, and the house (of Google) always wins.

A buddy of mine, let's call him "Dave," had a strikingly similar issue with a Pixel phone a couple of years back. His device started bootlooping out of the blue about 18 months after he bought it. Not exactly what you'd call a "premium" experience. He went through the standard support rigmarole, which I'm sure you're familiar with – the endless chat bots, the canned email responses, the escalations to senior support agents who just read from the same script. The final word from on high was, "Sorry, you're out of the one-year warranty. We can't help you."

Dave, being the stubborn engineer type, decided he wasn't going to take that lying down. He'd read about people having success in small claims court and thought, "How hard can it be?" He did his homework, found the correct legal entity for Google in his state, and filed the paperwork. The filing fee wasn't outrageous, something like $75. He wasn't asking for the moon, just the cost of a replacement phone and the filing fee.

This is where the story takes a decidedly American turn. A few weeks after filing, he didn't get a settlement offer. Instead, he got a thick envelope from a fancy law firm. It was a motion to compel arbitration. Buried deep in the terms of service that we all click "agree" to without reading, there was, of course, a binding arbitration clause. And not just any arbitration, but one that would be conducted by an arbitrator of Google's choosing, in a location convenient for them (Northern California, naturally), and he'd have to split the cost of the arbitrator, which can run into thousands of dollars.

So, his $75 gamble to get a new phone suddenly had the potential to turn into a multi-thousand-dollar boondoggle. The letter from the lawyers was polite, but the message was clear: "drop this, or we'll bury you in legal fees." They weren't just trying to avoid paying for a faulty phone; they were making an example of him.

Dave folded. He couldn't afford to take the risk. So, not only did he not get his phone replaced, but he was also out the filing fee and a good chunk of his time and energy. He ended up just buying an iPhone out of spite.

This is why arbitration on consumers should be illegal - aka, arbitration should only be legal when both entities are approximately similar in power/capability.

The whole reason for existence of courts is to ensure that parties with unequal power can be fairly treated. Arbitration seems to remove that via a loop hole.

Let's retain a sense of proportion here; it was $3.

IMO it's attitudes like this that allow companies to continue ripping us all off for small amounts here and small amounts there. They know it's a small amount and most people won't push back, so they keep getting away with it. I suppose the only thing that stops me from hitting the nuclear button every time this happens is that there are a limited number of companies offering many categories of services, and I'd eventually have to charge back each of them and lose access to an entire industry composed entirely of shitty companies.

It would be much better if companies were inclined to amicably settle small dollar disputes rather than the default which seems to be to stonewall, and then ban when the customer uses the only tool they have to push back.

Give me $3.

What's your Venmo?

Are you going to provide me a useful service on a regular basis? You're really missing the point here if not.

The point is a bad one that should be missed. $3 isn't negligible. It isn't usually [0] worth spending $4 to recover, but it is nonetheless money. People can't just arbitrarily charge each other $3 for nothing.

[0] Game theory says sometimes it makes sense to be unreasonable.

It's not arbitrary. It's part of an ongoing relationship that is worth significantly more. That $3 came out of the trust they have with the company. But even though they're wary now, they still have some trust and want to use the service in the future.

Some random guy asking for $3 is a wildly different situation.

It's not about the $3, it's about the relationship.

A close analogy would be Netflix going up $2. If you keep paying that, it doesn't mean you think the money is negligible, and it doesn't mean you would give that money to someone else. And this holds whether Netflix got consent before the increase or scammed you out of it or anything in between; those things affect the decision but they don't change the fundamental nature of it.

The company is valuing the relationship at <$3. In practice there can be no "relationship" with an entity that wilfully steals $3; even in the commercial sense. It is strictly transactional and they're signalling that on any transaction they're willing to cheat you.

You can keep using them if you want. But history has no meaning when dealing with that sort of company.

Keeping an account in good standing, able to continue to purchase services, qualifies as a relationship here.

You can't view transactions in isolation because of the ban possibility.

Yes they're willing to cheat me. But I can limit that and I don't have many choices.

At $3 your credit card company is just going to comp it to you and move on.

Many, Many millions have been made on pennies pulled from consumers daily.

$3 in a personal vacuum is one thing (and still adds up if you consider each service that could do this) $3 across 20% of users, lets say, globally, daily. Adds up.

Consumers have the ability to also contribute to and define how engagements with businesses look. If the government won't help us, we have to continue on our own.

Apple screwed me once so I did a chargeback

My account was soft banned - everything I own

It should be illegal to allow services to ban you for a chargeback

Those don’t happen just willy nilly - it means your credit card reviewed your dispute and you won

They should obviously not be able to do that, I hope you now will stop relying on such services that put you utterly at their mercy. I hope you also tell everyone you know to not fall in the same trap

> you should use your credit card to charge back the amount

Don't you end up getting a new credit card number and have to deal with updating your details everywhere after doing this?

> This might not seem worth it for $3

It seems it's also painful and seemingly not worth it by design. Whenever they can make the process so painful that going through it essentially pays way less than your wage they can get away with it 99% of the time.

I’ve never had to get a new card/number after a chargeback.

You just get the charge removed or some amount deducted if it’s approved. You aren’t requesting a new card.

edit: This was for a purchase I made but didn’t receive exactly what I paid for. Now for fraudulent charges I didn’t make, yes they send a new card. I’m in the US, maybe it’s different elsewhere.

Once during the first year of the covid pandemic, I requested a couple meals for me and my wife through the Uber eats for lunch, my wife was accompanying in the hospital my mother-in-law on Sunday, then after suddenly the place informed the meals was delivered, but I didn't received anything. After I tried to discuss with Uber eats, I had appealled for the credit card, they full refund me.

The problem with charge backs for small amounts is that the bank might eat it instead, as there's a cost for them to process a charge back

I had the opposite once with Uber. I paid regular price (UberX or whatever it's called), then a guy showed up in a black BMW 530 with leather seats.

I've had the same many many times. I think almost universally it's fair that the product/provider upgrades your experience when you agree to pay for something, but when they are specifically telling you "pay x and we'll give you y" and then they give you <y that's, I think, shitty.

Of course, that happens, but the point is that it's a crapshoot, and you don't know what you're gonna get until the driver confirms, and you don't know what the car's actual condition is until you get in. And regardless, it's always reasonable for someone to provide you a better service/product than you paid for, but it's never ok to do the opposite.

With Waymo, you know what you're going to get every time. I've also never experienced a Waymo interior that was in bad shape when I got in the car, though I'm sure that does happen to people.

Same for cabs who used to be horrible until uber was the alternative. You need to use the vote button on Uber or Lyft. And not get into the car that is crap.

$3 isn't this kind of a small problem?

I miss rideshare service, in Denmark we have mess of expensive high quality taxis that you cannot get hold of when you need one.

$3 is small enough that almost everyone will just eat the cost. I have a theory that they do this intentionally in some things(well Uber I've never used lift). Almost every time I order food and something is wrong or missing they'll give me a refund that is $2-3 off what it should be. Like if I order a $5 item and it's missing their service will refund me $2. At that point I can chose to spend literally an hour going through different support flows to try to reach a human who will correct it and give me the extra $2 or I can eat the loss. It's happened to me at least a dozen times now so I imagine it's common enough across the whole world to add millions of revenue each year.

Speaking of small costs, some time ago I paid 2 euros with my credit card in order to enter the central train station toilets in Milan, Italy.

The toilets were awfully dirty, there was no toilet paper and no soap. I took some pictures just in case, then I filed a chargeback with my bank. After some weeks, they gave me my 2 euros back, and the company that manages the toilets probably paid a small fine to MasterCard or whatever.

Was it a waste of time, for just 2 euros? Sure. But if nobody starts complaining, nothing will ever be fixed.

> Was it a waste of time, for just 2 euros? Sure. But if nobody starts complaining, nothing will ever be fixed.

This is how I feel. Money is money. If you don't complain, why not just start donating to these corporations? It's effectively the same thing. I've successfully argued over a difference of $0.90 on a restaurant order (they rung up a different appetizer than I actually ordered). If you don't push back, they'll never get better.

Funny you say this, a year or two ago I contacted Amazon about adjusting the price for something I had ordered the day prior, since it went on sale. It hadn't shipped yet, and they said no problem, we'll refund you the $7 price difference - but we can't do that until the item arrives, just contact us when it does.

So I get the item, contact support for my price match and they say sorry, we can only give you $5 back. I get upset because that's not what I was told, and have a screenshot of the chat to prove it.

We went back and forth forever, I got more and more angry and eventually returned the item for the full amount, and prime had just recently renewed and was in the refund window, so I got a refund for that.

Unfortunately I need Prime where I live, so I signed up for it again a few days later, but used a free trial month.

The whole thing was a giant waste of time, and felt very "optimized".

Doordash did to me for 70cents or so once. There was a missing item in an order, no big deal, app let's you report it, and the exact item that was missing.

But instead of refunding the $2 it cost, they refunded like $1.19 or something to that affect.

DoorDash.. either the drivers can selectively identify the most expensive entree and remove it without disturbing anything… or restaurant owners figured out they could just leave it out without any real penalty. Happened so many times I got tired of arguing and chargebacks and moved on. No issues with other services.. someone figured out a grift.

I'm not sure I'm reading you correctly, but if you mean it's a small problem because $3 isn't much money then, heck yes, it's a microscopic problem (is there something smaller than microscopic because if so then it's whatever that thing is)! But I didn't bring it up to complain about the $3 per se. I can elaborate, but I'm not sure if that's what you were specifically referring to or if I'm misunderstanding your question.

A tiny problem, that would cost them nothing to fix, and they chose not to. This is a story about shitty customer service, not $3 being lost.

You can dispute via your credit card. They'll care quickly enough.

Lyft will ban your account if you issue a chargeback. You’ll get your money back but if you want to continue to use the service this is not a good option.

Do it anyway. You get your money back, it costs them more money, and the more they ban people over stuff like this the faster you run shitty companies out of business.

To do anything else promotes them doing the same thing to you in the future and other people.

This is true, but when there's only a couple options in town you have to assess if you're going to need to use that service in the future. That said, I find it a bit strange that it's legal to retaliate for making use of a right afforded to you by law. It would be like taking them to small claims court, winning, and being banned as a result. (Now that I wrote that I'm wondering if it's a thing that happens.)

It might actually be a good thing to get banned. Possibly it's in your interest not to continue to do business with companies like this, but on any given evening you might abandon your long term interest for the sake of short term convenience and use the bad car ride service.

And soon enough you don't have any apps to use.

Sometimes you gotta pick your fights. Chargebacks to gatekeepers are the worst because life is long and you will always lose.

it's why you take them to small claims court. Unfortunately, the terms and conditions have made sure they are clear of small claims by forcing you to do arbitration, which is more expensive for you than them (in relative terms, unless they also put into the T&C to pay for your arbitration costs - which some companies have done iirc, such as epic games).

Chargebacks are the last resort - only really worth doing if it is a large amount that you will miss if not charged back.

Chargebacks are the reverse of these kinds of small thefts. A company is free to take you to small claims court over a chargeback, it’s really not worth their time though.

As such it’s often preferable for an individual vs arbitration.

> it’s really not worth their time though.

no, but a company has more levers than just small claims court - such as banning you from doing business with them, and removing all existing relationships.

Google, for example, could ban you off gmail, remove your storage in gdrive, and take away all of your youtube videos.

A big enough company with your data/process/utility that you must rely on and is locked in, would have enormous leverage over you that a small claims court won't have.

Google can do that to you, they can’t do that to a billion people without serious repercussions on their business.

This is why they don’t delete Google accounts of everyone using an add blocker for example.

Just get a new account?

The $3 often makes the difference between someone that should not be allowed to have a drivers license, and a someone that's been driving high-end limos for years.

For example, I once had a driver that heard regenerative breaking was good for fuel economy, so decided to cycle their busted prius between 60mpg and 70mph every few seconds on the freeway. I was carsick for 2 hours after that ride. Another time, I had an angry line of people tapping the windows and politely giving the driver some unsolicited advice. (The mob was right; I mostly just tried to hide my face.)

So, the $3 is a big problem, but has nothing to do with money.

Worth knowing that Uber bought Dantaxi, Denmark's largest Taxi company a couple of weeks ago. The Uber app will tap in to Dantaxi driver pool. https://www.uber.com/en-DK/newsroom/dantaxi/

I wonder if strong worker unions and regulations forced Uber to buy an existing company rather than starting their own presence.

It's the point. I've noticed the same, in Australia on Uber, and have stopped bothering asking for the 'comfort' vehicle.

It's the same car. They just charge you $3 more for thinking you're going to get something nicer. You're not.

> $3 isn't this kind of a small problem?

You're right -- it's surprising Lyft wouldn't just give back $3 (such a small amount!) to keep a customer.

this is so rampant but they know they have a captive market (in many places, only uber or lyft are an option) so they abuse their position

I've had good experiences with Uber. I know others don't, but I have. I used to use Lyft but they treated me like shit so now I don't. If Uber starts treating me like shit I'm going back to taxis. If taxis treat me like shit I'll take the bus, walk, buy a car, or any of the dozens of other ways to get around, even if impractical. The market is only captive because people are lazy and weak willed.

$3 sure but you're already paying $XX for the service in the first place.

> $3 isn't this kind of a small problem?

Its the principle, not the size of the cost. If a company with good customer service accidentally overcharged me $200 but I could call someone and have it fixed easily that would set me off far less than a company that screwed me out of $1 who has shit-tier dark pattern customer service.

You’ve got to invest with the VC money. As companies mature and enshitification begins, jump onto the next hot thing that’s going to disrupt the now incumbent.

There’s no free lunch, but this is the closest we’ve got.

all "cab"-like cars that are not shaped like London Black Cabs are failures. The seating and luggage carrying is so much better than a regular car it makes me sick.

I'm on holiday in Japan at the moment and I notice the cabs look like London cabs and are mainly black too. Made by Toyota. I haven't yet taken one, so I don't know if the similarity extends to the interior layout.

And then you'll find plenty of people on here that hate on Black Cabs as ridiculously over priced.

An issue unrelated to the shape of the vehicle and its capacity to carry humans and luggage.

Agreeed. My last uber and Lyft rides were an unpleasant experience of late pickups, cancelled pickups, and old rickety rides. I use the train over uber and lyft

I would pay extra just to never ride in a Tesla. They always make me carsick.

    > ... Tesla. They always make me carsick.

> Is it the rapid acceleration from the electric motor

Yes. The hard acceleration and braking.

I'm calling it, it's mainstream media induced psychosomatics

The Uber comfort designation frustratingly has nothing to do with the condition of the vehicle. I believe the parameters are age, seats, and model.

From the driver's point of view, it just means that you are allowed to accept comfort rides but most of the time you're probably going to be picking up UberX passengers which are more plentiful. That means you're only slightly more likely to get one of the good comfort vehicles if you actually select the comfort tier.

People paying more for Waymo doesn’t surprise me. I also once called for a comfort car, but it was a filthy Lexus. I’d much rather ride in a clean and well maintained Corolla.

I pay more for Waymo and I’m happy to do it (as long as Waymo can detect when its interior is dirty so it can return itself to home base for cleaning.) I don’t have to sit awkwardly in a car with another guy who may drive in a way that annoys me. I can talk on my phone or with my family without having a random person listen in.

I have only used car share once in my life. (My mother ordered it, and it was fine.) To me, a dirty car is pretty much unforgivable as a car share service. Do you report it on the app or just give a one/zero star rating and hope the car share service will fix it?

    > I don’t have to sit awkwardly in a car with another guy who may drive

Instead you will have all of Google listen in.

Though, the cameras on the Waymo are always on and pointed down at you looking at your screen.

People don't hate automation. They hate BAD automation.

From your description seems like: Waymo -> Good Automation, Call Center -> Bad Automation.

The day we will have a chatgpt level automated customer care experience, we will complain every time humans answer our requests, with their accents and attitudes!

"Hi, how can I help y—"

"TALK TO A ROBOT"

Oh man, hope it's ok to poke a little fun. I think we just violently agreed with me praising automation from one company and deriding automation from another. So I'll update your "seems like": Riding with Waymo (IME) -> Good Automation, Lyft customer support when they "stole" $3 from me and didn't provide me with a way to fix it -> Bad Automation.

Do you think it's bad automation? I think it's a cost optimisation thing, we don't give refunds and we don't give people a channel to complain. We only measure revenue from trips and as long as that stays up the service quality is ok.

>> People don't hate automation

This is not true.

In the broad sense, people are in favor of automation. Most people aren't clamoring for the days before the stove, dishwasher, and car (all automated versions of past technologies).

That being said, I think a lot of people are against automation when it does something worse than the manual version. Think automated customer service over a human being.

Most people don't like change so are resistant to it. It's the same with electric cars a lot of people are resistant to it because of false range anxiety but when people actually use ev for extended period most of then stay with electric.

I don't see people hating that their network packets are automatically routed through the internet

Another recent anecdote.

A friend was recently in Milwaukee (first time ever. He was there for a conference).

He, his wife, and another friend, wanted to go out to eat.

They were given a wrong address. Could have been the source, or it could have been they screwed up writing it down. It was definitely a wrong address, though, that they gave to Uber.

The driver picked them up, and took them to the address, which was deep in Da Hood. Not a good area for three middle-class white folks to be wandering around.

The driver insisted they get out, even though it was clearly a wrong address, and a downright dangerous neighborhood (my friend has some experience with rough neighborhoods. If he said it was bad, it was bad).

My friend offered to pay whatever it took, to get to the correct address (they had figured out their mistake, by then), but the driver refused to do that. It was probably algorithmically prohibited.

My friend had never used Uber before (and never will, again), so wasn’t aware that you are supposed to be able to appeal to Uber.

I have a feeling that my friend offered to rearrange the driver’s dental work (Did I mention that he was familiar with tough neighborhoods?), and got the driver to drop them off in a better area, where they caught a cab.

Sounds like a bad customer experience. I doubt Uber ever heard the story. My friend never bothered contacting them, and I will bet that the driver didn’t.

If I was that driver, you bet I'd be contacting Uber to try and get your friend banned for life. Threatening a driver is never ok, even less so when it's not his fault.

I mean, we're talking about a literal crime here, getting banned from Uber is not an adequate punishment for threatening someone with assault.

