I remember seeing this app a couple months ago and being excited about a team finally doing this. They’ve been available in New York City for a while and now they’re trying to raise money to expand to more places. Hopefully they open source the app\server in the future since it would be great to have more co-op apps for the other “gig economy” style apps.
That’s not really a kickstarter so much as a gofundme for a business. $50 for a stress ball? $1000 for a ride in NYC? Kickstarter rewards ought to be close to the value that you’re giving, because it’s analogous to an investment. Kickstarter is not a charity fundraiser.
Why not give credits as a reward? You’re raising capital for a business, so theoretically you should be profitable enough to pay back investors. And if not, there are no rides because there are no drivers.
A Co-op Ride to anywhere you want in NYC
$1,000Honestly today, this was competitive pricing against Lyft…
Isn’t new York flooded right now?
Not any more, but yeah, most of the trains were suspended. I paid about $80 to get home to Brooklyn.
I saw a video that was showing that it was flooded… in spots… despite media coverage that gave the impression the whole island was underwater. And that mostly cleared up last night it seems.
Might be why it’s hard to get a ride
Need an amphibious vehicle to get there
And if I could get a ride in this service today that might be relevant
Thanks for the correction.
It makes sense to use the kickstarter money for the development of the app/infrastructure and not to cover the costs of the kickstarter rewards. I personally think kickstarters should offer the least amount of physical rewards as possible and instead offer digital things they don’t have to worry about sourcing/shipping so the money can go to the development of the software/game/animation etc.
Of course the money is used to invest in the startup. That’s what startup money is always used for. But typical startup capital comes from investors who expect to receive a share of the profits. Kickstarter gives startups the chance to reward “investors” in other ways, like funding an initial production run or providing rewards of similar value that don’t cost the company as much to produce. For example, an author might write an investor into the book, or a theater production might provide a VIP experience with the cast.
Kickstarter is not a charity. They’re asking for donations. There isn’t even a digital reward, because presumably the app will be free. It’s more akin to PBS giving away tote bags to subscribers, but even those subscribers get a discount card supported by local businesses.
The fact that they don’t understand the difference creates significant doubts regarding the competrnce and feasibility of the endeavor. I think a FOSS ride sharing app is an excellent idea, but I will not hold my breath for this one.
Two lines from two disparate forms of art spring to mind when reading this headline :
“they’ll be fighting in the streets with our children at our feet, and the morals that they worshiped will be gone” ~ the who
"“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.” ~ george orwell
Haha, how are those quotes relevant? This just reads like nonsense to me
Why? If they don’t employ other drivers and every driver is a member, everything should be fine.
As a customer I’d rather use a platform that is not owned by drivers.
Well, in sole cities in France we have Uber
ShitEats alternatives owned by the people who make the deliveries, and it’s smooth sailing so far.I think it’s way better this way, because entitled/abusive customers lose a lot of the power they usually have.
How come?
Because in any dispute between a driver and a customer, drivers will protect drivers.
Do you care more about the credibility of a business that you do have an ownership stake in or one you don’t have an ownership stake in?
The drivers have a collective interest in maintaining the credibility of their app regardless of how the ownership is structured. There will be a similar management structure to ensure customer satisfaction regardless of ownership structure.
Moreover if you’re an individual driver with an ownership stake you have a greater interest in maintaining the credibility of your business vs a business that some one else owns.
So in theory there should be slightly greater incentive to provide good service under this structure.
In real life, people are subject to biases and heuristics even if they think that they are acting in their best interest. This is what many economic theories fail to take into account. Moreover, within the organization different subjects would have different economic interests and means to achieve them.
You might be able to say that drivers would be more likely to offer each additional resources (education or perhaps other more material resources) to ensure quality of service over investors who would be more likely to fire drivers. Others have pointed out that they have co-operatively owned taxi services in Europe and this doesn’t seem to cause issues in terms of quality control.
What I described seem to me to be the most evident biases and heuristics that the drivers would be subject to. What other biases and heuristics specifically are you concerned about?
Right, I see what you mean, so there’d be a power imbalance there. From my perspective, if drivers buddy-buddied with each other to that degree, customers would just flock back to Uber and the business would tank pretty fast. It would be more beneficial for the drivers to treat their customers well.
