5 ms·

"These tech companies used lobbies to destroy the enterprise structure of our civilization from taxi cab medallions to hotels to brick-and-mortar businesses."

"These tech companies used lobbies to destroy the enterprise structure of our civilization from taxi cab medallions to hotels to brick-and-mortar businesses." Taxi cab medallions are a very poor example to cite. I'm empathetic to the story of terrible customer service and share sentiments about the overall erosion of user experience with many tech-adjacent, so-called disruptive services, but the second anyone suggests we were better off with the taxi cab than Uber or Lyft, they lose all credibility in my eyes. I think the biggest benefit that many fail to mention is that you can actually get rides when and where you need to. For example, people have far fewer excuses to drunk drive from bars in my hometown now than they did 15 years ago. I've had my skin saved by several rides that would be impossible without ride-sharing services.

narcraft 2y ago
And for the record, I've also had comically bad experiences with Lyft and Uber including drivers ranting about other customers in smelly unkempt cars (while on a date!) and my ride being significantly delayed because the driver wanted to stop for gas and also got themselves dinner while they were there. And I still love this crap!
- kelnos 2y ago
  Did you rate those drivers appropriately, and not tip them? In general I try to avoid giving any less than 5 stars for anything but a safety issue, because a low-4.x rating can get a driver deactivated. But stopping for gas and getting food? Nope, that's gonna get you a low rating. The ranting about other customers thing is something I'm torn on. Everyone has a bad day sometimes, and that shouldn't affect their livelihood. But still...
dehrmann 2y ago
Taxis are great if you're in Manhattan (or JFK) and not going too far uptown.
- the_third_wave 2y ago
  It's been a while since I was at JFK but when I frequented it I always took the subway. Same for Heathrow, CDG, etc. I generally have much better experiences with general public transport than I do with any sort of taxi "service" but maybe I'm the odd one out?
  - dehrmann 2y ago
    You have to deal with the AirTrain (which isn't free) at JFK. The Tube actually has a Heathrow station, and the RER goes directly to CDG. It's even easier to get to Gatwick than JFK.
    - rsanek 2y ago
      what's the problem with the airtran? it's rare to get to lower Manhattan faster with a taxi than via subway even with congestion pricing. and the cost will be at least 10x.
RegnisGnaw 2y ago
My issue with taxi has always been the scams, not even the long detours. The local law requires that the taxi must take credit card and/or debit cards. If the machine is broken, they can’t take customers till it’s fixed. 30% of the time they tell me that the machine is broken and they want cash. When I say I don’t have cash they offer to drive to the ATM so I can take out some cash, while still on the meter of course. When I asked them to turn off the meter to take me to the ATM, they say it’s illegal.
- newyankee 2y ago
  I realised that as a socially anxious person who wants to be more confident, an LLM might come useful in summarising the local law to this effect quickly and especially the right steps to take.
  - nh23423fefe 2y ago
    why would you feel confident repeating words you didn't write citing laws you dont know to a person youre afraid of?
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  yeah i refuse to take taxis on principle because they are so scammy. i’m a pretty pushy person and they give up but it is draining nonetheless
aprilthird2021 2y ago
Genuinely don't know why you think Uber / Lyft are so much better than taxis? They cost slightly less now (used to be tons left till they needed to turn a profit), but it's still basically the same drivers driving them. They give the same type of service and do the same stuff. Only thing they don't do anymore is drive excessively long routes to run up the meter.
- dehrmann 2y ago
  Where do you normally take taxis? Hailing them can be hard, they might not want to go where you're going, the credit card reader might be broken, and they might take a worse route.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  taxis were awful. they’ve upped their game recently but they would just refuse to take you places, scam you, etc etc.
- kelnos 2y ago
  I guess it depends on where you live. Where I live, pre-Uber, I could never get a taxi in the first place. There were never any driving around to hail, and calling a cab company meant waiting 30-60 minutes, and more than half the time the taxi wouldn't show up at all. Drivers can and would take longer routes to run up the meter if they thought you weren't a savvy passenger. They'd also love to claim the credit card reader is broken, even when that was a violation of local law. If you had a complaint about a driver, you could call the taxi company, and they would assure you they care, but nothing would actually happen. Now I get a car arriving in a predictable amount of time, at a pre-set price, paid outside the flow of the ride. If I have a problem with the driver or car I can report it with a low rating and a comment, and Uber and Lyft are notorious about deactivating drivers with even a rating in the low 4.x range. I can also give a lower or no tip if there's a problem, without feeling socially awkward about it. Uber and Lyft are way better than taxis.
deergomoo 2y ago
