4 ms·

I honestly don't see that big of a difference between Uber and the medallion-mafia. The only real difference is that Uber is the underdog - we've already seen p

I honestly don't see that big of a difference between Uber and the medallion-mafia. The only real difference is that Uber is the underdog - we've already seen proof that they'll use abusive, borderline illegal, behavior to sideline competitors instead of honest competition. "Giant improvement" Uber is not. It's wannabe robber baron vs. incumbent robber baron. They'll be a net benefit to consumers as long as they're the underdog - God help us if they ever get into the top spot. I'm a fan of disrupting the old medallion cabs, they've been sitting idle getting by on substandard product for eons. But I'm adamantly opposed to letting Uber write the new rulebook - from everything we've seen from them they're less interested in evening the playing field than locking everyone else out of the market except themselves. They will abuse transport regulation - just like the old cab companies - to monopolize the market if we let them.

jonknee 12y ago
The huge giant glaring difference is Uber is being aggressive to provide a better service while the mobbed up medallion racket is being aggressive to line their pockets. I know which one I prefer! The cancelled rides here are part of the giant recruitment drive both companies are in as they rapidly try and scale up--they're trying to hire away each other's drivers.
- potatolicious 12y ago
  And once the mobbed up medallion racket dies, you think Uber will still be aggressive about providing a better service? Uber is no different than any other wannabe monopolist - they'll fight hard to monopolize the market - whether by regulatory capture or sketchy fraudulent activity like what we're looking at today (based on what we've seen from Uber, it's a mix of both). Once they do it's game over for consumers. How do you think the medallion racket got here? This is how we got here in the first place - lots of shitty unregulated cars engaging in awful abuses, prompting public outcry. Cab companies upped their game, consolidated, fought for regulation, and successfully drove that element of their industry out. And then promptly started feeding at the trough. Once upon a time, the evil cab companies were the good guys. There's no reason to believe Uber is any different. They've already demonstrated all the willingness to skirt basic business ethics. Uber is a necessary evil to shake up the entrenched awfulness of the cab industry. It also needs to be kept on a very short leash lest we end up with the new boss, same as the old boss.
  - baddox 12y ago
    > Once they do it's game over for consumers. No, once they do it, it's game over for them, and game beginning for new competitors.
aetherson 12y ago
Uber has received in the general vicinity of $1.5 billion in capital. They are several orders of magnitude bigger than any taxi fleet I've ever heard of. The entire taxi industry in the US has revenues of about $11 billion (source: http://skift.com/2013/08/06/are-uber-hailo-and-other-taxi-apps-going-after-a-big-enough-market/ http://skift.com/2013/08/06/are-uber-hailo-and-other-taxi-ap...), and that's split across literally at least thousands and maybe tens of thousands of companies. In SF, Uber claims to do more rides itself than all the taxi fleets put together. It long ago ceased to be the underdog in this fight.
timtas 12y ago
> They will abuse transport regulation - just like the old cab companies - to monopolize the market if we let them. Are you saying that they will partner up with government to create a protectionist racket as the incumbents did so effectively some decades back? Maybe some day they will. History testifies that as incumbents grow they are drawn toward regulatory capture and licensing schemes. They find willing partners in government who can sell it under the banner of consumer protection. Yes, one day Uber might try that, but right now they're tearing down those rackets. The "lock in" they are creating now is based on customer service, innovation, brand marketing and partnerships. I'm not denying there are any dirty tricks, but that's a sideshow played up by populist press.
baddox 12y ago
> I honestly don't see that big of a difference between Uber and the medallion-mafia. The only real difference is that Uber is the underdog - we've already seen proof that they'll use abusive, borderline illegal, behavior to sideline competitors instead of honest competition. How about price, convenience, reliability, and rider experience?
- potatolicious 12y ago
  All of which used to be features of cab companies, and regressed once the cab companies had the run of the place. Re: your other reply: yeah, eventually someone will come along and knock hypothetical-monopolist Uber off their perch, just like Uber is kicking cab companies' asses right now. But in the mean time we're looking at decades of the Dark Ages where the monopolist pillage the market for all it's worth. This is the crux of why this abuse by Uber shouldn't be given a pass. In order for the transport market to function there must exist competition, and any anticompetitive behavior - whether it's coming from Uber or cab companies or elsewhere - needs to be shut down, hard.
  - baddox 12y ago
    > But in the mean time we're looking at decades of the Dark Ages where the monopolist pillage the market for all it's worth. Why decades? Uber started in 2009, and UberX launched in 2012, and that was them (and their competitors) starting "from scratch" in the sense that consumers and drivers weren't familiar with the concept. It wouldn't take long at all for competitors to pop up. Remember that the profit incentive for new firms to enter the market is strongly correlated to the "badness" (as judged by the potential customers) of the current firms.