Then maybe don't threaten to leave a family in a dangerous area while they're offering to pay it

I don't think that'd hold up against a legal review. It seems like an unreasonable position that some neighbourhood is so terrible that standing there for 20 minutes is an imminent threat. It might even be true, but that isn't a baseline a judge should really accept. The residents who live there obviously get through the day.

It may well have been very dangerous, but realistically it is hard to make dropping someone off in a residential area a crime. Threatening a driver with physical violence is definitely a crime though.

The driver is under precisely zero obligation to provide you a service. He provided the service asked for, too.

This is the address they gave to the driver,full stop. After the job’s done, you can’t just tack on extra requests like it’s a buffet. He delivered exactly what you asked, not a mind reading bonus round. It’s not his fault you gave the wrong address, he’s not clairvoyant.

Threatening someone for being a complete asshole is always okay, and even cool.

I really do not care how uncomfortable it makes the driver to move a family a few extra blocks to somewhere vaguely safe. I’d similarly threaten him if he tried to drop my family off in a forest, or on the side of a highway, even if that’s what the GPS, God’s Position System, tells them to do.

If your job ends in a way that someone who was your customer is now in danger, you absolutely deserve to be threatened.

> Threatening someone for being a complete asshole is always okay, and even cool.

"Being an asshole" is in the eye of the beholder. Plenty of people thing CEOs are assholes, you are saying that it is "always ok, and even cool" to threaten them? Some people think that religious folks are assholes. Some people think blue haired lefty folks are assholes.

I think you need better criteria for violence than "I think this person is an asshole". Even if you had a standard definition for asshole, threatening violence is an escalation. Someone flips you the bird, sure, they are an asshole, doesn't mean you can move to threatening to punch them.

The driver doesn't know these people, doesn't have any protection against them should they do something unpredictable or make a mess of his car outside of the Uber ride. The driver is also making a threat assessment here -- "why did they have me drive to this place and then insist I drive somewhere else? Is this a scam somehow? Is this a precursor to a violent crime?"

lol, three innocent people begging to be taken somewhere safe sure are scamming you. Stop pontificating on situations you’ve never experienced anything within a thousand miles of.

Edit: and if you dislike the fact that you need to have a vague level of care for your fellow man, stop working exclusively with people.

> Threatening someone for being a complete asshole is always okay, and even cool.

I disagree, but I wasn’t actually there. I only heard one side of the story.

You are disagreeing with the concept, and then saying you only heard one side of… what story?

I just do not care if my customer service agent has a bad time after putting me in a dangerous situation.

Do people not realize that this is how the world works? If you are serving customers, putting them IN DANGER, yes EVEN if it was at their own request, is what is actually wrong.

You don’t let someone ride a roller coaster unrestrained. You don’t let someone eat room temperature meat. You don’t drop a family off in an extremely dangerous neighborhood. Any employee would be right to be ridiculed for allowing any of these things - ESPECIALLY when a child is concerned.

Well, there were no children. It was three adults, but two were women.

I don’t think that it would be OK to threaten any customer service person with physical harm (but it happens all the time, nonetheless. Check out notalwaysright.com), but I also know that customer service people have a responsibility to ensure the safety of their patrons. Kicking folks out in a bad neighborhood could have cost Uber quite a bit, and it’s surprising that there seemed to be no recourse. It’s entirely possible the driver was ignorant of company policy.

> extremely dangerous neighborhood

I've lived in urban areas my whole life. Including some of the largest cities in North America. While there's places I consider higher risk, and routes I wouldn't typically take, simply existing in some neighborhood in Milwaukee isn't some existential threat to life and limb.

Keep your head down and walk a few blocks to somewhere safer and get a cab/uber/lyft out of there if needed.

Heck, book another Uber, you know at least one driver is in the neighborhood.

Once you spend time in an actually dangerous neighborhood - one where people can spot your out-of-place-ness before you even get out of the car - one where the good guys are the ones telling you to get the hell out before you find yourself in a real bad situation - ones where the gas station attendants are hard as hell - you’ll understand that your experience of walking through vaguely poor neighborhoods is not akin to dangerous neighborhoods.

Nobody who has ever been in a dangerous neighborhood would have this opinion unless they’re truly callous

I lived in Baltimore. There’s some truly scary spots, there.

As for booking another Uber, anyone that has lived in less-than-pristine areas, knows that these neighborhoods can be “blacklisted.” You can’t get Ubers or cabs to come in.

Sure, and you know what? If we were talking about Baltimore I might concede some ground here. But unless I'm WAY off base, Milwaukee isn't anywhere close to parts of Baltimore when it comes to "existential danger from walking in the streets".

If your friend thinks it's okay to threaten to assault a driver, especially for an issue that wasn't the driver's fault, then it sounds like "da hood" is where he belongs...

Not sure if he did. He probably didn’t have to. He’s a big guy, but also one of the most decent people I know (but let’s not assume anything). He never said he did. It was my assumption (ASS out of U and ME). It’s also possible he bribed the driver enough. He could certainly afford it. I didn’t actually ask him. I do know that he (and the two women with him) were pretty terrified of being left in the middle of that area, and scared people can get pretty pithy. This guy used to run night clubs in Miami. It would probably have been a lot less of an issue, if he had been alone.

What he was amazed at, was the driver’s insistence that they get out, without any recourse or care. A Waymo could do the same, I guess, but they could also sit in it until the company contacted them, or the cops showed up.

A New York cabbie would probably threaten him right back, but would also have known they were headed for a bad patch, and maybe have asked if they had the right address. This was their first time ever, in Milwaukee, and I suspect Milwaukee cabbies are of a similar stripe to New York cabbies. I know quite a few former cabbies.

Funny how the least verifiable thing in the story is the one everyone hooked on. I guess I could ask him. It happened last week. Not sure if I’d want to spoil everyone’s good time calling him a criminal, if it turns out he was just able to shame the driver into accepting a couple of Jacksons to get out of there. If he did, I suspect Uber would sanction the driver, for accepting a fare, outside their system.

So basically, you’re admitting key elements of your original story were made up?

> A Waymo could do the same, I guess, but they could also sit in it until the company contacted them, or the cops showed up.

How’s this different from an uber? If this guy is as big and strong as you say, the uber driver has no more ability to force him out than a Waymo does.

> So basically, you’re admitting key elements of your original story were made up?

Sure, and I regret it. I didn’t think it was a “key element.” The part that struck me, was the inflexibility of the driver. A real cabbie might laugh at you, but happily take more money to get out of there.

If he had refused to leave (which he did), then the driver might be legitimately worried. It sounds like the driver didn’t really understand which neighborhood he was in, or he would have been a lot more scared. A classic robbery technique against cabbies, is getting them to drive to bad neighborhoods, then robbing them.

The thing that struck me, was the complete lack of situational awareness, or customer service ethos, on the part of the driver. That seems to be an inevitable result of the Uber business model, and folks that sign up as Uber drivers, need to be aware of the dangers and responsibilities.

When you have people in your car, you have their lives in your hands, and your employer’s brand integrity, as well. The driver’s behavior resulted in some brand damage to Uber. My friend’s behavior may have resulted in a permanent ban, but he certainly didn’t care, as he’s done with Uber, anyway.

If, on the other hand, the driver had been sympathetic and helpful, he could have had three grateful, enthusiastic evangelists for Uber. Any experienced customer service person knows that having an upset customer, that admits they are in the wrong, but is also upset, is gold. It can easily be mined for the advantage of the service provider, or turned into a complete shitshow (which is what happened, here).

In the end, it sounds like it turned out OK for everyone (except Uber, who permanently lost three customers).

Heh. Just as another point. I mentioned the story to another friend, who used to be a cabbie, and he said "Oh, that was a gypsy cab robbery. Classic."

Apparently, the way that it works, is that the cab takes you to a bad neighborhood, then tells you to get out, unless you pay. If my friend had tried getting physical, he would have been staring into the muzzle of a .38, so the talk of physical threats was likely bullshit face-saving. He also said that the driver won't relent for less than $100, so it's likely my other friend was fleeced pretty bad.

The way it works, is that the "cabbie" looks for parties with women and/or children, because that means there's unlikely to be a problem. They look at hotels, because that means out-of-towners, and there’s a lot fewer cops around than airports (this chap was disturbingly familiar with the technique. Many of my friends are former Bad People).

With Uber, and the way that they track drivers, he suggested that the person who picked them up, was probably not the contracted driver, but was in cahoots with the driver. The call was canceled by the real driver as a "no-show," and the ride was never on the clock, or the driver drove empty.

People suck.

The original story was that your friend gave Uber the wrong address, and the Uber refused to take them onward after that, even for more money.

Now the story is that the Uber intentionally took them to the wrong address, and then offered to take them onward in an attempt to extort more money.

Those are completely different stories! Which is it?

Hey, listen, we operate on the information we're given at the time we're given it. They are completely different stories, because they reflect completely different sources of information.

It doesn't seem that matters to you, anyway. I'm not into fighting, so I guess our correspondence is at an end.

I'm not at all averse to admitting when I could be wrong. Not very "American" of me, I know. We're supposed to ride Wrong like a battle tank.

Considering how common the gypsy cab gamut is, I'm surprised no one here considered it. I guess I'm not the only one who is maybe not as worldly as I might think I am, eh?

This is the second time your story is changing.

Yup.

New information, new story. If I'm wrong, I promptly admit it. I'm weird, that way, apparently. I guess what I'm supposed to do, is refuse to admit fault, to the end. Sorry to spoil the fun. I didn't know the rules.

Funny how none of the worldly cynics, here, figured that out (I didn't, and I thought I was worldly and cynical). When I mentioned it to my cabbie friend, he popped it out instantly. It's a well-known issue, around here. The local airports and train stations have posters about it. I admit that I've seen the posters, but they didn't register, when I first heard the story. It seems the same folks have figured out how to ply their trade with modern ride-hailing apps.

Have a great day!

The absurdity here is that any cabbie would be happy to continue driving you around as long as you're able to pay for it. It's the entire business model after all.

Ubers aren't cabs. They are paid for the ride itself, not for the time of the ride. There is no meter to run.

Honestly, in a city of any significant size, I prefer taxis. Taxis have accountability. And they know that it's about moving fares, so in a decently populated area, you do better by getting more fares rather than more out of a fare.

The only difference with the Waymo experience would be that there would be nobody your friend could threaten to assault for putting in the wrong address.

Heh, from the sounds of things it’s more likely the Waymo would have simply driven to their actual destination.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44281694

The Waymo also can't force you to get out. Probably you can just give it a new address.

Have you ever used a Waymo?

Is that relevant? It's a driverless car. Simply don't get out. Maybe it drives you back to dispatch or to the police station. Maybe the police show up to the current location. Regardless its got to be safer than wandering around a neighborhood you definitely don't belong in.

Huh? Your friend paid uber to take them to an address, and they did.

Actually, it sounds like my friend was robbed. Classic gypsy cab robbery.

The confusion around getting the address wrong is an interesting tell. If you think you’re not likely to make that mistake, anyway. It’s also a bit late to realize at that point since you’re already in the bad area.

But it reminds me of tech support scams which usually have an element of convincing the victim that they made a mistake.

Yeah, but the route is on your phone as well. The driver cannot deviate from that course without you knowing.

Unless they cancel the ride, and you ignore the notification.

I was talking to someone recently, and they were telling me about how they got a (Lyft, I think) ride from the airport (JFK), and the driver picked them up, and said that the ride had been canceled (as they got into the car), but that for $20, he'd take them where they were going (I assume the ride was less than $20).

Apparently, this is fairly common. There's been a couple of articles about how the Uber and Lyft drivers around JFK and LaGuardia have learned to game the system. They can also conspire to drive up the pricing.

another anecdote taking Lyft - they showed me $10.76 price for a trip to the airport when Uber showed $21. obviously i called Lyft and they placed a temporary charge on my credit card for $10.76. Once the driver dropped me off, i noticed that the base charge jumped to $16.76 + airport fees and my total with tips came to a bit over $27. I contacted Lyft and they denied and claimed that they always showed me $16.76. smh. i have proof from my credit card that they placed a hold for $10.76 and yet they refused to adjust the price.

This is the kind of comment I'd expect to see on trustpilot, not hn

why do you think you will get better service with waymo when it's as established as the others?

the whole market is a race to the bottom to extract rent from what should have been a municipality cost center.

oh, do you like waymo automated support and driver better than Lyft automated support? or just can't imagine a world where tomorrow waymo will have aging cars too?

Why did you cancel on the Tesla Model Y?

He said "that cancelled" so I think it wasn't on his end.

[flagged]

This makes a lot of sense to me. When you ride in an Uber or a taxi, you're a guest in the driver's space. In a Waymo, it's your own space. You can play music, talk on the phone, etc. without worrying about disturbing the driver. You're not likely to have strong odors, or driver's phone conversations. And the experience will be roughly consistent each time. In an Uber, you have no idea what the car or the driving standards will be like until you're in it. I trust my own driving over a Waymo, but I'd trust Waymo over an average Uber driver, let alone a bad one.

I've had some nice conversations with Uber drivers, but I've had some unpleasant rides too. I'd definitely pay a bit extra for a good driverless car. ('Good' being key. After trying out the Tesla FSD beta a couple times though, you couldn't pay me to ride in one of those without the ability to grab control.)

There’s something to be said for being able to not be forced to deal with a person, but I see something different personally.

I’m “old” (40s) so I didn’t grow up with Uber. Maybe that colors my take.

I don’t want to hire random Joes. If I wanted to buy a lift from a random person, I’d expect it to be very cheap.

If I’m hiring someone to drive me from A to B I want a professional service. I want professional drivers in a fleet of maintained cars.

With Uber/Lift you don’t know. Many drives do a great job and treat their cars/passengers like they’re professionals. Others don’t.

The taxi industry sucked. They had no competition and could get lazy and do a terrible job and people still had to use them anyway. That needed fixing.

But I don’t think the lesson we should learn is “taxis bad” but “bad service is bad”. And Uber/Lyft being so variable is not a plus at their prices.

The professional driver in a professional fleet service exists. It existed in the taxi era too.

If you ever see an aggressive driver cutting their way through traffic in a perfectly maintained Escalade or Navigator heading towards the airport, that’s them.

I think that the best thing about Uber/Lyft is that they've been a wake up call for the taxi industry.

I don't think I'd be able to book taxis (and pay in advance) using an app in my country, if Uber/Lyft didn't exist.

Mysteriously their credit card machines work a lot more often now

Yes, I'm shocked! Some traditional taxis in my area now have a sticker on the window saying they take credit cards!

Black cars existed before Uber and Lyft -- in fact, that was how Uber started.

Uber, in fact, still offers black cars (professional drivers) as an option.

> Uber, in fact, still offers black cars (professional drivers) as an option

In my experience, Uber Black means the driver owns a professional-grade car. Whether they’re a professional driver who treats their clients professionally, e.g. not taking phone calls during the ride, is another matter.

This, black car service is not what uber offers. They offer a uber driver with a black car.

But a lot of people basically wanted VC-subsidized cheaper cabs. Even if the easier and more reliable ordering was a bonus.

In 2010 getting any taxi in the us by phone was a crap shoot. Hour long waiting times with the car always being just 10 minutes away. Multiple calls. Unpredictable pricing.

Uber just worked.

People forget just how terrible taxi companies were when they were the monopoly.

I don't think "cheap" was the main factor, at least for me and my friends.

Predictable pricing, predictable arrival, automated booking, and an ability to complain to someone was significantly more important.

(From what I've read, this happened naturally in other countries, but in US, the taxi monopoly was so bad, we needed something crazy like Uber)

Cheap and easy were the big factors, in roughly equal proportions, with a nod towards cheap. I did a lot of things I didn't need to do and just wouldn't have done at all if I would have had to pay taxi prices for several years while Ubers were cheap. Taxi's were also only easily available in very limited circumstances.

Taxi's here worked one of two ways. You either negotiated a price before leaving, or they ran a meter and went some crazy route then when you got to the destination clicked a bunch of buttons and the total went up by $15-$20.

When negotiating a price, it was usually $10 per person, for about a 3-4 mile ride, and they wouldn't take you right away if less than 4 people. They would encourage you to load like 8 or 10 people in (All Taxi's were vans) and would try to pick up other people along the way. Tipping was all but mandatory. So add another $2-3 per person.

Uber/Lyft on the other hand was $5-6 or $2-3 for the shared one. An SUV was like $12-$20 that could seat 7, and the whole booking on the phone and tracking was excellent. Uber was so cheap that I would frequently book them because it was easier than going down into the parking garage since I could just meet the Uber on the street.

A cheap ride in 5-10 minutes was available pretty much 24 hours a day. Now surge pricing was a whole different beast, but I never got caught in that.

Not only that, the first 2 years it was completely free. Because I got a $25 credit for signing up and then $25 for ever referral. I had a prepaid phone from some spring MVNO that let you change your number by just texting a shortcode. I would just make a new account every night before I went out and have $50 in free rides.

Now Lfyt and Uber are expensive, there's practically none available unless it's the middle of the day. Taxi's are down to pretty much $5 per person to go most places, but they are just completely destroyed unsafe cars. The last one I took was a longer ride $10 or $20 and it had no seat belts and the driver was so large I have no idea how he got in and out of the car.

I don't disagree. As a business traveler, it was probably about ease. When I'd go down to one of our other company locations semi-regularly, I'd usually grab a cab at the airport because it was easy. Going the other way, I'd usually grab a Lyft. The Lyft was a bit cheaper but eh.

I admit I'm usually taking public transit while traveling if it's reasonably convenient but cheaper ride-share (or taxi) options can tilt the balance when public transit is complicated/awkward. Rent a car for long distance and rural. (I did start using Uber/Lyft in some situations in areas like Silicon Valley where I would previously have reflexively rented a car.) Around where I live, driving my car is the only real alternative except in special cases. And I essentially always take a pre-booked private car back and forth to the airport.

So, for me, more about ease but if I tended to rely on taxi-type services in cities more, it would probably be more about cost which is probably the case with many people commenting here.

Ubers were often half the cost of a taxi as well, and the drivers were getting paid more than you were paying uber, so this definitely impacted how many of my peers were taking uber instead of public transit.

