4 ms·

Well, minicab drivers had all the time in the world to band together and invent something like Uber, and they never did. Capitalism has plenty of problems, but

Well, minicab drivers had all the time in the world to band together and invent something like Uber, and they never did. Capitalism has plenty of problems, but let's not pretend it doesn't have advantages too.

rnd33 9y ago
Yeah, it's almost as if the minicab drivers have neither the time (as in money to quit work for a year) or the skills to create something like Uber. I'm sure lots of them have had the idea, but an idea is worthless if you can't implement it. It's frankly a bit concerning that Corbyn doesn't realise this.
- Xylakant 9y ago
  Minivan drivers don’t need to own the skills or the time to create something like this. They need to organize in a coop and have someone build it. It’s frankly disconcerting that people think Corbyn could have called for the drivers to program the app themselves. This is, btw., how coops work all the time. People form a coop that does something. Raiffeisen in germany started as a farmers cooperative, Rewe started as a cooperative of food stores, the various Coop supermarket chains (Italy, Switzerland, ...) started or are still organized as cooperative. There’s no particular reason the drivers could not band together and form a Taxi cooperative that develops and maintains an app. All it takes is the will to organize.
  - stuaxo 9y ago
    Indeed, and having someone suggest it with a platform like his brings it a lot closer to being implemented.
AsyncAwait 9y ago
There are a bunch of ride-sharing apps not run by corporations, like [1], but they were not started by cab drivers as far as I am aware. It was always kind of fascinating to me that other industries did not try to apply the concept of open-source more widely to different problems, despite the clear benefits it has shown in software. From the outside, it looks like few other industries are willing to sink in the time/effort for the benefit of the community as a whole, with no clear, short-term financial incentive for doing so. [1] - http://libretaxi.org http://libretaxi.org
camus2 9y ago
It's true in any sectors. Vegetable/Fruit producers could gather in co-ops as well to sell directly to the customer and side step super markets, using the web/apps .... But it's obviously risky and someone has to bear the risk, without investors, you can't really do that. Uber didn't bootstrap their own business, they got millions of dollars from big shots from the Silicon Valley to get started. Individual cabs can't do that.
- sheeshkebab 9y ago
  billions, fixed that for you there...
devdad 9y ago
Well, this doesn't even contradict what Corbyn is saying. Corbyn is saying that new technology should be used to enable a more socialistic society and having Uber as a broker isn't really needed if the tech development is shared between the drivers.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  The problem is that it’s a fallacy. There were plenty of ride hailing apps before Uber all of them sorta failed becuase of bad tech, business model or both. Uber made it with millions if not billions of funding and sure now it’s more easy to copy since the model and the tech is better understood but that’s just it it too capitalism to refine the model and now they want to effectively socialize it. This might sound cool but in reality it won’t work since this is a chicken and the egg problem and while you can socialize the chicken some one had to design the hen and optimize it before hand. Taxi unions had no intention to take the risks Uber did despite likely having just as much access to funds with 40-50,000 cab drivers each could’ve easily funded a mini Uber with a few 100s to a few 1000s £s over several years but they chose not too.
  - devdad 9y ago
    And Uber has from the start been anti-worker by it's pure existence. Their "successful" business model is based on illegal business actions, evading laws and regulations and turning poor people into API calls. Uber is also still losing lots of money. Which is often a great place to start turning the business into worker owned and aligning it with the workers best interest.
    - vixen99 9y ago
      its pure existence
    - dogma1138 9y ago
      I don’t think Uber’s model is sustainable with human drivers. Im pretty sure their plan from was to build a large enough user base to be in a leading position to switch to robotaxis as soon as they are available and I think that’s what many of their backers are funding. With robotaxis being likely about 5 year or so from being approved in major metropolitan areas without any shenanigans from the cab cartels Uber can afford to bleed money until then and then just switch. Audi is releasing L4 cars in Europe this year which will allow you to take the back seat during traffic. While I don’t think anyone will be releasing L5 before 2020 I wouldn’t bet against that for a 2022-2023 time frame. Don’t get me wrong I dislike Uber and AirB&B with passion for their predatory practices but I also don’t like cartels the cab and car hire companies in London had a decade to get their shit together when the ride hailing apps / websites began popping up in the late 2000s and in all honesty they only turned worse.
mattbee 9y ago
What if TFL did it? They have a £11bn budget, they license taxis, run the buses & tube. They could perfectly well build a taxi-hailing app, integrate it nicely with the Oyster card system, or mandate it, or build an API for other taxi apps to build on. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/business-and-commercial/innovation-portal https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/business-and-commercial/innovati...
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Huge fan of this idea because it doesn't need to be profitable (as public transportation infrastructure usually isn't).
  - malandrew 9y ago
    If it doesn't have to be profitable and is provided by the government, then you're still paying for it through taxes. No thank you. I much prefer to give my money to a private entity that needs to actively compete for my dollars by keeping their service comparatively cheap and high quality.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      I would not be surprised if this is something Uber employees (past or present) believe. Uber's services are only cheap because of VC dollars, and quality is not high.
      - malandrew 9y ago
        Based on leaked figures, Uber has -8% losses to gross bookings and is still aggressively expanding globally and into new markets (Eats and Freight) and working on self-driving cars. It's been widely reported that its mature markets are already profitable, which means that it's not cheap because of VC dollars. The VC dollars are only being used to supplement growth into new immature markets. The profitable markets are also being used for the same purpose. Enough markets should be mature enough for Uber to be profitable by sometime in mid to late 2018 at the rate they've been reducing their losses relative to gross bookings.
untog 9y ago
If I recall, the original iteration of Hailo was indeed founded by London cab drivers. But needed VC funding in order to compete when Uber and the like came to town, which ultimately ruined them. That's a problem you see again and again, I think. No matter what your intentions, it's incredibly difficult to compete when a company with huge pockets comes to town and subsidises rides.
rtpg 9y ago
But in this scenario isn't it basically better for everyone (except Uber) to reorganize everything into a co-op? This is a great example of capitalism not being able to generate the best solution. In an alternate universe there would be a regulated exchange with ~0 cut of the profits, instead making sure drivers get the money since they're doing most of the work. Uber does handle pricing, but even then it has "cheated" to get a bigger slice of the pie. Imagine the NYSE taking even 5% of trades.
rayiner 9y ago
That’s a bit of spin right there. Taxi companies could never “invent something like Uber.” Meter and fare regulations precluded the use of smart phones instead of approved meters, and surge pricing (which allows Uber to offer cheaper rides most of the time and make up for it during periods of high demand). Huge amounts of VC money and ignoring taxi regulations allowed Uber to “invent something like Uber.”
- umanwizard 9y ago
  I intentionally said minicabs, not taxis, to head off this exact sort of argument.
- thriftwy 9y ago
  They could have been changing these regulations years ago, instead they behave like a vegetable which is now being eaten.
  - radiorental 9y ago
    I can't think of an example at this scale where that happened without the incentive of disruptive competition.
- dagw 9y ago
  Taxi companies could never “invent something like Uber.” Of course they could. All the regulations you mentioned are only there because the Taxi companies lobbied hard for them. Had they lobbied half as hard to have the regulations loosened they could have gotten any regulations they wanted. The taxi companies bet big on using regulation to entrench their position and avoid competition rather than on improving their product. History will tell if it was a good bet or not, but so far it isn't looking too good.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Do you have a source for your elaborate narrative history of taxicab regulation? In reality, modern taxi regulations date back to the 1930s, when the prevailing view was that consumer protection was best served by a combination of limiting competition and government price regulation. This was all happening at around the same time as the government rate-regulated other transportation industries: busses, freight trucking, and airlines.

