3 ms·

7 years ago you'd have to jump into a yellow cab before telling the rider if you were going from Manhattan to Brooklyn or Brooklyn to Brooklyn. If you told them

7 years ago you'd have to jump into a yellow cab before telling the rider if you were going from Manhattan to Brooklyn or Brooklyn to Brooklyn. If you told them before you got in, they'd speed off. You used to have to walk to arterial roads in hopes of finding a yellow cab (in the outer boroughs). That is if you lived in neighborhoods that the article points out now skews towards Lyft. Well to do, post gentrification areas. If you didn't live in those neighborhoods, forget finding a yellow cab. If you didn't find a yellow cab, you call a car service like Arecibo or Eastern. You say "73 Atlantic Ave, at Hicks st.", they say "10 minutes" and hang up. 25 minutes later a beat up town car with an illegal tint job pulls up, and you walk to the passenger door and knock on the window, or, if the window no longer works, open the rear passenger door -- but you don't get in. Instead you say the neighborhood you are going and the guy sort of waffles and says... 20. You say, forget it and go to close the door (but you don't), he says 18. You say 12, he says 15. You get in the car. Last week you paid 10 for the same ride. The last time I called an UberT, a few years ago, the green taxi pulled up and someone ran over and threatened to fight me since they'd hailed the cab first. That's the last time I messed around with the old way of doing things and it sounds like a lot of New Yorkers feel the same way.

