It appears that Lyft, the hail-by-smartphone car service that last year earned $1 billion in revenue, wants to be the Netflix of ride-sharing.
Last month, the San Francisco-based company announced it would continue testing its All-Access plan, a monthly subscription service for rides. The service, first made available to a select group of customers in March, charges an upfront monthly price of $200 to secure $15 off 30 rides. The price represents a savings of $250, assuming a customer takes a set of 30 $15 rides per month.
Price discounting in pursuit of market share is nothing new, but it’s a curious move for Lyft, a company that positions itself as a feel-good, socially minded brand. The deep discount not only conflicts with the warm, fuzzy image that Lyft has cultivated, it also endangers its relationship with customers.
Si se otorgaran premios a la terminología comercial más de moda, sin duda la cadena de bloques o blockchain sería candidata. Después de todo, es una de las tecnologías más promocionadas en Silicon Valley y más allá.
Y, sin embargo, pese a tanto revuelo, la promesa y el potencial de la cadena de bloques -tecnología en la que se basan las criptomonedas, como el bitcoin- no se comprenden del todo. Hasta la fecha, solo se hicieron unos pocos estudios sobre el tema y, según una encuesta hecha el año pasado por Deloitte, casi el 40% de los altos ejecutivos afirma tener escaso o ningún conocimiento del modo en que funciona la cadena de bloques.
En un nivel básico, la tecnología de cadena de bloques permite que una red de computadoras llegue, a intervalos regulares, a un consenso sobre el estado verdadero de un registro descentralizado. Ese registro contiene diversos tipos de datos compartidos, como registros de transacciones, atributos de transacciones, credenciales u otra información. Read More »
I’m a huge fan of Uber and use its services all the time. Still, I can’t deny it’s been a tough couple of weeks for Uber. A blog post by a woman employee who credibly seems to be claiming sexual harassment and retaliation for making those claims was widely covered in the media. Days later, a video that showed the CEO arguing vehemently with an Uber driver about rates went viral. Plus, revelations about “grey-balling” — preventing certain people from accessing the Uber system — put the company in an unfavorable light with a number of different stakeholders.
Last week, Amazon acquired Whole Foods in a move that has many wondering what this means for the direction of the economy. In my view, Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods does to organics what Uber did to the sharing economy: it takes something that was born out of a different economic logic (a grocery store dedicated to healthy food) and then molds and morphs it to fit into an economic operating system that is firmly based in the old paradigm—i.e. in a paradigm that aims for world domination rather than serving a goal of shared prosperity and well-being for all.
In this post, inspired by a number of gatherings with change makers across sectors in China, Europe, and the Americas during the past few weeks, I outline a framework for understanding how the current limits of capitalism we are bumping up against in sectors such as food, finance, health, education and business are all related to the same outdated economic logic or “operating system” (OS). We need a new economic operating system, one that reinvents how we work together as neighbors, as businesses, as cities and as larger systems. Below I describe briefly the evolution of these five sectors from OS 1.0 to where we are today, which in most cases is OS 2.0 or 3.0.
The pressing challenges of our time, i.e. the challenge of losing our environment (ecological divide), our societal whole (social divide), and our humanity (spiritual divide) calls for reinventing our systems of food, health, education, finance and management towards 4.0. This essay lays out the rationale for OS 4.0 and a possible way to get us there through an Asian-American-European initiative called 4.0 Lab.
Five Sectors, One Problem
As the labels of the new economy have gone mainstream (green, organic, sharing economies) the underlying economic reality stays the same. That is to say, the immense buying power of giants like Amazon squeeze the supply chain, workers, farmers, and the planet through the same patterns of exploitation and structural violence that gave rise to the movement for a new economy in the first place.
On one level you could describe the problem by saying that companies like Amazon and Uber misperceive the new economy as just another app that runs on their old corporate operating system (i.e. world domination through economies of scale). In reality, though, the new economy is not just another app—it’s a radical upgrade of their entire operating system. The difference between the old and the new paradigms can be summarized in three words: ego vs. eco. Ego-system awareness means “me first”, while eco-system awareness means an awareness that focuses on the well-being of all.
There is a profound systemic barrier that exists in all major sectors today. It’s not only the mainstream players like Amazon and Uber that are stuck in their current economic operating systems; many of the innovators who once broke through that model are now also stuck. The global food system is still profoundly destructive. The health system is still sick. The educational system is unable to learn. The global financial system is heading full throttle into the next crash—as if 2008 never happened. Foundations and philanthropists still place their assets in the old economy, thereby harming people and planet, in order to use some of the profits to fund projects that alleviate symptoms but don’t deal with root causes. The innovators in all these spaces are stuck in the niches that first gave them space to develop something new. But now these niches are increasingly crowded, and mainstream players adopt the new labels and sound bites while often perpetuating the old models.
We hope you enjoy the latest installment of the MIT Sloan Experts Podcast series!
The third in our series of MIT Sloan Experts podcasts features Chris Knittel, professor of applied economics at MIT Sloan, talking about his latest research on racial bias in the ride-sharing industry.
Knittel’s research focuses on how Uber and Lyft are failing black passengers and what to do about it. Listen to this brief podcast and find out how Knittel came to his conclusions, what his findings say about drivers who cancel on customers with names that generally indicate they are a person of color, and what takeaways Uber and Lyft can garner from these findings to improve.