4 ms·

> The entire innovation of ridesharing was taxi dispatch, with a smartphone. This is why I've never understood the taxi companies whining and complaining about

> The entire innovation of ridesharing was taxi dispatch, with a smartphone. This is why I've never understood the taxi companies whining and complaining about Uber and Lyft breaking the rules. These companies could have done the exact same thing and crushed Uber and Lyft because they already had large presences in their city.

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
In many (maybe most) cities, there are regulations that taxis have to follow. If you want to drive a cab in NYC, you have to buy a medallion. Uber simply ignored those regulations, and ran unlicensed taxicab operations. While taxicab companies were paying for limited numbers of medallions, charging fixed rates, etc., Uber was just doing whatever it wanted. Even if you think the regulations don't make sense, you can see why the taxicab companies are upset.
- rsj_hn 4y ago
  No, what happened was that technology obsoleted the laws that said "A taxi is something you hail on the street". Even in NYC, there were car services predating Uber that you call and arrange a ride, and those drivers were not required to have medallions. The medallion was needed to pick up rides on the street. With the advent of portable phones, cities did not update their regulations (which cities do?) and so Uber exploited this loophole to create a car service that you requested with your phone, but which had a similar (but not identical) user experience to hailing a cab. In fact, the first Ubers were designed as a car service -- it was higher end cars and the cheaper UberX happened only later. Even today, you still can't hail an Uber. That would make it a taxi. Every ride is pre-arranged over the phone. So it's not true that Uber just ignored the rules for taxis, because Ubers aren't taxis. They are a car service. It's the cities that missed the whole mobile phone phenomena and didn't update their laws. In other words, Uber was a bit more sophisticated about this than "Let's just ignore the taxi laws" -- and understanding the difference is kinda important. I can join you in criticizing Uber, but they are not cartoonishly bad, and they did actually think these issues through.
  - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
    This is the argument that Uber used in NYC, though its validity is highly questionable. In countless cities around the world, however, Uber's operations were blatantly illegal. Uber pretty effectively used its customer base to lobby local governments against enforcing regulations, though, and Uber's operations were legalized in many places.
    - rsj_hn 4y ago
      > This is the argument that Uber used in NYC, though its validity is highly questionable Why do you think it's questionable? This is really cut and dried, which is why NYC was unable to challenge Uber, as they had no case. Not liking something doesn't make it questionable. > In countless cities around the world, however, Uber's operations were blatantly illegal So examples would be nice here, at least in the U.S. I know of cases where cities decided to pass laws against Uber after they were established in the local market, in which case Uber obeyed those laws and pulled out, but of course lobbied to have the laws changed. Absolutely nothing about that sequence of events is "blatantly illegal".
      - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
        > Why do you think it's questionable? Because standing at the curb and hailing a nearby car on an app is much more like sticking out your hand and waiving down a cab than it is like calling up a limo company the day before and booking a ride. "We're using an app" is not a good excuse for flooding the market with unlicensed taxicabs. > So examples would be nice here, at least in the U.S. Uber was considered illegal in NYC, SF and LA, and I'm sure many other cities. They eventually came to agreements with Uber, and Uber's operations were legalized by new legislation across the US. However, the initial strategy appears to have been to just expand everywhere, regardless of what they local regulations were, and then to get permission afterwards. This didn't always work out that well internationally, at least at first. For example, Uber executives were arrested in France for running an unlicensed taxicab operation. Addendum: Uber was apparently aware that its operations were illegal in many places, according to leaked internal documents from the company: [0]. I wasn't aware of just how brazen they were. 0. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak-reveals-global-lobbying-campaign https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak....
supertrope 4y ago
Taxi companies do not have venture capital funding that will eat a $2 billion loss per quarter. They have to follow labor laws.

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago

In many (maybe most) cities, there are regulations that taxis have to follow. If you want to drive a cab in NYC, you have to buy a medallion. Uber simply ignored those regulations, and ran unlicensed taxicab operations. While taxicab companies were paying for limited numbers of medallions, charging fixed rates, etc., Uber was just doing whatever it wanted. Even if you think the regulations don't make sense, you can see why the taxicab companies are upset.

rsj_hn 4y ago
No, what happened was that technology obsoleted the laws that said "A taxi is something you hail on the street". Even in NYC, there were car services predating Uber that you call and arrange a ride, and those drivers were not required to have medallions. The medallion was needed to pick up rides on the street. With the advent of portable phones, cities did not update their regulations (which cities do?) and so Uber exploited this loophole to create a car service that you requested with your phone, but which had a similar (but not identical) user experience to hailing a cab. In fact, the first Ubers were designed as a car service -- it was higher end cars and the cheaper UberX happened only later. Even today, you still can't hail an Uber. That would make it a taxi. Every ride is pre-arranged over the phone. So it's not true that Uber just ignored the rules for taxis, because Ubers aren't taxis. They are a car service. It's the cities that missed the whole mobile phone phenomena and didn't update their laws. In other words, Uber was a bit more sophisticated about this than "Let's just ignore the taxi laws" -- and understanding the difference is kinda important. I can join you in criticizing Uber, but they are not cartoonishly bad, and they did actually think these issues through.
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
  This is the argument that Uber used in NYC, though its validity is highly questionable. In countless cities around the world, however, Uber's operations were blatantly illegal. Uber pretty effectively used its customer base to lobby local governments against enforcing regulations, though, and Uber's operations were legalized in many places.
  - rsj_hn 4y ago
    > This is the argument that Uber used in NYC, though its validity is highly questionable Why do you think it's questionable? This is really cut and dried, which is why NYC was unable to challenge Uber, as they had no case. Not liking something doesn't make it questionable. > In countless cities around the world, however, Uber's operations were blatantly illegal So examples would be nice here, at least in the U.S. I know of cases where cities decided to pass laws against Uber after they were established in the local market, in which case Uber obeyed those laws and pulled out, but of course lobbied to have the laws changed. Absolutely nothing about that sequence of events is "blatantly illegal".
    - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
      > Why do you think it's questionable? Because standing at the curb and hailing a nearby car on an app is much more like sticking out your hand and waiving down a cab than it is like calling up a limo company the day before and booking a ride. "We're using an app" is not a good excuse for flooding the market with unlicensed taxicabs. > So examples would be nice here, at least in the U.S. Uber was considered illegal in NYC, SF and LA, and I'm sure many other cities. They eventually came to agreements with Uber, and Uber's operations were legalized by new legislation across the US. However, the initial strategy appears to have been to just expand everywhere, regardless of what they local regulations were, and then to get permission afterwards. This didn't always work out that well internationally, at least at first. For example, Uber executives were arrested in France for running an unlicensed taxicab operation. Addendum: Uber was apparently aware that its operations were illegal in many places, according to leaked internal documents from the company: [0]. I wasn't aware of just how brazen they were. 0. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak-reveals-global-lobbying-campaign https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak....

supertrope 4y ago

Taxi companies do not have venture capital funding that will eat a $2 billion loss per quarter. They have to follow labor laws.