There’s an interesting middle ground also. I live in a city where you still need to be a licensed taxi driver to drive for Uber and the cars must be marked (in the UK; it doesn’t seem to be that uncommon here). I don’t in all honesty know how much regulation that actually involves, but certainly more than “some random person with a car”. So there is a least a little bit of accountability. From idle chit chat with the drivers that used to drive for a traditional firm, many have told me they prefer it. They’re very keen on their ability to vet passengers first via ratings, and that people can’t hop out and run away without paying, which apparently is/was not uncommon on Friday and Saturday nights. As a passenger, I like that I can’t be fobbed off with “he’s just round the corner mate” for 30+ minutes and I don’t have to worry about getting cash. It can be a mutually beneficial thing, it just can’t be an unregulated free-for-all which it sounds like many implementations are.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  nah, still sounds protectionist to me. there are broad based wage gains and better prices for consumers when anyone is allowed to be a driver
  - deergomoo 2y ago
    Always with the prices. There is more to a functioning society than the cost of goods and services.
  - Ekaros 2y ago
    Regulating market is reasonable thing to do. Sensible limiting of service providers ensures that prices are not driven through the floor. Like setting minimum wage. Also regulation could allow capping of the prices. And there is nothing that says that such licenses must be transferable or sellable.
palata 2y ago
> but the second anyone suggests we were better off with the taxi cab than Uber or Lyft Uber or Lyft are more convenient for the customer, but the drivers are being abused by Uber or Lyft. Which is less than ideal. That's the thing about BigTech: nobody says that the product was not more convenient (at least before enshittification), but the problem is that BigTech abuses their dominant position, over and over again.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- AlexanderTheGr8 2y ago
  > Uber or Lyft are more convenient for the customer Gross understatement! 1) You can find a cab wherever (almost) and whenever (24x7) - you don't have to hail a cab for minutes/hours (even worse was not knowing when/if the cab would even arrive). 2) Much safer. Emergency support + seeing the route on GPS (can see the path on the driver's uber app) + rating system. 3) Better behaviour, enforced by rating system. Yes, it's not perfect, but much much better than cabs. Cab drivers were regularly abusive, knowing there were no repurcussions. Unfortunately, humans only behave when there's consequences. 4) No scamming vulnerable un-informed people. Cabs were known for scamming foreigners or un-informed people. I can point out a few more things. Calling it `more convenient` is a massive understatement. > but the drivers are being abused by Uber or Lyft. Which is less than ideal. This can be fixed by regulation. Just because a new technology brought a new problem, that doesn't mean we should discard the technology and go to its worse predecessor. Remember : there is a reason the new technology took over its predecessor. I think we can have both : the benefits of digital ride-share + good regulation for drivers to ensure they can maintain their livelihood. PS : that's until driverless waymo/tesla take over everything...
  - palata 2y ago
    > I think we can have both : the benefits of digital ride-share + good regulation Not in the US, who don't believe in regulations. But yeah, my point was that the best would be the convenience of those apps without the abuse. It seems possible outside the US, though: I believe Greece had banned Uber from the beginning on, and Taxis ended up building a similar app. > that's until driverless waymo/tesla take over everything... Oh right, it's the year of the fully autonomous car! Or was it last year? Or 2016?
reaperducer 2y ago
Taxi cab medallions are a very poor example to cite. "Things are bad where I am, and therefore it's OK for the tech bros to eviscerate an entire industry all around the planet, no matter what the local conditions were elsewhere." Your experience is not the only experience. It does not justify what has been done. Your post only provides an yet another random angry anecdote, of which the internet is already flooded.
- nradov 2y ago
  There's nothing wrong with eviscerating entire industries worldwide. That has been the way that disruptive innovations worked since the start of the industrial age. Adapt or perish.
- kelnos 2y ago
  Municipalities were free to drop the regulation hammer on Uber and Lyft. If they chose not to, that's their fault.
- onesociety2022 2y ago
  They got eviscerated specifically because taxi companies were horrible to begin with in a lot of these places. In other countries like Japan or Singapore where taxi drivers are ethical and honest, I’d happily take a taxi any day.
caycep 2y ago
The philosophical decision would have been (back in the day): build an app that supports/enhances municipal cab systems, i.e. hailing, payment, licensing etc, breaking the monopolies of medallion aggregators etc vs. build an entirely different system without legislative safeguards that destroys the livelihoods of existing cabbies
pimlottc 2y ago
Taxis are a perfect example— as long as you tar the existing system as the enemy, you can get people to tolerate your bad behavior. “Those guys suck, we’re on your side!” Works for presidents, too.

