8 ms·

Uber is ending its services in Denmark

112 points by aedron 10y ago

_pmf_ 10y ago
Cancerous Car Company Cedes Country.
legulere 10y ago
Uber's business model simply cannot survive in sensibly regulated markets when they have to follow the regulations. 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.
- Kurtz79 10y ago
  I have no sympathy for Uber as a company, but (without having additional information beyond what it is provided in the article), it seems to me that a new law mas made ad-hoc to address Uber's rise specifically, not that they were already breaching existing regulation when they started operating in Denmark. 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.
  - johanvts 10y ago
    The new law actually liberalized the market a lot and is pretty smart I think. We have had 'strict' regulation on taxis as long as I know, but the new law makes it easier to enter the market while still ensuring stuff like the drivers are trained, know first aid and pay taxes. It also manages to regulate taxi-driving as a business while not killing ride sharing. You can deduct any expenses related to a trip, and if the payment only covers costs the trip is defined as ride sharing, for which you don't have to be registered as a taxi driver. 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.
    - Kurtz79 10y ago
      "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." 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.
  - kpil 10y ago
    Uber is having a similar problem in Sweden. The taxi market is possibly too unregulated with two-three larger regional or national companies that focus on quality and compete on good prices, and a bunch of scammers that try to have identical cars but much more expensive fares. 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.
    - bostand 10y ago
      Exactly what are you talking about? To me your comment reads like infowars compressed into four lines.
    - Kiro 10y ago
      Source on that last paragraph? Uber in Sweden is like any other taxi company with taximeters and yellow registration plates.
- onion2k 10y ago
  Uber's business model simply cannot survive in sensibly regulated markets when they have to follow the regulations. 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.
  - spiderfarmer 10y ago
    "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." 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.
    - jeppebemad 10y ago
      I'm from Copenhagen, and I'd say that's the case here too. I know lots of people who've never used Uber in Denmark, and those who have do it for the price. Taxis are easy to come by and they have waaay better service and more comfortable cars.
  - ganfortran 10y ago
    > On the other hand, maybe people aren't actually that bothered about which particular ride company they use 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.
- ovi256 10y ago
  Mandating the use of an obsolete technology (taxi meter, when a smartphone + app + backend has the same capability) seems like sensible regulation to you ? That regulation was tailor-made to shut down Uber operations, as a favour to the taxi lobby.
  - chopin 10y ago
    Afaik a taxi-meter is an approved device, at least somewhat tamper-resistant. Smartphone + app + backend is none of these.
    - Grue3 10y ago
      Is it tamper-resistant to a taxi driver driving in circles to screw over clueless tourists?
      - 50CNT 10y ago
        They're not even tamper resistant to clickers, which add additional pulses to the output of the tachometer the meter relies on to calculate fares.
    - Cthulhu_ 10y ago
      Those are at least verifiable by 3rd parties - in Uber's case, both the driver's and passengers' smartphones should match up in terms of what route they took. I guess a sophisticated enough malicious driver could set up a GPS spoof in their car, but honestly if they can do that they're working in the wrong industry.
    - sitepodmatt 10y ago
      Depends where I guess, certainly in Asia fast-running meters are not uncommon. To say a taxi meter is secure is like doing javascript client-side validation and no server-side whilst disabling right click. And approved by who? Vetted cryptographers?
    - tyingq 10y ago
      The most popular taxi cheat is to the take the long way around. Meters don't help you there. Also, meters don't show you the full trip price before you commit. 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.
- TsomArp 10y ago
  Colombia is a highly regulated market but the taxi drivers manage to modify their fare meters to charge you more (either they are accelerated or they have a switch that makes it accelerate), they lie to you about the costs (if you are not from here hey can tell you a trip that is 18 is 35, like they tried on me). In fact, it is estimated that 80% or more of the taxis here would try to rob you. I agree that Uber goes against regulations, and their new dynamic fare is a steal on its own right, but the service is much more better than cabs.
  - samsonradu 10y ago
    Same happened to me after a long flight to Malaysia. Going from airport to KL, meter shows 90MYR and the guy asks for 150MYR adding up tolls, night tax etc. What should I do, fight the guy for 10EUR? Note it was a licensed cab booked from the Airport counter. Used Uber for the rest of my vacation there and it was great.
    - princeb 10y ago
      the airport counter sells you a ticket, you give the ticket to the driver. no further payment is necessary.
      - sitepodmatt 10y ago
        There are two options. The pre-paid desk upstairs or the official taxi desk downstairs where it should run on meter (you pay 2myr for the privilege of using this desk for tiny bit of blue or red paper). Either way both should be regulated, safe and not a rip off. The taxi desk upstairs often with a single operator has long queues as tourists seem to asking for sightseeing advice, their horoscope, and then wanting to pay in cent coins (that's guess, it's annoying, KL is terrible airport, after almost as long as flight taxi-ing from runway to gate to queue another 40 minutes is not my thing)