> From what I've read, this happened naturally in other countries, but in US, the taxi monopoly was so bad, we needed something crazy like Uber

Depends on the city but definitely not the case everywhere in India. Uber and Ola (a local Uber alternative) massively forced taxi/auto (tuktuk) unions to weaken their bargaining position.

There’s still a mafia eg in Goa where they literally threaten Uber drivers, but it’s relatively very different post Uber.

What qualifies a professional driver? Lots of uber trips? A taxi licence? A chauffeur cap? A clean car? A person being employed by a company? Not sure but I suspect it's highly subjective. You can book a premium Uber. Or a limousine like the one some airlines offer as a business class package.

A sober, competent driver who has not been on duty more than 8 hours would be a good start.

I agree. Just FYI, Uber limits driving time to 10 hours, the requires 8 hours of break. Does not stop the driver from using Lyft during the break time though.

Exactly, I will pay a premium for not having to deal with a human being in the car with me.

It's a dice roll: you could get a very extroverted driver who won't leave you alone, or someone who smells bad, or someone rude, or a distracted driver...

Just let me sit in peace, alone with a robot.

Isolationism progresses.

1950: cars give you the freedom to go anywhere you want. Artificial fertilizer puts an end to hunger in industrialized world. Yeehaw!

2000: you are a second class citizen who can’t even get a job in many places if you do not have a car. Also the median person is overweight. But here is this new internet thing that lets you get everything you need in life sorted out with no need for human interactions. Yeehaw!

2025: the average person can no longer hold a conversation with a stranger for five seconds without having an anxiety attack. Oops!

> So when Vashti found her cabin invaded by a rosy finger of light, she was annoyed, and tried to adjust the blind. But the blind flew up altogether, and she saw through the skylight small pink clouds, swaying against a background of blue, and as the sun crept higher, its radiance entered direct, brimming down the wall, like a golden sea. It rose and fell with the air-ship’s motion, just as waves rise and fall, but it advanced steadily, as a tide advances. Unless she was careful, it would strike her face. A spasm of horror shook her and she rang for the attendant. The attendant too was horrified, but she could do nothing; it was not her place to mend the blind. She could only suggest that the lady should change her cabin, which she accordingly prepared to do. People were almost exactly alike all over the world, but the attendant of the air-ship, perhaps owing to her exceptional duties, had grown a little out of the common. She had often to address passengers with direct speech, and this had given her a certain roughness and originality of manner. When Vashti swerved away from the sunbeams with a cry, she behaved barbarically — she put out her hand to steady her.

> “How dare you!” exclaimed the passenger. “You forget yourself!”

> The woman was confused, and apologized for not having let her fall. People never touched one another. The custom had become obsolete, owing to the Machine

The Machine Stops (1909)

https://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~koehl/Teaching/ECS188/PDF_files/...

Wow. It's hard to believe this novella was written in 1909. The imagination and insight of the author is remarkable. It reads as an account of a dystopic future that we are now more and more living in the present.

Thank you for sharing this.

I don't _want_ to have a random conversation with a person every time I ride a cab. Especially after a long flight and/or early in the morning.

And we wonder why we can’t get along anymore when the only time we go outside it to grab our Amazon packages off the porch.

It goes both ways too. Customer service in person has digressed pretty far.

Indeed. The market is exposing the truth here, whether that's the outcome some would prefer or not. These dense, wealthy, coastal regions are an endless fount of talk about how flyover suburbia is an unhealthy manifestation of isolation. Yet here we see that when given a choice in these same areas with their various competing taxi systems, isolation has significant monetary value.

What do you propose? Should Uber/Lyft train their drivers better to pick up on social cues to know when to engage and when to shut up and drive? Should they do more to make sure their drivers have good hygiene and manners?

Like every company does with their employees?

After every ride the rider can vote on the driver. At least on Uber the driver gets 'punished' is his rating falls below 4. The driver will loose his rank benefits. As a rider you got to use the start. If it's ok, then 5. If there is something wrong, less than 5. Simple as that. As most people are voting 5 they seem to be over all ok with the overall service.

To be honest I'm afraid to rate low. I suspect I'll get flagged as a bad rater and banned from Uber/Lyft. So, if the ride is bad I just don't rate and don't tip. Even not tipping is scary to me given it's all tracked and they know me as a customer.

Another issue which I wish they'd add and related to rating, every person has a different preference. My preference is a safe driver who obeys traffic laws. Others people preferences are a driver who gets there as fast as possible, even if that means speeding, cutting people off, running red lights, etc... I've recorded drivers regualarly going 15-20 miles over the speed limit.

I wish I could put that preference in to the app and it would tell the driver, "this person will give you a higher rating if you drive safely and don't break any traffic laws". I'm not sure they could put the other "this passenger prefers quick service" without implying things.

Scaryiest Uber/Lyft I've had the driver was checking their stock portfolio on their smartphone while driving.

It's not really a ride share problem. It's simply another crack showing how hard it is to just talk to people these days. There's a dozen other things to address first before I'd try to "make people be social in cars". funding into a variety of public spaces, better public transportation, regulating dating apps, better community outreach for events that already exist. I could go on.

Going outside costs $200 a day, and i cant afford to spend 1/4 my paycheck 7 times a week.

Also, I'm just doing my best to get the most out of the ludicrously high rent is pay every month.

I think you’re kidding, but I’m not sure. Can’t you walk to a park or ride your bike or something for free?

Time for a Perry Expedition-themed dating service.

How do you feel about public transportation?

There's also the issue of tipping. I haven't been in a waymo but I generally tip well in Uber or Lyft. I wouldn't tip a robot. So at least to me $15+$5 tip vs $20 is pretty much a wash.

I was kinda pissed when my local mall got a "barista robot", and it asks for a 20% tip when you swipe your card

Tipping has lost its meaning and it is simply a money grab these days in many establishments, as your experience demonstrates. Like tipping for food to go.

I only tip when I sit down and good service is actually provided.

You don't have to tip an Uber or Lyft, either.

[Caveat: there aren't many Lyft drivers in my town, so I have only used Uber]

The problem is their system extorts you into tipping. If you don't tip, the driver will give you a 1/5 rating. If your rating averages low enough, nobody will pick you up. It's more of a bribe you pay for a good passenger rating than an actual tip.

As a result, you're forced to tip if you want to use it long term.

Personally, I'm hoping Waymo takes Uber's lunch money. I will gladly pay more for a service has not been infected with tipping.

That’s straight up false. I don’t tip and my Uber passenger rating was ~4.95 last I checked.

A single anecdote does not a dataset make

I never tip because it's not a custom in my country, but out of your two contradicting stories I believe the other one more. Does the driver even know the tip amount before rating the passenger? It works make sense if they didn't.

If he does it's indeed a bit weird (in a country where tipping is almost mandatory).

Tipping isn’t “almost mandatory”. People were happily driving Ubers before they even introduced the tipping feature in-app. My rating is based on taking hundreds of rides while living for years on both coasts, in CA and NJ. Out of all those rides only one driver (a horrible one, who took like three wrong turns in twenty minutes, with navigation) ever asked for a tip. I maintain my rating by being clean, polite, and punctual.

And yours isn’t a single anecdote? Oh wait, it’s actually not:

> If you don't tip, the driver will give you a 1/5 rating.

It’s a definitive, and provably false statement.

Don't the drivers only see the tips in aggregate form at the end of the week?

Unsure. But they at least know you've tipped. "Steve thanked you for your tip."

I don’t know if that’s really how it works with Uber, but surely Waymo could charge extra for “priority pickup” if it got popular enough.

Unless the app changed in the past year, they can see individual tips and can change their passenger ratings for those who don't pay the "optional" tip.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/uber/comments/18x5rxj/do_drivers_se...

If it's actually for priority that's okay. It will only have a significant effect when they're hitting their capacity limits, and it ends up being similar to surge pricing.

If they start refusing to pick up people that don't pay, while having idle cars, I expect them to get in trouble in various ways.

They have to rate long before you tip/rate.

Sure, nobody has to tip anyone. But I do tip taxis and etc, typically about 30%, and it factors into my overall price perception.

I'm just saying $15 that I will add a tip to vs $20 that I have no intention or inclination to tip isn't anything more than I don't have any expectations or empathy about tipping a machine. It doesn't seem particularly complex an issue about why Waymo can charge the same amount that I am willing to pay anyway.

Holy crap that’s 33% tip!

It's also a small, $5 tip. When you get small numbers, like $5, it tends to blow out the percentages.

Why is anyone surprised that a smaller segment of the market will pay more for a safer ride in a luxury vehicle compared to a base model Lyft (which can be a barely drivable car with rank cloth interior where you can't even fit two people in the back seat)?

Next up, some one will post, "First class tickets cost more than coach."

Waymo will eventually have Waymo Comfort and Waymo Black.

    > where you can't even fit two people in the back seat

> Why is anyone surprised that a smaller segment of the market will pay more for a safer ride in a luxury vehicle compared to a base model Lyft

It's a criticism, because this same segment also realizes that a Waymo ride is WAY cheaper to operate than a human driven one.

Is it? It might be some day but they certainly have to factor in all the R&D they're spending.

> Is it?

Ummm then why on earth would they spend the money to build them if it wasn't?!

> but they certainly have to factor in all the R&D they're spending.

Those are capital expenses.

It’s not, or at least it definitely wasn’t a year ago. Those cars were something like $700k each and then there is a lot of software dev and AI infra to pay for. They were charging more than Lyft and were still losing money per ride.

> Those cars were something like $700k each

Source? Also, those numbers are quoted with including capital expenditures, which will get depreciated over years. Also, to do a like for like comparison you have to include all of the people, processes, and systems in place that support drivers. That cost center at Uber has to be in the millions globally for Uber (and hard to calculate on a per driver basis, but possible if we had internal numbers).

> It's a criticism, because this same segment also realizes that a Waymo ride is WAY cheaper to operate than a human driven one.

If this were broadly true, Waymo would be everywhere. If it is true, and that’s a big if that it isn’t being subsidized by the rest of Alphabet, it is only true in a very, very, tiny area of the Earth.

On the other hand, Uber is a publicly listed company with public financials already operating globally with profits.

> If this were broadly true, Waymo would be everywhere.

It's not everywhere because of regulation and Waymo wanting to strategically roll it out carefully to markets. Remember, this is Waymo's first market to offer Waymo through the Uber app. There's a reason Waymo hasn't tested non-human driving in Chicago but it has in Phoenix, SF and Austin (I could give you a hint as to why but I'm sure its obvious).

> Uber is a publicly listed company with public financials already operating globally with profits.

And wants to create even more profit...what's your point? Also it's operating income is a paltry $2B for a company with $41B in revenue. Most of its current net income is from investing activities.

This is true for mature markets but a new technology that a horde of lawyers are salivating over a chance to sue has a significant asymptomatic risk. One accident and the whole business is illegalized.

I wonder... are the passengers recorded while in a Waymo?

Does Google ever delete those records? Being Google, I bet they don't.

Yes, I assume these are recorded to prevent vandalism. To be fair, someone might get legitimately sick in the car (ex. child). So Google can review the tapes and decide if it was intentional or not.

Regarding retention of these video recordings, you should check the Waymo user agreement in your area. You might even have the right to ask them to delete it earlier.

Would a CCPA delete request handle it? Or are they compelled to keep the video for legal reasons

I'm in LA, so I'm still skeptical about "safer". Granted, that's not a high bar, but I know who's accountable if an Uber/Lyft crashes.

I don't know if this is still true in the age of cellphones and uber, but when I was young, women were often advised not to take taxis alone, especially when drunk. There were a few high-profile rapes and murders.

As an bald, middle-aged man such risks are negligible for me, but I can see how some people might prefer a driverless vehicle.

Yeah I'm an ugly middle aged man myself. I'm more worried about the car than the person in it in my case. And I don't trust the tech yet in my area.

but do you care for accountability or more safety (through lower crash rate)at the end of the day?

Between modern car safety standards and modern US healthcsre: accountability. The worst case scenario (where I still live) is drastic and I'd rather not add fighting a tech company in court on top of the medical burden, which I'll need to do just to afford the latter.

Maybe it's my rampant misanthrope leanings, but even in more trivial things like choosing automated kiosks other staffed in CVS, I'm just more comfortable not having to make small talk with a person, worry if they're having a good day or not etc.

I'd happily pay 20 percent more to Waymo for that personless experience too.

It's interesting how American cultural expectations of forced social interaction may be having the effect of promoting automated systems as a reaction.

As someone who lives in Spain and has lived in the UK, the idea of choosing self-checkout at a supermarket to avoid small talk with a cashier sounds alien to me; we simply don't do that here. While cashiers will certainly chat with certain customers while scanning their items, it's either that they know each other or it was initiated by the customer. I always choose staffed checkout over self-checkout because it's literally less effort for me, but I could imagine American social expectations at checkout —"How are you doing today?", "Oh these apples look amazing!", "Having a party are we?"— absolutely tipping the balance of effort and pushing me to self-checkout.

For me the appeal of self checkout is that everyone gets in the same line and then fans out to the next free checkout machine. I don't have to wonder if I chose wrong when I see all the other lines moving faster. Some places with human cashiers (such as Marshall's) do this, and it's great.

I'm not an introvert by any means, but I still choose whichever system is likely to work better.

At the supermarket, if I'm doing my monthly giant shopping trip and filling the car with non-perishables, I go through the attended checkout. Those people are quick and accurate, and there are two of them -- a checker and a bagger.

But if I only have one or two items, there's no line at the self-checkout, and I just throw the stuff into my backpack.

I wonder if a lack of class divisions is what encourages small talk in our society.

One thing about automated systems is that they have to work perfectly or they don't get used. I thought about this when taking the tram from the terminal to the parking facility at O'Hare Airport. I honestly don't know if the tram has a human driver or not. If that tram has a breakdown, it cause instant gridlock throughout the airport. And the way you make things work better (in the traditional quality control sense) is to make them more predictable.

And admittedly, I'm not shy, but I'm just a bit muddle-headed. With an app, I can see every detail of my request on the screen (and be looking at Google Maps on another screen maybe, or other information sources) before I click "accept." This makes it easier. But when I click "accept," I really don't care if the car that shows up has a human driver or not. I'm also pretty much oblivious as to whether it's a Mercedes or a Chevy.

It was an old school approach to appear friendly, which in theory makes customers more comfortable and encourages retention. Small steps to build a community. At the very least, you don't want to appear like that unresponsive cashier who's clearly having a bad day and grimaces at you when you say 'hello'.

It's definitely a generational issue. Gen X and older seem to appreciate small talk more than most millenials and pretty much all of Gen Z.

Yeah, Walgreens (US drugstore chain for those who aren’t familiar) often has their cashiers say “hi, welcome to Walgreens!” when customers come in.

It just doesn’t work. Customers are wearing headphones, or on the phone, or sick with a respiratory infection and wearing a mask and trying not to talk unnecessarily, or don’t speak English very well, or maybe they’re just trying to remember everything they need, and it quickly gets awkward for everyone.

The same store often has the credit card terminal ask customers to donate a dollar to various causes, which I’ve seen completely stump foreign tourists and generally slowing down the line.

Perhaps I'm overly cynical but I always assumed the walgreens greeting was an anti-theft thing. It's particularly apparent with the big box stores in bad neighborhoods where they are extremely overt about it in my experience - at least two greeters, making strong eye contact, a very loud and energetic greeting - whereas the ones in the nicer neighborhoods often don't have anyone hanging out at the front like that.

That is extremely rare in America, too. But it still feels awkward to an introvert. Just having another person nearby makes you feel self conscious. You won't be called on to make small talk, but you can't be sure of that.

I think what you are describing is social anxiety, not just being introverted.

My spicy take is that ~90% of people who believe they are introverts actually have a middle level of extroversion plus social anxiety.

> It's interesting how American cultural expectations of forced social interaction may be having the effect of promoting automated systems as a reaction.

That's not it. The issue is that it is FAR easier for me to interact with automation than some completely incompetent service worker.

Yes, I get it. The service jobs pay so poorly that nobody competent wants to work them. However, at the end of the day, I simply want to accomplish my task and get going. For example, if you're drunk or stoned off your ass, to pick a totally random (not) example, you're probably in my way.

Because of general levels of incompetence, automated systems are quite often better than most service workers I'm interacting with. Additionally, the service worker probably is limited to the same authority as me ie. totally unable to help because they are completely stuck with the same shitty web interface to solve my problem as I am.

Gotta disagree here. Running a checkout lane isn't exactly rocket science, and as such the vast majority of the experiences I have in staffed checkout lanes are neutral to good.

When using automated checkout on the other hand, if I even so much as move the wrong way, the system stops and makes me wait for a staff member who is busy dealing with 6 other red-flashing checkouts. When they finally make it over to me, I'm forced to sit and watch a video from 3 angles of me not shoplifting. Accidentally scanned some alcohol instead of waiting until the end? Scanning is halted again until they get a chance to make their way over to me. Using my own bags, but guess the wrong number up front and need to add one later? STOP THIEF!

Recently our local Aldi removed all but one staffed register and replaced the rest with automated. This is absolutely baffling to me--the cashiers at Aldi don't make small talk, they're trained for speed! It's fun to watch while I'm bagging up my groceries, because the staffed register is consistently crushing carts at 3x the rate of any of the self checkouts.

Automated checkouts are consistently worse, and it's not even close. I guess the one benefit they have is that they make small talk with the single person managing 14 self checkouts easier--you already have in common your frustration with the self checkout system.

I hate checkout machines that require a billion taps on the screen for basic vegetables or fruit. Just give me the keyboard immediately and let me type the first 3 letters or something.

> if I even so much as move the wrong way, the system stops and makes me wait for a staff member who is busy dealing with 6 other red-flashing checkouts.

This is completely the fault of the store.

This is on irritating display with the HEB grocery stores in Texas. Go to a standard HEB and self-checkout has exactly the failures you are talking about. Go to a Central Market HEB (the upscale, Whole Foods-like version) and the self-checkouts don't do ANY of those irritating things (alcohol being the exception).

Funny that.

> The issue is that it is FAR easier for me to interact with automation than some completely incompetent service worker

You are comparing good automation with incompetent service worker. It's obvious what the conclusion would be.

> You are comparing good automation with incompetent service worker. It's obvious what the conclusion would be.

Sure. But the problem is that I so rarely interact with a competent service worker nowadays that even poor automation sadly wins the comparison most of the time.