rnd33 9y ago

Yeah, it's almost as if the minicab drivers have neither the time (as in money to quit work for a year) or the skills to create something like Uber. I'm sure lots of them have had the idea, but an idea is worthless if you can't implement it. It's frankly a bit concerning that Corbyn doesn't realise this.

Xylakant 9y ago
Minivan drivers don’t need to own the skills or the time to create something like this. They need to organize in a coop and have someone build it. It’s frankly disconcerting that people think Corbyn could have called for the drivers to program the app themselves. This is, btw., how coops work all the time. People form a coop that does something. Raiffeisen in germany started as a farmers cooperative, Rewe started as a cooperative of food stores, the various Coop supermarket chains (Italy, Switzerland, ...) started or are still organized as cooperative. There’s no particular reason the drivers could not band together and form a Taxi cooperative that develops and maintains an app. All it takes is the will to organize.
- stuaxo 9y ago
  Indeed, and having someone suggest it with a platform like his brings it a lot closer to being implemented.

AsyncAwait 9y ago

There are a bunch of ride-sharing apps not run by corporations, like [1], but they were not started by cab drivers as far as I am aware. It was always kind of fascinating to me that other industries did not try to apply the concept of open-source more widely to different problems, despite the clear benefits it has shown in software. From the outside, it looks like few other industries are willing to sink in the time/effort for the benefit of the community as a whole, with no clear, short-term financial incentive for doing so. [1] - http://libretaxi.org http://libretaxi.org

camus2 9y ago

It's true in any sectors. Vegetable/Fruit producers could gather in co-ops as well to sell directly to the customer and side step super markets, using the web/apps .... But it's obviously risky and someone has to bear the risk, without investors, you can't really do that. Uber didn't bootstrap their own business, they got millions of dollars from big shots from the Silicon Valley to get started. Individual cabs can't do that.

sheeshkebab 9y ago
billions, fixed that for you there...

devdad 9y ago

Well, this doesn't even contradict what Corbyn is saying. Corbyn is saying that new technology should be used to enable a more socialistic society and having Uber as a broker isn't really needed if the tech development is shared between the drivers.

