SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Uber drivers have been complaining that the gap between the fare a rider pays and what the driver receives is getting wider. After months of unsatisfying answers, Uber Technologies Inc. is providing an explanation: It's charging some passengers more because it needs the extra cash.
The company detailed for the first time in an interview with Bloomberg a new pricing system that's been in testing for months in certain cities. On Friday, Uber acknowledged to drivers the discrepancy between their compensation and what riders pay. The new fare system is called "route-based pricing," and it charges customers based on what it predicts they're willing to pay. It's a break from the past, when Uber calculated fares using a combination of mileage, time and multipliers based on geographic demand.
Daniel Graf, Uber's head of product, said the company applies machine-learning techniques to estimate how much groups of customers are willing to shell out for a ride. Uber calculates riders' propensity for paying a higher price for a particular route at a certain time of day. For instance, someone traveling from a wealthy neighborhood to another tony spot might be asked to pay more than another person heading to a poorer part of town, even if demand, traffic and distance are the same.
Source: Bloomberg
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 21 2017, @01:08PM (15 children)
Walmart. Face it, in many towns, Walmart is all there is. So, you go into Walmart, and the person ahead of you pays $19.00 for an item. The teller only charges you $15.00, and you wonder if you saw the previous person's screen correctly - maybe you were mistaken. The poor old woman behind you has the same item, and she is charged only $7.00. Then you realize, Walmart is using Uber's "demand" algorithm.
Wonder how long that sort of scheme would fly?
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 21 2017, @01:15PM (9 children)
Nobody knows what something should cost; nobody knows what a good deal is.
The only way to figure out these things is to engage in an iterative process, using increasingly better guesses.
This is why centralized planning NEVER works; this Universe demands evolution by variation and selection, and that's exactly the kind of process that such a demand algorithm is trying to implement.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday May 21 2017, @01:41PM (3 children)
That's quite an overgeneralization, don't you think?
Centralized planning -- at least regarding prices -- does work in many cases. In fact, the whole concept of fixed prices originated with corporate "centralized planning." The big chain stores and department stores that grew in the early 20th century couldn't deal with teaching inexperienced clerks to haggle over prices all the time. So, they hired cheaper workers and fixed prices -- more profit for all, due to the miracle of "centralized planning."
But with instant internet pricing that can be changed on a whim, there's no need for that anymore. Now an algorithm can change your price on the fly.
Anyhow, whether fixed prices are best also depends on your definition of whether planning "works." If your goal is to ensure fairness throughout your pricing system, it may actually "work" quite well. If your goal is to maximize corporate profits through any method available, it may not "work" well. Lots of consumers who end up getting worse service under the "maximum profit" metric may prefer the "fairness" metric, which is basically the whole rationale for regulation. Sure, it can often fail in various ways too, but consumers are not always irrational for demanding "centralized planning" -- it may actually "work" better for them personally.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 21 2017, @02:39PM
The underlying system (the market) is inherently decentralized; it doesn't matter that a pocket of centralization develops as a matter of efficiency—should that local centralization become dysfunctional, the whole system drops back on the underlying decentralized system (e.g., the variation and selection of competition and consumer choice), thereby allowing new, working, local pockets of centralization to replace the dysfunctional ones.
"Fairness" means nothing. It's a completely subjective notion, which is why it never works to shoehorn "fairness" into what is supposed to be an objective system. You only achieve objective reality through the negotiation of voluntary interaction, on a person-to-person basis (and, obviously, on an organization-to-organization basis, as determined by the voluntary association of individuals to organizations, etc.).
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Sunday May 21 2017, @04:18PM (1 child)
No, it didn't, actually.
It started with Quaker merchants, who made an intentional switch to fixed pricing because haggling necessarily involves dishonesty and they wished to be absolute truth-tellers. Quakers got a reputation as being extremely honest businesspeople, which enabled them to succeed in business by having the trust of those around them.
This reputation was so strong, that's why someone decided to use one as branding for oatmeal.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday May 21 2017, @05:43PM
True. I was oversimplifying the history and pointing out why the idea apparently spread, since it made transactions and bookkeeping simpler for large corporations.
Buy yes, the actual origin is with Quakers. Well, actually one can trace elements of it back through history to the Sumerians, if we really want to go there. But the popularization of the idea seems to generally be credited to John Wanamaker and H.R. Macy (the latter was a Quaker), who opened stores in Philadelphia and New York respectively with fixed-price policies. Yes, customers seemed to like the "fair dealing aspect," but business owners liked the fact that they didn't have to train clerks to haggle, it reduced time spent on transactions when business was swift, it allowed the calculation of reliable profit, and it greatly simplified bookkeeping. The idea spread because all of these things facilitated the growth of the large corporate retail industry. Individual shop owners continued to haggle for a few more generations, but large store chains couldn't be bothered with such nonsense.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 21 2017, @07:13PM (3 children)
OK then - how much is an ambulance ride worth?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 21 2017, @08:40PM (1 child)
What are you talking about? What's special about ambulance rides? The last time I had a heart attack, I did some price shopping. I couldn't use just any taxi or Uber since they wouldn't be equipped with paramedics, since seconds would matter. Once I had it narrowed down to two ambulance companies, I played them off each other and managed to get a pretty good deal after a few days of haggling.
Wait... it doesn't work that way for you? That's what you untermensch get for always needing instant gratification with amulances.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 21 2017, @09:42PM
That's the whole point of, say, subscribing to an insurance plan: You are paying people to do that kind of research for you ahead of time, and thereby provide the equivalent of the very kind of consumer selection to which you refer. Of course, it doesn't help that governments tend to quash variation in ambulance services.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 21 2017, @09:37PM
Is it Albert Einstein, or is it Jeffrey Dahmer?
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Sunday May 21 2017, @09:19PM
You obviously have a lot of time on your hands.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 21 2017, @01:50PM (1 child)
What you describe is actually black-letter law illegal. It's a felony many people don't realize.
The relevant US Code, per the Clayton Act: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/13 [cornell.edu]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 21 2017, @02:40PM
Haha, of course it is! This is one of the reasons why we can't just do away with government. Sure there is plenty of corruption and waste, but there is actually a whole lot more being done for the people than against. YMMV per country, in the US it might be hard to argue the numbers at this particular point in time, welp, the last 20-50 years anyway.
(Score: 3, Informative) by turgid on Sunday May 21 2017, @02:24PM (1 child)
When I go shopping, with a list, I know how much money I have available (my budget) and approximately how much things cost. When I go to pay, I know I've got enough money.
If they start varying the prices dynamically, when I get to the checkout, you can be sure I'll not be buying several items. That will cause inconvenience for the cashier, the other people in the queue and the shop floor staff. It will be very wasteful when applied to chilled and frozen food.
When I was a teenager, I worked in a supermarket. It was bad enough then, I can't imagine how bad things like this would make it.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday May 21 2017, @07:03PM
Haggle until the food becomes bad and then quit. Then repeat. Eventually they learn by negative economic feedback. Or that people just go shopping online.
Another example is when big markets under staff checkouts so that queues grow long. The counter move is just to drop the gods somewhere and leave the shop. Which will cost the shop work hours and lost sales.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Monday May 22 2017, @05:13PM
Clearly, everyone will become Lisp programmers. They will know the value of everything, but the cost of nothing.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!