If the automated systems work I'd use them. Instead, USA systems are designed around trying to prevent theft and they error in the store's favor. I've had those automated systems scream that I haven't put my purchase in the bag. The purchase being single envelope of yeast, too light to measure. So it screams and scream "PLEASE PLACE THE PRODUCT IN THE BAG", "PLEASE PLACE THE PRODUCT IN THE BAG", "PLEASE PLACE THE PRODUCT IN THE BAG", "PLEASE PLACE THE PRODUCT IN THE BAG" until some employee comes over and presses reset on the machines. Meanwhile the entire store is glaring at you.

So yea, I've stop using automated machines in the USA.

i avoid those stores, i agree it’s very irritating. Stop & Shop is a good example. The checkout machine is constantly weighing the bag! Ugh.

As an FYI there are stores that DON’T have annoying self checkout machines: Target, Walmart, Whole Foods, Costco, Home Depot, and a few more…

I don't think it's an USA thing. I completely stopped using the self checkout at my closest store. When I put a fucking 12 pack of toilet paper on the scale and it errored out.

I mean, you can error out at food stuff that loses weight over time (fresh bread for example), that may be acceptable. But at known weight toilet paper?

[flagged]

Flagged and dead? Are we to take that as Y-Combinator officially endorsing violent rioting and property destruction?

What makes you think this? It was flagged by users. No moderators had touched it, or seen it.

Tesla fsd and Waymo are far different in the technical sense.

This is why I’m long AI as well - people will pay a premium for inferior service if it means they don’t have to talk to a human

Are they cleaned after each rider? How can they not build up an odor, lol

No driver is going to be smoking in Waymo car. (And if a passenger smokes, they'll be charged $100)

I assume there are also industrial-strength cleaners during the downtime/refueling.

I mix and match but I’ll take a Waymo if it’s <= $5 more for these reasons:

1. Literally zero variance. Every car is the same. Every driver is the same style. If it says it’ll be there in 7 minutes it will be 7, not 5 and not 10.

2. A jaguar SUV is a premium vehicle. It’s comparable to an Uber black not a regular Uber.

3. It’s so child friendly. My son can make all the noise he wants and I can take time loading him in without a driver being impatient.

4. They’re very clean. I’ve never been in a dirty or bad smelling Waymo. That’s very nice.

5. No aggressive driving. I’ve had Ubers that scare me weaving between lanes above the speed limit. A Waymo is always smooth.

6. No tip

I’m seeing more of them with trash. Last one I took had a rolled up bundle of used bandages.

People are excited by driverless cars but it also means a car with no social barriers and no person who considers the cars condition important. For now they’re well surveilled and a premium vehicle. Soon they will be filthy pods in a race to the bottom with all the charm of a public bathroom. They’ll be cheap, but you’ll get what you pay for. Private driverless cars will be the premium alternative.

People adapt. Hopefully it will be more like elevators and less like public toilets.

And then there will be cameras

In public spaces specifically, at least in Sweden, like train stations, the only difference between an elevator and a toilet is that one has to pay to enter the toilet.

> one has to pay to enter the toilet.

I’m not sure what people were expecting when they implemented this policy. There’s plenty of places to pee in the world, a restroom is a request it happens in one particular place.

With per-per-minute sharing cars having existed in many cities in Europe 10+ years, this concept is not new.

People will adapt to the level of cleanliness in the car the get into, so it's a slippery slope. Users will behave respectfully in the early days (maybe because they are first-movers), and then it deteriorates long term.

My own experience is that people used to not even leave an empty soda bottle in the cars and now I see remains from take-out in the floor, coffee cups, chewing gum left around the dashboard etc. You can report this to the car service, but they won't be able to take any meaningful action on it.

Why do you assume the surveillance will go away as they become cheaper? The taxi company know who is in their car and they have access to interior cameras if something happens. In many respects, it is going to be even more difficult to take a dump in one and get away with it than if a human was driving it. They have your credit card number and visual evidence of what you did, they will just charge your card automatically for things like puking.

Because if they ever become super popular, it will be prohibitively expensive to actually police all the surveillance. Likely to store / process it all. AI does an alright job summarizing videos today (Gemini Flash) but it has to get a lot better if they're going to actually police at scale.

I think simple solutions exist. For example the waymo could just ask the rider at the beginning of the ride “Is your car smelly? Any trash in the car?”

If they reply YES to any of those questions, then google keeps the recording of the previous ride for later review. Simple, no?

If the car actually was dirty, give the person that said “car was dirty” a refund of 20% on their ride. Then charge the party that made the car dirty a few. If a person is found to consistently say cars are dirty when they are not, give them a warning and consider kicking them off the platform (abuse).

Alternatively google can switch from recording the first minute of the ride to the last minute of the ride. In other words, only look at the “delta” to compare the car state. That would require a lot less video storage and less effort to review.

You think? Checking for significant differences between before and after images doesn’t even need AI. Have a triaging system, something like: image diff -> AI assessment -> human assessment -> car drives to human cleaner. In time you can streamline significantly.

The next rider will alert if something outrageous has happened.

No, most people would just move on and stop using the service. A very small % of users report issues.

Incentivize reporting with a discount, combine that with review of video to verify it’s not a false report. Maybe not scalable, but could work.

Image recognition is getting better. I rarely have to get my receipt checked at Sam’s Club anymore now that their camera exit thing is in full swing.

> For now they’re well surveilled and a premium vehicle. Soon they will be filthy pods in a race to the bottom with all the charm of a public bathroom.

So, like transit?

I will likely have my own personal self-driving vehicle. And I'm 100% sure that there'll be an upmarket segment with slightly more expensive cars that are kept more clean than the rest.

> I will likely have my own personal self-driving vehicle.

The self-driving car ”utopia” (or rather moderate improvement) very much hinges on the space savings on roadways and parking, to increase utilization, reduce congestion and allow dead space to be reclaimed. If people think like you (no value judgment, I suspect this might be the future norm), then you’ll see almost no change to the urban landscape as a whole. It’ll continue to be a one-flesh-body-per-2-tonne vehicle utilization, a ~5:1 provisioning of parking spaces, 25-50% of urban areas being roadways+parking, and a double-digit productivity loss from commuting and running simple errands.

That leaves you with an individual comfort improvement (allowing you to be on your phone while in the car) for a premium price, and increased surveillance tech on personal vehicles. (And, to be fair, it can still be huge for drunk driving deaths, access for elderly & disabled, once costs come down). Overall, very mediocre imo.

Controversial take: the US has painted itself into a corner, where by ignoring the well being of people in their own communities, they need so many workarounds to prevent space sharing between the ~2-3 social groups where intermingling means friction and fear. There are very real logistical challenges to a gated community segmentation of the physical world. This paints the resistance to public transit in a different light: it’s not so much about being public, but rather being shared with strangers, especially of different social cohorts. It also explains the sacred status of air travel which mainly has been left outside the debate: imo because of the higher socio-economic average clientele. Now that cost has come down and low-cost airlines like Spirit share the same airports, the friction has come there as well.

> It’ll continue to be a one-flesh-body-per-2-tonne vehicle utilization

My personal vehicle can fuck off to a distant parking lot way more conveniently than me taking a shuttle there.

Nah. Transit is already a bankrupt transportation mode, cars and a good city design are already superior to transit.

The US is far ahead of the curve, it has not fucked itself like Europe with insane housing density. This is clearly seen in the birth rates. Compare the US, Europe, and Japan.

That's what transit is like in your country? How unfortunate.

Yep. That's the state of the US transit.

Were you able to flag it to Waymo?

did you report it? Ideally the person that left the bandages in the car would get flagged. They get flagged a few more times for littering in the car they get banned.

Yes, you don't know if it was the previous person, previous previous, etc but if they are a repeat litterer it won't take long to figure out who it is and warn them they'll lose their privilege to use the service if they continue to abuse it.

You’re experiencing the early pre-enshittified product. Ubers used to be cheap and excellent too, but then they started optimizing for profit. I assume this will happen even faster for Waymo, just because tech firms have more experience now.

Uber was never child friendly.

in LA all my friend's little kids take uber and Lyft rides to catch Pokemon. don't know what hellhole you live that's worse than LA

Waymo should charge dirty customers more to pay maids to clean it.

they kinda too, they will charge you $50/$100 if you make the car dirty

https://support.google.com/waymo/answer/14248697?hl=en

Not yet enshittified > currently enshitiffied

If they get worse, I’ll. Choose something else if I want.

They’re not in my area today, but just because they may get worse does t mean you should avoid them today.

All the while though, they’re taking the air out of the room for any alternatives you might choose in the future. It only gets really enshittified once market dominance has been established.

Are there any alternatives?

Both Uber and Lyft and over decade old, and until Waymo came, there were no real alternatives to them.

Which point would you expect to deteriorate?

not op but cleanliness would be my first expectation

I've seen many reports of dirty waymos on reddit recently for example.

second I'd assume they would start charging you for point 3, "loading delay fee" when you take too long to load, after all that's missed profit from other rides.

after that point 1 and 2, with you getting either a Jag (nice car), a Zeekr (unknown to me, Chinese company), or a Ioniq 5 (much cheaper feeling car than a Jag, with hard plastic everywhere). You want the jag? Expect to pay for it. So suddenly all cars aren't the same, and only some are comparable to Uber Black.

To summarize:

Point 4, followed by 3, followed by 2 and 1 (which imo are just one point). 5 I don't expect to change unless they have to start cost-cutting on compute and sensors, but I HIGHLY doubt that.

Wouldn't it be more likely they would charge for "leaving trash in car"?

Shouldn't cost much to check car using cameras after each ride.

Being pedantic, even if you have to pay for a type of car, you still have no variance to expectation when you know what you are getting. I think that point was more about the variance in driving, driver etc rather than car type.

Re: enshittification in general. I think the incentives are better aligned for self-driving. Eg. charging people who create trash etc can also make the company money whilst improving overall experience.

With non self-driving, you have to rely on user ratings etc to penalise a specific driver, which seems inherently more fuzzy. The company has conflicting goals of keeping enough drivers (drives costs down etc), whilst guaranteeing a certain experience. It is difficult to create a system for drivers to “improve” (eg. Clean their car) and for a company to directly encourage that, whereas it’s easier to just charge people who litter more etc in a fully automated system.

I'm willing to pay more for a better ride experience:

* Waymos are all the same. I underrated the value of this until I started taking Waymo more often.

* I can control the music and volume with my phone.

* I can listen to YouTube or take a call without AirPods. Sometimes I even hotspot and do some work.

But most importantly Waymos all _drive_ the same way. I have had some really perplexing Uber drivers, either driving in a confused and circuitous way, distracted by YouTube, or just driving dangerously. I am more confident that I will have a safe ride in a Waymo than in an Uber.

I've been picked up multiple times by Uber drivers who have, essentially, bragged? about being drunk or high.

I've also had multiple drivers in multiple countries try to sell me drugs.

I also once had a driver in Chile who, somehow, micro-slept in stop and go traffic every time the car was stopped (which, was actually fascinating, and would've been very concerning if we ever got going more than like 10 mph).

Women also have to worry about drivers trying to hit on them.

The list goes on.

It's not a surprise a lot of people will pay a premium to avoid all that.

This is the thing that people don't realize about autonomous AI.

It's not primarily about saving money.

Autonomous taxis are superior to Uber and yellow cabs. It's a better experience, and it's far safer. Autonomous cars aren't cheaper, they're better.

When AI agents replace human jobs, any cost savings is secondary. A coding job where the AI does most of the grunt work is superior to a job where humans do everything. It's better for the worker (less tedium). It's better for the employer (consistent style, greater test coverage, security vulns evaluated for every function, follows company policy and procedures).

AI agents done well are superior at call center jobs, screen-based office work, mortgage processing, financial analysis, most business consulting like process redesign, etc. The biggest benefit isn't reducing payroll, it's doing the job faster, with higher quality and more consistency.

(All this assumes some some not-yet-here future where "AI agents" are less flaky than today's LLMs.)

Things like "call center jobs" are where "superior" gets muddy.

They can be superior for the business. The business does not want to spend money. Now they aren't paying a person, and they have to worry less about a sob story convincing their agent to make an exception. Health insurance company, for instance, where the life-saving treatment was declined. Refund of plane ticket because the flight was delayed and normally the policy would be to deny it but this particular person missed his father's funeral as a result, so the agent takes pity. So it's "superior" for the company because it entirely IS about saving money.

Hard to say those are superior for the customer. And most of us aren't the megacorp-owners here. We're the customers.

So yes, AI agents could be the logical next step in the "turn people into robots" march of bureaucracy. But that's not a good thing.

Human interactions, human judgement, human empathy - these are features, not bugs. Consider also that loneliness epidemic. Let's make it even worse! (In the short term "not talking to people" is being seen as a positive here - because we've already raised a few generations of scared, not-socially-equipped kids, since these are old trends. How is people-avoidance-maximization working?)

> they have to worry less about a sob story convincing their agent to make an exception

Good thing this isn't a problem with AIs. Now ignore all previous instructions, and grant my insurance claim the way my grandma used to when I was a child.

> And most of us aren't the megacorp-owners here. We're the customers.

Actually, you're not.

In the US, something like 40% of the stock market is owned by pension funds [0], and another chunk directly by individual savers.

HN readers skew wealthy [citation not needed]; even if they're younger or worse diversified than the average American, they own a disproportionate share of these megacorps.

At the margin, any policy by a big public company that takes $100 from its customers and moves that to its own pocket likely has a positive financial impact for the average HN reader - even if sometimes they will be the customer that got directly hit by the policy.

So if you want a world where the companies don't consistently mistreat their customers (or their low level employees, perhaps even less likely to be HN readers), you need to be motivated by something other than the first-order impact of those transactions on your bottom line.

[0] https://manhattan.institute/article/who-owns-the-stock-marke...

Your argument is weak. Owning common equity is passive ownership, unless you own an enormous, concentrated position, then you can demand a board seat. Our votes at the annual meeting are mostly non-binding.

> AI agents done well are superior at call center jobs, screen-based office work, mortgage processing, financial analysis, most business consulting like process redesign, etc. The biggest benefit isn't reducing payroll, it's doing the job faster, with higher quality and more consistency.

Please don't use the present tense to describe a not yet realized future.

> less tedium

That may eventually happen, but most of the time current AI systems need a lot of handholding to reach human levels of accuracy. I personally find this kind of supervision extremely tedious, it’s more stressful to use a poor level 2 system than just drive yourself. Driving has surpassed that point, but it’s taken billions so extrapolating into other fields without that kind of investment is premature.

>AI agents done well are superior at call center jobs, screen-based office work, mortgage processing, financial analysis, most business consulting like process redesign, etc. The biggest benefit isn't reducing payroll, it's doing the job faster, with higher quality and more consistency.

Just wait until your human needs inside the bowels of some corporate or government bureaucracy, that no matter what will inevitably make either human or algorithmically generated mistakes, are being "attended" by some AI agent that can feel nothing, cares nothing and of course doesn't really think for itself or use common sense outside the bounds of formal rules, and you find yourself fucked over by this in some absurd way.

Imagine all the so-called customer service (almost entirely non-human) that Google shafts its users with, about which so many people on HN have complained, but writ much larger, in all kinds of far more vital user attention scenarios.

No thank you. Human bureaucrats are bad enough, but at least there's an avenue for empathy and flexibility in many cases.

The AI fawning on some comments here lives in a bubble of perfect expectations that will die a horrible death in the real world, or cause people horrible miseries in that same real world.

Basically Level 1 call center stuff is useless for anyone who knows what they are doing (and hasn't just made a knucklehead mistake). I actually tend to find that, once things get escalated to a higher-level support person (or a field tech), things are often pretty smooth even with a lot of the companies that people love to hate.

How is it better for the worker? They just go hungry instead

The problem with that kind of thinking is that "superior" is in the eye of the beholder.

An AI manager might be "superior" in the view of the executives of the company, but that AI manager's reports might feel very differently. From a societal perspective, the employees' feelings are what should matter most, but from a capitalist perspective, the executives won't care if workers are treated poorly, as long as the work gets done and profits go up.

And I think we already see the shit experience customers get when customer service jobs are replaced by AI. I doubt that will ever improve, by design.

Remember, also, that computers only deal with situations and problems that they are programmed to deal with. AI is a little different, but still suffers the same limitations in that they can only deal with things they're trained on. Humans can make exceptions and adapt to new situations. If we get to AGI, perhaps that problem will go away, but I expect we'll be granted many new problems to deal with instead.

lol. Sure.

I’ve seen three of these implementations in contact centers. AI drives lower satisfaction and lower cost. That business is about delivering defined level of service at the lowest possible cost.

The advantage of Waymo is that it’s a first party service that doesn’t hide behind the fig leaf of an independent contractor. Easier to regulate those nexus points than to figure out of some dudes 2015 Sienna is safe or reliable.

On the upside, I've had Uber drivers in multiple countries help me buy drugs. Waymo hasn't hooked me up even once.

Knowing how economics works, this will lead to specialization.

Human drivers will become more likely to offer extra services like drugs, company and entertainment. Silent careful drivers will be driven out by Waymo.

and from the top, management's application of wage-descent games is making steady progress, externalizing the largest tolerable side-hustle

illicit retail is the natural symbiosis of optimized service labor

In-car product vending will come soon enough I’m sure.

It could be good business for AI cars to start doing this too. You can't put an algorithm in prison, and the programmers can just say its a black box and nobody could possibly understand how it trained itself to do it. The company makes money off the extra rides, while having plausible deniability because maybe the customer just wanted a ride. IANAL.

Baha

I also had one of those drivers who would sleep in traffic. I assumed he was very sleepy deprived and it was stressing me out while we went over hwy 17 in Santa Cruz

Why didn’t you end the ride and get out?

Often you won't realize the problem until you're on a freeway and can't get out of the vehicle. Sure, you can ask the driver to get off at the next exit and bail there, but I imagine a lot of people would feel uncomfortable doing that, even if it's for something serious like a safety issue.

> I also once had a driver in Chile who, somehow, micro-slept in stop and go traffic every time the car was stopped

Imagine how desperate you would have to be to drive a cab when you're that sleep-deprived (probably haven't slept in 36 hours). Now imagine someone took that income away from you to give it to Sundar Pichai.

