[KeJorn]

Rates from 11/18/13 (DFW UberX Rollout)
Base fare: $2
Per mile: $1.90
Per minute: $0.30
Minimum fare: $6
Cancellation Fee: $8

Rates from 9/11/14
Base: $1.90
Per Mile: $1.48
Per Minute: $0.19
Min Fare: $5.70
Cancellation Fee: $?

Rates from ??/??/14
Base: $0.00
Per Mile: $1.20
Per Minute: $0.19
Min Fare: $5.00
Cancellation Fee: $6

Rates from ??/??/14
Base: $0.00
Per Mile: $1.10
Per Minute: $0.17
Min Fare: $5.00
Cancellation Fee: $6

Rates from 1/12/15
Base: $0.00
Per Mile: $0.90
Per Minute: $0.15
Min Fare: $4.00
Cancellation Fee: $6

Rates from 5/20/15
Base: $0.00
Per Mile: $1.00
Per Minute: $0.15
Min Fare: $4.00
Cancellation Fee: $6

Current (as of 8/01/15)
Base: $1.00
Per Mile: $0.85
Per Minute: $0.10
Min Fare: $3.50
Cancellation Fee: $6

 

[KeJorn]

If you notice any discrepancies or anything missing, please comment.

 

[KeJorn]

I think this would be fair and workable:

Base: $1.00
Per Mile: $1.25
Per Minute: $0.25
Min Fare: $5.00
Cancellation Fee: $7.00

 

[KeJorn]

Rates where your question marks are should be $1.20 per mile not a $1.10

Do you know the dates?

I distinctly recall it going to $1.10 for a period JUST before it dropped to $0.90.
I also recall $5 as the minimum fare for longer than that history shows..
However I cannot find emails or anything to confirm.

 

[KeJorn]

Here are some examples from my past driving to gauge rates.
(I chose examples without tolls or surges to help discern the rates - though some of the earlier statements do not show surges separately)

DATE July 2, 2014
uberX
TIME 3:31PM
DURATION 7:49
MILES 2.68
FARE $8.36

DATE August 15, 2014
uberX
TIME 4:10PM
DURATION 18:20
MILES 4.78
FARE $11.55

DATE October 25, 2014
uberX
TIME 10:48PM
DURATION 6:33
MILES 2.03
FARE $5.00 << (minimum fare)

DATE October 25, 2014
uberX
TIME 1:09AM
DURATION 12:37
MILES 4.94
FARE $9.07

DATE November 1, 2014
uberX
TIME 1:44AM
DURATION 19:30
MILES 6.01
FARE $11.54

DATE November 15, 2014
uberX
TIME 12:13AM
DURATION 12:31
MILES 7.04
FARE $11.57

 

[KeJorn]

Here's an interesting comparison
(neither had surges, though a $2 airport tolls would have applied to the July 2014 one)

DATE July 2, 2014
uberX
TIME 4:00PM
DURATION 25:42
MILES 18.77
FARE $35.56

DATE August 25, 2015
uberX
TIME 11:36PM
DURATION 40:58
MILES 33.03
FARE $36.67

Just over 1 year later and we have to drive nearly twice the distance for the same fare.

 

[KeJorn]

I think this would be fair and workable:

Base: $1.00
Per Mile: $1.25
Per Minute: $0.25
Min Fare: $5.00
Cancellation Fee: $7.00

Someone else made a good point.
Uber should set the cost higher for standard use, and offer discounted rates during certain periods.
That way riders who wanted to save money, would have to request an Uber during those discounted periods or opportunities, instead of bringing the overall quality of the service down. That is how most businesses operate - sales are temporary, not perpetual. Quality over quantity.
With Uber, everything is upside down - quantity over quality.

 

[KeJorn]

One of the reasons is their marketing of their product sucks.

Well, they clearly have marketing down in comparison to Lyft.
And their brand has become a verb. "Did you uber to the airport?"
So from a marketing / name recognition standpoint, they understand marketing.
They just have a business model and managerial attitude that is very short sighted.
They offload the burden onto the drivers in a way that erodes the driver's ability to provide the same level of quality, and thereby undermine trust in their vision and brand. They are essentially shooting themselves in the foot and seem unaware of it (or as their management have effectively stated, they don't care - because they can do whatever they want.)

 

[KeJorn]

Th
There is a difference between name brand & increasing your revenue thru new customers. Look at the metroplex...bulk of the riders in Dallas. Drivers in suburbs having to drive to areas that are busy. Uber never talks about their new ridership in numbers. Having constant churn of drivers lowers the quality of their product. Ubers marketing..lowering pricing to increase ridership in turn lowering their revenue.

I agree with what you are saying.

