4 ms·

I use Uber a good amount (~10x a month) and while I like the service I just don't see why everyone is so impressed with the company. Let's consider what people

by habosa 11y ago

I use Uber a good amount (~10x a month) and while I like the service I just don't see why everyone is so impressed with the company. Let's consider what people like about Uber: "It's so much more convenient to use an app than a taxi dispatch" - totally true. The taxi industry was definitely lazy. But now most Uber markets also have a competitor to dispatch a taxi by phone (Flywheel, etc). "The drivers are not (jerks|unsafe|scary|etc)" - at this point half of the smart taxi drivers have gone to Uber, there's not much of a difference in driver quality. I think the real thing that nobody else can do that Uber does is sell you a cheap ride. Uber is cheaper than a taxi in almost every city (30% in my experience). If taxis were 10% cheaper than Uber, I'd go to Flywheel immediately. How did they achieve this low price? Simple: by ignoring laws, not paying for expensive regulations, and passing more costs on to the driver. This is not impressive to me. I could think of 10 industries that could easily be 'disrupted' if you add the rule 'You're allowed to ignore all existing laws and regulations'. I could provide you with a $20 massage ... assuming you don't want a licensed massage therapist. How about a $10 light repair ... assuming you don't want a real electrician. You might respond: "but habosa, who cares? You're getting a good ride at a lower price with more convenience". My frustration comes from the precedent this sets. Uber says that if you have enough VC funding, you can make lawbreaking and regulatory blindness a central pillar of a billion-dollar company. There are a lot of people who have invested in credentials such as taxi medallions (or the equivalent in other industries) because they didn't have a hundred million dollars of VC funding to shake off the lawsuit. And some Uber-like company can come into their space and instantly devalue their investment. I don't believe the ends justify the means because soon there will be an Uber we don't like, and there will be nothing we can do about it.

