3 ms·

From a UK perspective, Uber has really sorted out a lot of problems with the taxi market. Prior to Uber, getting a taxi involved phoning a dispatcher of your p

From a UK perspective, Uber has really sorted out a lot of problems with the taxi market. 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...

noxToken 10y ago
That's exactly what I meant in both instances. Uber is one of the few companies that actually disrupted a market where the main player had to make a major change or lose out (probably not full elimination) big time. 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?