19 ms·

In many places, the supply for cabs is artificially limited by the fact that there are only a limited number of licenses, which you then have to "rent out" from

by sqrt17 13y ago

In many places, the supply for cabs is artificially limited by the fact that there are only a limited number of licenses, which you then have to "rent out" from a licensee if you want to drive a cab. The article raises a valid point (Uber sets itself up as a monopoly), but is very thin on criticizing the existing system. In fact, nothing prevents existing cab dispatch companies from offering an app-based service like Uber does. That they don't is either due to the fact that the current regulations mean they don't have to adapt, or that it's Uber's business model rather than the app that makes the difference, in which case the app would just serve to sidestep regulations that only benefit well-connected incumbents. The question here is how much you can separate the roles of a) drivers b) the dispatch service (telephone or app) c) the entity policing both drivers and customers d) the entity setting the prices

AJ007 13y ago
In a healthy ecosystem, Uber should have its share of competitors as well. Drivers can switch to services that pay them a bigger share, riders can switch to services that are cheaper. Rather than monopoly, this should be a commodity. If competition utterly fails then there could be a problem. We can see this in search, where Google had a vastly better service for a really long time. Now they primarily sell advertisements. The end result is a marketplace where the most visible companies are the ones that most effectively extract value from the user (since its bid based, the more you bid the higher your visibility.) Since transportation is a lot more clear cut than hotels or insurance, I would lean more toward the commodity side. The bigger wildcard is who will have control and access to automated driving? I am hedging on a future where cars drive themselves and companies license technology and lease cars rather then sell them outright. If this is the case, Uber has to pivot or be acquired to survive.
Pxtl 13y ago
The problem is that the limited licenses exist for a good reason: roads are a limited resource 100% subsidized by the tax payer. Unless a city implements global pay-per-mile and pay-per-second fees for parking, idling, and driving, the city is subsidizing all businesses that operate on its roads. Normally this doesnt' cause a problem because most folks using the roads are using them in roughly even proportion. Cabbies throw that out the window - they idle and meander around the densest and highest-value parts of town, which are of course places where roads are the scarcest resource. They exploit that subsidized, scarce resource far beyond any other user, creating congestion. So, to control this tragedy-of-the-commons scenario, cities limit and tax cabbies heavily. Uber dodges that completely by claiming they're a car service, when in reality they straddle the terrain between car-service and taxis. Uber drivers absolutely do meander congested areas hunting for fares.
- dnautics 13y ago
  >Uber drivers absolutely do meander congested areas hunting for fares. When they do that it's usually because they're former cabbies with old habits that are hard to break. Doing a meander makes absolutely no sense. I work for an uber competitor, and typically I will go to hotspot, find parking, stop there, and wait for a ride. Also, roads are usually subsidized by gas taxes.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    Gasoline Taxes and Tolls Pay for Only a Third of State & Local Road Spending http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-tolls-pay-only-third-state-local-road-spending http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-tolls-pa...
- rayiner 13y ago
  Don't forget, cabs (and Uber drivers) also pollute and reduce the air quality of those dense, high-value places while meandering.
  - Houshalter 13y ago
    So do regular people driving. I don't see why these regulations should only apply to taxis and not all traffic. Why is it ok to own a car and drive in exactly the same places, and use up limited parking spaces? But as soon as you pay someone to do it it's bad?
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Regular people go somewhere then park. Cabs drive around in the same areas over and over, contributing to localized smog.

by sqrt17 13y ago

AJ007 13y ago

In a healthy ecosystem, Uber should have its share of competitors as well. Drivers can switch to services that pay them a bigger share, riders can switch to services that are cheaper. Rather than monopoly, this should be a commodity. If competition utterly fails then there could be a problem. We can see this in search, where Google had a vastly better service for a really long time. Now they primarily sell advertisements. The end result is a marketplace where the most visible companies are the ones that most effectively extract value from the user (since its bid based, the more you bid the higher your visibility.) Since transportation is a lot more clear cut than hotels or insurance, I would lean more toward the commodity side. The bigger wildcard is who will have control and access to automated driving? I am hedging on a future where cars drive themselves and companies license technology and lease cars rather then sell them outright. If this is the case, Uber has to pivot or be acquired to survive.

Pxtl 13y ago

The problem is that the limited licenses exist for a good reason: roads are a limited resource 100% subsidized by the tax payer. Unless a city implements global pay-per-mile and pay-per-second fees for parking, idling, and driving, the city is subsidizing all businesses that operate on its roads. Normally this doesnt' cause a problem because most folks using the roads are using them in roughly even proportion. Cabbies throw that out the window - they idle and meander around the densest and highest-value parts of town, which are of course places where roads are the scarcest resource. They exploit that subsidized, scarce resource far beyond any other user, creating congestion. So, to control this tragedy-of-the-commons scenario, cities limit and tax cabbies heavily. Uber dodges that completely by claiming they're a car service, when in reality they straddle the terrain between car-service and taxis. Uber drivers absolutely do meander congested areas hunting for fares.

dnautics 13y ago
>Uber drivers absolutely do meander congested areas hunting for fares. When they do that it's usually because they're former cabbies with old habits that are hard to break. Doing a meander makes absolutely no sense. I work for an uber competitor, and typically I will go to hotspot, find parking, stop there, and wait for a ride. Also, roads are usually subsidized by gas taxes.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- pessimizer 13y ago
  Gasoline Taxes and Tolls Pay for Only a Third of State & Local Road Spending http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-tolls-pay-only-third-state-local-road-spending http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-tolls-pa...
rayiner 13y ago
Don't forget, cabs (and Uber drivers) also pollute and reduce the air quality of those dense, high-value places while meandering.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  So do regular people driving. I don't see why these regulations should only apply to taxis and not all traffic. Why is it ok to own a car and drive in exactly the same places, and use up limited parking spaces? But as soon as you pay someone to do it it's bad?
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Regular people go somewhere then park. Cabs drive around in the same areas over and over, contributing to localized smog.