Uber is probably better than taxi services in markets that lack basic safeguarding regulations or have questionable regulations like restricted tradable taxi medallions leading to high prices. But this is not the case in many places around the world.
Uber could follow the regulations, charge approximately the same as a taxi, and still make a moderate profit. There's nothing about Uber's business model that says they have to be cheapest or have a monopoly. The only reason they choose not to do that is ambition (or greed if you're being less generous to them).
This is just Uber showing governments around the world that they're willing to leave a market entirely if they don't get their own way. Uber are betting on their customers becoming vocal opponents of the regulation and lobbying their government to change the law in order to allow Uber back without the rules, and for other governments to become fearful of enforcing their regulations in case they anger Uber's customers too. It might work. On the other hand, maybe people aren't actually that bothered about which particular ride company they use, and Uber's strategy won't work. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
In my country, Uber doesn't have a good reputation at all. People like the convenience, but that's about it. No way people are going to lobby for them.
Which is indeed the case here. Why people would prefer one to another? Cheaper, or more drivers or both. Brand? Simply don't care, and Uber at this point has a notorious one. If there is demand (from both drivers and riders), I guess it take several months short to fill in the void Uber has left there.
I think ride-hailing service is meant for local companies to excel(public relations, better communication with government and compliance with regulator), Uber simply cannot enjoy the level of monopoly Google and Facebook have, because at its heart, it is not a tech-driven business.
I also have moderate social anxiety when I'm on the phone, which is doubled when the other person is impatient or rude. And the few times I've had to call a taxi, the dispatcher has not made me feel very welcome. It's a lot nicer to be able to call a cab and not have to talk to anyone.
Ride-hailing services going back to being locally restricted companies would destroy all of that, so I'm hoping that won't be the case. I don't want to have to guess who to call, I want to put in an order and have it delivered to me. Just because Uber is a shitty company doesn't mean national ride-hailing services won't and can't work.
That's not limited to Uber. Plenty taxi companies in the EU offer that exact service through their app. All it takes is 5 minutes of web search to figure that out. It's probably a good idea to prepare a bit before entering a country you're foreign to regardless, transportation would be the first thing I'd search for.
> Just because Uber is a shitty company doesn't mean national ride-hailing services won't and can't work.
And the legislation put in place isn't preventing any of that.
This is why I use Uber. I don't have to do any of that. No stress. Just land in a country and get an Uber to my hotel. Walk out of a museum and get an Uber to my restaurant. It's easy. No thinking. THAT is why Uber is successful and those local apps can't replace that.
There's an inflection point where the "no stress" mentality goes away, and Uber might be headed there. It certainly isn't headed away from it.
I was in Germany recently and compared the fares quoted by both Uber and mytaxi apps and Uber came out to be cheaper by at least 5 euros on multiple occasions.
That's what they're doing here in Berlin and I really wonder if they make a profit, especially when the competing apps are also funded by deep pockets that don't necessarily try to make direct profits.
You may be right, but I don't think this is all as obscure as some people would like to think. That's an article that seems to recognize that many of its readers will be familiar with what I'm talking about.
Is the barrier to entry for an app-enabled personal transportation service that high?Therr are also many substitutions for the service suxh as driving one's own car, carpooling, actual ridesharing via a platform, mass transit, biking, etc. There are already open source implementations of this and ride sharing.
I apologize if this sounds misinformed, but as tech advances and platforms such as these become more mature, could we not use some of the principles established by blockchain to create a rating system that is open/transparent so that drivers and passengers can just directly transact with each other?
Personally, I like Uber/Lyft's service but I dont find the price to be a. bargain. As it is, I primarily use it for transportation if there's is a chance that I may be drinking alcohol or when parking is going to close to thr cost of a ride
Big difference though because Walmart doesn't incur a massive loss to do that.
And I suppose that certain markets are really going to be the driver of the customer's rallying cry. I have seen posts from different locales (typically major US cities) where people have said that hailing a cab is almost impossible. You call dispatch, and one might show up within the next hour. The cab driver could have stopped to pick up another fare while on the way to you.
