6 ms·

> It is the same with the cab companies. It took Uber and Lyft for them to lift a finger and actually attempt to innovate and make it better for customers This

> It is the same with the cab companies. It took Uber and Lyft for them to lift a finger and actually attempt to innovate and make it better for customers This is a complete rewriting of history. The reason Uber "won" is because they operated on a loss. The reality is that running a Cab business typically has low overhead. You use phone lines, maybe a website, and then pay for cars and maintenance. Uber "innovated" the field by doing the exact same thing with MUCH higher operating costs. How did they provide a cheaper service then? That's the kicker, they never have. They just ate the loss. Cabbies, unfortunately, cannot work for a negative wage. Uber can pull that off then. And so, for 14 years, they never turned a profit. Losing hundreds of millions a year. And that's how they won. Of course, now Uber is actually more expensive than your average cab. Which makes complete sense when you consider calling someone's phone has got to be a lot cheaper than running one of the largest networks in the country. And, is it really more convenient to tap around as opposed to make a call or even just stick out your hand? Maybe. But I think when it's double the price, people won't feel this way.

asdfasdf1 2y ago
Uber/Lift won not by being cheaper, but because their fixed fare prevented the typical taxi scams
- consteval 2y ago
  Again, this is a rewriting. I'm sure this played a role, but Uber fares are not actually fixed! There's no "per mile" rate, the algorithm is a complete black box! They won because they were cheaper for the consumer.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    It's an up front cost that doesn't magically change during the journey, and you can pay on the app. That alone was an amazing selling point.
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    Did you never take a cab pre Uber? It was a poor experience. At best it went ok. But you have to be constantly paying attention, know the local roads (when on vacation/business that didn't work, or even when it did, you are having to straight call out old boy for being a scummy scammer and taking the wrong streets), deal with the 'sorry the mileage ticker is broken' 'sorry I can't take credit cards' after saying they did at the start. Uber fixed a TON of that experience.
    - freejazz 2y ago
      I've seen Uber come up with the most outrageous routes to take me around NYC, so I don't think this is true at all w/r/t to being something that Uber "solved."
    - consteval 2y ago
      Sure, but again, I know many people and I think consumers as a whole would happily take a shittier product if it's half the cost. The reason Uber won is because they were competitive in price. If they were not competitive in price, which they aren't now, then I am extremely confident in saying they would've went nowhere.
  - eastbound 2y ago
    No really, taxis were the first thieves of the world, on paar with politicians. Look, I went to Russia, I took Yandex Taxi. I went to Indonesia and took Grub. Whether you pay double of half is i consequential compared to “Yes I take credit cards” then “Oh my credit card apparatus doesn’t work” then “Let me find an ATM for you, at your expense”. The one brand than invested on marketing is for nothing in the death of the taxis; Everyone was wishing they’d disappear. The price was the cherry on the cake, the bottle of water was the finger to every awful taxi driver that has existed in history.
  - cm2012 2y ago
    As someone who grew up in NYC, lol. Taxis were horrible and tried to rip you off at least 20% of the time. Ubers have a transparent rating mechanism and transparent pricing.
    - acdha 2y ago
      Uber has a rating mechanism. They do not have transparent pricing and have a history of building tools to misrepresent their activities to legal authorities so nobody can trust them not to play games with pricing at any time in the future. Better than cabs were 15 years ago but we should expect more transparency.
    - consteval 2y ago
      Neither the pricing nor the rating are transparent. They're just kind of transparent, and you're relying on trust in Uber.
      - gs17 2y ago
        I trust Uber somewhat more than a taxi driver. So far Uber's worst to me was rides not showing up, with taxi drivers I've been essentially robbed (and in most of the world, that it was only "essentially" means I had a not so bad experience).
  - inglor_cz 2y ago
    From a country which suffered from a notorious taxi mafia which is now basically extinct, Uber isn't game changing because it is cheaper. It is game changing because now the drivers have a reputation from their previous customers and you know you won't be treated like a stupid mark at best, or sexually assaulted etc. THAT was the game changer and good riddance to bad rubbish. Even such "tiny" details as the cars being clean and not smelly are, in fact, a major improvement in quality. Old-style taxi guys had zero incentive to keep their cars clean. Many smoked in them outright.