fineman 11y ago
> How about a $10 light repair ... assuming you don't want a real electrician. Well damn right, if all I want is a bulb replaced I don't want some jerk insisting it takes a ticket to read the spec on the bulb. I want liability insurance for the driver, etc, but all the value-adds that Taxi companies claim to have (see posts in this thread) aren't, to me. I want to the freedom to choose any qualified driver.
silverlake 11y ago
> "The drivers are not (jerks|unsafe|scary|etc)" - at this point half of the smart taxi drivers have gone to Uber, there's not much of a difference in driver quality. Totally not my experience. Somehow Uber's rating system has coerced gonzo taxi drivers into sane drivers w/ good customer service. That's the real disruption, IMHO.
- habosa 11y ago
  I would say that the average Uber driver is, as you said, better than the average taxi driver. But I have a few counterpoints: 1) That's a good argument to adding a rating system to taxis, not trashing the industry entirely. 2) I bet if taxis were much cheaper than an Uber a lot of people would go for the cheaper ride over the better one. Sort of like how UberBlack is so much less popular than UberX.
karmacondon 11y ago
I was in complete agreement with you until the last sentence. "An Uber we don't like" probably won't happen because if people don't like a service, they won't use it. An unpopular business can rarely force itself on customers. And it seems that the same is true of Uber itself. It's possible that the existing laws and regulations aren't necessary. People seem to be able to conduct themselves properly without being licensed and bonded. I consistently hear more good things than bad things about Uber, and all of my personal experiences have been positive. Whatever they're doing, it's working. The same might not be true for an electrician or a massage therapist. As much as I hate to say it (deep breath), the Free Market seems to be sorting this out just fine. I'm not going full libertarian and suggesting we conduct social experiments with the FDA or the fire department. But in some cases, maybe the best way to figure out which regulations are really necessary is to ignore them and see what happens.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > It's possible that the existing laws and regulations aren't necessary. Who gets to decide that? Should I get to break the law because I have $40 billion and want to? > People seem to be able to conduct themselves properly without being licensed and bonded. Do you have any data?
- habosa 11y ago
  By an "Uber we don't like" I mean "an uber that comes into your industry" (or an industry of your family members, etc). As far as The Free Market, I agree 100% that Uber provides a good service. However I feel bad for the people who made investments in the taxi industry by following the law and then had those investments completely devalued by a lawbreaker with good PR. A ton of america's certifications are not necessary, I'd bet. But the proper method for removing those certifications is not to just ignore them with a fat stack of money. One day that will go wrong. Tangentally, I think AirBnb will one day get bitten by this. They're gonna have some shady AirBnb burn down without a fire alarm or give a bunch of people an infectious disease and everyone will realize why we have hotel regulation. Again this is another service of which I am a happy customer, but we are playing with fire.
technofiend 11y ago
>"The drivers are not (jerks|unsafe|scary|etc)" - at this point half of the smart taxi drivers have gone to Uber, there's not much of a difference in driver quality. Au contraire - the rating system put consequences in place for poor driver behavior. Previous to that I had plenty of drivers simply never show or show fabulously late for pre-booked appointments. I don't know if Uber will penalize a driver for taking too long to show, but I know I can with a poor review. Not only will my negative feedback make it to a customer service rep but if enough people also rate him low he's out of the system. There's no equivalent feedback loop in the taxi system.
- acveilleux 11y ago
  Depending on locale, taxi drivers have a feedback system. You can complain to their licensing authority. In some place that complaint is a joke... In other places, it actually works.
  - argonaut 11y ago
    In both cases, it's a hassle (compared to the rating system in Uber/Lyft).
  - technofiend 11y ago
    Perhaps but it's not a guaranteed part of the user interface or the service like Uber.
SilasX 11y ago
I have to disagree, in that Uber/Lyft's success cannot be attributed merely to the price differential from flouting regulations; they significantly increased utility by applying modern IT to ride services: mutual rating, seamless payment, finding the the nearest driver/best route, remote monitoring of the route taken, quick complaint resolution, pairing people into carpools, and the reassurance of seeing where the car is. Those are things the cab companies could have done, but didn't. (At least, they could have asked regulators for the relevant exemptions on grounds that it would enable better service.) Remember, they started as (what's now called) UberBlack, which simply allowed licensed limo drivers to fill in dead spots between requests. And, they had to overcome the barrier of not being able to just flag down a passing taxi. They also solved a major collective action problem: drivers privately benefited from screening destinations (and races); enforcement of the laws thereagainst were far too spotty, and victims themselves had to bear a disproportionate private cost to testify and make the system work. So Uber/Lyft put a "veil of ignorance" over destinations, ensuring that everyone got a random share of the bad routes. The reputation system also obviated much of the reason for for discrimination against "scary looking" people. Furthermore, even flouting regulations should tolerated if the provider can accomplish the goals of the regulation (thereby revealing a more efficient way), and it looks like Uber/Lyft have solved the traditional problems of e.g. discrimination, fighting over fares, clogging major pickup locations, drivers being targets of robbery, longhauling, declining credit cards, kidnapping passengers, reliable service and whatever else. If Uber/Lyft were externalizing major costs that the regulations were preventing, it would have shown up by now. (FWIW, I think they are externalizing a cost in terms of screwing over drivers and bystanders on insurance, but the incidence seems to be rare enough that if they were forced to cover this, it would not significantly impede their business model.)
- habosa 11y ago
  I agree with a lot of your points, however I think that most of the points for Uber/Lyft that you made are also true of Flywheel or any other system of "regular taxi dispatched by a mobile app". And we have that now, but they are not widely used because they can't compete with Uber on price (and lack of marketing, etc).
fucking_tragedy 11y ago
An Uber we don't like will be the Uber/Lyft we have now once they dominate their markets.
Rmilb 11y ago
>Uber says that if you have enough VC funding, you can make lawbreaking and regulatory blindness a central pillar of a billion-dollar company. Welcome to America.

by habosa 11y ago

fineman 11y ago

> How about a $10 light repair ... assuming you don't want a real electrician. Well damn right, if all I want is a bulb replaced I don't want some jerk insisting it takes a ticket to read the spec on the bulb. I want liability insurance for the driver, etc, but all the value-adds that Taxi companies claim to have (see posts in this thread) aren't, to me. I want to the freedom to choose any qualified driver.

silverlake 11y ago

> "The drivers are not (jerks|unsafe|scary|etc)" - at this point half of the smart taxi drivers have gone to Uber, there's not much of a difference in driver quality. Totally not my experience. Somehow Uber's rating system has coerced gonzo taxi drivers into sane drivers w/ good customer service. That's the real disruption, IMHO.

habosa 11y ago
I would say that the average Uber driver is, as you said, better than the average taxi driver. But I have a few counterpoints: 1) That's a good argument to adding a rating system to taxis, not trashing the industry entirely. 2) I bet if taxis were much cheaper than an Uber a lot of people would go for the cheaper ride over the better one. Sort of like how UberBlack is so much less popular than UberX.