Then there are places like my locale where Uber is present, but there isn't a need for it. My city is markedly not walkable. The surrounding neighborhoods are not walk/bike friendly. I used to live 20 minutes away from my office via bike, but I wouldn't dare attempt to ride a bike in from that house. No bike lanes, no sidewalks, so few grassy shoulders for when traffic gets up to 50 mph. The only feasibly way to bike to the city was to take an additional 15 minutes by cutting through neighborhoods. Public transportation is a joke. There aren't a ton of people here, and everyone has cars for the above reason - even if it's a late 80s junker with 300k miles. Calling a cab is not a gamble here. It just shows up.
In the other areas I first mentioned, I think Uber really did disrupt the cab industry in those markets. Cab companies had to give up their monopoly to compete with a mostly unregulated ride-sharing service.It was either fix your issues or lose to Uber. I don't think Uber has the worldwide (or even US nationwide) support to rely on it's customers. It's possible that some hubs will have champions for their cause, but I don't think Uber has that vocal customer base that it needs.
Prior to Uber, getting a taxi involved phoning a dispatcher of your preferred firm and usually get told "it will be about 30 minutes". Then ringing back after 40 minutes had passed to enquire about it and then it turns up another 10 minutes later. And then paying about £15 for a journey that costs £5-8 with Uber nowadays, depending on traffic and surge.
Nowadays taxi firms are much better about actually getting to you quickly (and when they say they will, roughly) and charging about half as much. They're still not as cheap or quick as Uber but it has definitely improved.
Nevermind problems with only accepting cash and somehow never having change...
On the other hand, it seems like Uber's necessity is confined to hubs. I use the US as an example since both I live here and the markets are very disparate. People do use Uber here. However, there was nothing to really disrupt. I still see (as far as I can tell) just as many taxis as before. It feels more like Uber is supplementing hailing services than replacing it here. And in a lot of smaller markets like mine, I feel that it is similar.
How many markets can Uber realistically snub before it starts to become an issue?
I'm on board with things that are actually done for sensible reasons (e.g. background checks for drivers in Austin) but this is too much. I'm an adult, I can choose if I want to trust Uber or not to charge fairly.
If you look at how a taxi works, I request a taxi and I pay the driver directly. Who the money I pay the driver is split is then a private deal I nor the government know nothing about nor care,
If I order an uber (for reference, I never have for I've never been anywhere that doesn't have an equally good or better taxi service) you don't pay the driver you pay uber. Uber then pays the driver and many European governments regard that relationship as one of employer and employee.
Except that greed isn't just a complicating factor to their business model; it is their business model, basically. Or more specifically -- as has been widely noted by observers; and may even be present in their own statements -- the (perceived) paramount need to obtain a globally dominant market share -- or slip quickly into irrelevance.
It's even in their name, after all: über alles. And if a few rules need to be broken -- or employees' careers/and or personal lives severely hobbled along the way -- so be it.
† A position that historically has been difficult to obtain in similar service sectors, even locally, without corruption and/or a state-enforced monopoly. But for Uber, apparently, has become a life-or-death mission to attain.
Really? Because every analysis I've seen has suggested that Uber is basically subsidizing rides with VC money until some new element (the main hope seems to be self-driving vehicles) let's them transform their business into something that could be profitable.
Taxi drivers are a vocal and recognizable faction, while on the other hand there is the nebulous concept of what benefits the average "consumer/citizen".
It makes little political sense to support the latter over the former.
I think it makes sense to advocate a level playing field and having a situation where two companies are in the same market but one is heavily regulated and the other is not is not fair or desirable. Uber could stay on the danish market, but choose not to because they will not be able to denounce all responsibility for their employees which is a central part of their business plan.
Absolutely. I think most countries in Europe have had a rigidly regulated environment for ride hauling because simply there was no real alternative, and the aim was to prevent the average Joe to start operating as an illegal taxi, with zero control on part of the authorities.
Now that Uber, Lyft are a reality, it's more than fair to require they follow regulations as the other actors in the business, but at the same time laws should be up to date to reflect the new reality.
It seems fair to me requiring that new ride haling companies can offer the same standards of quality as normal taxis, that the drivers they are properly compensated and pay taxes.