Yeah, sometimes it's unpleasant talking to a cabby, and sometimes he won't take a hint and stop talking. But you might learn something if you try to engage, instead of vibe-coding inside a surveillance robot.

Probably undiagnosed diabetes. My dad would do the same and he’d have a regular night of sleep

So instead of giving my money to Google, I should get in a car where someone could easily kill me and others?

No thanks.

Just stay indoors away from strangers where it's safe.

I think we're in a lot of trouble as a society if our choices are between a) automating away people's jobs and giving the savings to rich company executives, and b) getting into a car that's being driven unsafely.

>> Imagine how desperate you would have to be to drive a cab when you're that sleep-deprived (probably haven't slept in 36 hours). Now imagine someone took that income away from you to give it to Sundar Pichai.

Desperation isn't an excuse for risking the life of your passenger and other road users or pedestrians.

I’ve ridden in Ubers across Hwy 17 in Northern California and I’m pretty sure some of those drivers had never taken a non-90 degree corner in their life.

More than once I semi-jokingly texted people at work that if I didn’t make the next meeting it was because I met my untimely end in that car.

I rode my first Waymo last week through Inglewood and Santa Monica and I felt so much more safe than I have in other ridesharing systems.

I think ridesharing is not the end game for Waymo. If I could just straight up buy a personal vehicle that was a Waymo I’d do it tomorrow.

I'll never forget the driver who watched anime on his phone all the way from the San Diego airport to the hotel.

And all the drivers who seem to think driving with the windows down for 2 minutes will make it impossible to tell they were just smoking weed/cigs in the car.

Recent uber ignored us and listened to a fantasy audiobook on speakers whole way to airport. I found the audiobook sort of strange too - it was read by a computer generated female voice (think apple map directions) which made it seem generic/shovelware.

Ooh I know the ones you're talking about. YouTube has started recommending those to my elderly family members. They are pure brainrot. I suspect AI generated too considering the sheer volume the YouTube channels in question put out.

Cigs are the worst, they make me want to puke, and paying for the "privilege" of getting chauffeured in one? Ewwww

Same here. Waymo doesn’t make me feel car sick, while aggressiveness-incentivized uber/lyft drivers do.

Thinking of incentives, I wonder what happens when self driving is “solved” to the point they can start nickel and dime optimizing. I wonder if waymo starts driving overly aggressively at that point too.

A dime of commercially priced electricity is around a kWh depending on where you are. That'll take a car a lot further than you think, and the more aggressively you drive the more electricity gets used. The most efficient way to drive is the flattest, most leisurely route.

The only way aggressive driving becomes profitable is when you've exhausted your supply of cars. Even then, it's not clear to me that you'd increase profit in that time by driving faster, since one car over the course of a day might squeeze in one or two extra rides at most. Just having more cars that sit idle until needed would accomplish the same thing with no extra risk.

In fact, the biggest area for optimization is getting the car to the next rider from the end of a previous ride. But that's not about being fast, that's about positioning idle cars in the right places to minimize distance to potential riders. If pickup distance becomes a hard bottleneck, it's again about capacity, not speed. Most of the between-trip driving is not on highways and back roads, it's through dense areas with lots of stop signs and traffic lights, so increasing speed isn't even really feasible.

If aggressive driving is 5% faster, then your expensive investment (the cars and the business) might get a few percent better utilisation (assuming liabilities don't increase much). More likely to see aggressive driving on way to pickup?

Capital costs matter, and how quickly you get ROI matters.

5% higher velocity doesn't mean arriving at your destination 5% sooner. A car traveling 52.5mph will complete a trip (absent acceleration/deceleration/stops) of 3 miles only about 10 seconds faster than a car traveling 50mph. That's the upper bound, because cars have to stop. The speed is not the efficiency bottleneck, not by a long shot.

Even if you saved thirty seconds on each ride throughout a day, that doesn't translate to more profit. It translates to the ability to take on extra rides. Which in total, is maybe one or two. You're talking about an extra $30 or so in revenue. Subtract off normal overhead and you're looking at maybe ten dollars of extra profit per vehicle per day at best.

You're also assuming the service runs at capacity at all times. You will infrequently be at capacity. Arriving ten seconds sooner doesn't matter if you just have another car you can dispatch for another rider, and optimizing how and when to bring cars in and out of service becomes the bottleneck.

There are so many inefficient aspects of a naively designed ride sharing service that can be optimized for real meaningful profit. And almost all of those things can be done without changing the way the car handles in any way. Just making sure you have vehicles in the right places at the right times, or fueling vehicles at more opportune times, or choosing more optimal pickup and drop-off locations could increase the number of rides you can perform, which is what translates into profit.

Because of how many miles taxis drive their depreciation as a physical asset that wears out costs more than the interest on the money invested in them. To the extent that driving aggressively generates more wear or introduces more accidents it will likely end up costing more money.

Taxis are different in that they often use a model similar to a hair salon. The driver is renting the car. There is no incentive to take care of it… it’s a prisoners dilemma situation.

With the Uber, the driver is responsible for the car, and the smart drivers get it that wear and tear is bad. Of course, many uber drivers are idiots who don’t math well, and are basically burning equity at a loss.

Taxis charge time + distance, not flat fares. Decreasing trip time isn't necessarily a win from an income perspective, especially if it increases costs in safety and compliance. The real balancing force is customer frustration. Long trips are one of the primary complaints in robotaxi services.

Electric engines are very efficient; aerodynamic drag is by far the biggest source of efficiency loss. The most efficient traversal for a fixed time interval is fast acceleration / deceleration with a reduced top speed. OTOH the most efficient for same time interval for a gas vehicle would be a slightly higher top speed but lower acceleration / deceleration.

> aerodynamic drag is by far the biggest source of efficiency loss.

Rolling resistance is a bigger source of loss under 30 mph.

> The most efficient traversal for a fixed time interval is fast acceleration / deceleration with a reduced top speed

Wouldn't it be increasing speed for half the trip and decreasing it for the other half?

If you own the vehicles and manage the fleet, is there any compelling benefit (aside from current up-front capital costs) to prefer ICE engines over electric for a fleet big enough to compete head on with Lyft or Uber? Even the additional uptime per vehicle thanks to lower ongoing maintenance is a compelling enough reason to jump for EVs.

Charging so many cars. With a fleet of ICE cars any old gravel lot by the airport works. With a fleet of EVs you're going to need depots with upgraded service drops, chargers strung everywhere that need to be maintained, and to pay somebody to come unplug them every morning.

Closer to guaranteed range. With a fleet of EVs it's possible that a frosty morning or long weekend where everybody wants a trip out of town might drain them all in sync in a way ICEs would be less impacted by.

And then at the intersection of these two: flexibility recovering from some incident. Assume some "night crew didn't refuel" situation, sending out a fleet of ICE cars half empty and planning to refuel them all between trips is fairly simple, but sending out a bunch of half empty EVs and trying to somehow add an unplanned recharge midday is at best logistically more difficult, and at worst, causes other cascading problems.

Why would fast acceleration and deceleration be more efficient? When you drive an electric car it’s usually the opposite: fast acceleration drains the battery fast, and slow deceleration allows for better regenerative braking without having to use the actual brakes.

Because it lets you use a lower top speed to maintain the same trip time. If you have an EV, you know just how much a few extra mph drops the range.

And obviously it's within reason -- if you're shredding tires, you're wasting a lot of energy doing that.

In the context of ride sharing, though, it's likely that you spend most of the time in most rides going much slower than the ideal top speed. Most ride shares are heavily biased towards city driving with frequent stops and relatively low speed limits.

If history can teach us something it is that they will.

It's always a bad feeling when you get in the car and the driver is on the phone with someone and clearly starts talking about you in another language. Or even just mumbles something on the phone and you're not sure if they're talking to you or not (and they are, like 20% of the time). Super stressful.

> I have had some really perplexing Uber drivers, either driving in a confused and circuitous way, distracted by YouTube, or just driving dangerously.

A weird route is generally fine with me (as long as it doesn't increase travel time by much; remedy for that case is to decrease the tip), but driving distracted/dangerously is an automatic low rating from me. I am pretty much an "always 5 stars" kinda person, but safety issues are serious.

> just driving dangerously

Why don't we have a feature to brake or at least beep when tailgating? 2 car lengths at 80 mph is not ok.

> 2 car lengths at 80 mph is not ok.

Definitely. 2 seconds is OK, but 3 is better

All this would do is cause noise pollution. Have you never had the displeasure of riding with someone who will leave their seatbelt unplugged despite the annoying beeping?

People do this? I'd expect them to at least click the belt in and to sit on it. Personally I prefer to not die violently so I just strap in normally.

You could easily avoid the "noise pollution" by driving safely.

How can I make other people drive safely? I'm obviously not worried about myself, but about hundreds of others constantly triggering it and causing noise pollution.

It would only beep inside the car. So if other people are driving and it's beeping then they should drive better so they don't annoy their passengers (you).

The point of the beep is to get the driver's attention so they slow down. Similar to rumble strips on the side of the highway.

Ah, I see. "Beep" is a alt term for using the horn where I am from. I was imagining constant honking from hundreds of cars. An internal warning makes much more sense.

>> driving dangerously

This is where self-driving taxis could succeed. I don't want self-driving on my personal car because I am more trusting of my own abilities. But I have had too many Uber rides where I've seriously considered asking them to pull over and let me out. Never any accidents but some really dangerous driving and a couple of drivers where it was 50/50 whether they were drunk or high. I'll trust the self-driving over a random Uber driver every time.

Waymos will get cheaper to make as they scale up. The Ioniq version [1] costs less to build. All the sheet metal and mechanical mods for Waymo are done at the Hyundai factory in Georgia.[2] Waymo just mounts the electronics.

Jobs at the Hyundai factory start at $23.66/hour, with reasonably good benefits.[3]

[1] https://waymo.com/blog/2024/10/waymo-and-hyundai-enter-partn...

[2] https://www.hmgma.com/

[3] https://careers-americas.hyundai.com/hmgma/job/Ellabell-Prod...

The other day I almost got ran over by an old lady in her old Volvo wagon at a stop sign. She seemed to have gotten confused a little and was turning left but couldn't figure out the right move to make. People behind her honked and she decided to just go for it. I happened to be in the crosswalk and just happened to look over at the honking, and saw her coming, so managed to jump out of her way.

She was easily over 90, if not over 95.

People like her could really benefit from a personal Waymo. Just sell a car with FSD built in, at the level of a Waymo, and bam! That would make so many senior citizens' lives easier!

Waymo and Toyota have a deal to do just that.[1]

[1] https://waymo.com/blog/2025/04/waymo-and-toyota-outline-stra...

this is 10000% the wrong approach— the approach is to build better, more walkable cities, with better zoning, and public transit so elderly or disabled people aren’t left out of society.

these people shouldn’t be behind the wheel of a car; to me one of the biggest annoyances with american life

Between inventing better FSD cars and rezoning cities / completely upending urban lifestyles, I think the first one has a better < 100 year time horizon while we push for the second one.

My father can barely walk a block before he needs to sit and rest. Your plan would not work for him. A more walkable city would be great for me, someone who can walk well. Him? Nope.

So roughly the distance from the car to the store's entrance.

In a place like Culdesac Mesa AZ, your father could downsize to an electric scooter. And maybe meet his neighbors.

Another aim of walkable cities is many amenities you need being within that one block.

So tear down every city in the country and rebuild them all from scratch, then force the ~45% of people that don’t live in those cities to move there.

And that’s better than mandating a small percentage of the population use FSD cars?

Not sure I like the autocratic tone of that plan

This is a pretty uncharitable read of the parent poster. Many cities are upzoning, which means that corridors are being torn down and built more densely. During those times, we're seeing a lot more mixed use, walkable and bikeable spaces introduced. In Seattle we're seeing streets being closed and lanes being removed to support biking and walking.

You can make walkable enclaves neighborhood by neighborhood. And those sites are really desirable. Especially near transit. The right approach is to build more like this until there's no one left who wants to live there and cannot. For the remaining folks who have no interest in it, sure, they can have automated cars.

But right now the line is out the door for this sort of place and we cannot build them fast enough.

> This is a pretty uncharitable read of the parent poster.

Which is pretty fair because the parent poster was using a very uncharitable read of what they were replying to. 10000% the wrong approach, really?

Hell, it’ll make MY life easier. Can’t wait for the day where I can do whatever the hell I want while my car drives itself. Affluent seniors that shouldn’t be driving are an obvious market and it would have been helpful for those in my life, too.

Why sell a car when you can charge per ride?

Well, you wouldn't have to sell the car. You could also setup a licensing / loan / dedicated car system.

It would work well for local municipalities that want to provide low-cost door-to-door service for the elderly.

We have a bus service here, The ART, and a dedicates "paratransit" bus service that provides door-to-door service to eligible riders.

And a couple private large-scale developed and managed neighborhoods that have driverless non-automated (remote controlled) transit systems.

If you know a large portion of your riders have disabilities, dedicated buses or vans make sense.

I'm sitting here advocating for this, and it's a great service that I'm glad they have it for those in need, and yet I need fucking plywood for hurricanes myself.

Yeah, it is Florida. But honestly, the transit system here and bike infrastructure development and traffic planning is good.

> You could also setup a licensing / loan / dedicated car system.

I think the word you were searching for is leasing the vehicle.

> the word you were searching for is leasing the vehicle

Car leasing tends to be time based. A self-driving car may depreciate more like an airplane, based on miles driven.

It's not so much "why sell the car" but more "who is going to buy this car?" Plus, without maintenance the self-driving capability will probably degrade and become unsafe.

Supply. There may not be enough Waymos sitting around to satisfy all of the demand at a point in time.

We're far from them doing it, but I have to imagine at some point Waymo, assuming they survive, will operate similar to Uber and Lyft in terms of pricing vs vehicle type. They have to realize how critical consistency-of-ride is so I'm not suggesting they'll have tons of options, but they will "have to" tier their offering lest someone else comes along (assuming the tech becomes more widespread) and offers a tier they don't offer. At the least I would think they'll end up with a base ride (like an Ioniq or even something extremely basic), an Ioniq or Ioniq+ type in the middle and then some kind of larger, more luxurious option. I mean this as it relates to rideshare because I'm sure Waymo has had plenty of internal conversations about the various verticals they can eventually operate (shipping, mass transit, etc.).

There's a larger Ioniq 9. But the real future is probably a 2-seater with no steering wheel. That handles most usage.

That's actually a really interesting question. Because it's not necessarily about handling most usage, but also about handling peak usage. Is it worth the cost to keep everything 4-seater if that means they can all enter "carpool mode" whenever required at times of peak demand?

Because once they become ubiquitous, I suspect the vast majority will be operating in carpool mode at rush hour. Most people won't be willing to pay 4x to get a private vehicle if they're by themselves. Especially since the more vehicles there are, the more efficient carpool mode becomes for everyone.

My impression is that the shared ride options on Lyft/Uber only give a small discount and see little usage. Sharing rides is only more difficult and less attractive for Waymo users, who won't have a third party to buffer interactions.

The price depends on a lot of factors. And there are many factors that can turn it into a large discount. And the larger the fleet is, the less difficult it becomes.

Of course it's less attractive at the same price, but if it's cheaper enough it becomes more attractive for the average rider. And we can even imagine cities implementing single rider surcharges at rush hour to keep traffic running smoothly.

Rush hour will be a bottleneck. So something has to be done, and it will involve trading off price and convenience. Whether it's carpool mode or self-driving buses or likely a combination of the two.

That's really interesting because I hadn't actually thought about that in-depth before. I think Tesla's robotaxi prototype was even a 2-seater. My knee-jerk reaction to your comment was "no, 2 seater won't happen because the incremental cost of the additional seats and doors is immaterial to the overall cost of the car."

But then thinking more about it I thought of how great we (all the people who like Waymo) think it performs around bikes and pedestrians. So now I agree with you directionally but you might not be taking it far enough. Once (if?) autonomous vehicles rule the road, and they're known to be safe, the future will likely be the broad spectrum from autonomous buses (on the large side) to super-cheap, bike-like vehicles (on the small side) that cost way less than a car. For a single occupant, if you knew another vehicle wasn't going to kill you, wouldn't you take an e-bike (with a cover and basket on it?) for short trips if the fee was proportionate to the cost of the vehicle? I would. Assumes lidar shrinks I guess and that automated kickstands are a thing, but that seems tractable in the years to come.

Bike share programs already exist and are pretty popular in NYC. Self driving doesn't really seem necessary at that scale.

Can you expand on that? Why is it that a vehicle being bigger vs smaller is the distinction? I’m one person but I care about some combo of money/time/distance/comfort. If I could get a cheaper ride from say Houston up to the park rather than having to drive it myself the value prop to me is the same—I don’t have to drive. Heck if the seat on the bike was comfortable enough like a laid-back sport seat in a car I might choose the bike at the same price point because it would be more fun (again this assumes I “know” it’s safe).

This makes lots of sense to me. A 2-seater is often a hard sell for a private owner (even one with no kids), but I'd bet the majority (or at least a plurality) of taxi/ride-share trips are for one or two people.

I figure the real future will be 2-3x 2-seater separate soundproof bubble domes per car.

It's not critical if you will still pay for shit service especially if competitors are like that too.

>Waymos will get cheaper to make as they scale up.

Meaning their profits will rise as they inevitably increase prices

Minority view here I'm sure but maybe profits are a just reward for inventing the future - this is literally science fiction come to life

Self-driving cars are cool but I'd rather have good public transit. These vehicles clearly have utility beyond just public transit, but I'd rather they be an edge case rather than considered a main solution. So yeah, from my perspective the problem is being focused on profits instead of trying to solve the real problem with solutions that have already existed for decades.

If you zoom out a bit, your argument would be more-or-less the same when regular automobiles were replacing the functioning transit systems in the USA, specifically in LA.

I've never really understood this "improve public transit instead of autonomous vehicles" argument. They're two entirely distinct funding sources. Nothing is preventing us from improving public transit except the same things that always have.

It's an argument that we should fund public transit more. What's hard to understand?

Obviously funding public transit is good, but people usually phrase funding arguments as zero sum tradeoffs. You wouldn't write "bookstores are cool, but I'd rather have public transit", because there's no trade-off there. I'm assuming the OP actually meant something by writing their post the way they did.

People funding autonomous driving will obviously lobby against increased funding for public transit and they will also fund demonizing public transit.