Just keep in mind, how much Uber brings in per trip is less of an issue for Uber and more of an issue for us drivers.
Either way they are still bringing in solid revenue, because they have nearly zero overhead difference whether 1 million or 50 million riders are using Uber.
Drivers bear the burden of higher operating costs (gas), maintenance, and depreciation from driving more trips and longer miles to get the same paycheck.
Now, granted, Uber is apparently losing millions every month, but I doubt it is due to them lowering prices.
Instead, it is more likely from their legal snafus all around the world, etc.

 

[KeJorn]

There is a difference between name brand & increasing your revenue thru new customers. Look at the metroplex...bulk of the riders in Dallas. Drivers in suburbs having to drive to areas that are busy. Uber never talks about their new ridership in numbers. Having constant churn of drivers lowers the quality of their product. Ubers marketing..lowering pricing to increase ridership in turn lowering their revenue.

I agree with what you are saying.

Just keep in mind, how much Uber brings in per trip is less of an issue for Uber and more of an issue for us drivers.
Either way they are still bringing in solid revenue, because they have nearly zero overhead difference whether 1 million or 50 million riders are using Uber.
Drivers bear the burden of higher operating costs (gas), maintenance, and depreciation from driving more trips and longer miles to get the same paycheck.
Now, granted, Uber is apparently losing millions every month, but I doubt it is due to them lowering prices.
Instead, it is more likely from their legal snafus all around the world, etc.

A good example of whether this is true - consider the fact Uber DFW just opened several new offices around the metroplex, including Allen, Fort Worth, and Denton.
Companies (esp tech companies) do not generally setup more brick and mortar offices (especially since the staff in those offices are not direct income producers, like the drivers are.), if their revenue stream is suffering. Quite the opposite usually. I do not think they are suffering at all from basic revenue based on their 20% cut of our driving. Not even after lowering prices.

 

[KeJorn]

http://diginomica.com/2015/08/10/three-red-flags-when-cloud-startups-lose-money/#.Vd9L_lI8Kc0

Interesting article. Still digesting, though it seems to support what I have said about where their money losses are.

One thing I found a bit incompatible, is the fact the article is comparing the likes of Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Yahoo to Uber... yet unlike those other four, Uber from the start HAS actual sales and 'revenue from real-world activities'...
Granted, he acknowledges this and goes on to say, "So long as the burn rate can be controlled or eliminated, the views of investors become immaterial", yet Uber DOES appear to cater more to investors than their own 'salesforce' of drivers; it seems pretty clear we are expendable and they do it "because they can". Uber has mentioned that it plans an IPO in the next year and a half.

It's pretty clear that Uber has sufficient revenue to maintain a 'slow burn'.
And while it does not seem they are spending lavishly, they are certainly spending a LOT on market dominance.
"Geoffrey Moore showed a long time ago why rapid growth is important for innovative products. It's all about seizing market dominance so that buyers will choose your product or service over the also-rans in the market."

That is definitely what Uber is doing and why they are spending so much time, energy, and money to overcome the legal, legislative, and political obstacles necessary to enter each market across the globe. Esp China, where they have strong competitors using some of the same tactics as Uber. Uber sees that market as larger than the US, so they seem very aggressive in trying to establish their dominance there.

Clearly Uber understands marketing and has chosen ultra low pricing as part of a specific 'market dominance' strategy, however you would think once their brand name became a verb in the vocabulary of the general public, that they had achieved a significant amount of dominance over nearly every other competitor. Yet instead, Uber remains in this ultra-aggressive mode... like they are still at war with an enemy they already triumphed over. It would make sense in markets they have yet to breach sufficiently (such as China and even some cities in the US or Europe)... however they remain in that mode across the board and unfortunately, it means we are still expendable and along for the ride if we chose to 'partner' with them.

 

[KeJorn]

Uber and the second great tech bubble http://t.co/pXSQSHqxq1

This gave me a chuckle, though I suppose it is technically correct:
"By 2011, much of that wealth was gone, lost as the stock markets corrected themselves, as they have done for hundreds of years."

Belgium's first stock exchange (Antwerp): 1531
London's stock exchange: 1773
New York Stock Exchange: 1792

 

[KeJorn]

Uber and the second great tech bubble http://t.co/pXSQSHqxq1

"As it is, Uber's venture capital burn rate is staggering: the company is burning millions a day paying fines, legal bills for its drivers, battling court cases, and even trying to stop South Korea ordering their Chief Executive Officer be arrested and extradited to the country because Uber, surprise!, breaks local laws.

Disruption is one thing, but running a company that breaks laws nearly everywhere it goes is not a sustainable business model."


YEP.

Travis wants to be both a pioneer and an outlaw.
Maybe he listened to this song and took it to heart...

Long live the pioneers
Rebels and mutineers
Go forth and have no fear

Delusions of grandeur?