        samsonradu 10y ago
        Exactly, just took the 2 MYR ticket since I had no clue how much I should prepay.
- tigershark 10y ago
  How forcing them to add a fare meter is a sensible regulation? You already can track the whole travel in Uber and it is FAR FAR better than having a fare meter. In a foreign city I have no idea if the itinerary chosen by the driver is sensible or not and the fare meter for sure can't do anything in this regard.
  - vmateixeira 10y ago
    Because you can fiscalize a fare meter, not someone's phone GPS tracker module.
  - rmc 10y ago
    The meter is supposed to be inspectable to the local tax collectors who can ensure that the correct tax is paid.
    - stagbeetle 10y ago
      The incenvives are too screwed up for this to help consumers. If they undercharge, they get fined. If they overcharge, the tax authority gets more money. It's almost like a bribe.
- mafribe 10y ago
  this is not the case in many places around the world. Uber has one gigantic advantage over all local taxi services from the custormer's point of view: Uber's unified, location-independent interface. You put in your credic card once, you learn the UI once, and it works seamlessly all over the planet. (Same with AirBnB.) This is a heaven sent for the frequent international traveller. I understand why local taxi-driver lobbies are rent-seeking with anti-Uber legislation, but selflessly it aint.
- Grue3 10y ago
  >sensibly regulated Requiring fare meters when the price is agreed in advance is not sensible regulation.
- malandrew 10y ago
  Explain to me why having an actual physical meter and seat sensors are sensible regulation? To me, they are clearly barriers to entry that make it harder for individuals to participate in the sell side of this market. Neither are necessary to provide the service in a safe and trustworthy manner. They simply make it so people need to actually acquire special cars with the seat sensors and then go through additional bureaucratic hoops to get a physical meter installed. This is so obviously protectionism and anti-consumer, that I don't see how anyone can consider them sensible except the taxi cartel.
tyingq 10y ago
Seems a reasonable decision by Uber to pull out..."mandatory fare meters" is a bit over the top. But, given the current PR tide, they can hardly afford any more headlines that even sound negative on the surface. They must be dying for a positive piece to be written.
- kalleboo 10y ago
  Grocery stores are required to have validated scales to measure produce, how is it "over the top" for taxis to have validated meters to measure distance?
  - tyingq 10y ago
    I assume the purpose is to keep passengers from being overcharged. These days, it's trivally easy to punch the route Uber calculated into Google maps, so I just don't see the purpose. I don't think Uber is above bad behavior, but it would just be stupid of them to cheat in this area...too easy to be called out. You can audit past trips with ease. The app stores them. Denmark is also requiring in-vehicle video monitoring, which I also find over the top, but for different reasons.
  - pbh101 10y ago
    For one, I think the intent of the requirement can be satisfied by alternate means. For example, like the google map that is recorded and displayed to me of every Uber trip I've taken.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      How do you know the map is correct and immutable? You're essentially trusting Uber itself to keep a good record, whereas the law is designed to avoid trusting the taxi companies at all, by mandating sealed meters.
      - tyingq 10y ago
        It's free and easy to use other tools to verify, and you have a past trips history. They could fiddle with maps, but changing the origin or destination points would be noticed. Sealed meters don't force the driver to take the most efficient route either. Nor do they show the full price before you commit to the trip. Map based apps are just better than meters all around.
petermonsson 10y ago
The government did as much as they could while preserving tax revenues (the new law deregulates the industry). There have been plenty of cases where older meters were hacked back in the 90's. Not requiring meters and seat sensors would have made cheating easy.
kevinmannix 10y ago
I'm sure there's much interesting discussion to be had over Uber's decision to leave Denmark. Unfortunately due to the advertisement banner covering 40% of the screen, I was only able to read 60% of this article.
shaqbert 10y ago
Not surprising. In highly regulated markets such as Denmark, Uber has always had a hard time. In the early days they played the "ask for forgiveness card", but being a gigantic operation now, that does not fly anymore. In my home country Germany, Uber also essentially retreated and only has a token presence at very few cities, as the regulatory environment just does not allow the Uber economics to work. So focusing on the markets where regulation is soft or where Uber has leverage to change regulation is the winning strategy here.
disiplus 10y ago
Its popular to hate on uber right now, but we need uber and i hope it survives, the same as we needed airbnb. I had a car crash recently, and while waiting for my car to be fixed had to relay on public transport and taxis. One is slow, allot of time not available, other is unreliable ( they promise you a taxi but it never comes because thy took somebody else) and expensive. With regular taxis the supply is limited, they will rather make smaller number of rides per day for bigger price. And that is what everybody in monopolistic position will do ( see Intel when AMD is weak, or any other example ). I dont think we should enable them to do that. There probably needs to be some kind of regulation, government wants those taxes, but lets not cheer for uber to die. If uber withdraws everybody will lose.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ch4s3 10y ago
  Do "WE" really need Uber? Aren't there several competing companies who behave better?
- ulfw 10y ago
  Why didn't you get a loaner or rental car?
- jon-wood 10y ago
