7 ms·

Uber sign-ups soar by 850 percent as cab drivers protest

78 points by happyscrappy 12y ago

illumen 12y ago
Controversy based PR works.
- ajitk 12y ago
  Streisand effect works on its own!
Maskawanian 12y ago
So... taxi drivers go on strike to punish Uber? Why would uber care if they do? Or are they going on strike just to not work?
- rakoo 12y ago
  Taxi drivers went on strike because taxi drivers and uber drivers don't have the same requirements for doing what amounts to be the same job. In short, becoming a taxi driver is hard and extremelly expensive, becoming a uber driver is easier and cheaper. So these strikes are more against the unfair regulation than against Uber and the likes.
  - f76 12y ago
    Why don't they become uber drivers, then? I guess that keeping the taxi driver status is quite expensive also.
    - 0x0 12y ago
      Because some would argue running a taxi-like business without a taxi license is breaking the law.
      - csomar 12y ago
        Sorry something doesn't strike me as correct here. Do you mean that "taxis" working with Uber don't actually have a Taxi-License? How is this even legal?
        vidarh 12y ago
        In many countries, including the UK, there's a big difference between "private car hire" services that are not allowed to pick up passengers without pre-arranging the hire, and taxi services which can pick up passengers at the kerb or at taxi ranks. Private car hire services (minicabs in the UK) does not have the same licensing requirements as black cabs (licensed taxis)
        chii 12y ago
        i thought a car hire service isnt a taxi if you first pre-arrange the pickup (whcih is what i thought uber is). That you can do it quickly via an app on a phone is irrelevant.
      - mseebach 12y ago
        Taxis are striking in London specifically because the regulator has said that Uber is legal.
        _broody 12y ago
        Well, this shows the legislation is broken. Uber drivers can work without having to pay for medallions/licenses/what have you, and having to fulfill cumbersome regulations. If you rule they get a pass, then so should the cab drivers. They'll still get hosed because without a medallion system bottlenecking the amount of suppliers, taxi service becomes a race to the bottom that can't support a decent living. But at least they won't be _twice_ hosed like they are now. EDIT: I'm not saying Uber is wrong and should be stopped and the taxi drivers protected. On the contrary, the legislation could be opened up, dropping both protection and regulation of the taxi industry, now that Uber exists as a competing solution. However, the current state of affairs, where some drivers are taxed and regulated (taxis) and others are not (Uber drivers) is just going to make the former group collapse under the burden of regulation. Also, I'm merely observing that opening the market to a huge supplier pool effectively means the end of the taxi driving profession (for reasons that have already been stated a hundred times before). Not saying this is good or bad, it's just the way the market works.
    - ceejayoz 12y ago
      They've already invested an average of 34 months learning the London streets. You'd get a similar reaction if itw ere possible, say, for someone to become a doctor by signing up with a startup rather than going to medical school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#The_Knowledge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#...
      - mseebach 12y ago
        If you could be a 95% effective doctor by using a $200 consumer electronics device, it'd be perfectly fair for people to be "Uber doctors" without going to medical school. And existing doctors would be up in arms, because technology rendered their investment almost worthless, not because they could present a meaningful challenge to the usefulness of "Uber doctors". "The knowledge" may very well at one point have been a reasonable requirement for a taxi driver, but at least as GPS satnavs got good, it's just not anymore. The purpose of "the knowledge" today is only to serve as a barrier to entry to protect incumbents against competition. Edit: Footnote on doctors: It's a poor analogy as a taxi-driver taking a poor route (picking good routes is the singular advantage the knowledge provides) doesn't carry anywhere near as bad consequences for the "patient" as a doctor making a mistake.
        jessaustin 12y ago
        It won't be very long before NPs using expert systems will do a better job than physicians using the same old techniques they always have, for at least 95% of patients.
        bernardom 12y ago
        That's a great analogy. Its only flaw, as you say, is that doctors should be regulated closely- but to me this only brings up the question of why cabbies are as regulated. It's kind of like if travel agents were regulated, and suddenly expedia or kayak existed. They can do an almost-as-good job through technology, and a "mistake" analogous to the taxi driver taking a poor route, i.e. Expedia connecting you through a worse city or not finding a deal 10% cheaper.
    - untog 12y ago
      Because they've already gone through the expensive, time consuming part. They would have very little to gain from switching from a black cab to an Uber car, and a lot of potential customers to lose.
      - 0ptical 12y ago
        if uber doesn't work out for a driver will they have forfeited their black cab rights? JW