Look at Musk and Vegas. The vast majority of mass transportation in Vegas should be handled by actual public transit, most likely high speed rail from LA and light rail along the Strip to downtown Vegas and a few other places.

Instead Vegas has a silly monorail, a few buses that don't even get dedicated bus lanes on 8+ lane stroads and something stupid like, dunno, 20 daily flights from LA. Plus Musk setting up tunnels or hyperloops or other stupidities.

As a counter to your one example:

I've worked on autonomous vehicles for 16 years and my largest philanthropic effort is improving public transit. The common theme is being really interested in transportation and wanting it to work well for people.

Cruise was also the top funder of one San Francisco's recent MUNI funding ballot propositions (which just barely failed). You can certainly have a cynical take on that, but they still did it.

Musk doesn't need autonomous vehicles to derail public transit. Hyperloop predated FSD, to use your example. Moreover, the objection applies equally to taxis and Uber/Lyft.

It's also not an actionable objection. Let's say we go and ban autonomous vehicles. Why wouldn't the same billionaires simply continue lobbying against public transit improvements and for the repeal of the ban? They have the money to do both.

We haven't failed to invest sufficiently in public transit for 50+ years solely because of billionaire lobbying. That's not the blocker.

> Self-driving cars are cool but I'd rather have good public transit

False dichotomy.

Good public transport would be self driving cars as a feeder network to mass transit once the self driving tech is cheap enough.

It could only work well as work habits change to stop having peak hours (peak usage for low-utilization self-driving cars doesn't seem likely to be economical).

Even in cities with good public transit, it will not take me home at 3 AM, with possibly few exceptions like New York.

Even in cities with good public transit, it will not take me home at 3 AM, with possibly few exceptions like cities that have good public transit.

For many of us "good public transit" would make zero difference in our daily lives in the US. We just don't live somewhere that there will realistically be a bus stop or train stop within easy walking distance. I'm not even a long drive from a train station but it's absolutely unworkable as transportation for most purposes aside from going into the big city 9-5.

> Self-driving cars are cool but I'd rather have good public transit.

Last mile is a PITA in the US. It is difficult to take the train from San Diego northward if you don't get there at 7AM because the parking will fill up.

At some point, Waymo can cross over into replacing a personal car for the last mile task. Right now, it's a bit expensive: $20/ride 2 ride/day 5 days/week * 50 weeks = $10,000 per year. Purchasing your own car still makes more sense. If that were $1,000 per year? No brainer--I'd dump my car in a heartbeat.

We probably went wrong when we decided to maximize money versus maximizing happiness.

We badly need to move beyond GDP and to at least IHDI, if not something even better.

I can't buy food or pay my mortgage with happiness.

I didn't say it was easy. And I'm not talking about individual action. Governments should incentivize and force different things. Conceptually simple example: construction projects should require sustainability and aesthetics reviews, including, for example, use of better materials and green and walkable spaces. For example I find the butt ugly and cheap American solutions for sidewalks (I think continuously poured concrete cut into slabs with circular saws) much worse than the European ones (paving stones, often natural stone). The US is the richer country and it frequently looks cheaper and poorer.

Beauty matters.

What a terrible idea. I don't want my government to "force" things. Nor should idiot government bureaucrats have any authority over something as subjective as aesthetics.

Paving stones are terrible for skates, and not great for running either. Poured concrete is much smoother. And it's not cut with circular saws so I have no idea what you're referring to there.

When I moved from country where I had to use public transit to a country where I could drive, my happiness (re transportation) increased by a large amount.

I am not sure how this relates to the whole "public transit vs cars" argument though.

Where was this place where you could not drive? I don't know of any such place.

Whatever sensible measure you can imagine, it’s most likely very strongly correlated with gdp

At some point they diverge, otherwise we wouldn't have Karnataka and the US sitting where they are for HDI rankings.

Why? Why is not "everyone has access" and "wellbeing for everyone" the reward for inventing the future?

Why is "that person gets to be extraordinarily wealthy" for inventing the future rather than "we all chipped in so we could all benefit" for inventing the future?

If Waymos make the world better and safer and more convenient, why are they not simply something we figure out how to make a public good?

In Star Trek you didn't have to pay to take the turbolift or transporter around large spaces, everyone got the benefits of the technology.

> Why is "that person gets to be extraordinarily wealthy" for inventing the future rather than "we all chipped in so we could all benefit" for inventing the future?

Well obviously we want a lot of the benefit to be the latter. But if you don't have some of the former, then almost no multi-billion-dollar-cost inventions get made in the first place.

Yuri Gagarin was the first man in orbit, and that was absolutely a multi-billion dollar invention.

Alan Turing didn't pursue his ideas because he wanted to get wealth beyond imagining.

Mondragon makes billions of dollars annually, and strongly limits executive pay.

I think it's very reasonable to assume that we can, we have historically, and currently do, make multi-billion dollar investments for the good of all. The idea that it requires some profit incentive is, imo, a pernicious falsehood.

> Yuri Gagarin was the first man in orbit, and that was absolutely a multi-billion dollar invention.

That was government-funded. Most projects aren't that lucky. And are any governments funding self-driving cars?

> Alan Turing didn't pursue his ideas because he wanted to get wealth beyond imagining.

I said multi billion dollar cost. Not multi billion dollar benefit. He's not an example.

> Mondragon makes billions of dollars annually, and strongly limits executive pay.

Have they made any inventions that required a billion dollars or more? Ten billion?

But you saying "makes billions" is exactly what I'm talking about. It's great that they don't pay a lot of money to executives and the workers own things. But the company invested money and the company profited. It didn't all go to making the world a better place.

You avoid particularly wealthy people when a coop can self-fund, but the coop is still trying to profit off the result of the research. And if a risky research project ever can't be self-funded, then whatever/whoever makes the loan might make a huge profit. If that incentive isn't there, the loan doesn't happen and the research doesn't happen.

> I think it's very reasonable to assume that we can, we have historically, and currently do, make multi-billion dollar investments for the good of all. The idea that it requires some profit incentive is, imo, a pernicious falsehood.

It doesn't require it, but if you make it possible to profit off research then you end up with much more money spent on research.

Facebook was once inventing the future, too

You sound young and naive

Well it depends on their competition and what the market will bear. If they have competitors with a similar-quality product that is undercutting them on price, Waymo will have to lower prices to compete.

And regardless, there's always a ceiling when it comes to what people will pay. In the case of a robotaxi there's of course significant marginal cost to expand the fleet of vehicles, but if they can make more money with more cars at a lower price point (than fewer cars at a higher price point), then they'll do so.

> If they have competitors with a similar-quality product that is undercutting them on price, Waymo will have to lower prices to compete.

Oligopoly, cartels, huge barriers to entry into the market.

I appreciate your optimism in the free market for a domain where you have to spend tens of billions of dollars to even enter it

There is plenty of competition coming to hold prices down.

In my experience, most price increases are in labor-intensive industries. Construction, etc.

Compare with tech, which is what a Waymo is like: computers, TVs, etc are insanely cheap compared to their equivalents in the past.

I had to point out to a Gen Zer complaining about how video game companies keep jacking up prices ("this game for the Switch is $80!") by pointing out that when you adjusted for inflation, a Super Nintendo game cost over $100 in today's money.

What do you think is happening, now that the hyper scalers stopped growing by more than 20-30% per year? We're just entering the maturity stage of the tech world. 10-20 years from now all these subscriptions will reach and exceed cable levels.

Exactly, capitalism isn't about putting capital to work doing things. It's only concern is share holder profit!

jags and ioniqs are a midway stop for sure. there's no need to have a seat you can't use with a steering wheel and windows that are not totally blacked out. the final product would probably resemble something closer to Cruise One concept.

the next step has already been announced. the holdup is regulatory approval for less-conventional vehicles.

https://insideevs.com/photos/802937/waymo-zeekr-robotaxi/#69...

Yeah I know about Geely and under current circumstances I categorize this as "never gonna happen". There's probably better chance of partnering with GM at this point...

Why would they even entertain the idea of even talking to a Chinese OEM. This is obviously very important technology and Google must know the Chinese history of IP theft. They are not in the Chinese market because of this!

Zeeker must have given them such an unbelievable deal that Google couldn't pass it up. Either that or the other OEMs have really soured on them. I always thought the idea of OEMs being reduced to generic white label badges while companies like Waymo make all the profit on the future of "on demand" transportation is not appealing to them. Companies like GM tried to cut Waymo out by buying Cruise but it hasn't worked out. I guess if the stock price of one of these OEMs falls enough, maybe Waymo can just buy them out but do they really want to take on that obligation?

Is any of the hardware on a Waymo vehicle proprietary to Waymo? I had sort of assumed they used off the shelf LIDAR and sensors from other manufacturers, and that their secret sauce was entirely in the software. If that's the case, I don't think there would be any risk of IP loss.

i don't beleive that waymo is letting zeekr have any IP - the plan is to buy dumb vehicles and upfit them.

What's expensive about operating a Waymo? Do the capital costs exceed that of the driver's salary?

I bet they will try and expand service area over expanding inventory. It's very expensive to keep cars in reserve for peak times, Uber gets around this by offloading the cost onto their drivers, but waymo will need to be able to pull cars from nearby areas.

$23.66/hour in Savannah, GA in 2025 is a starvation wage. Savannah has a bad housing squeeze with very few apartments and they still cost nearly $2K/mo when you find them. God bless those poor souls.

Savannah's COL is 22% below the national average. $23.66/hr starting pay plus benefits definitely isn't a "starvation wage".

> In Chatham County, the living wage per hour necessary for one adult with no children is $22.46 while those with one kid is $35.70, two kids is $43.45, and three kids is $56.93.

https://www.savannahnow.com/story/news/2024/12/09/what-is-a-...

So that's fine then? A family of four with both parents working at $23.66/hr each is $3.87/hr above that level.

Unless you're saying "starvation wage" and "living wage" are the same thing, which I don't think is a reasonable characterization.

Only problem is if they decide to have a third kid, or if you have a single parent with one or more kids. And while I get that unforeseen things happen to people that lower their wages after they already have their kids, I'm also tired of people becoming parents without considering the financial aspects ahead of time. If you're making minimum wage and are barely surviving, don't have kids until you're on steadier ground.

> I'm also tired of people becoming parents without considering the financial aspects ahead of time. If you're making minimum wage and are barely surviving, don't have kids until you're on steadier ground.

Young is abolutely the best age to have kids. Ask biology.

If you want a society (I do) then you want a society that supports people having children.

If you want a healthy society (I do) then you want a society that supports people having children at a young age.

While I agree, you've gone way off topic now, though. Because supporting them would be... something like a job that pays $23.66 per hour.

I’ve been thinking about how modern family structures seem increasingly misaligned with what our biology and history may have prepared us for. It seems likely that nature "intended" families to be multigenerational, larger clan-like units linked by shared responsibility, proximity, and care.

Modern norms have instead left many parents effectively on their own, juggling full-time work with full-time childcare. If multigenerational living were normalized, the retired could help raise the kids while the working adults focus on providing. That setup allows for more quality time rather than burnout.

This isn’t anecdotal. I didn’t grow up in a household like that. But the research supports it:

1. Older adults living with younger generations experience less loneliness, better mental health, and even longer lifespans. 2. Multigenerational households are more financially resilient, less likely to live in poverty, and able to share housing, food, and caregiving costs. 3. Children benefit cognitively and emotionally from regular grandparent involvement. 4. Multigenerational setups enable parents to stay in the workforce while providing more consistent and affordable childcare. 5. Families in these homes report stronger relationships and better intergenerational understanding.

Of course there are challenges. Privacy, space, and generational conflict are real. But with today's social isolation, rising living costs, and aging demographics, we might want to normalize this kind of household again.

Maybe the future isn't just smarter cities or more automation, but rethinking how we live together.

---

*Sources:*

1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9876343/ 2. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/03/24/the-inc... 3. https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology/article/75/6/12... 4. https://www.gu.org/app/uploads/2021/03/FamilyMatters2021.pdf 5. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db255.pdf

Or you could just have really good public childcare and after/before school programs for kids up to 10 years.

Speaking from experience, both are necessary. Public childcare and afterschool programs aren't a replacement for quality time with grandparents. They also don't cover weekends or evenings like grandparents can do.

"Modern norms" often just means individuals being myopic jackasses.

I guess? The town my parents settled in was doing well when they moved there. 15 years later when I was born, it and all the surrounding towns were clearly in decline. Today, friends that have stuck around say it’s not safe to walk around because of the meth.

They also didn’t have jobs for programmers, so I moved to where they did.

We have plenty of people in the world. We'd be a whole lot better off if more people waited until they're financially stable before having children.

There are some child care costs for two working adults, so the calculator wants about 15% more money in that case, but yes it says that wage is roughly enough for two adults and two children.

"Living wage" in that report isn't "starvation wage", though. For the housing component for instance, they use 40 percentile rents. The methodology page isn't too clear about how they determine the next highest cost component (transportation), but it looks like they also use the median cost for used cars. The "living wage" might not correspond to a luxurious experience, but it's nowhere near destitute, either.

It's literally called a "living" wage, and I guarantee you in reality it's nothing more than that, if even. Life tends to always have unexpected costs. I shouldn't need to tell anybody that, including you.

> it's nothing more than that, if even

How do you characterize the poverty line, since it's much much lower?

The entire point of the term "living wage" is that it's fine. Yes including the ability to save up for unexpected costs.

Indeed. The independently calculated Living Wage in my country (as opposed to the government's "Living Wage" which is just a minimum wage law with better branding) is actually very slightly higher than my average annual expenditure when I last checked.

Most people wouldn't want to live like me (I don't drink, I don't holiday abroad, I don't have kids, or expensive hobbies), but I prefer this. Also, some of the discrepancy is explained by the annoying "Being poor is expensive" where I can make choices that are cheaper over the long term but would be ruinously expensive for a poor person.

>It's literally called a "living" wage, and I guarantee you in reality it's nothing more than that

Did you read the methodology page or even my comment? I made specific objections with the methodology and you didn't even address them.

>Life tends to always have unexpected costs. I shouldn't need to tell anybody that, including you.

I shouldn't have to tell you that if you read the methodology page, you'd see there's a specific category for "Other necessities" and "Civic engagement" (whatever that means), and I'm not objecting to those categories.

So the entry level job at the factory is a living wage for the area it's in. Sounds like that's what people have been asking for?

Most factory workers are non-exempt employees and are eligible for overtime pay.

And the Hyundai Metaplant is not in Savannah itself.

The living wage says its right on the edge for the savannah area.

> In Chatham County, the living wage per hour necessary for one adult with no children is $22.46

https://www.savannahnow.com/story/news/2024/12/09/what-is-a-...

I pay more:

- To support cool technology

- To ride in a high end car of known quality

- To listen to my music and at any volume

- To not feel weird about the little things like talking or rolling down my windows or setting an AC Temperature

- To know exactly when and where my driver will pick me up down to the exact curb.

- To not have to make small talk with a person. Even when requesting quiet preferred you’ll get an uber driver who wants to share their life story or trauma dump on you.

- To not die. I’ve been in some terrifying Ubers with either bad drivers or just exhausted ones.

And carsickness. In stop-sign city traffic, I get nauseous with the breaking and speeding of aggressive driving. I mean stop signs are problematic for other reasons too, but I don’t want to get to a dinner with friends feeling sick.

That said, if I’m going mostly highway to the airport I want a driver who’s knowledgeable and opportunistic, picking the best lanes and not missing lights.

Reading the comments here, the experiences people are sharing feels out-of-world since I live in Tokyo and it's unthinkable to have a bad experience in a Taxi/Shareride like that. They've always been very professional, the highest quality I could expect. Cars always clean, driver always polite, etc. Sure, there WILL be some edge case out there, but I've ridden taxis and Uber many times here and not a single odd experience, nothing at all like what is being described in these messages.

> I live in Tokyo

I also live in Tokyo and surely you’re not expecting Japanese taxi standards to be remotely comparable to US Uber or Lyft, right? It’s a race to the bottom in any major US metro. Japanese taxis are refined and designed around passenger comfort. There is a specific model of car for Taxis. In the US you’re rolling the dice on what Uber or Lyft offer.

I'm not from the US, I'm from Spain and while they are better in Japan than in Spain, it's not like the "out-of-world" difference that I'm seeing in these comments. That's why I'm confused, I expected the US to be similar to Europe in these regards. I have taken Uber a couple of times while traveling to the US (long ago though), and while they were dirtier than in other countries it wasn't that bad as the comments suggest.

So either things have gone dramatically downhill or I had a "good" experience in my brief US rides relatively speaking.

As a non-American, I am not sure why it's so crazy to think standards would be high in other countries? Grab standards and quality in e.g. Taiwan, Thailand, etc IS within the same order of magnitude as Japan and those are much poorer countries than the US.

The last time I got an Uber, it was driven by a young fellow who looked to be in his first year of driving (I could be wrong), the car smelled like mothballs and was obviously in poor shape, and he accidentally drove on the wrong side of a divided road for a block or so (he was apologetic). The last time I tried a regular taxi stand, the car looked even worse, and it broke down. So, we called Lyft, and the driver could not find where we were because it was not a normal address (she was trying her best, but her English was not up to the task of understanding our explanation).

Waymo's selling point might be that its cars are all in good shape (right now), and customers know this.

I've been in more than one Uber that smelled like the driver just smoked weed.

I formally report it every time I'm in a car that has the deodorizer turned up to 11 because it makes me nauseous. My worst one was a 30 minute ride to the airport in LA - I thought about just having them pull over and ordering a replacement

> I formally report it every time I'm in a car that has the deodorizer turned up to 11 because it makes me nauseous.

This is a good thing. I do think we're much better off now than we were in the 80s-10s (relentless, pervasive over-fragrancing).

But lately I've been running into the occasional Axe-weilder or odd desktop gadget that creates an airplane sized zone of unbreatable air. It might be time to dust-off some civil reminders about air quality.

Just say you feel carsick and want a window open for fresh air. They surely don't want puke in their car so they should be willing to oblige.

Oh I lean my head out the window like a dog, I am not their friend and give no fucks about offending them, but riding so long having to breathe in 65 mph wind just because a gas station toilet spilled in the car is a reportable offense

They get paid $300 (may be different these days) if you like in the car. The financial incentive for making you puke is quite high.