x_throwaway80bf 9y ago
I had to make a throwaway as well just because I couldn't believe this comment. This is so utterly false. You're essentially claiming that the value of these services is all based on the innovation of the _hailing_ functionality, but there are countless apps that recreate this functionality _exactly_ whether for 'regular' taxis or separately licensed cars. If what you want is for a driver to come to your exact location very quickly, you can get that _anywhere_. This, as a business model alone, is like Dennis on 30 Rock with his basement coffee business. It's so easy an ubiquitious that it's not worth mentioning as a differentiator _at all_. Separately from this, it ignores the fact that there are cost-based reasons for these kinds of behaviors. Drivers, for example, have to think about round-trip cost. If you ask me to drive you from Washington Sq. Park to Astoria, I have to think about what fare to charge you such that it covers my expenses on the longer trip _as well as_ the likely problem of not picking up a return fare that takes me back to a high-traffic area. This is all discussed with much greater statistical depth in the Naked Capitalism articles on Uber, but the basic problem is that none of the ride hailing services have found a way to make this any cheaper, except through massive subsidy (to pay drivers to be the ride stock in low-profitability zones they others wouldn't be in). And even with an innovation like self-driving cars, it would only make a difference if it is not a commodity. If it is a commodity (which, IMO, is the overwhelmingly most likely outcome for self-driving cars), then either Ubers completely captures all relevant IP for end-to-end commercial solutions ahead of any competitiors, or else Uber is licensing out the cars just like everyone else, and for whatever cost reduction it buys them for getting rid of drivers, it just creates a new price war race to the bottom on who can charge the least for the self-driving based rides. I'm just so tired of all the mental gymnastics defending them. It really is total ownership of all IP for commercial self-driving cars or bust for this business model. And if it busts, you'll see that all the niceties you describe in this comment are mostly the product of either (a) massive investor subsidy, or (b) easy and cheap-to-copy innovations like a map and location-enabled hailing app.
- kbenson 9y ago
  > You're essentially claiming that the value of these services is all based on the innovation of the _hailing_ functionality To me it just looked like an anecdote. > I'm just so tired of all the mental gymnastics defending them. Perhaps you're seeing people defending them when other people are just trying to share their experience? If so, I agree, that would get tiring.
  - x_throwaway80bf 9y ago
    > Perhaps you're seeing people defending them when other people are just trying to share their experience? If so, I agree, that would get tiring. The context of when they choose to share experiences casting Uber as a catalyst for significant improvements provides a lot of evidence that it's not just an anecdote in a vacuum, but rather is meant to defend Uber. I'm all for positive experiences, and I _really want_ ride hailing services to somehow be profitable, because it could add competition and create various experiences that I am willing to pay (the current subsidized prices) for. What's tiring is seeing repetition of the positive anecdotes without the necessary accompanying asterisks that qualify it based on the _inherent_ profitability issues with any service that tried to solve these problems. Then we can at least acknowledge that the nice, upgraded experiences from these apps is purely a _donation_ from a group of investors, which means it's irrelevant as a comparison with prior taxi experiences unless those investors are willing to make it a permanent donation.
- beagle3 9y ago
  There is one more issue: Uber and Lyft massively increased supply. It is not clear, as you mention, whether this could have happened without investor aubsidy - but it is likely. Medallion allocation is a political subject which does not necessarily correlate with demand; and the established way medallion owners rent them out results in it being uneconomical for drivers to do more than a given amount of rides per shift - a result of which is that supply at peak demand (rainy days) is significantly lower than even what the medallion system allows for.
  - x_throwaway80bf 9y ago
rockshassa 9y ago
another Brooklynite here. this is 100% true. You absolutely needed to "trick" the driver into letting you into the car. I've had taxis drive off, or refuse to let me in. When I was in the car, they would say they can't take me to my destination because their "shift was ending" and they had to go in a different direction. Many of these incidents happened in the LES, which is right next to the bridge I had to cross! Taxi drivers also never know the destination, I got pretty good at giving my directions speech (to a well known neighborhood) And taxis cost more! As far as I'm concerned, the old way of hailing can rot, the old taxis can rot. they can't hold a candle to uber, and they'll never be able to become competitive on price or quality given the cost of a medallion.
- x_throwaway80bf 9y ago
  This still doesn't address the fact that the reason Uber experiences are different from this is purely down to subsidy. If drivers weren't being subsidized to provide the unprofitable rides that yellow cabs are forced to provide by law (and which drivers try to avoid), then Uber also wouldn't provide this. Basically, your comment is the same as saying, "I am glad VCs are giving me reduced-cost rides and subsidizing drivers to provide ride stock for intrinsically unprofitable routes and locations." You're not saying that the Uber experience is better than the old yellow cab experience. You're saying that the experience where VCs give away money for free in order to finance a ride you could otherwise never expect to get (except at much higher price) is nice. This isn't a property of Uber or any transformation of taxi services. It is just a temporary property of VCs being willing to artificially increase supply, artificially increase car quality, and artificially reduce prices via subsidy, while not providing any evidence that it could persist without subsidy.
  - throwaway_80bf3 9y ago
    I finally understand what you are saying: it's as if Uber is like Kozmo.com and Uber's service of safe, convenient, affordable transportation, despite existing in reality now, won't exist in some near future, much like Kozmo's subsidized service of same day turnaround of food, groceries, alcohol, coffee, home goods, etc. was part of a fleeting moment never to be realized again...
mancerayder 9y ago
Fellow Brooklynite here, and I agree 100%. I can't believe the hubris of these guys, trying to get me to get out of the cab after they hear I live in Brooklyn. And BTW, I'm JUST over the bridge in Brooklyn, about 10 minutes from the E River in traffic! It's the tourists that suffer, or the newbies, who aren't as rude as us New Yorkers - they'll doubtless exit the cabbie who says, "Sorry, not going there." I don't exit cabs when legally they can't ask me to. But it gets worse with yellow cabs. First of all, they never clean their cars. Half the time it smells like a goat has been freshly transported. Secondly, they don't care about noise - at least half of them use the radio speaker system to conference call in either their wives or their fellow drivers and yap away while you get to hear that, on high volume. Sometimes there's awful music. That's rude and inconsiderate and doesn't often happen with Uber and Lyft. I'm going to say something mean: the cabbies get what they deserve. They can whine all they want, and I do have some sympathy that these drivers moved to this country only to get stuck in what is a failed monopoly structure. The reason why cabbies were successful before Uber and Lyft and medallions used to cost 1 million dollars was because they operated under a monopolistic environment with no competition. I remember once the cabbies went on strike because they were mandated to install GPS tracking devices and credit card machines. The machines made them furious, and for a year after a lot would be taped up: "Sorry sir, machine doesn't work." It makes my blood boil just thinking about some of the awful experiences I've had with yellow cabs. Glad to see them suffer.
- jseliger 9y ago
  The best part of car services may be safety. About 1 out of every 10 cab rides entailed crazy and/or dangerous driving. I don't think I've ever seen that in Uber or other car shares, because if a driver drives poorly, they'll be rated poorly. And the mutual-rating system seems to improve passenger behavior too.
  - billmalarky 9y ago
    I've been in cabs where it was clear the driver did not have a license, or had somehow cheated the system in order to get one. One man did not understand basic concepts like how to turn left at a red light. He believed he had the right of way to turn left at all times (I guess he was confused into thinking having a "green arrow" was standard for all lights even if they didn't have one) and when oncoming cars would keep coming at him he would slam the brakes out of fear instead of punching the gas - stopping in front of traffic! Thankfully no one t-boned us but when the oncoming traffic drivers would honk at him he would honk back and get angry (whilst stopping in place due to slamming the brakes). I was only in the cab for about 1.5 miles but this happened at 2 or 3 lights. This was in Queens! I shudder to think of what would happen to him and his passengers in Manhattan. Horrifying.
untog 9y ago
I disagree with the assessment of car services - in my experience they've always been very professional and with good quality cars. Maybe I've just gotten lucky. The hailing situation in NYC was definitely awful. But now apps like Curb bring a yellow cab to you, and they don't have surge pricing, so at times I'll be content to get a cab instead of a Lyft/Juno, and it'll be cheaper. The taxi lobby in NYC was terrible, and I'm very glad to see it broken. But I'm not convinced an Uber monopoly would be any better, and I'm still wary of seeing it. I don't ever use Uber simply because competition is good for me as a consumer, and I have no desire to see a company with the business practices of Uber corner the market anywhere. The service I get with Lyft and Juno is identical to that with Uber anyway.