    - paddyoloughlin 12y ago
      I believe there is a large investment in becoming a taxi driver in London. It takes years of training (see, the Knowledge[1]) and money. Uber drivers presumably do not have to make such a big investment, so permitting them to go without the same regulations taxi drivers need creates a lot of extra, cheaper competition. I also suspect that the taxicab regulations would prohibit taxicabs from using alternative meters, so taxi drivers could not be Uber drivers at the same time. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#The_Knowledge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#...
  - avz 12y ago
    This is a misrepresentation. Taxi drivers are not protesting against the regulation. In fact, in most places taxi drivers and their unions are strong supporters of the said regulations and have worked for decades to get it in place. It's a typical situation where a bunch of "insiders" have striven for years to keep "outsiders" away with the goal of reducing competition. Another typical aspect to this situation is how technology upends a structure put in place by legalistic means.
    - pistle 12y ago
      Do Uber drivers pay taxes to the municipalities in which their drivers deliver service? The regulators and the regulated both get something from the status quo. Selling medallions, etc. gets the city in which the drivers do business some revenue to pay for the services the city must provide to support the business. Taxes help fund roads, police, administration, etc. The "situation" is more complex than you describe and the unintended consequences of Uber are nowhere in the discussion. I'm surprised that Uber hasn't put forth licensing a version of their infrastructure for use by black/yellow cabs for dispatch. They can provide access to customers along with a pretty seamless payment process.
      - rlpb 12y ago
        > I'm surprised that Uber hasn't put forth licensing a version of their infrastructure for use by black/yellow cabs for dispatch. They can provide access to customers along with a pretty seamless payment process. They have: http://blog.uber.com/UberTAXI http://blog.uber.com/UberTAXI
        pistle 12y ago
        That's not what I mean at all and this model wouldn't work outside of places, like NYC, where drivers are indy contractors. Even there, it's not clear that this would be OK with the lessors or their cab. They may not be able to use this. I'm thinking something that cedes some control of the system while making available some of the functionality. SaaS, not a franchising exercise directly from Uber to drivers.
      - 12y ago
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - josu 12y ago
    >against the unfair regulation Not all unfair regulation, since one could argue that the regulation that protects the taxi drivers from incumbents it's pretty unfair. They are protesting just against unfair regulation that hurts them.
antonwinter 12y ago
the post got me because i just signed up. I live in melbourne. it is not possible to get a cab on a friday or saturday night. trial run coming up tomorrow
- illumen 12y ago
  Beware that you may get fined in Melbourne because it is illegal. It's more likely your driver will get fined though.
  - antonwinter 12y ago
    wouldnt surprise me. the state and the cab companies here have it locked down so no one can muscle in on their action.
  - w1ntermute 12y ago
    How do they know who to fine? Aren't all these transactions done purely digitally? You could just be getting into a friend's car, there's always plausible deniability.
    - illumen 12y ago
      People have already been fined in Melbourne.
      - antonwinter 12y ago
        got a link to articles on it?
paddyoloughlin 12y ago
Company's PR says that possibly controversial event for company results in huge benefit for said company. Hm. I'm not saying it not true, but it's playing in to an expectation that a lot of people had when they heard about this protest. So until there's independent evidence, I'll take the specifics of this claim with a dose of salt. Edit: Suggesting that one be reasonably skeptical of unverified company PR is downvote worthy? Come on...
- timclark 12y ago
  Uber ran full page ads in London's free newspapers yesterday, so it looks like they were planning on benefitting from the controversy.
  - paddyoloughlin 12y ago
    I didn't know that, but I'm not surprised. It was the sensible thing to do. My point is that it is also sensible for Uber to claim that it has resulted in a massive success for their company. It makes themselves seem savvy and the taxi drivers short-sighted. Of course, the goal of the taxi drivers' protest not really about getting people to not use Uber so much as it is about getting the regulators to change their decision that Uber's app doesn't count as a taximeter.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
hyp0 12y ago
With both the taxi and hotel industries being disrupted (technical meaning), I wonder if there's a pattern here... Is it a direct consequential of the web, enabling new ways to connect customers and providers? Or, deeper societal forces at work, making this a general time of change for other, non-technological reasons? Or just coincidence...?
- codyb 12y ago