  It sounds like what you need is better public transport and taxi service. Around here they're both fine, if a bit less convineant than driving.
- csydas 10y ago
  I disagree. We need alternatives or modernization to current transit systems and companies; we don't need Uber. I'm living abroad at the moment in St. Petersburg Russia, and the local taxi company's response to Uber was basically to clone Uber. People here are just as ready to summon a Yandex taxi or one from the multiple other taxi services publicly available as they are to use Uber. My last experience with a Yandex taxi was seamless - driver was to our location in a few minutes, fare was ~ 500 RUB (little under $10), no tip expected, and they made exceptions for us having multiple stops for different people. There is nothing unique or special to Uber except the huge amount of hype and VC money behind them - just like we saw in the US with Austin, TX, Uber's model is easily replicable and scalable for local companies. Uber is throwing its weight around and finding out that it really doesn't carry as much weight as it thinks it does, and pretty soon investors and other transit companies are going to start to capitalize on this.
tokai 10y ago
What is really remarkable about this is that the current minister of transport is a huge supporter of Uber, and his party have again and again explicitly promulgated their support for the company and their business model. So it is a huge failure for Uber that they couldn't stay in the Danish marked, even with partial endorsement of the Danish government. The problem for Uber is that their business model is clearly illegal in Denmark, and so incompatible with Danish law that even a benign government can't help them.
- rmchugh 10y ago
  The problem for Uber was that this benign government didn't have a parliamentary majority for the new law without the Danish People's Party who are not particularly interested in supporting Uber or its business model.
nurkhz 10y ago
beyond the article, sad to see even businessinsider.com blocks ad-block. what a tragedy.
ohstopitu 10y ago
One thing that was awesome about Uber, was that you could go into a city internationally and just use one app (instead of installing new apps every city or multiple apps for one city!) The taxi game is becoming more like the Social Media game where you have multiple platforms like Fb, Twitter, Snapchat etc each doing it's own thing. While that's great, I have 10 different apps on my phone just to deal with Social Media. BTW I am not suggesting that Uber not be regulated or anything of the sort, but just that, if all taxi companies start having their own apps, I won't install any (from a registration, security and ease of use point of view).
- mysterydip 10y ago
  From this comment and others, it seems to me there's a business to be made creating a unified app that all taxi services can integrate with. It seems like a large momentum to overcome, but faced with extinction via uber/lyft/etc might be the catalyst to make it happen. Priceline et al made something similar happen to the hotel industry, so it seems possible.
  - Sargos 10y ago
    This already exists and ironically Uber is leading the charge. https://www.uber.com/ride/ubertaxi/ https://www.uber.com/ride/ubertaxi/ It's very, very hard to get taxi monopolies onboard with something like this though. That's why Lyft/Uber had to forcefully enter the markets like they've done. The market is too corrupt for something standardized like priceline to take hold.
- Sargos 10y ago
  >One thing that was awesome about Uber, was that you could go into a city internationally and just use one app (instead of installing new apps every city or multiple apps for one city!) This is still true. Only a few countries/cities with very authoritarian governments have blocked Uber. The expectation of using an Uber anywhere you go is still a given and the reason I use it when traveling abroad. I've never had a problem yet.
aedron 10y ago
For some reason, Uber in Denmark was never cheaper than taxis. And this despite that practically every taxi here is a high-end Mercedes (and priced accordingly). So Uber skirted regulations and were still not cheaper than the overpriced and politically protected taxi services. Can't say that I am going to miss them. Shame though, because the taxi services here badly needs competition.
- doppel 10y ago
  My experience is that Uber was roughly ~20% cheaper overall. The good outcome is that the taxi companies ramped up, got out a decent app (with most of the features from the Uber app) and we got discussion and even law changes about how Taxis operate (though not necessarily all for the better).
  - distances 10y ago
    Finland got some updates to taxi law, too, and Uber stays illegal (drivers will be prosecuted for providing an unlicensed taxi service). Sounds like a fair outcome.
- jpkeisala 10y ago
  This I did not understand either. I did try Uber few times in Copenhagen and instead of new Mercedes that I usually get as taxi I was picked up by some small hatchback and still end up paying pretty much the same. Also, taxi apps are good here.
- StavrosK 10y ago
  Why do they need competition, if even the competition didn't manage to be better? What's the new company going to do differently?
- runeks 10y ago
  > And this despite that practically every taxi here is a high-end Mercedes (and priced accordingly). A Mercedes used as a taxi in Denmark is significantly cheaper than one for personal use. We have a very high tax on cars for personal use in Denmark (~170%), which does not apply to vehicles for commercial/industrial use, like taxis. So for the taxi companies, buying a taxi Mercedes costs roughly what a Toyota costs for personal use. http://www.skat.dk/SKAT.aspx?oid=2244599&vid=0&lang=us http://www.skat.dk/SKAT.aspx?oid=2244599&vid=0&lang=us
ProAm 10y ago
Uber's end game, if they cannot get autonomous cars to market before they run out of runway, is to license their technology to taxi's and other transportation firms. There is still a lot of money on the table for them, but probably not in their current vision for the company.