- crooked-v 2y ago
  Also, because you actually know whether or not a vehicle is going to show up.
- freejazz 2y ago
  In which city do you live?
- jen20 2y ago
  They won by not having a credit card machine that mysteriously broke at the end of your trip. Fixed fare was very late to Uber and Lyft.
stickfigure 2y ago
Yeah that's nonsense. Uber/Lyft "won" because hailing a cab was - and still is - a shitty experience. The cab industry was unapologetically exploitative and I will Not. Shed. One. Tear. for it.
- consteval 2y ago
  > because hailing a cab was - and still is - a shitty experience Consumer don't actually care that much about this. They care about price - they're very price sensitive. Uber WAS cheaper, so they won. The experience being better matters a little, but not much. And, again, it's not that much better! Certainly, I can catch a cab much faster than an Uber, and consumers are also time sensitive! > unapologetically exploitative As opposed to Uber, who categorizes all their employees as "gig" so they don't have to pay out benefits. And they don't take on any risk with the capital, the employees bring their own capital. Uber is extremely exploitative both to you, the consumer, and to workers. For you, you're not offered a fix rate. Your rate per mile varies by the minute and by who you are - not unlike a scammy Taxi. The difference is the Taxi's at least would sometimes not be scams and advertise a rate, this is not the case with Uber.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Consumers like knowing the price for a trip before taking it so they can decide if it's worth it or not. I have no problem with variable pricing, provided it's stated before I agree to pay, not after. It can't be a scam if customers have full information before they agree.
    - consteval 2y ago
      > It can't be a scam if customers have full information before they agree It absolutely can be, if customers don't know how that price is generated, which you don't. You agree but you don't have the full facts. Your friend could be paying half and you're getting ripped off. And, to be clear, many taxis before Uber did actually advertise their rates. This is the same situation then, but even better, because you know your rate isn't for you, it's for everyone.
billy99k 2y ago
"Cabbies, unfortunately, cannot work for a negative wage. Uber can pull that off then. And so, for 14 years, they never turned a profit. Losing hundreds of millions a year." I'm not even talking about the wage aspect of the business. Before Uber and Lyft, getting a cab was inconvenient. Mostly telephone or hailing it in-person. Uber and Lyft forced them to innovate. There are now apps available to get a cab in almost every major city. Why did it take the Uber/Lyft disruption to get something like this? Because the cab companies didn't need to compete and the unions kept this monopoly in place.
- consteval 2y ago
  I fail to see how using an app is more convenient than hailing in person or using the telephone. What happens if you don't have the app or don't want to download it? We really have to sit down and make an account and do all this bullshit? It's "more convenient" because you've been influenced. But, certainly, I can make a phone call faster than calling an uber. And I can do it without any data or without even a smartphone. In actuality, it's not more convenient, it's just less human.
ta1243 2y ago
I got an uber the other day, had to wait 5 minutes for it. There were some taxis sat outside the station, but I chose uber because 1) I know it will take card. Last time I took a taxi the "card machine was broken" and "I'll drop you at an ATM" 2) I know I'll get a receipt, as a PDF, which I put into my expenses. Taxi drivers tend to be very grumpy about giving receipts 3) I know I won't get adverts - maybe this is just a New York thing, but last time I took a yellow cab in New York I was bombarded with adverts 4) I know I'll be going to the right place, without having communication difficulties and ending up at the wrong hotel or whatever Price doesn't come into it. And if uber can't gets its operational costs down below a taxi firm paying for a dispatcher and manager to handle paperwork etc, given the scale they operate at, then they really need their tech stack sorting.
- consteval 2y ago
  > Price doesn't come into it Not true, price did come into it, you just decided the price differential was fair. If Uber was 1000x more expensive then you wouldn't have taken it, even if they massaged your feet and kissed your forehead. > And if uber can't gets its operational costs They can't, because the idea itself is flawed. Taxi companies don't need a tech stack. It costs very little to pay some bloke 10 bucks an hour to operate a phone. Paying hundreds of software engineers is very expensive, and it doesn't really matter if you switch away from Ruby or whatever. That's the least of their worries.
mike50 2y ago
Cabs refused to innovate. Before Uber the process to obtain a cab meant using a phone to call a human to radio a driver in a vehicle. It was obvious in the year 2005 that booking through the internet was going to happen.

