Korva is a scroll of the internet’s best ideas.
Efficiency eventually outstrips subsidy
A bigger network is a more efficient one. More drivers means faster pickups and less dead time between rides, so the price can drop without losing money. The efficiency edge starts the moment someone downloads the app: easier signup, an easier time getting a car, and a driver app that points drivers to demand all add up.
The size gap decides how long a subsidy lasts. A rival one-tenth the size spends about a tenth as much on subsidies, so it gains market share until the larger company spends ten times as much. Efficiency can cut that to seven times.
Nobody can see a rival's efficiency directly, so one way to find out is to let the competitor reach 50 percent share. At an even split, a company that holds half the market at a higher price than its rival has the more efficient system, and it can start dialing the subsidy.
Scale caps the other side. A company doing 10 billion rides a year can't subsidize two dollars a ride, because that is 20 billion dollars a year and nobody funds that. The more rides, the less subsidy per ride is possible, until the gain from being better exceeds it.
Why does a bigger network cut wait times?
Queueing theory shows that one large pool of servers handles random demand better than several small pools of the same total size. In ride-hailing, a rider's wait shortens when more drivers are nearby, and a driver's idle time shortens when more riders are nearby. Each side's gain pulls in more of the other, which economists call a two-sided network effect. The Danish engineer Agner Krarup Erlang founded queueing theory in 1909 while studying telephone exchanges.
Why do ride-hailing leads stay local?
A rider in one city gains nothing from drivers in another city. The density that cuts wait times has to be built one city at a time. A company can hold a commanding share in one metro area and a small one in the next. Economists describe this as a market that tips locally.
More from David Senra
