Many Uber drivers are great people! I know a bunch, I know how they have been screwed. The costs are never upfront. The Driving rarely lasts as people eventually get taken out by upkeep expenses, waiting for fares, and lost values in vehicles.
I agree, but there are base rules in most markets, which is why AB5 exists.
For example, an upstart McDonalds-like chain that uses App-ordering could charge much less for a burger if they paid $3 an hour. Consumers would obviously choose this chain if tyhe product is still good as it is much much cheaper. (Capitalism obviously doesn't have a conscience.) For this reason, we have minimum wage laws and (somewhat as a hack, I don't agree with the rules) health care mandates for employers, to create fair and legal playing fields to ensure that businesses' are taking action to better the economy and the American people.
I suppose a universal point I am trying to state here is: Corporations exist to better the people. Wouldn't it be overall more efficient if the the company paid fairly and the people who work for that company don't have to then request funds from the government? This ensures competition is possible by setting a floor on the race to the bottom costs.
Lyft and Uber are favored due to convenience and price. Nothing stops a regulated Uber that pays fair wages from convenience...but the price paid will have to become higher to support people.
This is like McDonald's paying workers $3 an hour, charging $2 for a value menu meal, and then people saying 'wow, McDonald's has made Burger King obsolete!'. Of course customers will prefer the cheaper service that screws workers and does not pay fairly, but (some) workers will work it because it's their only choice.
Nothing is stopping a regulated Uber/Lyft from doing this without underpaying workers. Minimum wage laws exist for a reason, after standard IRS tax deductions Uber and Lyft pay WAY under minimum wage.
You mean, overcrowding a market with underpaid positions, sold with lies and marketing to make them sound better than they are, to force people with full time jobs out of work so that people could get a ride in a vehicle with no safety, security, (or originally) background verification while doing all they could to cheat regulations, driver and user privacy, tax laws, climate change, and eventually, now, rent-seek, to boost stock prices to pad Vegas parties and investor portfolios.
Modern ride sharing is not sustainable, environmentally friendly, or a 'job' and this doesn't exempt the bad behaviors by taxi companies, but understand this is the end destination of capitalism invading a regulated economy.
This would be a positive force as it would reduce overcrowding of the local market and ensure work and pay for drivers. The Uber and Lyft driver pool is too large for reasonable pay for demand by nature. Something really important in an economy, is security of work and pay. For those who are on the schedule they can depend on their job to be able to live. For those who would not be on the schedule (due to demand) That would obviously be a massive unemployment issue but that was always the cost of regulating Uber.
Uber/Lyft does not exist to help the economy or the people of the US, they exist to help themselves. Otherwise they would charge and pay a working wage.
'Ridesharing' (Which is a hilarious term for the simple fact that the ride is not being shared, the driver is not intending to go to your favorite bar. ) isn't a 21st century situation or solution.
It's not a profitable or a good force in an economy, it does not pay a reasonable wage for anyone to live on, it is not environmentally friendly unless done in large quantities of people,(which is called a bus).
Ridesharing exists to profit Uber/Lyft investors and management and is successful due to lower pricing than is sustainable. It is built on the back of loopholes in the law to use and abuse working class people and to lie about the true costs and profits.
The bill's exceptions exist to split apart reality from this subsidized artificial market (There are exemptions in most laws, purely due tot he idea that things are complex, by nature)
I see this as an attempt to make the Gig Economy pay all workers fairly in addition to healthcare costs and to put the onus on the company rather than their taxes. This would force Uber and Lyft to limit the number of drivers in an area by cost and profits, to deny those they cannot pay fairly. Uber currently may give you 100 rides a day or 1, you don't know which and you cant depend on it nor if you cant drive can get unemployment.
The hard problem is contracting work is not a known reality for most, they don't understand the costs. Dressing it up in pretty fonts and Ads makes it much like the alcohol or tobacco industries, you don't know the danger until you are very invested and nobody is there to save you.
That and people want brightness. The legacy MBA that set that benchmark had like a 250nit display. Now the 400nit model on the new MBA is seen as 'dark'. The iPhone 11 Pro nears 1000 nits.
It's Bloomburg so take commentary with a grain of salt. There's no one reason as much as a lot of great ones. Their own CPUs are far more power efficient, especially with light loads but notably they have wider power controls that allow for much lower 'low wattage' use. So Battery life will get better. Then you have performance, even assuming they were not moving to 5nm you would be looking at i9-destroying performance from the 8 firestorm cores, each on their own able to beat single-core performance from an i9. And that's before you think about the fact that the IceStorm cores can run full throttle with FireStorm. This laptop is going to have hilarious benchmark numbers. Think iPhone SE for the PC market.
Then cost is the huge one. Obviously it allows them to move down-market or up the per-unit profit while reducing iPhone CPU R&D costs on paper.
This is why they will gladly sell you a cellular Apple watch. I actually laughed at the comparison of strapping the phone to your arm because it was so obvious.
I'm just saying that the SE would have sold better or people would have been more upset about the discontinuation, or the Xperia compact line would have sold well...but people want a big screen. It's proven by the market. I'm not saying there isn't a market for a small phone, I'm just saying that there is a much bigger market for a larger phone. (and the original comment claimed the design wasn't popular because it wasnt 4/5 sized) The companies are not idiots out there, all of them went to larger phones because the majority of people prefer them. (Notably the older crowd with worse vision that came onboard to smartphones in the early 2010s and the crowd that got addicted to apps.) I loved my 5S back in the day but the larger screen is much better when you actually use it in depth.
Give it a little more credit than that, it's a pretty tight LCD that has better effective (observed) DPI than it might appear to have. (As OLED displays take a hit due to the Pentile arrangement) 326PPI in an IPS LCD with HDR isn't nearly as blurry 720P might sell it to be. The iPhone 11 is well reviewed despite similar agreement. Plus chopping the pixel count comes with battery gains. No surpises here.
> I don't understand why other ARM CPU makers don't come up with comparable CPUs.
This is like asking why other rocket companies don't just build rockets this year that are reusable like SpaceX's.
Apple's CPUs are so fast because they have the best internal engineering team on earth paired with the best Fab (TSMC 7nm) money can buy. They buy out the entire production run from that Fab.
These CPUs are the most advanced and best designed in the world because they worked so hard to get here years ago.
It's like asking why other runners don't just run as a fast as Usain Bolt.
Of course 4/5 fans wouldn't like it. They are a hilariously small and vocal minority.
This is the most popular selling smartphone design in history. It's no secret that the market back in 2013 was begging for a larger screened phone and this design delivered it in a big way. It's also much smaller than current flagships.
Of course there are current examples, but in general the scale is not large at all on phones. Less than 1% of sales. Being first doesn't mean anything if it doesn't sell, being the majority of sales is a much different world.
I'm referring to the 2020 iPhone Pro and the Galaxy S20 both being rumored to have 120Hz displays, massive changes in the market.