dogma1138 9y ago
The problem is that it’s a fallacy. There were plenty of ride hailing apps before Uber all of them sorta failed becuase of bad tech, business model or both. Uber made it with millions if not billions of funding and sure now it’s more easy to copy since the model and the tech is better understood but that’s just it it too capitalism to refine the model and now they want to effectively socialize it. This might sound cool but in reality it won’t work since this is a chicken and the egg problem and while you can socialize the chicken some one had to design the hen and optimize it before hand. Taxi unions had no intention to take the risks Uber did despite likely having just as much access to funds with 40-50,000 cab drivers each could’ve easily funded a mini Uber with a few 100s to a few 1000s £s over several years but they chose not too.
- devdad 9y ago
  And Uber has from the start been anti-worker by it's pure existence. Their "successful" business model is based on illegal business actions, evading laws and regulations and turning poor people into API calls. Uber is also still losing lots of money. Which is often a great place to start turning the business into worker owned and aligning it with the workers best interest.
  - vixen99 9y ago
    its pure existence
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    I don’t think Uber’s model is sustainable with human drivers. Im pretty sure their plan from was to build a large enough user base to be in a leading position to switch to robotaxis as soon as they are available and I think that’s what many of their backers are funding. With robotaxis being likely about 5 year or so from being approved in major metropolitan areas without any shenanigans from the cab cartels Uber can afford to bleed money until then and then just switch. Audi is releasing L4 cars in Europe this year which will allow you to take the back seat during traffic. While I don’t think anyone will be releasing L5 before 2020 I wouldn’t bet against that for a 2022-2023 time frame. Don’t get me wrong I dislike Uber and AirB&B with passion for their predatory practices but I also don’t like cartels the cab and car hire companies in London had a decade to get their shit together when the ride hailing apps / websites began popping up in the late 2000s and in all honesty they only turned worse.

mattbee 9y ago

What if TFL did it? They have a £11bn budget, they license taxis, run the buses & tube. They could perfectly well build a taxi-hailing app, integrate it nicely with the Oyster card system, or mandate it, or build an API for other taxi apps to build on. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/business-and-commercial/innovation-portal https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/business-and-commercial/innovati...

toomuchtodo 9y ago
Huge fan of this idea because it doesn't need to be profitable (as public transportation infrastructure usually isn't).
- malandrew 9y ago
  If it doesn't have to be profitable and is provided by the government, then you're still paying for it through taxes. No thank you. I much prefer to give my money to a private entity that needs to actively compete for my dollars by keeping their service comparatively cheap and high quality.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    I would not be surprised if this is something Uber employees (past or present) believe. Uber's services are only cheap because of VC dollars, and quality is not high.
    - malandrew 9y ago
      Based on leaked figures, Uber has -8% losses to gross bookings and is still aggressively expanding globally and into new markets (Eats and Freight) and working on self-driving cars. It's been widely reported that its mature markets are already profitable, which means that it's not cheap because of VC dollars. The VC dollars are only being used to supplement growth into new immature markets. The profitable markets are also being used for the same purpose. Enough markets should be mature enough for Uber to be profitable by sometime in mid to late 2018 at the rate they've been reducing their losses relative to gross bookings.

untog 9y ago

If I recall, the original iteration of Hailo was indeed founded by London cab drivers. But needed VC funding in order to compete when Uber and the like came to town, which ultimately ruined them. That's a problem you see again and again, I think. No matter what your intentions, it's incredibly difficult to compete when a company with huge pockets comes to town and subsidises rides.

rtpg 9y ago

But in this scenario isn't it basically better for everyone (except Uber) to reorganize everything into a co-op? This is a great example of capitalism not being able to generate the best solution. In an alternate universe there would be a regulated exchange with ~0 cut of the profits, instead making sure drivers get the money since they're doing most of the work. Uber does handle pricing, but even then it has "cheated" to get a bigger slice of the pie. Imagine the NYSE taking even 5% of trades.

rayiner 9y ago

That’s a bit of spin right there. Taxi companies could never “invent something like Uber.” Meter and fare regulations precluded the use of smart phones instead of approved meters, and surge pricing (which allows Uber to offer cheaper rides most of the time and make up for it during periods of high demand). Huge amounts of VC money and ignoring taxi regulations allowed Uber to “invent something like Uber.”

umanwizard 9y ago
I intentionally said minicabs, not taxis, to head off this exact sort of argument.
thriftwy 9y ago
They could have been changing these regulations years ago, instead they behave like a vegetable which is now being eaten.
- radiorental 9y ago
  I can't think of an example at this scale where that happened without the incentive of disruptive competition.
dagw 9y ago
Taxi companies could never “invent something like Uber.” Of course they could. All the regulations you mentioned are only there because the Taxi companies lobbied hard for them. Had they lobbied half as hard to have the regulations loosened they could have gotten any regulations they wanted. The taxi companies bet big on using regulation to entrench their position and avoid competition rather than on improving their product. History will tell if it was a good bet or not, but so far it isn't looking too good.
- rayiner 9y ago
  Do you have a source for your elaborate narrative history of taxicab regulation? In reality, modern taxi regulations date back to the 1930s, when the prevailing view was that consumer protection was best served by a combination of limiting competition and government price regulation. This was all happening at around the same time as the government rate-regulated other transportation industries: busses, freight trucking, and airlines.