I remember seeing this app a couple months ago and being excited about a team finally doing this. They’ve been available in New York City for a while and now they’re trying to raise money to expand to more places. Hopefully they open source the app\server in the future since it would be great to have more co-op apps for the other “gig economy” style apps.

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    102
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That’s not really a kickstarter so much as a gofundme for a business. $50 for a stress ball? $1000 for a ride in NYC? Kickstarter rewards ought to be close to the value that you’re giving, because it’s analogous to an investment. Kickstarter is not a charity fundraiser.

    Why not give credits as a reward? You’re raising capital for a business, so theoretically you should be profitable enough to pay back investors. And if not, there are no rides because there are no drivers.

    • rynzcycle@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      A Co-op Ride to anywhere you want in NYC
      $1,000

      Honestly today, this was competitive pricing against Lyft…

    • Nix@merv.newsOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It makes sense to use the kickstarter money for the development of the app/infrastructure and not to cover the costs of the kickstarter rewards. I personally think kickstarters should offer the least amount of physical rewards as possible and instead offer digital things they don’t have to worry about sourcing/shipping so the money can go to the development of the software/game/animation etc.

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Of course the money is used to invest in the startup. That’s what startup money is always used for. But typical startup capital comes from investors who expect to receive a share of the profits. Kickstarter gives startups the chance to reward “investors” in other ways, like funding an initial production run or providing rewards of similar value that don’t cost the company as much to produce. For example, an author might write an investor into the book, or a theater production might provide a VIP experience with the cast.

        Kickstarter is not a charity. They’re asking for donations. There isn’t even a digital reward, because presumably the app will be free. It’s more akin to PBS giving away tote bags to subscribers, but even those subscribers get a discount card supported by local businesses.

        The fact that they don’t understand the difference creates significant doubts regarding the competrnce and feasibility of the endeavor. I think a FOSS ride sharing app is an excellent idea, but I will not hold my breath for this one.

  • downpunxx@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Two lines from two disparate forms of art spring to mind when reading this headline :

    “they’ll be fighting in the streets with our children at our feet, and the morals that they worshiped will be gone” ~ the who

    "“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.” ~ george orwell

    • phonyphanty
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Haha, how are those quotes relevant? This just reads like nonsense to me

    • trailing9@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why? If they don’t employ other drivers and every driver is a member, everything should be fine.

    • gaael@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, in sole cities in France we have Uber Shit Eats alternatives owned by the people who make the deliveries, and it’s smooth sailing so far.

      I think it’s way better this way, because entitled/abusive customers lose a lot of the power they usually have.

        • phonyphanty
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Right, I see what you mean, so there’d be a power imbalance there. From my perspective, if drivers buddy-buddied with each other to that degree, customers would just flock back to Uber and the business would tank pretty fast. It would be more beneficial for the drivers to treat their customers well.

        • SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do you care more about the credibility of a business that you do have an ownership stake in or one you don’t have an ownership stake in?

          The drivers have a collective interest in maintaining the credibility of their app regardless of how the ownership is structured. There will be a similar management structure to ensure customer satisfaction regardless of ownership structure.

          Moreover if you’re an individual driver with an ownership stake you have a greater interest in maintaining the credibility of your business vs a business that some one else owns.

          So in theory there should be slightly greater incentive to provide good service under this structure.