112 points by aedron 10y ago

_pmf_ 10y ago

Cancerous Car Company Cedes Country.

Uber's business model simply cannot survive in sensibly regulated markets when they have to follow the regulations. 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.

Kurtz79 10y ago
I have no sympathy for Uber as a company, but (without having additional information beyond what it is provided in the article), it seems to me that a new law mas made ad-hoc to address Uber's rise specifically, not that they were already breaching existing regulation when they started operating in Denmark. 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.
- johanvts 10y ago
  The new law actually liberalized the market a lot and is pretty smart I think. We have had 'strict' regulation on taxis as long as I know, but the new law makes it easier to enter the market while still ensuring stuff like the drivers are trained, know first aid and pay taxes. It also manages to regulate taxi-driving as a business while not killing ride sharing. You can deduct any expenses related to a trip, and if the payment only covers costs the trip is defined as ride sharing, for which you don't have to be registered as a taxi driver. 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.
  - Kurtz79 10y ago
    "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." 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.
- kpil 10y ago
  Uber is having a similar problem in Sweden. The taxi market is possibly too unregulated with two-three larger regional or national companies that focus on quality and compete on good prices, and a bunch of scammers that try to have identical cars but much more expensive fares. 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.
  - bostand 10y ago
    Exactly what are you talking about? To me your comment reads like infowars compressed into four lines.
  - Kiro 10y ago
    Source on that last paragraph? Uber in Sweden is like any other taxi company with taximeters and yellow registration plates.
onion2k 10y ago
Uber's business model simply cannot survive in sensibly regulated markets when they have to follow the regulations. 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.
- spiderfarmer 10y ago
  "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." 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.
  - jeppebemad 10y ago
    I'm from Copenhagen, and I'd say that's the case here too. I know lots of people who've never used Uber in Denmark, and those who have do it for the price. Taxis are easy to come by and they have waaay better service and more comfortable cars.
- ganfortran 10y ago
  > On the other hand, maybe people aren't actually that bothered about which particular ride company they use 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.
ovi256 10y ago
Mandating the use of an obsolete technology (taxi meter, when a smartphone + app + backend has the same capability) seems like sensible regulation to you ? That regulation was tailor-made to shut down Uber operations, as a favour to the taxi lobby.
- chopin 10y ago
  Afaik a taxi-meter is an approved device, at least somewhat tamper-resistant. Smartphone + app + backend is none of these.
  - Grue3 10y ago
    Is it tamper-resistant to a taxi driver driving in circles to screw over clueless tourists?
    - 50CNT 10y ago
      They're not even tamper resistant to clickers, which add additional pulses to the output of the tachometer the meter relies on to calculate fares.
  - Cthulhu_ 10y ago
    Those are at least verifiable by 3rd parties - in Uber's case, both the driver's and passengers' smartphones should match up in terms of what route they took. I guess a sophisticated enough malicious driver could set up a GPS spoof in their car, but honestly if they can do that they're working in the wrong industry.
  - sitepodmatt 10y ago
    Depends where I guess, certainly in Asia fast-running meters are not uncommon. To say a taxi meter is secure is like doing javascript client-side validation and no server-side whilst disabling right click. And approved by who? Vetted cryptographers?