narcraft 2y ago

And for the record, I've also had comically bad experiences with Lyft and Uber including drivers ranting about other customers in smelly unkempt cars (while on a date!) and my ride being significantly delayed because the driver wanted to stop for gas and also got themselves dinner while they were there. And I still love this crap!

kelnos 2y ago
Did you rate those drivers appropriately, and not tip them? In general I try to avoid giving any less than 5 stars for anything but a safety issue, because a low-4.x rating can get a driver deactivated. But stopping for gas and getting food? Nope, that's gonna get you a low rating. The ranting about other customers thing is something I'm torn on. Everyone has a bad day sometimes, and that shouldn't affect their livelihood. But still...

dehrmann 2y ago

Taxis are great if you're in Manhattan (or JFK) and not going too far uptown.

the_third_wave 2y ago
It's been a while since I was at JFK but when I frequented it I always took the subway. Same for Heathrow, CDG, etc. I generally have much better experiences with general public transport than I do with any sort of taxi "service" but maybe I'm the odd one out?
- dehrmann 2y ago
  You have to deal with the AirTrain (which isn't free) at JFK. The Tube actually has a Heathrow station, and the RER goes directly to CDG. It's even easier to get to Gatwick than JFK.
  - rsanek 2y ago
    what's the problem with the airtran? it's rare to get to lower Manhattan faster with a taxi than via subway even with congestion pricing. and the cost will be at least 10x.

RegnisGnaw 2y ago

My issue with taxi has always been the scams, not even the long detours. The local law requires that the taxi must take credit card and/or debit cards. If the machine is broken, they can’t take customers till it’s fixed. 30% of the time they tell me that the machine is broken and they want cash. When I say I don’t have cash they offer to drive to the ATM so I can take out some cash, while still on the meter of course. When I asked them to turn off the meter to take me to the ATM, they say it’s illegal.

newyankee 2y ago
I realised that as a socially anxious person who wants to be more confident, an LLM might come useful in summarising the local law to this effect quickly and especially the right steps to take.
- nh23423fefe 2y ago
  why would you feel confident repeating words you didn't write citing laws you dont know to a person youre afraid of?
whimsicalism 2y ago
yeah i refuse to take taxis on principle because they are so scammy. i’m a pretty pushy person and they give up but it is draining nonetheless

aprilthird2021 2y ago

Genuinely don't know why you think Uber / Lyft are so much better than taxis? They cost slightly less now (used to be tons left till they needed to turn a profit), but it's still basically the same drivers driving them. They give the same type of service and do the same stuff. Only thing they don't do anymore is drive excessively long routes to run up the meter.

dehrmann 2y ago
Where do you normally take taxis? Hailing them can be hard, they might not want to go where you're going, the credit card reader might be broken, and they might take a worse route.
whimsicalism 2y ago
taxis were awful. they’ve upped their game recently but they would just refuse to take you places, scam you, etc etc.
kelnos 2y ago
I guess it depends on where you live. Where I live, pre-Uber, I could never get a taxi in the first place. There were never any driving around to hail, and calling a cab company meant waiting 30-60 minutes, and more than half the time the taxi wouldn't show up at all. Drivers can and would take longer routes to run up the meter if they thought you weren't a savvy passenger. They'd also love to claim the credit card reader is broken, even when that was a violation of local law. If you had a complaint about a driver, you could call the taxi company, and they would assure you they care, but nothing would actually happen. Now I get a car arriving in a predictable amount of time, at a pre-set price, paid outside the flow of the ride. If I have a problem with the driver or car I can report it with a low rating and a comment, and Uber and Lyft are notorious about deactivating drivers with even a rating in the low 4.x range. I can also give a lower or no tip if there's a problem, without feeling socially awkward about it. Uber and Lyft are way better than taxis.