Less so that they carry "Fare Meters", when the apps themselves offer the same functionality.
Uber is only able to compete with the scammers somehow, and as they pay no tax, insurance, employment tax, social costs, etc, and use drivers accounts in the middle east for payments which probably is not a sold tax and money laundering strategy etc, it's not hard to see why.
Uber could perhaps fiddle around with map data, but the history would have to show the correct origin and destination, or it would be noticed. It's trivially easy, and free, to audit against Google maps.
I don't trust Uber to be ethical, but cheating in this space would just be corporate suicide...they would easily be caught.
When I go to a restaurant and order a 16oz steak it doesn't get weighed on a government approved scale. That's because if a restaurant rips off its customers then people will stop eating there. If Uber overcharged for rides then people would stop using them for rides.
This is textbook government overregulation.
Customer protection laws are entirely normal in lots of countries. You question the need, I question why you think it shouldn't exist?
For your example, the restaurants are checked by the government. Unhealthy restaurants get warned and eventually closed. Determining if a scale is accurate on e.g. a market is another textbook regulation.
> This is textbook government overregulation.
Seems you're arguing for having companies cheat customers. What's the benefit for a country like Denmark to allow that to happen?
We should have as few regulations as we can get away with as regulations almost inevitably get used in unintended ways with negative consequences. Incumbents use them to drive out upstart competition and increase costs for everyone.
I'd agree with you if the system was entirely open to audit.. but it isn't.
Regulated meters with security seals does provide the assurance... but i'm not saying it is a step forward.
I generally defend Uber, but some of their actions I do struggle with.
The point is that there are multiple reasons this is sensible regulation.
The other thing it mentioned is seat sensors. I'm not sure a smartphone app would be able to do this as well, and I'm guessing the reasoning is because the taxis haven't always acted in respectable ways and is a way to fight against money laundering.
It's not fool-proof of course but I trust my local taxi's meter more than I trust Uber. This varies a lot by country and city, but I'm pretty sure that taxi meters are very reliable in Denmark.
In contrast, a traditional taxi meter allows the cabbie to take a circuitous route with unsuspecting passengers. Before Uber I needed to constantly be on guard against autowales doing this to me (due to my ethnicity I'm prime ripoff target).
If the network is down, your Uber isn't going to open. Yet you can hail a cab and pay with cash (or credit/debit).
Your taxi experiences are probably very different from mine, but getting scammed by a taxi driver is very unlikely where I'm from. And in my experience everything runs like clockwork in Denmark, I'd expect the situation to be very similar there.
Taxi services across the world are very different, so your experiences might be as valid as mine. But where I'm from, Uber doesn't provide anything that a normal taxi service wouldn't.
The other comment, however, gives an actual reason to require them.
My objection to Uber: I prefer drivers who have a track record of not being drunk and not on drugs. I don't need the government to regulate that, but I would be willing to pay a premium for drivers who are willing to undergo some kind of occasional testing program for drugs/alcohol.
this is not the case in
many places around the world.
I understand why local taxi-driver lobbies are rent-seeking with anti-Uber legislation, but selflessly it aint.
If they undercharge, they get fined. If they overcharge, the tax authority gets more money.
It's almost like a bribe.
Used Uber for the rest of my vacation there and it was great.
--
I wish to refer to your complaint above.
2. The permit holder and driver of the vehicle were summoned to our office for an investigation regarding the complaint that your good self has lodged.
3. We wish to inform, the driver and the permit holder have been issued a warning letter and reprimanded not to repeat the offence again. If we receive another complaint about the same vehicle, a heavier penalty will be given to the permit holder and the driver.
4. We have also advised the owner of the vehicle to take the necessary disciplinary action on the driver regarding this complaint.
Thank You.
Yours Faithfully,
SHAHRIDAN ABDUL AZIZ --
Could just be a template who knows...
Here in Germany taximeters get checked once per year. I never heard any complaints from anyone here about taxis trying to rob you off. If I search in German for manipulated taximeters I mostly find articles that are about foreign countries.
Requiring fare meters when the price is agreed in advance is not sensible regulation.