Everyone used Uber mostly, and then they announced Lyft is the only approved one. Not sure why that decision was specifically made when majority were expensing Uber trips
I tried Uber's Concur integration once, but our accounting people didn't like that I had a receipt in my expense report without a hardcopy... I ended up needing to print out the email receipt so someone else could scan it in.
Preferred supplier relationships are common in corporate America, for example "all employees fly United unless United doesn't go there," or "all employee car rentals are with Avis unless Avis doesn't serve that airport," or "all employee computers are HP unless there is a special exception," etc.
State reason (by HR department) for not using Uber: risk of being raped.
Apparently not a problem with Lyft though, so that's good news?
"Unlimited free construction paper for use as toilet paper! Our gift to you! Take as much as you please!"
Even so, tell me again which is actually the crappy toilet paper in this comparison...
I use Lyft primarily because of the grossly offensive scandals surrounding Uber, I'm talking even from the early days when execs were caught bragging about threatening journalists, to sex abuse, to lying to everyone about their 6 blown red lights in a single week during self driving AI testing in SF. The services do the same thing, almost exactly; Uber's track record might as well be the deciding factor.
So Uber has definitely won in that department - all they have to do is not screw it up (any worse than they already did).
People will forget, and over time that name recognition will give them back the market share.
The only downside I can come up with is that "taxiing to" is more awkward to say than "ubering to". As Calvin says, though, "Verbing weirds language."
ps. I take Lyft 99 % of the time, for years already. Every industry needs an underdog to keep the big guys on their toes. In particular shady ones.
You don't need any sort of 'black ops' when your competitor is busy generating their own bad headlines. Instead you just call up your journalist connections every time Uber does something stupid to make sure they saw it.
Once the dust settles, it will be interesting to see whether Lyft is as innocent as everyone presumes.
The most critical outlets are those with one of those two as investors.
Pando Daily: Andreessen has 8% ownership https://pando.com/about/
Buzzfeed: A16Z invested $50m in Buzzfeed https://techcrunch.com/2014/08/10/buzzfeed-raises-50-million...
Business Insider: Andreessen participated in the Venture Series, Series B and Series D https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/business-insider#/en...
More neutral/balanced outlets like Recode and TechCrunch don't have either as investors. Recode for example was the only media company that mentioned the death of Travis' mother as a primary motivation for taking leave of absence. The less balanced sources above barely mentioned that "detail" at the bottom of the articles on that matter.
A16Z did Lyft's $60m Series C: https://www.crunchbase.com/funding-round/3b6daa9a-7bb9-d7de-...
Edit: amp link is paywalled too
> The reports of Uber's impending death are greatly exaggerated. - Mark Twain
[0] https://archive.fo/Q0gkJ/595ad70474d05aa1f7b15600fe5ccec2f25...
Why should they compete internationally?
From what I can see, international competition is wildly unprofitable, subject to the whims and vicissitudes of local politicians, and subject to local competition who understand their market far better than any foreign firm.
Perhaps not 100% accurate, but not 100% fake either.
I wonder why Gett is not figured in there.
https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/htt...