  - tyingq 10y ago
    The most popular taxi cheat is to the take the long way around. Meters don't help you there. Also, meters don't show you the full trip price before you commit. 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.
TsomArp 10y ago
Colombia is a highly regulated market but the taxi drivers manage to modify their fare meters to charge you more (either they are accelerated or they have a switch that makes it accelerate), they lie to you about the costs (if you are not from here hey can tell you a trip that is 18 is 35, like they tried on me). In fact, it is estimated that 80% or more of the taxis here would try to rob you. I agree that Uber goes against regulations, and their new dynamic fare is a steal on its own right, but the service is much more better than cabs.
- samsonradu 10y ago
  Same happened to me after a long flight to Malaysia. Going from airport to KL, meter shows 90MYR and the guy asks for 150MYR adding up tolls, night tax etc. What should I do, fight the guy for 10EUR? Note it was a licensed cab booked from the Airport counter. Used Uber for the rest of my vacation there and it was great.
  - princeb 10y ago
    the airport counter sells you a ticket, you give the ticket to the driver. no further payment is necessary.
    - sitepodmatt 10y ago
      There are two options. The pre-paid desk upstairs or the official taxi desk downstairs where it should run on meter (you pay 2myr for the privilege of using this desk for tiny bit of blue or red paper). Either way both should be regulated, safe and not a rip off. The taxi desk upstairs often with a single operator has long queues as tourists seem to asking for sightseeing advice, their horoscope, and then wanting to pay in cent coins (that's guess, it's annoying, KL is terrible airport, after almost as long as flight taxi-ing from runway to gate to queue another 40 minutes is not my thing)
      - samsonradu 10y ago
        Exactly, just took the 2 MYR ticket since I had no clue how much I should prepay.
tigershark 10y ago
How forcing them to add a fare meter is a sensible regulation? You already can track the whole travel in Uber and it is FAR FAR better than having a fare meter. In a foreign city I have no idea if the itinerary chosen by the driver is sensible or not and the fare meter for sure can't do anything in this regard.
- vmateixeira 10y ago
  Because you can fiscalize a fare meter, not someone's phone GPS tracker module.
- rmc 10y ago
  The meter is supposed to be inspectable to the local tax collectors who can ensure that the correct tax is paid.
  - stagbeetle 10y ago
    The incenvives are too screwed up for this to help consumers. If they undercharge, they get fined. If they overcharge, the tax authority gets more money. It's almost like a bribe.
mafribe 10y ago
this is not the case in many places around the world. Uber has one gigantic advantage over all local taxi services from the custormer's point of view: Uber's unified, location-independent interface. You put in your credic card once, you learn the UI once, and it works seamlessly all over the planet. (Same with AirBnB.) This is a heaven sent for the frequent international traveller. I understand why local taxi-driver lobbies are rent-seeking with anti-Uber legislation, but selflessly it aint.
Grue3 10y ago
>sensibly regulated Requiring fare meters when the price is agreed in advance is not sensible regulation.
malandrew 10y ago
Explain to me why having an actual physical meter and seat sensors are sensible regulation? To me, they are clearly barriers to entry that make it harder for individuals to participate in the sell side of this market. Neither are necessary to provide the service in a safe and trustworthy manner. They simply make it so people need to actually acquire special cars with the seat sensors and then go through additional bureaucratic hoops to get a physical meter installed. This is so obviously protectionism and anti-consumer, that I don't see how anyone can consider them sensible except the taxi cartel.