  The web started as a distributed system. It is turning these industries into distributed systems (A car from a person with time and a car at a time when a consumer needs a car as opposed to strict 8 hour shifts. A bed from a person with a bed when a consumer needs a bed as opposed to a centralized location with many beds). It will be interesting if we see these newly distributed systems consolidate in the future. And I wouldn't be surprised to see realtors with house hotels rented through air BnB. And I've noticed there are already plenty of people with cars looking for uber drivers. I think it is a direct consequence. When people can so easily access and post information regarding availability of luxuries and commodities it relieves the need for centralization. The question should be, what's the cost? Do I go to the hotel which will be able to put me in another room when there are problems? Or go for the quaint feeling of a person's home. Homes are generally in residential areas, but if I'm touring I might want the luxury of staying in downtown. Hopefully these two industries can live side by side to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of consumers. (This doesn't even include the possible costs in terms of flimsy insurance guidelines for Uber drivers in some municipalities or locales, or property value depreciation for neighborhoods that become AirBnB traps with many units being turned essentially into mini hotels.) The valuations are insane, so it looks like these companies are here to stay. It will be interesting to watch.
  - hyp0 12y ago
    Sounds right, esp for hotels. Though taxis are already distributed and on-demand. Just regulated centrally. Deregulation is pretty common: banking, utilities (electricity, gas, telecommunications), railways, jails. States get a phenomenal one-off budgetary windfall from sale of infrastructure assets, and buyers get a government mandated toll-bridge - everybody wins! Though more governmental than "societal" as I previously described it. Governments aren't driving hotel/taxi deregulation, but the hard-won legal and admin expertise to do it is sitting around with nothing to do...
melvinmt 12y ago
The disruptive nature of Uber will make policy makers eventually doubt who to support: should they keep protecting the jobs of the taxi industry while Uber is creating jobs at a much higher pace?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- opendais 12y ago
  They are protecting tax revenues, not the taxi industry.
  - sukuriant 12y ago
    Then tax Uber in a special way?
    - opendais 12y ago
      Doesn't need to be a special way. 1 medallion per car per shift [iirc] + the per-trip tax. It is just they need to pass the laws to do that and haven't yet. Of course, I think Uber is lobbying against being taxed given that they've tried to evade paying taxi-like taxes so far.
  - naturalethic 12y ago
    Don't underestimate kickbacks and bribes.
waylandsmithers 12y ago
This seems like an extremely risky move by the "official" cab drivers. Angering their potential customers and removing themselves from the pool of drivers for the strike just seems like it would send people running into Uber's open arms.
- naturalethic 12y ago
  Bullies aren't that bright.
ryguytilidie 12y ago
I saw that the protest cost London something like ~650 million pounds. Seems like the Police should just block the front of the line, arrest all the drviers and tow their cars one by one. Would clear up traffic and would send a pretty clear message that fucking everyone in a city because you're upset is not okay.
dmritard96 12y ago
Its interesting, every uber I take in Chicago (typically a yellow cab instead of UberX) and ask the driver what they think. They generally seem to like it because its safer, easier and more efficient for them (they always know where people are instead of having to hang around popular corners, they can skip on people if that last cab had bad things to say, etc.). But it is surprising to me that they don't complain about the fact that they laid down serious cash for a medalion, or pay other fees to the city to operate. I would especially think UberX would bother them. I think in the short term they are happy but I suspect they will start to get more upset if uberX starts to take away business. Right now, its earning them more money. In Florida, they are having issues with UberX for that very reason (http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/06/11/4172680/miami-dade-taxicab-industry-protests.html http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/06/11/4172680/miami-dade-tax...). Its interesting to watch a number of industries just get blindsided by these disruptive technologies. Seeing it with crowd-sourced cab rides (uberX), direct autosales instead of dealers (Tesla dealer controversy) and crowd-sourced accommodations (airBnB). Some of the regulations placed on the older players in those spaces were put there to protect the consumer and/or the industry but my take is that consumer choice is providing better options and bypassing the need (or maybe it just hasn't come up yet) for these regulations. But then the people who played by the rules get mad or cling to them if it allows them to maintain their position a little longer.
- daniel-cussen 12y ago
  The people who own taxi medallions are usually not the taxi drivers themselves. The medallion owners (who usually own many medallions and rent them out to drivers) are as pissed off about Uber as you would expect.

