Comment by harmmonica

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

Can it be both? Maybe semantics, but a lot of folks are taking Waymo because there's no human driver. Now "no human driver" may now be considered "premium," but saying that automation is not a significant factor doesn't quite ring true. As a single point of reference, the automation is a big part of what makes it attractive to me as a rider, both because there's no human driver (not super critical to my experience, but I prefer being in the car solo) and, more importantly, because of the driving behavior; it just feels like a better driver than most drivers on the road and that's due to the automation.

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.

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)

You need to enable it on your account.

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.

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.

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.

The business was in the wrong, so unless they rectify and refund my money I wouldn't use their platform again anyway.

“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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

It varies a lot by country.

In my experience in west europe, booking a uber XL you usually get a full size van (vw caravelle/multivan, Mercedes v-class or a bigger Renault Trafic) with usually 7 to available seats.

Booking a uberXL in Mexico City gets you a miniSUV with only 4 available seats and if you get too much checked luggage it goes on a roof rack.

search "mifold grab and go booster" on amazon

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.

My core concern was the amount charged differed greatly than the amount quoted by not by any intra-route traffic or temporary circumstance, and it was the same percentage across all three rides. This also occurred in 3 different parts of the U.S. during the same few months.

Additionally, these municipal fees are fixed so if that were the case, Uber would know about them in advance, be label them as such, and/or fold them into the quoted price.

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

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

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?

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

Agreed. I want van.

> 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.

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.

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

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

Here's how that review works at the online seller of downloadable software accompanied by an online service that I do some work for.

1. A customer asks for a chargeback.

2. Their card company notifies us and asks for proof the charge is legitimate (e.g. made by the customer and what they ordered was delivered). For proof the charge was made by the customer the card company wants us to fax them a copy of the receipt that the customer signed, which of course does not exist. We also can't really prove delivery--I've yet to see a credit card company that will accept download logs showing that someone later downloaded the software from the same IP address that the order was placed from. Since we can't really dispute the chargeback it is approved.

Even when it should be obvious from the credit card company's own records that the charge is legit they want to see that signed receipt. E.g., if the customer bought a monthly subscription 2 years ago and we've been successfully charging them every month since then, and now they suddenly ask for a chargeback on their most recent charge claiming they don't recognize the charge and have never heard of is or bought any service from us the credit card company doesn't consider all those past undisputed charges as relevant.

That's not quite willy nilly but it is leaning that way for things that are entirely online.

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

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

[delayed]

First, thank you to share you first-hand experiences. This is one of the best features of HN discussions.

I promise that I am not trolling with these follow-up questions:

Have you ever ridden in a "super car" (Ferrari, etc.) that also has very fast accel/braking? Do you experience the same?

If a Tesla driver just drove a bit less aggressively, would you not get car sick? Did you ever try "FSD" on a Tesla on regular streets? Is the accel/braking still strong enough to make you feel car sick?

I ask all of these question honestly. If I was an electric car maker, I would definitely be concerned about it. To me, it fits the same problem of VR headsets where some people get "VR sick" (like car sick) when using them. They probably spend an enormous amount R&D trying to reduce this effect to a minimum for as many people as possible.

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 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.

"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?"

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.

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.

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.

Have you ever used a Waymo?

these tales are generally the apocryphal dreams of suburbanites. the uber driver would have pulled a gun on you?

i’m sorry but i grew up in urban America, nobody is mugging people under an account tied to their name/DL

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.