The Black Car Company That People Love to Hate

Perfectly reasonable in my opinion.

ah yes, Russia, the shining example of libertarian utopia.

That's a lot of "eventually." Uber is a software company that runs cabs, basically. Their competitors - the old school, that is - are cab companies who are now faced with the challenge of writing good software. The track record in general of industries where long-established players find that they have to become software companies and put out a polished product there, in addition to whatever they were already doing, suggests to me that the timeline for old-school cab companies putting out an app that doesn't look like total garbage next to Uber's, is likely to extend so far out that it might as well be never. They may turn around and subcontract the work of creating and maintaining the app, but that has its own problems that we're all familiar with.

Uber exists, primarily, because the slick apps didn't work. Taxi Magic, for example, was out years before Uber. It failed because taxi drivers, frankly, don't give a shit about dispatch. They just pick someone else up on the way.

If Taxi drivers had simply been willing to pick people up who call into dispatch (or book via Taxi Magic), Uber probably wouldn't exist.

Better accountability than normal cab companies.

Recently a (one of many) Swedish cab company had one of their more islamic drivers throw out a gay couple. Nothing has happened. No one got fired, no head rolled, nothing on Twitter.

Now imagine if a Uber driver did that....

Well, one advantage is having any competition at all. The taxi market has been so badly broken for so long that just being able to introduce new drivers and companies results in lower prices and better service all around.

Not so much. The main selling points for me:

* no money exchange in the car * tip is decided and built-in * cleaner more comfortable cars * polite and professional-acting drivers

I get none of these from 99% of cabs. And even UberX is superior to the average cab experience.

The app is nice, but if the service sucked it wouldn't be enough to convince me to use Uber.

I've had Uber drivers say not to bother using the app at LAX. They need to get a separate permit from airport officials to pick up the passenger, so it's at minimum a ~30 minute ordeal to arrange pick-up.

Uber isn't right for every use-case; especially pick-ups from regulated areas where taxi stands are already prevalent.

I always use Uber when arriving at SFO now. I know the pricing ahead of time (Uber does flat-rate between SF and SFO). I don't have to worry about having cash on me or getting a disapproving glare when I ask about using a credit card. I don't have to even think about calculating a tip. If my driver is rude or unsafe or anything negative, I have an easy avenue to report that without having to make a phone call, wait on hold for who knows how long, and then push my complaint into the black hole. If I'm especially tired and want to treat myself, I can order an Uber Black instead of an UberX. Hell, most UberX cars are nicer than most cabs I've seen.

The only downside is that there's a short wait if I don't time the ride request just right. Since there are tons of taxis at the airport, I wouldn't have to wait taking a taxi. But the above more than makes up for this point.

Uber has higher-quality cars and you get to rate the drivers so they tend to be a little more polite and professional. Not that taxis can't have high-quality cars and drivers but it's more of a crap shoot.

Well, the author's "palm-to-head moment" was going TO the airport. But even getting picked up at the airport can be a bit nicer in a town car. No line, no wondering if they take credit card, no dirty car, no tip, etc.

The thing is the alternative to the "gouging" isn't "lower priced rides for everyone", it's "most people can't get a hold of a cab no matter how badly they want one".

The "gouging" has three big effects: (1) More drivers willing to deal with the weather for the increased pay, so more people can get out of the storm; (2) A (highly imperfect) way to prioritize the people who most want/need the service. A person who really, really, really needs to move quickly has a way to credibly express that preference over someone who would kind of like an Uber, but could do without - by being willing to pay the higher rate. (3), or course, is more money for Uber. (1) and (2) are very good things, and I'm indifferent to (3).

"Gouging" is generally only a thing when there's a monopoly, which Uber doesn't have on transportation. People can look up Uber rates and decide if it's still worth it to them to go Uber or take something else.

(See http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/20/u...)

Regulated cab companies simply sold out during the snowstorm -- there were more people asking for rides, and fewer drivers willing to drive.

Uber's approach solved both problems: filter down the list of ride requests to those who really need to go, and provide an incentive for drivers to drive during the really nasty weather.

Uber is a luxury good, and the price floats with supply/demand. There's nothing wrong with that, and no one is entitled to use their service.

I got hit by a price modifier during my last trip using Uber, but I didn't (and still don't) think gouging is the right word. I figure it's supply and demand modifier. They can't change supply, but demand has gone up for some reason (storms, in your scenario and mine, actually). Some people aren't willing to pay more, so it curbs demand, while incentivizing drivers who may not wish to drive in inclement weather to stay out. Of course, it's really just taking advantage of a situation to Uber's benefit, but I still think "gouging" is too strong of a word for it.

Have you tried getting a regular cab ride during a snowstorm? At the beginning of this year it took me three hours to get a cab after Boston got a few inches of snow.

You have 10 cars and 20 customers that want them. If you think you can write a "who really needs it" algorithm that, I dunno, asks them if they're going to visit their sick grandmother and then has a human balance that against getting to class on time or something, then by all means make that product.

In the meanwhile, price is the way the rest of the world works.

I will accept Uber's argument when they zero their own commission (or perhaps lower it to whatever it costs to keep the lights on) whenever surge pricing is in effect. Then they have the ability to say, "we're also suffering here". Right now, they make more money when surge pricing is in effect and, since I don't have a view into the algorithms, I can't rule out that they more aggressively surge-price than is reasonable. In fact, I'd believe it to be almost certain that they do.

It's the fact that Uber profits from misfortune (not surge pricing itself) that is making everyone hate them.

Ultimately it's about trade-offs, not absolutes. Is that 5x price hike saving me (compared to how long getting a cab would take) two hours, or 20 seconds? That would be worth knowing. If it's 2 hours, the supply-and-demand argument makes sense: apparently, that's how high the rates must go to compensate drivers for the unpleasantness. If it's 20 seconds, then that's a case of me getting screwed for a minor convenience priced unreasonably.