asdfasdf1 2y ago

Uber/Lift won not by being cheaper, but because their fixed fare prevented the typical taxi scams

consteval 2y ago
Again, this is a rewriting. I'm sure this played a role, but Uber fares are not actually fixed! There's no "per mile" rate, the algorithm is a complete black box! They won because they were cheaper for the consumer.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  It's an up front cost that doesn't magically change during the journey, and you can pay on the app. That alone was an amazing selling point.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  Did you never take a cab pre Uber? It was a poor experience. At best it went ok. But you have to be constantly paying attention, know the local roads (when on vacation/business that didn't work, or even when it did, you are having to straight call out old boy for being a scummy scammer and taking the wrong streets), deal with the 'sorry the mileage ticker is broken' 'sorry I can't take credit cards' after saying they did at the start. Uber fixed a TON of that experience.
  - freejazz 2y ago
    I've seen Uber come up with the most outrageous routes to take me around NYC, so I don't think this is true at all w/r/t to being something that Uber "solved."
  - consteval 2y ago
    Sure, but again, I know many people and I think consumers as a whole would happily take a shittier product if it's half the cost. The reason Uber won is because they were competitive in price. If they were not competitive in price, which they aren't now, then I am extremely confident in saying they would've went nowhere.
- eastbound 2y ago
  No really, taxis were the first thieves of the world, on paar with politicians. Look, I went to Russia, I took Yandex Taxi. I went to Indonesia and took Grub. Whether you pay double of half is i consequential compared to “Yes I take credit cards” then “Oh my credit card apparatus doesn’t work” then “Let me find an ATM for you, at your expense”. The one brand than invested on marketing is for nothing in the death of the taxis; Everyone was wishing they’d disappear. The price was the cherry on the cake, the bottle of water was the finger to every awful taxi driver that has existed in history.
- cm2012 2y ago
  As someone who grew up in NYC, lol. Taxis were horrible and tried to rip you off at least 20% of the time. Ubers have a transparent rating mechanism and transparent pricing.
  - acdha 2y ago
    Uber has a rating mechanism. They do not have transparent pricing and have a history of building tools to misrepresent their activities to legal authorities so nobody can trust them not to play games with pricing at any time in the future. Better than cabs were 15 years ago but we should expect more transparency.
  - consteval 2y ago
    Neither the pricing nor the rating are transparent. They're just kind of transparent, and you're relying on trust in Uber.
    - gs17 2y ago
      I trust Uber somewhat more than a taxi driver. So far Uber's worst to me was rides not showing up, with taxi drivers I've been essentially robbed (and in most of the world, that it was only "essentially" means I had a not so bad experience).
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  From a country which suffered from a notorious taxi mafia which is now basically extinct, Uber isn't game changing because it is cheaper. It is game changing because now the drivers have a reputation from their previous customers and you know you won't be treated like a stupid mark at best, or sexually assaulted etc. THAT was the game changer and good riddance to bad rubbish. Even such "tiny" details as the cars being clean and not smelly are, in fact, a major improvement in quality. Old-style taxi guys had zero incentive to keep their cars clean. Many smoked in them outright.
crooked-v 2y ago
Also, because you actually know whether or not a vehicle is going to show up.
freejazz 2y ago
In which city do you live?
jen20 2y ago
They won by not having a credit card machine that mysteriously broke at the end of your trip. Fixed fare was very late to Uber and Lyft.