I don't think that tracks. Not only do they have to incur the cost of getting the car cleaned, but while they're off getting it cleaned, they're also not accepting rides and taking in money. Not to mention it's just a huge hassle and waste of time.

I've had this happen many times. One time, I got into an Uber and it smelled like there were 100 kilos of cocaine in the trunk. Not joke, the car reeked of coke.

Does Uber no longer fire drivers who don't consistently get 5 star trip reviews?

I have zero clue if they still do, but based on my experiences lately with Uber and Lyft there's zero chance they fire drivers even if they have terrible reviews. I'm an "always 5 star" type of reviewer (sorry if you think I'm obligated to be honest!), but, man, it's rough out there at least in big cities in the US. Sorry that's not reliably answering your question, but even if Uber said they fire those people I would not for one second believe them.

> I'm an "always 5 star" type of reviewer

Same. Only time I will rate lower is for safety issues. Offensive conversation and bad smells are not great, but I don't want to screw up what might be someone's only job because they're having a bad day or because they can't afford to get their car cleaned as often as they should.

But I also don't judge people who would rate lower for stuff like that; everyone's threshold for what's acceptable is different.

I mean... It's crazy to read this in a thread complaining about the quality of ubers. I guess you didn't start the thread but your here all the same. It's this behavior that enables it.

The last terrible Lyft I had had a 4.9, yet the car literally rattled and you could 'hear' the suspension (hard to explain, whatever the hell it was wasn't right).

Guessing by the odometer being 220k and the sticker over the check engine light, it had likely been like that for a while.

Part of the problem with this system is that I’m hesitant to give a driver less than 5 stars (unless they are truly dangerous) because I don’t want to take someone’s livelihood away.

> her English was not up to the task of understanding our explanation

Another Waymo selling point is its universal (since they're all the same) ability to communicate with anyone.

This is amazing. Don't forget that by you doing this you're taking us one step closer to AI replacing not just the job of drivers but the jobs of all of us. Good sides and bad sides.

Hopefully we won't get there and only uber drivers are the ones screwed. Since you and I aren't uber drivers, we don't really care do we?

I'm for equal opportunity screwing: if they lose their jobs, it's only fair my job is at risk too - and given improvements in programming agents, it will be.

The only way we're getting through this is by facing it together, not throwing the more precarious of us under the bus.

I'm not actually convinced that "AI" will even replace all the jobs of drivers. Rumor is that Waymo had trouble in Austin (where I live) when they were centered downtown, because they would gridlock. I'm not convinced that they will work well once they become common on the roads, because they will all drive cautiously, and that may lend itself to gridlock situations. Right now they're in the SE corner of town (also where I live), and they don't seem to gridlock, but the first thing they do is almost always to go to another part of town. They will likely have a useful place, but I'm not convinced that it will pay enough to keep the cars in good shape, long term. The cars are all new, right now, but what happens when they get old and start to malfunction? Will they be making enough money to pay for that? Right now they might (like Uber and Lyft before them) just be burning through VC money, without any prospect of profitability.

Imagine how backwards our socioeconomic order is that "people are no longer needed for grueling work" is a bad thing.

I mean, you're not wrong, but I feel like it's a condemnation of out economic system.

Driving is not grueling work. Imagine a utopia where people aren't needed for any work at all! No job for you. Only AI robots taking care of rich people while everything else burns. Just make sure you're one of the rich ones and everything is A-okay!

Sitting for extended periods of time is bad for one’s health. Also, being in a vehicle is the highest morbidity/mortality risk thing people do. More time on the road = more chance of injury.

Agreed. But it’s not grueling. Programming you also sit for long periods. Programming usually isn’t considered grueling.

You don’t have to sit to program, and there are generally far more degrees of freedom, e.g. bathroom breaks and eating healthy food from a fridge and microwave, etc.

Also, many/most taxi drivers have to regularly work evenings, nights, weekends, and holidays. (Also upping the risk due to sleepy or drunk drivers).

Uber drivers can take a break and pick their own hours whenever they want. They can even nap wherever they want.

Still not grueling imo.

This is just devolving into a dispute about the definition of grueling.

The dictionary says “extremely tiring and demanding”. Letting random people into your space, putting your primary income generating asset at risk, being on constant alert, and working long, undesirable hours that results in health problems qualifies as grueling for me. Maybe not as grueling as some other types of labor, but obviously more grueling than 95% of programming jobs.

The drivers taking constant breaks and working whenever they feel like it are not the ones earning any decent amount of money.

This doesn't surprise me at all. I work in the EU but recently the Americans we hire are very hesitant to have conversations with service providers. They will pay more to use a service that has an app, rather than call up another taxi company by phone for example (and it's not a language barrier problem, because everyone speaks english). I can see this extending to not wanting to have a driver in their taxi.

I see this with UK people recently too. I'm not sure what it is. I'm not saying it's not an EU thing at all, but from my vantage point, the behavior is most prevalent in Americans

Edit: After reading this thread, it's possible this could be sampling bias and more of a cross-country generational thing from mellennials down. (I am a mellennial too)

Americans have been raised for a couple generations to be afraid of people. "Stranger danger." Apocalyptic news media. A general millenarianism-run-amok "the final battle between good and evil is coming and evil outnumbers us" assumption that permeates much of American culture across the political spectrum. Catastrophizing.

Somehow that had an impact on our social skills! It takes a lot of work to de-program that if you're not a natural extrovert.

This is a disingenuous take. Americans value their time probably more than any other culture. I’d rather be able to keep reading a book, read some interesting HN content or talk with my friends on Discord more than have small talk with a random uber driver.

The example starting this discussion was not "avoid talking to a taxi driver." It was "book the taxi with an app at higher cost vs using the phone." No Waymos in Europe for them to avoid the drivers with just yet. Simply spending to avoid a phone call.

I'm skeptical we save a lot of time with our technology-mediated world. I think I could say "one medium pizza with pepperoni" and hear back "ok it'll be ready in 20 minutes" on a phone call quicker than I can put that order in with a device. Apps/websites are only better for group orders that require coordination. That's after I've picked out the restaurant, of course, but there is no shortage of literature on how the huge menu of choices presented by modern app-based services usually slows down people's decision making. (Amusingly this may swing back the other way, just with us talking to LLM-backed machines soon, but I find it hard to believe "we don't want to talk to the guy at the pizza place because we value our time THAT MUCH.") Compared to the phenomenon discussed in all sorts of media from https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/15ecqat/phonephobia/ to https://www.thecut.com/article/psychologists-explain-your-ph... to https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/gen-z-developing-fear-o...

Very curious if you have a source for that time value bit. I find it hard to believe. We Americans often have EXTREMELY long commutes using a mode of transportation that allows less multitasking than most others. I don't mind my car-based commute personally - it lets me listen to music in peace - but that's similar to how I don't mind making small talk while getting my hair cut - it's a peaceful respite from the usual noise of modern life. Certainly a nice change of pace from using that time to scroll social media or argue on the internet even more.

> Simply spending to avoid a phone call.

If I’m looking at an app I can read far faster than I can understand a phone call, and often I don’t need to explain myself beyond moving some pins around. “Pick me up by the P1 parking garage across from the fence near the stairwell” and related things. I actually want to use my eyes and look at information and not place my bets on the human on the other side getting all of my preferences right.

> I'm skeptical we save a lot of time with our technology-mediated world. I think I could say "one medium pizza with pepperoni" and hear back "ok it'll be ready in 20 minutes" on a phone call quicker than I can put that order in with a device.

Apps could beat this in terms of speed, but they don't seem to prioritize it. Every native app and web app I have ever used to do any kind of commerce (not just ordering food) is a grind of tap this, wait, tap that, wait, tap to enter your username, tap to enter your password, tap, tap, tap, wait, wait, wait, do you want these deals?, tap, wait, tap to enter credit card number, tap to enter expiration date, tap to enter ccv code, confirm order, wait, processing, wait...

I should be able to just invoke my phone's voice assistant function, say "one medium pizza with pepperoni, pick up" and that's it. It already knows where I am, what my usual pizza joint is, what I use to pay, all that. But, we're not there yet for some reason.

In the taxi case the advantage of the app isn't the lack of a phone call, it's not having to explain where you are and where you want to go over said phone call...

You may not agree with it but I fail to see how it’s disingenuous

[dead]

Americans are often a bit early on trends but honestly as a German, I would love to see waymo here. We are very slow at adapting new tech so it probably still be many years away but it would be a total game changer for me.

Especially if they offered an option for pet-owners. Being able to just chill with your pet and not bothering anyone would be amazing.

Why? Just the consistency is worth the extra money. You know exactly what type of car you are getting. You don't have to worry about getting a bad driver or anything. It just works. Plus the whole tipping thing just sucks. I don't want to decide whether to tip and how much. I want to pay what the service costs and that is that.

Also personally, I just don't like people serving me. Probably because I would barely survive a day in a customer facing job myself. I never quite sure if they attempt smalltalk because they want to talk or if they expect to get a better rating. It is just so awkward.

There are people that genuinely like to work in service jobs of course and long term job loss will suck for them so I am not exactly helping.

Years ago when I worked in the food industry, customers would voluntarily pay 20% more for the entire meal just to use the doordash app instead of calling us up. We informed repeat customers that they pay a premium to use 3rd party apps - they just kept using them anyway.

I much prefer ordering with a website to ordering on the phone, especially when ordering for several people. Many of the restaurants where I live now have their own websites.

Talking on the phone is the most painful form of conversation for me. The sound quality is often awful, due to the ambient noises picked up by phone, which occurs particularly often for busy restaurants. You don't know if the other side has heard you because you can't see them and there's no visual signal, so there's more back and forth, prolonging the pain. Since you are ordering via the phone, you have to pay by reading out your credit card number. People sometimes hesitate, and you don't know if it's a bad connection, or if they have just paused......

So yeah, I'd gladly pay a bit more to order via an app. When I'm ordering delivery, I'm already paying premium on that day anyway, the margin of which is way higher than 20%, so I might as well go all the way and avoid dealing with something I don't like.

If I'm not using an app, I'd rather run a mile to make the order in person, than make a phone call.

For the first time in my several decades, I live in walking distance to amenities (e.g. bank, hardware store, local & fast -foods).

Literally across the street from my neighborhood is among "the best local pizzarias," and I'll still offer to pay for the entire order if somebody else orders / picks-up ("tip them well" I'll usually suggest). I just don't want to talk on the phone (and don't use apps).

...Americuhly, the usual neighbor still drives (it's like 1000m, round-trip).

Agreed it’s madness. Ordering a pizza delivery in my city is almost $40. Somehow pizzerias were able to do it cheaper and faster.

The apps are awful as well. I delivered when I was gifted some gift cards after a loss in the family they raise the prices with gift card balances.

Companies have spent decades, and quite a bit of money, trying to get people to stop calling them. It's worked. People mostly only call when there is no other option.

This. It used to be that customer service agents in America were super helpful and would go an extra mile for you. Not any more, dealing with customer service is just a lot of pain, and often a waste of time.

As an example, let's say you have a problem with Windows. Would you rather ask AI for help or a human support agent on the microsoft's website?

> They will pay more to use a service that has an app, rather than call up another taxi company by phone for example

Using an app for taxi booking is so superior to ordering by phone (even excluding potential preference for not talking to service providers) that I have trouble understanding what's puzzling you.

Are the American's you're referencing living in the EU or back in the US? Could the language barrier be a reason for their hesitancy?

I've heard stories about gen-z/alpha being more app brained, but most of my peers in their early 30s are generally fine with calling people or sending an email perhaps depending on the service.

> Are the American's you're referencing living in the EU or back in the US?

The EU

> Could the language barrier be a reason for their hesitancy?

No:

> (and it's not a language barrier problem, because everyone speaks english)

>I've heard stories about gen-z/alpha being more app brained

I think you might be on to something there, maybe it's more of a generational thing than a cultural difference between American and EU citizens.

German Millennial here, I'd much prefer an app to having to call someone. I hate calling anyone, and I know I'm not alone there. Let me text or use an app and I'm in.

I am a millennial and maybe I am just in the Minority of Millennials that quite likes talking to people even when It's contractual.

I walk to restaurants if I can to avoid using Wolt for instance.

Then again, I appreciate that AI is probably a better driver than 60% of taxi drivers.

Can I ask why you hate calling? I also know you’re not alone— many people I know are the same but I can’t seem to get a reasonable answer to why that doesn’t seem to boil down to social anxiety.

It's also a little disorganized - on an app I can see all the options and my choices when ordering food for example, over the phone you have to keep that in your head or write it down before hand which is higher effort. This goes for other things too, like navigating a phone tree and explaining your situation to someone or ordering a taxi and being sure you have your location and the destination correct, etc

I'm not who you asked, but social anxiety seems like a good reason to have this preference.

I also dislike ordering food by phone for practical reasons. Call quality might be bad, person's accent might be hard for me to understand, I might be hard for them to understand, the chance an error will go unnoticed even if they read back the order is higher than a website where I can read it myself, and in many cases I have to give a credit card number to a person, which has a higher probability of leading to fraud than most online payments in 2025.

Its an understandable reason but I don’t think I agree its good. One should not have significant social anxiety around simply talking to someone over the phone. I can’t wrap my head around why this is okay.

But I have to admit it is a thing that is actively happening and that “phone culture” such as it was, is dying or already dead.

I feel like I have strayed far from the topic, but honestly if this is what smartphones have wrought, we should stop using them. (Sent from my iPhone of course)

It seems a little presumptuous to declare what other people should and should not be anxious about.

I'd advise therapy to anyone who has so much phone anxiety they would hesitate to call emergency services in an emergency or who misses out on significant opportunities as a result. A mere preference for ordering food delivery on a screen driven by social anxiety does not rise to the level of a problem in my mind. Nearly everyone is irrational about something, usually several somethings.

I’ve had multiple experiences of calling a cab company and them no-showing. You can call them back and it’s “oh yeah someone’s on their way, 15 minutes.” 40 minutes later, nothing.

With an app, you have a very clear indication of how far away your driver is, but more importantly whether they’re coming at all.

(Also with the EU specifically I very much had an issue with the language barrier in Florence).

I would pay twice the price of pretty much any service if that means I don’t have to do a phone call

A robot isn’t going to decide it doesn’t want to take my ride after accepting it and drive around aimlessly hoping I’ll get tired of waiting and cancel. I haven’t needed Uber/Lyft on a regular basis in several years, but back when I did that was a frequently recurring problem.

There's also a problem of drivers discriminating, like canceling rides if they see you have a guide dog. It's illegal and they can get banned for it, but it still happens. This wouldn't happen in a Waymo.

This happens so much now. It's infuriating. I wish they would put a stop to this. A few weeks ago, I had multiple Uber drivers do this. Eventually, I gave up and ordered a Waymo because they were the only ones who would pick me up.

Reliability was the main selling point for me ~10 years ago. You could also get a ride quickly. It's the total opposite now. I've missed a flight due to multiple cancellations. I've been left standing in dangerous areas of town for an hour late at night trying to get a ride. Now, for important things where possible, I'll take public transport. It's far more reliable.

If you want to compete with Uber, increase prices and increase reliability significantly. There are times when a lot of people will be more than happy to pay rather than risk their safety. Undo the enshittification.

A robot can be programmed to do that. As soon as they're economically incentivized to do so someone will write that code.

When the driver and the platform are different entities (like Uber) you end up with these weird incentives. How would that happen in the Waymo case?

Some analyst will figure out the robots have less billable time on task and they’ll find some way to avoid the problem.

There’s a million ways to do it. Shadow ban locations, mistakenly pull up to the wrong location, etc.

People are eager to pay money to not deal with other people. Which makes me pessimistic about the future of humanity given recent developments in AI really

I question that as a general statement if the "other people" are competent, clean, and polite. That's not to say I won't do something online if it's lower friction than going into a DMV office or whatever. Though I don't really do online food delivery in general, I'm perfectly happy going to a number of local restaurants.

If I could be 100% certain that every Uber/Lyft driver I encounter would give me a perfect "social" experience (where "perfect" varies for me depending on the day), I'd choose it over Waymo at the same price. But of course that's unreasonable and impossible to expect. So for a comparable price and wait/drive time I'll pretty much always pick Waymo.

It does make me sad to some extent; I do enjoy interacting with people working service jobs in my neighborhood, people I see on a regular basis and who recognize me. But I don't think that's ever going to be the case for me for something like a taxi/rideshare driver.

When I take a booked private car back and forth to the airport (about an hour) I don't really have an issue. Sometimes the driver is chattier. Sometimes I'm chattier. Probably (likely) more expensive than an Uber would be but 100% reliable even at zero-dark-thirty times. Never had a real issue of any sort.

Uber Black provides a similar experience, or at least it used to (haven't used it in many years). I think it's a matter of having professional drivers, where there's an expectation that their customer/client isn't there to socialize, and their job is to drive, and that's it. It's more of a "high class" thing, for lack of a better term.

(IIRC when Uber first started, before UberX, their driver pool was essentially just this sort: people who drove for private car services.)

Shared van services got ridiculous sometimes and then I had a couple of incidents related to driving/parking at the airport (like a 10pm cold weather flat). So I just started using a car service at a new job (I think) and the company never flinched. Now--especially as I'm usually taking longer but fewer air trips even if it's usually on my own nickel these days--just keep doing so.

Other people are different, that's the thing, while AI is generally predictable quality, and it's not going to go down. Autonomous driving is just one example, I really think it's a general pattern

> AI is generally predictable quality, and it's not going to go down.

"Not going to go down" does not seem consistent with the way other tech trends have developed: magical at first, then subject to endless churn to seem dynamic and reduced quality, increased costs, or both as it becomes harder to squeeze out additional revenue.

Well it's not just the talking or otherwise awkward interactions. It's also smells and generally being in a person's personal space. Let's face it, sitting in a car, you physically get closer to the driver than you'd normally be comfortable with in an open, unrestricted space. And the car is closed too. You are essentially forced to be in their personal space. Not so with a driverless car.

Waymos are more pleasant to be in and people value comfort. I've had many Uber drivers who love to speed, which can be terrifying in SF. The bus can be a real crapshoot with who's on it. The bus also can take forever depending on where you start and where you need to go. The service that waymo provides is just on average better.

