this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
33 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37738 readers
481 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
rs5th@beehaw.org
Los@beehaw.org
coldredlight@beehaw.org
SemioticStandard@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social
remington@beehaw.org
33
Electric scooter company Bird files for bankruptcy (techcrunch.com)
submitted 11 months ago by Xepher@lemm.ee to c/technology@beehaw.org
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Seathru@beehaw.org 35 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I can't believe people were buying into their "franchise". They approached me in 2020 when they were trying to expand into the town I live and I had a downtown warehouse to operate out of. After they got done explaining everything, I laughed until they hung up.

You had to buy the scooters from them at around $600 each, you were responsible for all the recovery/batteries/maintenance/damage/theft caused by customers, warranty was non-existent ("call our chinese supplier and they will totally hook you up"), and after that they took 20% off the top. Some quick math put it at over 6 months before each scooter became profitable IF nothing happened to it in that time. Someone throws it in the canal just to be a dick? Sucks to be you, you're out $600 + whatever else you've put into it every time it happens.

Really came off to me that they were making their money selling to suckers who thought they were going to be entrepreneurs.

Edit: They did apparently did get someone here into it because I saw them around for a few months before disappearing completely.

[–] Silverhand@beehaw.org 18 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Good fucking riddance. I hate these things, people leave them just lying across the sidewalk all the time.

[–] luna@lemmy.catgirl.biz 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Sounds like a people problem

[–] TheKrevFox@pawb.social 14 points 11 months ago

If people are being a problem, then it's a design problem.

[–] explodicle@local106.com 8 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The business model failed to deal with people leaving scooters in the way. It was a problem in every city.

[–] luna@lemmy.catgirl.biz 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't know if I'm weird but I've always been careful to park scooters in a way that doesn't hinder others. Also never thrown a scooter in a river or kicked them over and i don't get people who have the desire to do something like that. Not trying to pat my own back by saying this but it seems to me that it is possible to have micro-rental scooter services and treat it in a way that doesn't make it a nuisance or danger to others. Don't take my scooters away just because some people don't know how to behave. Like i don't imagine banning cars universally (though reducing them and promoting foot traffic would be nice) because some people are bad drivers, instead they get policed and fined/thrown in jail. I'm probably thinking way too naive about it but i like using scooters to go short distances.

[–] explodicle@local106.com 6 points 11 months ago

IMHO it's a "negative externality" issue. Each individual saves precious seconds by leaving the scooter in the middle of the sidewalk. So a good way to internalize the cost might be to impound scooters left in the way, at the company's expense (like cars). Then the company can go through their data to determine if it was the last user's fault, or just some random jerk.

It's ultimately the company's problem, not the sidewalk-using public's problem, especially wheelchair users who can't move the scooters themselves.

(FWIW I used to charge these things as a side hustle and don't want them taken away either.)

[–] derbis@beehaw.org 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I sort of agree. These things appeared overnight in a bunch of cities. It's not surprising to me that we didn't and don't have cultural best practices around them.

There are always going to be inconsiderate people, like those who don't pick up after their dogs or don't follow traffic laws. We don't respond by getting rid of dogs and cars.

Bird, Lime, and others should have invested in acclimating the culture to the presence of the scooters, helping ensure people weren't going to react like the top level poster ("I hate these things, get rid of em.")

I personally used them when they were first out and I happened to be visiting LA. They were useful, convenient, fun, and affordable. And most of all, low-impact compared to the alternative.

It's a loss to not have something like them as a transportation option. But considering the carelessness of the approach, I suppose it wasn't long for this world. Typical silicon valley pirate stuff; "disrupt" the culture on VC dime, try to push expenses onto someone else, and try to cash out ASAP. I like them; just wish they had been done better.

[–] pbjamm@beehaw.org 9 points 11 months ago

Which is only a mild annoyance unless you are in a wheel chair. Then it is a serious one and possibly dangerous if you have to navigate into the street to bypass them.

[–] yads@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The scooters are really popular in our city. Currently we have 2 companies operating: Bird and Neuron. The positives have definitely outweighed the negatives. Hope they can keep going.

[–] acastcandream@beehaw.org 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I'm of the total opposite mindset. I love having them where I travel, and I will fight to my dying breath to keep them out of my city lol.

Before I am called a hypocrite I am totally fine with other cities keeping them out. But if they're there, I'm using them (and putting them where they belong instead of leaving them scattered everywhere like an asshole)

[–] GammaGames@beehaw.org 15 points 11 months ago (4 children)

You’re right, it’s very NIMBY sounding

[–] FlashMobOfOne@beehaw.org 3 points 11 months ago

As much as the scooters used to annoy me, the Atlanta ban demonstrated that their presence has a significant positive effect on both pollution and traffic, so now I'm fine with them.

[–] NattyNatty2x4@beehaw.org 3 points 11 months ago

Dude honestly sounds proud of being a NIMBY

[–] acastcandream@beehaw.org 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Hence why I clarified that I have no issue with them being removed. They're terrible when you're not the one using them.

It's my same outlook with cruises. I don't do them, but if my family wanted to take one I would probably join. I am also super cool with them being banned from the world. Feels pretty consistent to me lol

[–] GammaGames@beehaw.org 1 points 11 months ago

I agree that you’re consistent, that’s why I said the strong initial statement sounded hypocritical

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's not what the term means. NIMBY refers to people trying to prevent other people from using their own property in ways they don't like, not people who don't want shitty companies actively throwing trash in the commons.

[–] GammaGames@beehaw.org 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You’re wrong:

a person who does not want something unpleasant to be built or done near where they live

Another!

a colloquialism signifying one’s opposition to the locating of something considered undesirable in one’s neighborhood.

Maybe one more?

opposition to the locating of something considered undesirable (such as a prison or incinerator) in one's neighborhood

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

None of those contradict my definition.

Not wanting a company dumping fucking trash in the streets is not and does not even vaguely resemble NIMBYism.

[–] sim_@beehaw.org 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You’re omitting the part where OP is fine with the “trash dumping” in the streets of other locales. That’s what makes it NIMBY (as OP admits).

[–] acastcandream@beehaw.org 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

edit: whelp egg on my face on this one. Wasn't even directed at me.

[–] sim_@beehaw.org 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yikes dude, you’re blaming me for the reddit-esque toxicity.

I was using the other guy’s wording (“trash dumping”) specifically in quotes because I didn’t agree with that sentiment re: scooters. I’m not making any point about you, I’m talking about the use of the term NIMBYism. Dang.

[–] acastcandream@beehaw.org 1 points 11 months ago

Seemed directed at me, my bad.

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

Those certain contradict your attempt to place a weird limit on for ‘NIMBY’ can be used.

[–] bermuda@beehaw.org 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Not in your backyard huh?

[–] acastcandream@beehaw.org 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I’m fine with them in no backyards. They are corporate waste the way people treat them 90% of the time. If people were better about them (and wore helmets!!!) and the companies actually lifted a finger to keep them out of waterways and blocking sidewalks then I’d be down to have them here.

I get you were trying to cleverly call me a NIMBY but please actually read what I am writing. Including the original comment. I was very clear.