stickfigure 2y ago

Yeah that's nonsense. Uber/Lyft "won" because hailing a cab was - and still is - a shitty experience. The cab industry was unapologetically exploitative and I will Not. Shed. One. Tear. for it.

consteval 2y ago
> because hailing a cab was - and still is - a shitty experience Consumer don't actually care that much about this. They care about price - they're very price sensitive. Uber WAS cheaper, so they won. The experience being better matters a little, but not much. And, again, it's not that much better! Certainly, I can catch a cab much faster than an Uber, and consumers are also time sensitive! > unapologetically exploitative As opposed to Uber, who categorizes all their employees as "gig" so they don't have to pay out benefits. And they don't take on any risk with the capital, the employees bring their own capital. Uber is extremely exploitative both to you, the consumer, and to workers. For you, you're not offered a fix rate. Your rate per mile varies by the minute and by who you are - not unlike a scammy Taxi. The difference is the Taxi's at least would sometimes not be scams and advertise a rate, this is not the case with Uber.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Consumers like knowing the price for a trip before taking it so they can decide if it's worth it or not. I have no problem with variable pricing, provided it's stated before I agree to pay, not after. It can't be a scam if customers have full information before they agree.
  - consteval 2y ago
    > It can't be a scam if customers have full information before they agree It absolutely can be, if customers don't know how that price is generated, which you don't. You agree but you don't have the full facts. Your friend could be paying half and you're getting ripped off. And, to be clear, many taxis before Uber did actually advertise their rates. This is the same situation then, but even better, because you know your rate isn't for you, it's for everyone.

billy99k 2y ago

"Cabbies, unfortunately, cannot work for a negative wage. Uber can pull that off then. And so, for 14 years, they never turned a profit. Losing hundreds of millions a year." I'm not even talking about the wage aspect of the business. Before Uber and Lyft, getting a cab was inconvenient. Mostly telephone or hailing it in-person. Uber and Lyft forced them to innovate. There are now apps available to get a cab in almost every major city. Why did it take the Uber/Lyft disruption to get something like this? Because the cab companies didn't need to compete and the unions kept this monopoly in place.

consteval 2y ago
I fail to see how using an app is more convenient than hailing in person or using the telephone. What happens if you don't have the app or don't want to download it? We really have to sit down and make an account and do all this bullshit? It's "more convenient" because you've been influenced. But, certainly, I can make a phone call faster than calling an uber. And I can do it without any data or without even a smartphone. In actuality, it's not more convenient, it's just less human.

ta1243 2y ago

I got an uber the other day, had to wait 5 minutes for it. There were some taxis sat outside the station, but I chose uber because 1) I know it will take card. Last time I took a taxi the "card machine was broken" and "I'll drop you at an ATM" 2) I know I'll get a receipt, as a PDF, which I put into my expenses. Taxi drivers tend to be very grumpy about giving receipts 3) I know I won't get adverts - maybe this is just a New York thing, but last time I took a yellow cab in New York I was bombarded with adverts 4) I know I'll be going to the right place, without having communication difficulties and ending up at the wrong hotel or whatever Price doesn't come into it. And if uber can't gets its operational costs down below a taxi firm paying for a dispatcher and manager to handle paperwork etc, given the scale they operate at, then they really need their tech stack sorting.

consteval 2y ago
> Price doesn't come into it Not true, price did come into it, you just decided the price differential was fair. If Uber was 1000x more expensive then you wouldn't have taken it, even if they massaged your feet and kissed your forehead. > And if uber can't gets its operational costs They can't, because the idea itself is flawed. Taxi companies don't need a tech stack. It costs very little to pay some bloke 10 bucks an hour to operate a phone. Paying hundreds of software engineers is very expensive, and it doesn't really matter if you switch away from Ruby or whatever. That's the least of their worries.

mike50 2y ago

Cabs refused to innovate. Before Uber the process to obtain a cab meant using a phone to call a human to radio a driver in a vehicle. It was obvious in the year 2005 that booking through the internet was going to happen.