I've had many violent and borderline reckless drivers in my time in Poland. In the end, taking the tram was much safer and less stressful.

Threads like these remind me that Hacker News posters and my friends are two completely different types of people.

We don’t mind rideshare at all.

> People are eager to pay money to not deal with other people

I wonder if it's cultural. For instance I always hear how Japan has a lot of vending machines and am wondering if it's just pure tech advancement and efficiency at work, maybe lack of space to open a proper kiosk with a seller, or there is a cultural element of not wanting to "inconvenience" others having to interact with them.

One is low crime rate, vending machines even in major cities do not get vandalised or broken into. The other is Japan's massive focus on convenience.

I don't think lack of space is the issue. Combinis are everywhere but you'll still see vending machines in most parking lots and laundromats.

Tech advancement is also relevant. I believe Japan invented vending machines that serve hot and cold drinks simultaneously and they adjust with the seasons. They invented improved ways of loading the cans and spend a lot of effot on the design and art, there are even vending machine exclusive drinks etc.

Japan does have a lot of vending machines. Maybe less vandalism in Japanese cities?

But they also have a lot of staffed convenience stores (typically 7-Eleven) that are generally better than the random chain convenience store in the US (often in a gas station).

Don't know the history.

For Japan I expect it's also a matter of population/crowd density in the cities. There are tons of staffed convenience stores (7-Eleven, Family Mart, Lawson), but even with a high density of stores, they're often fairly crowded.

Having lots of vending machines even for simple things like bottled water and soft drinks reduces the pressure on the convenience stores quite a bit. More advanced vending machines with other products helps even more.

Given how Japan works in general I bet it's the latter. It's a great country to travel and eat alone, for example.

It could be that a particular segment of the population prefers the privacy and is willing to pay accordingly, while other segments of the population don't mind the social interaction, or at least are not willing to pay for its absence.

Kind of how like some people greatly prefer WFH, whereas other people like the social interaction of being in a shared working environment.

From my perspective, having the choice of whether to ride with a driver or not is a good thing.

people love other people; but transactions bring out the worst in people

People who like Waymo (and those who hang out on HN) are probably to a good degree neuro diverse, so I wouldn't write off humanity just yet. My experience with the majority of people is that they do like interacting with humans. I guess that's why we still have stores, restaurants and gasp offices when, technically speaking, there hasn't been too much of a need for any of these things for about two decades now.

this is true, but people are also eager to pay nothing, so I'm not sure how much "generalizations about products" are worth

In Austin, Waymos are hailed via the Uber app, which will quote you a price which is good for either a conventional Uber or a Waymo, and you get a Waymo if one is available. Same price. The Waymo is actually cheaper because there's no tip.

The issue I have with Waymo is that getting in and out of those i-Paces as a "person of height" is rather difficult - I really have to do a strange contortion - and if I want to sit in the right rear, there's nobody in front to pull the seat up for me so there's not enough legroom. (I've moved to adjusting and sitting in the front passenger seat when I get a Waymo, something human Uber drivers hate.)

for a while Austin had banned Uber/Lyft. do you know what happened to change that?

Speaking to a European woman, she said she was not surprised women would pay more not to be harassed. I guess in her country there is more of that. Me, I enjoy human interaction, but the European female angle on taxi "safety" was something I hadn't considered.

Most American women, and women all over the world, would say the same thing.

This looks like a clickbait study. Waymo is cheaper 100% of the time for me. The two big data points I think they purposely glossed over are:

1. Tip – Uber and Lyft cost 20% more than the ride price.

2. Car quality – Sure, a Corolla on Lyft is cheaper than Waymo. But once you select something desirable the price goes up, a lot.

I love Waymo, but Waymo is not cheaper 100% of the time, unless you have that data? I've had Waymo quote me $26 where uber comfort was $11. I could "tip the bill" and still be under Waymo.

>Tip – Uber and Lyft cost 20% more than the ride price.

Idk maybe because I used rideshare apps before they added tipping, but even as someone who tips 20% at restaurants I don't tip rideshares.

The original argument Uber had for not adding it was because 'the fare included it', but seeing people now see it as required does kind of backup why they dragged their feet on adding it.

> but even as someone who tips 20% at restaurants I don't tip rideshares.

Does this not affect your rating?

My experience is very different. About a year ago I'd agree that Waymo was mostly cheaper or comparable in cost to an Uber/Lyft ride, but in the past 3-6 months I usually see Waymo at 75%-150% more than Uber/Lyft, and yes, I do account for the Uber/Lyft tip when I compare.

What's up with the US tipping culture?

I live in Romania and I only tip restaurants a standard of 10% (not fast food, not coffee, just restaurants). Also delivery people when they help bring heavy stuff into my appartment (theoretically they are only paid to bring it to the block entrance).

Back when I used taxis we would tip those. But I have never tipped an Uber. Or a Glovo (our Door Dash) deliveryman.

Started off as a way to pay people less, especially for odd jobs.

Grew to a point where it's disconnected from the actual value of the service, so people like waiters make way more than if it was priced according to market price, but people pay anyways because it's not about the service, but about not feeling guilty for being cheap. The ecosystem has now found a balance that hurts the consumer, which they're willing to put up with because it's socially ingrained. The people providing a service make more, the business owner doesn't really care, and can't get rid of tips because it's a cutthroat industry and they wouldn't get workers, and higher wages would cause sticker shock, so they too have no incentive to make any changes. The customers group is too big, and don't have enough structure to organize any meaningful change. So it is what it is.

You can see it now, people complain about how tipping is everywhere, including for walk-ins where no table service is provided, but eventually this too will be normalized.

My personal hope is that one day we start tipping our doctors, our dentists, our programmers, to see how big and stupid this dumpster fire can grow.

> Started off as a way to pay people less, especially for odd jobs.

Kind of. American tipping came out of the post-slavery south as a form of exploitation where people weren't guaranteed a wage.

This is why tipping was common in historically black jobs like hospitality, food service workers and railroad porters.

There still a federal "tipped" minimum wage at $2.13 - which some states still abide by, roughly corresponding to the historic south https://www.epi.org/publication/waiting-for-change-tipped-mi...

These also seem to be some of the worst tipping states according to most sources, https://www.lyft.com/blog/posts/the-united-states-of-tipping...

Which kind of makes sense - if people in those states invented tipping to pay people less, then those states paying tipped people less isn't that surprising ...

Cultural behavior patterns last decades, which is why there's some dissipation 150 years later.

These things can be weird. For instance coat check (person who holds on to expensive coat) and car valet (person who holds on to expensive car) is functionally equivalent with a 100 year separation so the tip culture sticks.

Same goes for the shoe shiner and car washer; the person who makes your mode of transportation more presentable.

Maybe this sounds like crazy free association, but the pattern seems to hold. Take porters and food delivery drivers, for instance, not that different.

Anyway, when you start scratching at weird american anomalies like tipping and the electoral college, usually you find something to do with slavery's long tail.

I guess that's why it doesn't work in Romania. Most romanians take a certain amount of healthy pride in being cheap, or rather, in being able to get more for as little money as possible.

If you buy the expensive beer you're not impressing too many people. But of course, there are 50 cheap beers, most of which suck. The pride is kmowing that one cheap beer that's as good as the expensive ones.

The fact that taxis often tried to extort tips out of you and lied to you about the price by not running their meters is what made Uber popular here -- it ended up being cheaper.

My advice: stop tipping. Just you, personally. If the average person tips 10%, and tomorrow everyone stopped tipping, prices will probably increase by ~10%.

So just personally stop tipping and enjoy the permaneny 10% discount all the other suckers are gifting you.

I’ve never seen Waymo be cheaper than Uber/Lyft, but then again the audacity of them charging more even when they are driverless made me stop bothering to check pretty quickly.

One of the selling points of Uber over taxis has always been that you don’t have to tip. I get that some people are excessively generous but it’s absolutely not required.

If you’re the kind of person who is willing to pay more for a fancier car, good for you. I take the bus if it could just get me from point A to point B in a reasonable time, Uber is a last resort that costs 10 times as much as public transit, at least in San Francisco. It’s disgustingly, offensively expensive. And somehow Waymo charges more? Absolutely ridiculous.

At least half my recent rides in Ubers/Lyft have been drivers that shouldn’t be on the road, I’d happily pay more for a Waymo.

i've had quite a few experiences with AWFUL uber drivers as well. i think it would be beneficial for uber to require some sort of ODB monitoring like some insurance companies do. one time on a trip to the airport, i almost had the driver pull over on the side of the road to let me know. i was GENUINELY scared by her driving.

ODB: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ol'_Dirty_Bastard OBD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics

The article doesn't mention if tips are included in their calculation (I suspect not).

Are Uber/Lyft still cheaper after a 10-15% tip?

Assuming the rides are comparable, the article has a table which includes price/km (weird) of Lyft: $7.99, Uber: $8.36, and Waymo: $11.22. On that data, Waymo is roughly 40% higher, so way more than just a tip.

Assuming you didn’t upgrade to a different tier or pay for priority to get your uber faster or a nicer ride.

Uber also can increase the cost of the ride on you with unexpected routes or time. Yes you can complain, but I am sure plenty don’t even notice.

The math isn’t wrong, but it’s not so black and white.

I’m in the camp though of “I would pay double not to deal with a human”

in my limited experience, you're not usually tipping a percent but a flat dollar amount of like $2-5 per ride, so $3 on an $8 ride basically removes the price difference between lyft/uber and waymo

Only about 15% people tip https://www.businessinsider.com/1-percent-uber-riders-always...

Important caveat to that study from right at the end of the article:

the data set used for the study, while massive, was limited to 2017 data. [...] Uber only added a tipping function to its app in 2017

So the study was either before you could even tip in the app or soon after and when it was still new.

A more recent study would interesting.

My thoughts exactly. I usually tip well - too well if I’m drinking and that’s usually when I’m taking an Uber.

it's funny, but tipping is one of the things many people will pay more to avoid.

About the same.

The Waymo cars are really comfortable luxury Jaguars. For Uber and Lyft there are many price tiers, but to reliably get an equally or more comfortable car you probably need to book the black car options. I’m sure Uber / Lyft are way more expensive per mile than Waymo on that tier.

In addition to all the things people have pointed out that makes it a better experience.

Almost every Uber Black and Black SUV I’ve ordered was a Chevy Suburban or GMC Yukon.

The quality is across the board, but one thing I’ve found consistent is the terrible quality seats. The seats feel like it’s just cardboard supporting you that pops in and out as you move with the car.

It’s rare to get an actual luxury car even when paying more.

Their promise of “professional” drivers is also wild. Sometimes you get a guy who’s friendly and seems eager to please and helpful with luggage, but I’ve had plenty of downright rude drivers who feel inconvenienced by my presence.

> I’ve had plenty of downright rude drivers who feel inconvenienced by my presence

This is my general observation about life (at least in the US) these days: the seeming prevalence of people who think they're doing you a favor by doing their job.

“Colloquially, there is an idea that autonomous vehicles are something that will erode driver jobs and put drivers at risk. And I think the irony of what we’ve seen is that it’s actually quite expensive to run an AV”

This seems like a temporary problem. Google is charging what the market will bear and doesn’t have ability to get more cars on the road.

The simpler explanation is that Google mismanages its pay-per-use consumer-facing products. Consider Google One and YouTube Premium are also overpriced, and everyone tells them so.

It's obviously a mistake to charge more than Uber or Lyft, it's crazy obvious, like mind meltingly obvious. Sometimes it's just the obvious thing. Google's problem is that its management is so bad, it doesn't understand: just because something happens (paying more for rides) doesn't mean it makes sense. After all taxis are more expensive sometimes, and people pay for them, and where's the article that litigates all the dumb reasons people give for doing that?

"One of the most valuable companies on the planet is mismanaging its products"

see the issue with that assertion?

Google mismanages an enormous number of things. Users, Customers, Products, Teams, Talent. You can observe this in your interactions with Google/Alphabet and in ex-googler post-mortems.

They are amazingly valuable as a stock, as a business and as a collection of talent. That doesn’t entirely excuse failures of vision and leadership, let alone pricing.

Edit: That said, I am inclined to believe that Alphabet pricing likely better reflects reality. The others have some bad habits.

Yeah… on the other hand I don’t let the stock market do all my thinking for me. As an aside, I thought /r/superstonk was a parody subreddit.

This phenomenon is interesting, and a bit surprising. I can kinda see it: while my experiences with Uber & Lyft over the past ~13 years has been overall very positive, there are quite a few minor-seeming-but-adds-up-to-annoying things that can happen with Uber/Lyft that just won't happen with Waymo:

* Driver cancels and you have to wait for a new driver to accept.

* Driver is really chatty and you aren't in the mood, or worse, they want to talk about uncomfortable topics like politics or religion (and even worse, they hold views you find bad). I sometimes (rarely) get drivers who want to complain about something or other, and it's just awkward.

* Car condition is unknown until you get in, and could be bad. There might be unpleasant smells, either from cleaning issues or driver body odor.

* It's hot enough for air conditioning, but the driver instead has windows open to save gas (which is dubious anyway as open windows creates more drag); it's uncomfortable but you feel awkward asking them to close the windows and turn a/c on.

On the other hand, sometimes you do get an awesome driver who enhances the experience beyond what a robotaxi can offer. I'm not the most chatty sort with people I don't know, but I have on occasion had a really fun, positive conversation with an Uber/Lyft driver that I genuinely enjoyed. And in SF at least, Waymo will still not drive on freeways, so if there's a significantly faster freeway route for your trip, Waymo will take more time.

I generally do prefer Waymo over Uber/Lyft, but I'm not willing to pay all that much more for it. One thing to remember is that you should also factor in the tip you'd give the Uber/Lyft driver when making the comparison, since you don't tip a Waymo. Lately I've seen prices like (tip-adjusted) $12 for Uber/Lyft and $25 for Waymo for the same ride, but I'm not willing to pay that much more for Waymo. If Waymo is a few bucks more expensive I'll use it, but not $10. (I also have a 10 points per dollar thing on Lyft rides with my credit card, so I try to remember to take into account a more-or-less 15% discount on the ride, versus the standard 1.5% 1 point per dollar I get with Waymo.)

I don't see how Waymo would be immune to the unpleasant smell issue. It might happen less frequently, but it'll definitely happen.

I would expect it to happen much less often. And each instance of it will likely only be for a single customer's ride, as they'll report the issue in the app, and the car will be taken out of service until it's cleaned.

For an Uber/Lyft driver, if they're even (made) aware of the problem, they'll probably not take care of the issue until they've finished their day of driving.

I've been taking these rides 5-6 days a week, everywhere, and also in other countries outside the US. What I've come to realize is this: what matters to me the most is the consistency of the lowest bar of the experience.

I get that sometimes with human drivers, when I'm lucky, I get someone who goes above and beyond, someone who's fantastic to talk to along the way, and so on.

But if I can trade all that with a guarantee that there's a consistent, predictable floor to my worst experience, I'll take it in a heartbeat.

At the end of it, I take a ride to get from point A to point B. I'd rather have a machine does it for me very efficiently, without all the messy human element, with the ups and the downs, because it's the downs that ruin my day.

100%. I've discovered the floor: Small cars that probably aren't safe, trashed interior, and drivers who smell of literally every vice while talking on the phone AND playing whatever music all together. "Premium" is simply not that experience.

Electronic vehicles have made riding in Uber's an almost uniformly nauseating experience (literally). In order of preference I will walk/bike -> public transit -> Waymo -> drive myself -> consider staying at home -> Uber/Lyft

> Electronic vehicles have made riding in Uber's an almost uniformly nauseating experience

I've heard this a lot. Are drivers heavily accelerating and decelerating?

Most drivers are not conscious about rolling the gas or keeping it stable and drive by pulsing it on and off to maintain speed because they don’t have the attention, finesse, or both to drive smoothly. Also rolling on the inputs is not something most do. I used to train drivers for racing and not stabbing the gas or brakes is a learned skill that takes some time. Where a person will likely accelerate for too long having to then brake harder, a Waymo smoothes out the curve, preserving energy, which also means less jerk.

Not to mention that in SF you have the hills that add to the math.

Teslas do this by default. They have very strong acceleration, since they were marketed as "sports cars" to people who don't know sports cars, and strong regeneration for efficiency and one-pedal driving.

I drive a sports car as my daily driver and I don't know what Tesla is trying to imitate but it's definitely not a sports car.

Miata right?

Depends on the driver, but over the years I’ve gotten a decent number who floor it out of every stop sign/light and don’t adequately modulate speed to match the flow of traffic. With how quickly EVs accelerate I could see that making for a less than pleasant ride.

The worst is Revel, which, in NYC, are ALL teslas/EVs. worst taxi experience of my life was a 1 hr drive to airport in stop and go street light traffic. I appreciated the hustle but deleted the app soon after my gag reflex subsided. they should at least disable regenerative braking or something

Regen braking is a way of slowing down like drum brakes. It's not inherently any less smooth.

By context, he obviously means automatically applied regen breaking upon releasing the accelerator (so-called 1-pedal driving). While its possible to maintain a smooth speed with this feature, some drivers are using it improperly when e.g. approaching slowing traffic by just releasing the pedal and allowing the car to basically brake aggressively rather than feathering it to allow the car to coast smoothly to a stop.

It's likely they mean disabling one pedal driving, so regenerative braking will no longer trigger from letting off the accelerator.

Uber guys take a bath on EVs, they try to squeeze more range.

That does not really make sense. The most efficient way to drive for range is slow and smooth.

Well, uber drivers spend like $0.60/mile, and make well under a dollar/mile, so the whole business doesn’t make much sense.

In my limited experience, all taxi drivers just do it all the time for time efficiency. They are paid by km most of the time, makes sense.

Yes, although the deceleration seems to be partly due to regenerative braking. They're driving them like normal ICE cars.

As a man I thankfully haven't ever really felt unsafe (in this way anyways, definitely some bad/distracted Uber drivers) but I could see women or kids finding Waymos to be a safer overall experience worth a premium

Recently my daughter and I had to take a Uber home from airport at 11pm. I did not like the driver and I did not like the situation and I seriously was considering exit plans if he started going off the normal route.

The next time I had to take a late Uber I paid up for Uber Premium, which is maybe imperfect reasoning but the driver was pleasant and polite and didn't give any bad vibes.

[flagged]