tyingq 10y ago

Seems a reasonable decision by Uber to pull out..."mandatory fare meters" is a bit over the top. But, given the current PR tide, they can hardly afford any more headlines that even sound negative on the surface. They must be dying for a positive piece to be written.

kalleboo 10y ago
Grocery stores are required to have validated scales to measure produce, how is it "over the top" for taxis to have validated meters to measure distance?
- tyingq 10y ago
  I assume the purpose is to keep passengers from being overcharged. These days, it's trivally easy to punch the route Uber calculated into Google maps, so I just don't see the purpose. I don't think Uber is above bad behavior, but it would just be stupid of them to cheat in this area...too easy to be called out. You can audit past trips with ease. The app stores them. Denmark is also requiring in-vehicle video monitoring, which I also find over the top, but for different reasons.
- pbh101 10y ago
  For one, I think the intent of the requirement can be satisfied by alternate means. For example, like the google map that is recorded and displayed to me of every Uber trip I've taken.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    How do you know the map is correct and immutable? You're essentially trusting Uber itself to keep a good record, whereas the law is designed to avoid trusting the taxi companies at all, by mandating sealed meters.
    - tyingq 10y ago
      It's free and easy to use other tools to verify, and you have a past trips history. They could fiddle with maps, but changing the origin or destination points would be noticed. Sealed meters don't force the driver to take the most efficient route either. Nor do they show the full price before you commit to the trip. Map based apps are just better than meters all around.

petermonsson 10y ago

The government did as much as they could while preserving tax revenues (the new law deregulates the industry). There have been plenty of cases where older meters were hacked back in the 90's. Not requiring meters and seat sensors would have made cheating easy.

kevinmannix 10y ago

I'm sure there's much interesting discussion to be had over Uber's decision to leave Denmark. Unfortunately due to the advertisement banner covering 40% of the screen, I was only able to read 60% of this article.

shaqbert 10y ago

Not surprising. In highly regulated markets such as Denmark, Uber has always had a hard time. In the early days they played the "ask for forgiveness card", but being a gigantic operation now, that does not fly anymore. In my home country Germany, Uber also essentially retreated and only has a token presence at very few cities, as the regulatory environment just does not allow the Uber economics to work. So focusing on the markets where regulation is soft or where Uber has leverage to change regulation is the winning strategy here.

disiplus 10y ago

Its popular to hate on uber right now, but we need uber and i hope it survives, the same as we needed airbnb. I had a car crash recently, and while waiting for my car to be fixed had to relay on public transport and taxis. One is slow, allot of time not available, other is unreliable ( they promise you a taxi but it never comes because thy took somebody else) and expensive. With regular taxis the supply is limited, they will rather make smaller number of rides per day for bigger price. And that is what everybody in monopolistic position will do ( see Intel when AMD is weak, or any other example ). I dont think we should enable them to do that. There probably needs to be some kind of regulation, government wants those taxes, but lets not cheer for uber to die. If uber withdraws everybody will lose.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ch4s3 10y ago
Do "WE" really need Uber? Aren't there several competing companies who behave better?
ulfw 10y ago
Why didn't you get a loaner or rental car?
jon-wood 10y ago
It sounds like what you need is better public transport and taxi service. Around here they're both fine, if a bit less convineant than driving.
csydas 10y ago
I disagree. We need alternatives or modernization to current transit systems and companies; we don't need Uber. I'm living abroad at the moment in St. Petersburg Russia, and the local taxi company's response to Uber was basically to clone Uber. People here are just as ready to summon a Yandex taxi or one from the multiple other taxi services publicly available as they are to use Uber. My last experience with a Yandex taxi was seamless - driver was to our location in a few minutes, fare was ~ 500 RUB (little under $10), no tip expected, and they made exceptions for us having multiple stops for different people. There is nothing unique or special to Uber except the huge amount of hype and VC money behind them - just like we saw in the US with Austin, TX, Uber's model is easily replicable and scalable for local companies. Uber is throwing its weight around and finding out that it really doesn't carry as much weight as it thinks it does, and pretty soon investors and other transit companies are going to start to capitalize on this.