78 points by happyscrappy 12y ago

illumen 12y ago

Controversy based PR works.

ajitk 12y ago
Streisand effect works on its own!

Maskawanian 12y ago

So... taxi drivers go on strike to punish Uber? Why would uber care if they do? Or are they going on strike just to not work?

rakoo 12y ago
Taxi drivers went on strike because taxi drivers and uber drivers don't have the same requirements for doing what amounts to be the same job. In short, becoming a taxi driver is hard and extremelly expensive, becoming a uber driver is easier and cheaper. So these strikes are more against the unfair regulation than against Uber and the likes.
- f76 12y ago
  Why don't they become uber drivers, then? I guess that keeping the taxi driver status is quite expensive also.
  - 0x0 12y ago
    Because some would argue running a taxi-like business without a taxi license is breaking the law.
    - csomar 12y ago
      Sorry something doesn't strike me as correct here. Do you mean that "taxis" working with Uber don't actually have a Taxi-License? How is this even legal?
      - vidarh 12y ago
        In many countries, including the UK, there's a big difference between "private car hire" services that are not allowed to pick up passengers without pre-arranging the hire, and taxi services which can pick up passengers at the kerb or at taxi ranks. Private car hire services (minicabs in the UK) does not have the same licensing requirements as black cabs (licensed taxis)
      - chii 12y ago
        i thought a car hire service isnt a taxi if you first pre-arrange the pickup (whcih is what i thought uber is). That you can do it quickly via an app on a phone is irrelevant.
    - mseebach 12y ago
      Taxis are striking in London specifically because the regulator has said that Uber is legal.
      - _broody 12y ago
        Well, this shows the legislation is broken. Uber drivers can work without having to pay for medallions/licenses/what have you, and having to fulfill cumbersome regulations. If you rule they get a pass, then so should the cab drivers. They'll still get hosed because without a medallion system bottlenecking the amount of suppliers, taxi service becomes a race to the bottom that can't support a decent living. But at least they won't be _twice_ hosed like they are now. EDIT: I'm not saying Uber is wrong and should be stopped and the taxi drivers protected. On the contrary, the legislation could be opened up, dropping both protection and regulation of the taxi industry, now that Uber exists as a competing solution. However, the current state of affairs, where some drivers are taxed and regulated (taxis) and others are not (Uber drivers) is just going to make the former group collapse under the burden of regulation. Also, I'm merely observing that opening the market to a huge supplier pool effectively means the end of the taxi driving profession (for reasons that have already been stated a hundred times before). Not saying this is good or bad, it's just the way the market works.
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    They've already invested an average of 34 months learning the London streets. You'd get a similar reaction if itw ere possible, say, for someone to become a doctor by signing up with a startup rather than going to medical school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#The_Knowledge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#...
    - mseebach 12y ago
      If you could be a 95% effective doctor by using a $200 consumer electronics device, it'd be perfectly fair for people to be "Uber doctors" without going to medical school. And existing doctors would be up in arms, because technology rendered their investment almost worthless, not because they could present a meaningful challenge to the usefulness of "Uber doctors". "The knowledge" may very well at one point have been a reasonable requirement for a taxi driver, but at least as GPS satnavs got good, it's just not anymore. The purpose of "the knowledge" today is only to serve as a barrier to entry to protect incumbents against competition. Edit: Footnote on doctors: It's a poor analogy as a taxi-driver taking a poor route (picking good routes is the singular advantage the knowledge provides) doesn't carry anywhere near as bad consequences for the "patient" as a doctor making a mistake.
      - jessaustin 12y ago
        It won't be very long before NPs using expert systems will do a better job than physicians using the same old techniques they always have, for at least 95% of patients.
      - bernardom 12y ago
        That's a great analogy. Its only flaw, as you say, is that doctors should be regulated closely- but to me this only brings up the question of why cabbies are as regulated. It's kind of like if travel agents were regulated, and suddenly expedia or kayak existed. They can do an almost-as-good job through technology, and a "mistake" analogous to the taxi driver taking a poor route, i.e. Expedia connecting you through a worse city or not finding a deal 10% cheaper.
  - untog 12y ago
    Because they've already gone through the expensive, time consuming part. They would have very little to gain from switching from a black cab to an Uber car, and a lot of potential customers to lose.
    - 0ptical 12y ago
      if uber doesn't work out for a driver will they have forfeited their black cab rights? JW
  - paddyoloughlin 12y ago
    I believe there is a large investment in becoming a taxi driver in London. It takes years of training (see, the Knowledge[1]) and money. Uber drivers presumably do not have to make such a big investment, so permitting them to go without the same regulations taxi drivers need creates a lot of extra, cheaper competition. I also suspect that the taxicab regulations would prohibit taxicabs from using alternative meters, so taxi drivers could not be Uber drivers at the same time. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#The_Knowledge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#...
- avz 12y ago
  This is a misrepresentation. Taxi drivers are not protesting against the regulation. In fact, in most places taxi drivers and their unions are strong supporters of the said regulations and have worked for decades to get it in place. It's a typical situation where a bunch of "insiders" have striven for years to keep "outsiders" away with the goal of reducing competition. Another typical aspect to this situation is how technology upends a structure put in place by legalistic means.
  - pistle 12y ago
    Do Uber drivers pay taxes to the municipalities in which their drivers deliver service? The regulators and the regulated both get something from the status quo. Selling medallions, etc. gets the city in which the drivers do business some revenue to pay for the services the city must provide to support the business. Taxes help fund roads, police, administration, etc. The "situation" is more complex than you describe and the unintended consequences of Uber are nowhere in the discussion. I'm surprised that Uber hasn't put forth licensing a version of their infrastructure for use by black/yellow cabs for dispatch. They can provide access to customers along with a pretty seamless payment process.
    - rlpb 12y ago
      > I'm surprised that Uber hasn't put forth licensing a version of their infrastructure for use by black/yellow cabs for dispatch. They can provide access to customers along with a pretty seamless payment process. They have: http://blog.uber.com/UberTAXI http://blog.uber.com/UberTAXI
      - pistle 12y ago
        That's not what I mean at all and this model wouldn't work outside of places, like NYC, where drivers are indy contractors. Even there, it's not clear that this would be OK with the lessors or their cab. They may not be able to use this. I'm thinking something that cedes some control of the system while making available some of the functionality. SaaS, not a franchising exercise directly from Uber to drivers.
    - 12y ago
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- josu 12y ago
  >against the unfair regulation Not all unfair regulation, since one could argue that the regulation that protects the taxi drivers from incumbents it's pretty unfair. They are protesting just against unfair regulation that hurts them.

