It would be interesting to know if a lot of people are just doing things wrong that they can correct. The price of the car seems like a critical decision based on insurance and depreciation.
This is a lot worse than I thought. Last I heard Uber was subsidizing fares, and they're losing tons of money. If it's still not enough for drivers not to lose money, then the difference between what riders are paying and what the service actually costs must be immense.
It's worth noting that insurance companies require a relatively substantial fee for Uber drivers yet most of the people driving don't report being drivers to insurance companies. I am not sure if this study accounts for this.
The most interesting tidbit to me: only about 4% of the drivers keep doing it (for Uber anyway) for more than a year. Does this mean Uber requires an ever-replenished supply of fresh drivers? If so, then they might have a not-very-sunny future once there aren't as many left. Like a virus that has infected too many members of the population, who now have an immunity; not enough fresh births to keep it going.
Interesting. I've discussed this with others on HN previously. Seems this one goes toward confirming my suspicions.<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14605111" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14605111</a><p>Now the moral dillema of whether or not to continue to use these services or revert back to terribly inconvenient taxi services is really going to nag at me.
I would be interest in a deep understanding of the top performers in this system and if there was a way to optimize this. I feel like even with a median number in this study, with such a wide distribution of education, technological and business savvy, how much of the poor performance here is related to the "freedom" in the system and the lack of structure that might move the profitability needle for the drivers.