karmacondon 11y ago

I was in complete agreement with you until the last sentence. "An Uber we don't like" probably won't happen because if people don't like a service, they won't use it. An unpopular business can rarely force itself on customers. And it seems that the same is true of Uber itself. It's possible that the existing laws and regulations aren't necessary. People seem to be able to conduct themselves properly without being licensed and bonded. I consistently hear more good things than bad things about Uber, and all of my personal experiences have been positive. Whatever they're doing, it's working. The same might not be true for an electrician or a massage therapist. As much as I hate to say it (deep breath), the Free Market seems to be sorting this out just fine. I'm not going full libertarian and suggesting we conduct social experiments with the FDA or the fire department. But in some cases, maybe the best way to figure out which regulations are really necessary is to ignore them and see what happens.

hackuser 11y ago
> It's possible that the existing laws and regulations aren't necessary. Who gets to decide that? Should I get to break the law because I have $40 billion and want to? > People seem to be able to conduct themselves properly without being licensed and bonded. Do you have any data?
habosa 11y ago
By an "Uber we don't like" I mean "an uber that comes into your industry" (or an industry of your family members, etc). As far as The Free Market, I agree 100% that Uber provides a good service. However I feel bad for the people who made investments in the taxi industry by following the law and then had those investments completely devalued by a lawbreaker with good PR. A ton of america's certifications are not necessary, I'd bet. But the proper method for removing those certifications is not to just ignore them with a fat stack of money. One day that will go wrong. Tangentally, I think AirBnb will one day get bitten by this. They're gonna have some shady AirBnb burn down without a fire alarm or give a bunch of people an infectious disease and everyone will realize why we have hotel regulation. Again this is another service of which I am a happy customer, but we are playing with fire.

technofiend 11y ago

>"The drivers are not (jerks|unsafe|scary|etc)" - at this point half of the smart taxi drivers have gone to Uber, there's not much of a difference in driver quality. Au contraire - the rating system put consequences in place for poor driver behavior. Previous to that I had plenty of drivers simply never show or show fabulously late for pre-booked appointments. I don't know if Uber will penalize a driver for taking too long to show, but I know I can with a poor review. Not only will my negative feedback make it to a customer service rep but if enough people also rate him low he's out of the system. There's no equivalent feedback loop in the taxi system.

acveilleux 11y ago
Depending on locale, taxi drivers have a feedback system. You can complain to their licensing authority. In some place that complaint is a joke... In other places, it actually works.
- argonaut 11y ago
  In both cases, it's a hassle (compared to the rating system in Uber/Lyft).
- technofiend 11y ago
  Perhaps but it's not a guaranteed part of the user interface or the service like Uber.

SilasX 11y ago

I have to disagree, in that Uber/Lyft's success cannot be attributed merely to the price differential from flouting regulations; they significantly increased utility by applying modern IT to ride services: mutual rating, seamless payment, finding the the nearest driver/best route, remote monitoring of the route taken, quick complaint resolution, pairing people into carpools, and the reassurance of seeing where the car is. Those are things the cab companies could have done, but didn't. (At least, they could have asked regulators for the relevant exemptions on grounds that it would enable better service.) Remember, they started as (what's now called) UberBlack, which simply allowed licensed limo drivers to fill in dead spots between requests. And, they had to overcome the barrier of not being able to just flag down a passing taxi. They also solved a major collective action problem: drivers privately benefited from screening destinations (and races); enforcement of the laws thereagainst were far too spotty, and victims themselves had to bear a disproportionate private cost to testify and make the system work. So Uber/Lyft put a "veil of ignorance" over destinations, ensuring that everyone got a random share of the bad routes. The reputation system also obviated much of the reason for for discrimination against "scary looking" people. Furthermore, even flouting regulations should tolerated if the provider can accomplish the goals of the regulation (thereby revealing a more efficient way), and it looks like Uber/Lyft have solved the traditional problems of e.g. discrimination, fighting over fares, clogging major pickup locations, drivers being targets of robbery, longhauling, declining credit cards, kidnapping passengers, reliable service and whatever else. If Uber/Lyft were externalizing major costs that the regulations were preventing, it would have shown up by now. (FWIW, I think they are externalizing a cost in terms of screwing over drivers and bystanders on insurance, but the incidence seems to be rare enough that if they were forced to cover this, it would not significantly impede their business model.)

habosa 11y ago
I agree with a lot of your points, however I think that most of the points for Uber/Lyft that you made are also true of Flywheel or any other system of "regular taxi dispatched by a mobile app". And we have that now, but they are not widely used because they can't compete with Uber on price (and lack of marketing, etc).

fucking_tragedy 11y ago

An Uber we don't like will be the Uber/Lyft we have now once they dominate their markets.

Rmilb 11y ago

>Uber says that if you have enough VC funding, you can make lawbreaking and regulatory blindness a central pillar of a billion-dollar company. Welcome to America.