antonwinter 12y ago

the post got me because i just signed up. I live in melbourne. it is not possible to get a cab on a friday or saturday night. trial run coming up tomorrow

illumen 12y ago
Beware that you may get fined in Melbourne because it is illegal. It's more likely your driver will get fined though.
- antonwinter 12y ago
  wouldnt surprise me. the state and the cab companies here have it locked down so no one can muscle in on their action.
- w1ntermute 12y ago
  How do they know who to fine? Aren't all these transactions done purely digitally? You could just be getting into a friend's car, there's always plausible deniability.
  - illumen 12y ago
    People have already been fined in Melbourne.
    - antonwinter 12y ago
      got a link to articles on it?

paddyoloughlin 12y ago

Company's PR says that possibly controversial event for company results in huge benefit for said company. Hm. I'm not saying it not true, but it's playing in to an expectation that a lot of people had when they heard about this protest. So until there's independent evidence, I'll take the specifics of this claim with a dose of salt. Edit: Suggesting that one be reasonably skeptical of unverified company PR is downvote worthy? Come on...

timclark 12y ago
Uber ran full page ads in London's free newspapers yesterday, so it looks like they were planning on benefitting from the controversy.
- paddyoloughlin 12y ago
  I didn't know that, but I'm not surprised. It was the sensible thing to do. My point is that it is also sensible for Uber to claim that it has resulted in a massive success for their company. It makes themselves seem savvy and the taxi drivers short-sighted. Of course, the goal of the taxi drivers' protest not really about getting people to not use Uber so much as it is about getting the regulators to change their decision that Uber's app doesn't count as a taximeter.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

hyp0 12y ago

With both the taxi and hotel industries being disrupted (technical meaning), I wonder if there's a pattern here... Is it a direct consequential of the web, enabling new ways to connect customers and providers? Or, deeper societal forces at work, making this a general time of change for other, non-technological reasons? Or just coincidence...?