tokai 10y ago

What is really remarkable about this is that the current minister of transport is a huge supporter of Uber, and his party have again and again explicitly promulgated their support for the company and their business model. So it is a huge failure for Uber that they couldn't stay in the Danish marked, even with partial endorsement of the Danish government. The problem for Uber is that their business model is clearly illegal in Denmark, and so incompatible with Danish law that even a benign government can't help them.

rmchugh 10y ago
The problem for Uber was that this benign government didn't have a parliamentary majority for the new law without the Danish People's Party who are not particularly interested in supporting Uber or its business model.

nurkhz 10y ago

beyond the article, sad to see even businessinsider.com blocks ad-block. what a tragedy.

ohstopitu 10y ago

One thing that was awesome about Uber, was that you could go into a city internationally and just use one app (instead of installing new apps every city or multiple apps for one city!) The taxi game is becoming more like the Social Media game where you have multiple platforms like Fb, Twitter, Snapchat etc each doing it's own thing. While that's great, I have 10 different apps on my phone just to deal with Social Media. BTW I am not suggesting that Uber not be regulated or anything of the sort, but just that, if all taxi companies start having their own apps, I won't install any (from a registration, security and ease of use point of view).

mysterydip 10y ago
From this comment and others, it seems to me there's a business to be made creating a unified app that all taxi services can integrate with. It seems like a large momentum to overcome, but faced with extinction via uber/lyft/etc might be the catalyst to make it happen. Priceline et al made something similar happen to the hotel industry, so it seems possible.
- Sargos 10y ago
  This already exists and ironically Uber is leading the charge. https://www.uber.com/ride/ubertaxi/ https://www.uber.com/ride/ubertaxi/ It's very, very hard to get taxi monopolies onboard with something like this though. That's why Lyft/Uber had to forcefully enter the markets like they've done. The market is too corrupt for something standardized like priceline to take hold.
Sargos 10y ago
>One thing that was awesome about Uber, was that you could go into a city internationally and just use one app (instead of installing new apps every city or multiple apps for one city!) This is still true. Only a few countries/cities with very authoritarian governments have blocked Uber. The expectation of using an Uber anywhere you go is still a given and the reason I use it when traveling abroad. I've never had a problem yet.

aedron 10y ago

For some reason, Uber in Denmark was never cheaper than taxis. And this despite that practically every taxi here is a high-end Mercedes (and priced accordingly). So Uber skirted regulations and were still not cheaper than the overpriced and politically protected taxi services. Can't say that I am going to miss them. Shame though, because the taxi services here badly needs competition.

doppel 10y ago
My experience is that Uber was roughly ~20% cheaper overall. The good outcome is that the taxi companies ramped up, got out a decent app (with most of the features from the Uber app) and we got discussion and even law changes about how Taxis operate (though not necessarily all for the better).
- distances 10y ago
  Finland got some updates to taxi law, too, and Uber stays illegal (drivers will be prosecuted for providing an unlicensed taxi service). Sounds like a fair outcome.
jpkeisala 10y ago
This I did not understand either. I did try Uber few times in Copenhagen and instead of new Mercedes that I usually get as taxi I was picked up by some small hatchback and still end up paying pretty much the same. Also, taxi apps are good here.
StavrosK 10y ago
Why do they need competition, if even the competition didn't manage to be better? What's the new company going to do differently?
runeks 10y ago
> And this despite that practically every taxi here is a high-end Mercedes (and priced accordingly). A Mercedes used as a taxi in Denmark is significantly cheaper than one for personal use. We have a very high tax on cars for personal use in Denmark (~170%), which does not apply to vehicles for commercial/industrial use, like taxis. So for the taxi companies, buying a taxi Mercedes costs roughly what a Toyota costs for personal use. http://www.skat.dk/SKAT.aspx?oid=2244599&vid=0&lang=us http://www.skat.dk/SKAT.aspx?oid=2244599&vid=0&lang=us

ProAm 10y ago

Uber's end game, if they cannot get autonomous cars to market before they run out of runway, is to license their technology to taxi's and other transportation firms. There is still a lot of money on the table for them, but probably not in their current vision for the company.