x_throwaway80bf 9y ago

I had to make a throwaway as well just because I couldn't believe this comment. This is so utterly false. You're essentially claiming that the value of these services is all based on the innovation of the _hailing_ functionality, but there are countless apps that recreate this functionality _exactly_ whether for 'regular' taxis or separately licensed cars. If what you want is for a driver to come to your exact location very quickly, you can get that _anywhere_. This, as a business model alone, is like Dennis on 30 Rock with his basement coffee business. It's so easy an ubiquitious that it's not worth mentioning as a differentiator _at all_. Separately from this, it ignores the fact that there are cost-based reasons for these kinds of behaviors. Drivers, for example, have to think about round-trip cost. If you ask me to drive you from Washington Sq. Park to Astoria, I have to think about what fare to charge you such that it covers my expenses on the longer trip _as well as_ the likely problem of not picking up a return fare that takes me back to a high-traffic area. This is all discussed with much greater statistical depth in the Naked Capitalism articles on Uber, but the basic problem is that none of the ride hailing services have found a way to make this any cheaper, except through massive subsidy (to pay drivers to be the ride stock in low-profitability zones they others wouldn't be in). And even with an innovation like self-driving cars, it would only make a difference if it is not a commodity. If it is a commodity (which, IMO, is the overwhelmingly most likely outcome for self-driving cars), then either Ubers completely captures all relevant IP for end-to-end commercial solutions ahead of any competitiors, or else Uber is licensing out the cars just like everyone else, and for whatever cost reduction it buys them for getting rid of drivers, it just creates a new price war race to the bottom on who can charge the least for the self-driving based rides. I'm just so tired of all the mental gymnastics defending them. It really is total ownership of all IP for commercial self-driving cars or bust for this business model. And if it busts, you'll see that all the niceties you describe in this comment are mostly the product of either (a) massive investor subsidy, or (b) easy and cheap-to-copy innovations like a map and location-enabled hailing app.

kbenson 9y ago
> You're essentially claiming that the value of these services is all based on the innovation of the _hailing_ functionality To me it just looked like an anecdote. > I'm just so tired of all the mental gymnastics defending them. Perhaps you're seeing people defending them when other people are just trying to share their experience? If so, I agree, that would get tiring.
- x_throwaway80bf 9y ago
  > Perhaps you're seeing people defending them when other people are just trying to share their experience? If so, I agree, that would get tiring. The context of when they choose to share experiences casting Uber as a catalyst for significant improvements provides a lot of evidence that it's not just an anecdote in a vacuum, but rather is meant to defend Uber. I'm all for positive experiences, and I _really want_ ride hailing services to somehow be profitable, because it could add competition and create various experiences that I am willing to pay (the current subsidized prices) for. What's tiring is seeing repetition of the positive anecdotes without the necessary accompanying asterisks that qualify it based on the _inherent_ profitability issues with any service that tried to solve these problems. Then we can at least acknowledge that the nice, upgraded experiences from these apps is purely a _donation_ from a group of investors, which means it's irrelevant as a comparison with prior taxi experiences unless those investors are willing to make it a permanent donation.
beagle3 9y ago
There is one more issue: Uber and Lyft massively increased supply. It is not clear, as you mention, whether this could have happened without investor aubsidy - but it is likely. Medallion allocation is a political subject which does not necessarily correlate with demand; and the established way medallion owners rent them out results in it being uneconomical for drivers to do more than a given amount of rides per shift - a result of which is that supply at peak demand (rainy days) is significantly lower than even what the medallion system allows for.
- x_throwaway80bf 9y ago

rockshassa 9y ago

another Brooklynite here. this is 100% true. You absolutely needed to "trick" the driver into letting you into the car. I've had taxis drive off, or refuse to let me in. When I was in the car, they would say they can't take me to my destination because their "shift was ending" and they had to go in a different direction. Many of these incidents happened in the LES, which is right next to the bridge I had to cross! Taxi drivers also never know the destination, I got pretty good at giving my directions speech (to a well known neighborhood) And taxis cost more! As far as I'm concerned, the old way of hailing can rot, the old taxis can rot. they can't hold a candle to uber, and they'll never be able to become competitive on price or quality given the cost of a medallion.