codyb 12y ago
The web started as a distributed system. It is turning these industries into distributed systems (A car from a person with time and a car at a time when a consumer needs a car as opposed to strict 8 hour shifts. A bed from a person with a bed when a consumer needs a bed as opposed to a centralized location with many beds). It will be interesting if we see these newly distributed systems consolidate in the future. And I wouldn't be surprised to see realtors with house hotels rented through air BnB. And I've noticed there are already plenty of people with cars looking for uber drivers. I think it is a direct consequence. When people can so easily access and post information regarding availability of luxuries and commodities it relieves the need for centralization. The question should be, what's the cost? Do I go to the hotel which will be able to put me in another room when there are problems? Or go for the quaint feeling of a person's home. Homes are generally in residential areas, but if I'm touring I might want the luxury of staying in downtown. Hopefully these two industries can live side by side to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of consumers. (This doesn't even include the possible costs in terms of flimsy insurance guidelines for Uber drivers in some municipalities or locales, or property value depreciation for neighborhoods that become AirBnB traps with many units being turned essentially into mini hotels.) The valuations are insane, so it looks like these companies are here to stay. It will be interesting to watch.
- hyp0 12y ago
  Sounds right, esp for hotels. Though taxis are already distributed and on-demand. Just regulated centrally. Deregulation is pretty common: banking, utilities (electricity, gas, telecommunications), railways, jails. States get a phenomenal one-off budgetary windfall from sale of infrastructure assets, and buyers get a government mandated toll-bridge - everybody wins! Though more governmental than "societal" as I previously described it. Governments aren't driving hotel/taxi deregulation, but the hard-won legal and admin expertise to do it is sitting around with nothing to do...

melvinmt 12y ago

The disruptive nature of Uber will make policy makers eventually doubt who to support: should they keep protecting the jobs of the taxi industry while Uber is creating jobs at a much higher pace?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
opendais 12y ago
They are protecting tax revenues, not the taxi industry.
- sukuriant 12y ago
  Then tax Uber in a special way?
  - opendais 12y ago
    Doesn't need to be a special way. 1 medallion per car per shift [iirc] + the per-trip tax. It is just they need to pass the laws to do that and haven't yet. Of course, I think Uber is lobbying against being taxed given that they've tried to evade paying taxi-like taxes so far.
- naturalethic 12y ago
  Don't underestimate kickbacks and bribes.

waylandsmithers 12y ago

This seems like an extremely risky move by the "official" cab drivers. Angering their potential customers and removing themselves from the pool of drivers for the strike just seems like it would send people running into Uber's open arms.

naturalethic 12y ago
Bullies aren't that bright.

ryguytilidie 12y ago

I saw that the protest cost London something like ~650 million pounds. Seems like the Police should just block the front of the line, arrest all the drviers and tow their cars one by one. Would clear up traffic and would send a pretty clear message that fucking everyone in a city because you're upset is not okay.

dmritard96 12y ago

Its interesting, every uber I take in Chicago (typically a yellow cab instead of UberX) and ask the driver what they think. They generally seem to like it because its safer, easier and more efficient for them (they always know where people are instead of having to hang around popular corners, they can skip on people if that last cab had bad things to say, etc.). But it is surprising to me that they don't complain about the fact that they laid down serious cash for a medalion, or pay other fees to the city to operate. I would especially think UberX would bother them. I think in the short term they are happy but I suspect they will start to get more upset if uberX starts to take away business. Right now, its earning them more money. In Florida, they are having issues with UberX for that very reason (http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/06/11/4172680/miami-dade-taxicab-industry-protests.html http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/06/11/4172680/miami-dade-tax...). Its interesting to watch a number of industries just get blindsided by these disruptive technologies. Seeing it with crowd-sourced cab rides (uberX), direct autosales instead of dealers (Tesla dealer controversy) and crowd-sourced accommodations (airBnB). Some of the regulations placed on the older players in those spaces were put there to protect the consumer and/or the industry but my take is that consumer choice is providing better options and bypassing the need (or maybe it just hasn't come up yet) for these regulations. But then the people who played by the rules get mad or cling to them if it allows them to maintain their position a little longer.

daniel-cussen 12y ago
The people who own taxi medallions are usually not the taxi drivers themselves. The medallion owners (who usually own many medallions and rent them out to drivers) are as pissed off about Uber as you would expect.