deergomoo 2y ago

There’s an interesting middle ground also. I live in a city where you still need to be a licensed taxi driver to drive for Uber and the cars must be marked (in the UK; it doesn’t seem to be that uncommon here). I don’t in all honesty know how much regulation that actually involves, but certainly more than “some random person with a car”. So there is a least a little bit of accountability. From idle chit chat with the drivers that used to drive for a traditional firm, many have told me they prefer it. They’re very keen on their ability to vet passengers first via ratings, and that people can’t hop out and run away without paying, which apparently is/was not uncommon on Friday and Saturday nights. As a passenger, I like that I can’t be fobbed off with “he’s just round the corner mate” for 30+ minutes and I don’t have to worry about getting cash. It can be a mutually beneficial thing, it just can’t be an unregulated free-for-all which it sounds like many implementations are.

whimsicalism 2y ago
nah, still sounds protectionist to me. there are broad based wage gains and better prices for consumers when anyone is allowed to be a driver
- deergomoo 2y ago
  Always with the prices. There is more to a functioning society than the cost of goods and services.
- Ekaros 2y ago
  Regulating market is reasonable thing to do. Sensible limiting of service providers ensures that prices are not driven through the floor. Like setting minimum wage. Also regulation could allow capping of the prices. And there is nothing that says that such licenses must be transferable or sellable.

palata 2y ago

> but the second anyone suggests we were better off with the taxi cab than Uber or Lyft Uber or Lyft are more convenient for the customer, but the drivers are being abused by Uber or Lyft. Which is less than ideal. That's the thing about BigTech: nobody says that the product was not more convenient (at least before enshittification), but the problem is that BigTech abuses their dominant position, over and over again.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
AlexanderTheGr8 2y ago
> Uber or Lyft are more convenient for the customer Gross understatement! 1) You can find a cab wherever (almost) and whenever (24x7) - you don't have to hail a cab for minutes/hours (even worse was not knowing when/if the cab would even arrive). 2) Much safer. Emergency support + seeing the route on GPS (can see the path on the driver's uber app) + rating system. 3) Better behaviour, enforced by rating system. Yes, it's not perfect, but much much better than cabs. Cab drivers were regularly abusive, knowing there were no repurcussions. Unfortunately, humans only behave when there's consequences. 4) No scamming vulnerable un-informed people. Cabs were known for scamming foreigners or un-informed people. I can point out a few more things. Calling it `more convenient` is a massive understatement. > but the drivers are being abused by Uber or Lyft. Which is less than ideal. This can be fixed by regulation. Just because a new technology brought a new problem, that doesn't mean we should discard the technology and go to its worse predecessor. Remember : there is a reason the new technology took over its predecessor. I think we can have both : the benefits of digital ride-share + good regulation for drivers to ensure they can maintain their livelihood. PS : that's until driverless waymo/tesla take over everything...
- palata 2y ago
  > I think we can have both : the benefits of digital ride-share + good regulation Not in the US, who don't believe in regulations. But yeah, my point was that the best would be the convenience of those apps without the abuse. It seems possible outside the US, though: I believe Greece had banned Uber from the beginning on, and Taxis ended up building a similar app. > that's until driverless waymo/tesla take over everything... Oh right, it's the year of the fully autonomous car! Or was it last year? Or 2016?

reaperducer 2y ago

Taxi cab medallions are a very poor example to cite. "Things are bad where I am, and therefore it's OK for the tech bros to eviscerate an entire industry all around the planet, no matter what the local conditions were elsewhere." Your experience is not the only experience. It does not justify what has been done. Your post only provides an yet another random angry anecdote, of which the internet is already flooded.

nradov 2y ago
There's nothing wrong with eviscerating entire industries worldwide. That has been the way that disruptive innovations worked since the start of the industrial age. Adapt or perish.
kelnos 2y ago
Municipalities were free to drop the regulation hammer on Uber and Lyft. If they chose not to, that's their fault.
onesociety2022 2y ago
They got eviscerated specifically because taxi companies were horrible to begin with in a lot of these places. In other countries like Japan or Singapore where taxi drivers are ethical and honest, I’d happily take a taxi any day.

caycep 2y ago

The philosophical decision would have been (back in the day): build an app that supports/enhances municipal cab systems, i.e. hailing, payment, licensing etc, breaking the monopolies of medallion aggregators etc vs. build an entirely different system without legislative safeguards that destroys the livelihoods of existing cabbies

pimlottc 2y ago

Taxis are a perfect example— as long as you tar the existing system as the enemy, you can get people to tolerate your bad behavior. “Those guys suck, we’re on your side!” Works for presidents, too.