x_throwaway80bf 9y ago
This still doesn't address the fact that the reason Uber experiences are different from this is purely down to subsidy. If drivers weren't being subsidized to provide the unprofitable rides that yellow cabs are forced to provide by law (and which drivers try to avoid), then Uber also wouldn't provide this. Basically, your comment is the same as saying, "I am glad VCs are giving me reduced-cost rides and subsidizing drivers to provide ride stock for intrinsically unprofitable routes and locations." You're not saying that the Uber experience is better than the old yellow cab experience. You're saying that the experience where VCs give away money for free in order to finance a ride you could otherwise never expect to get (except at much higher price) is nice. This isn't a property of Uber or any transformation of taxi services. It is just a temporary property of VCs being willing to artificially increase supply, artificially increase car quality, and artificially reduce prices via subsidy, while not providing any evidence that it could persist without subsidy.
- throwaway_80bf3 9y ago
  I finally understand what you are saying: it's as if Uber is like Kozmo.com and Uber's service of safe, convenient, affordable transportation, despite existing in reality now, won't exist in some near future, much like Kozmo's subsidized service of same day turnaround of food, groceries, alcohol, coffee, home goods, etc. was part of a fleeting moment never to be realized again...

mancerayder 9y ago

Fellow Brooklynite here, and I agree 100%. I can't believe the hubris of these guys, trying to get me to get out of the cab after they hear I live in Brooklyn. And BTW, I'm JUST over the bridge in Brooklyn, about 10 minutes from the E River in traffic! It's the tourists that suffer, or the newbies, who aren't as rude as us New Yorkers - they'll doubtless exit the cabbie who says, "Sorry, not going there." I don't exit cabs when legally they can't ask me to. But it gets worse with yellow cabs. First of all, they never clean their cars. Half the time it smells like a goat has been freshly transported. Secondly, they don't care about noise - at least half of them use the radio speaker system to conference call in either their wives or their fellow drivers and yap away while you get to hear that, on high volume. Sometimes there's awful music. That's rude and inconsiderate and doesn't often happen with Uber and Lyft. I'm going to say something mean: the cabbies get what they deserve. They can whine all they want, and I do have some sympathy that these drivers moved to this country only to get stuck in what is a failed monopoly structure. The reason why cabbies were successful before Uber and Lyft and medallions used to cost 1 million dollars was because they operated under a monopolistic environment with no competition. I remember once the cabbies went on strike because they were mandated to install GPS tracking devices and credit card machines. The machines made them furious, and for a year after a lot would be taped up: "Sorry sir, machine doesn't work." It makes my blood boil just thinking about some of the awful experiences I've had with yellow cabs. Glad to see them suffer.

jseliger 9y ago
The best part of car services may be safety. About 1 out of every 10 cab rides entailed crazy and/or dangerous driving. I don't think I've ever seen that in Uber or other car shares, because if a driver drives poorly, they'll be rated poorly. And the mutual-rating system seems to improve passenger behavior too.
- billmalarky 9y ago
  I've been in cabs where it was clear the driver did not have a license, or had somehow cheated the system in order to get one. One man did not understand basic concepts like how to turn left at a red light. He believed he had the right of way to turn left at all times (I guess he was confused into thinking having a "green arrow" was standard for all lights even if they didn't have one) and when oncoming cars would keep coming at him he would slam the brakes out of fear instead of punching the gas - stopping in front of traffic! Thankfully no one t-boned us but when the oncoming traffic drivers would honk at him he would honk back and get angry (whilst stopping in place due to slamming the brakes). I was only in the cab for about 1.5 miles but this happened at 2 or 3 lights. This was in Queens! I shudder to think of what would happen to him and his passengers in Manhattan. Horrifying.

untog 9y ago

I disagree with the assessment of car services - in my experience they've always been very professional and with good quality cars. Maybe I've just gotten lucky. The hailing situation in NYC was definitely awful. But now apps like Curb bring a yellow cab to you, and they don't have surge pricing, so at times I'll be content to get a cab instead of a Lyft/Juno, and it'll be cheaper. The taxi lobby in NYC was terrible, and I'm very glad to see it broken. But I'm not convinced an Uber monopoly would be any better, and I'm still wary of seeing it. I don't ever use Uber simply because competition is good for me as a consumer, and I have no desire to see a company with the business practices of Uber corner the market anywhere. The service I get with Lyft and Juno is identical to that with Uber anyway.