jonknee 12y ago

The huge giant glaring difference is Uber is being aggressive to provide a better service while the mobbed up medallion racket is being aggressive to line their pockets. I know which one I prefer! The cancelled rides here are part of the giant recruitment drive both companies are in as they rapidly try and scale up--they're trying to hire away each other's drivers.

potatolicious 12y ago
And once the mobbed up medallion racket dies, you think Uber will still be aggressive about providing a better service? Uber is no different than any other wannabe monopolist - they'll fight hard to monopolize the market - whether by regulatory capture or sketchy fraudulent activity like what we're looking at today (based on what we've seen from Uber, it's a mix of both). Once they do it's game over for consumers. How do you think the medallion racket got here? This is how we got here in the first place - lots of shitty unregulated cars engaging in awful abuses, prompting public outcry. Cab companies upped their game, consolidated, fought for regulation, and successfully drove that element of their industry out. And then promptly started feeding at the trough. Once upon a time, the evil cab companies were the good guys. There's no reason to believe Uber is any different. They've already demonstrated all the willingness to skirt basic business ethics. Uber is a necessary evil to shake up the entrenched awfulness of the cab industry. It also needs to be kept on a very short leash lest we end up with the new boss, same as the old boss.
- baddox 12y ago
  > Once they do it's game over for consumers. No, once they do it, it's game over for them, and game beginning for new competitors.

aetherson 12y ago

Uber has received in the general vicinity of $1.5 billion in capital. They are several orders of magnitude bigger than any taxi fleet I've ever heard of. The entire taxi industry in the US has revenues of about $11 billion (source: http://skift.com/2013/08/06/are-uber-hailo-and-other-taxi-apps-going-after-a-big-enough-market/ http://skift.com/2013/08/06/are-uber-hailo-and-other-taxi-ap...), and that's split across literally at least thousands and maybe tens of thousands of companies. In SF, Uber claims to do more rides itself than all the taxi fleets put together. It long ago ceased to be the underdog in this fight.

timtas 12y ago

> They will abuse transport regulation - just like the old cab companies - to monopolize the market if we let them. Are you saying that they will partner up with government to create a protectionist racket as the incumbents did so effectively some decades back? Maybe some day they will. History testifies that as incumbents grow they are drawn toward regulatory capture and licensing schemes. They find willing partners in government who can sell it under the banner of consumer protection. Yes, one day Uber might try that, but right now they're tearing down those rackets. The "lock in" they are creating now is based on customer service, innovation, brand marketing and partnerships. I'm not denying there are any dirty tricks, but that's a sideshow played up by populist press.

baddox 12y ago

> I honestly don't see that big of a difference between Uber and the medallion-mafia. The only real difference is that Uber is the underdog - we've already seen proof that they'll use abusive, borderline illegal, behavior to sideline competitors instead of honest competition. How about price, convenience, reliability, and rider experience?

potatolicious 12y ago
All of which used to be features of cab companies, and regressed once the cab companies had the run of the place. Re: your other reply: yeah, eventually someone will come along and knock hypothetical-monopolist Uber off their perch, just like Uber is kicking cab companies' asses right now. But in the mean time we're looking at decades of the Dark Ages where the monopolist pillage the market for all it's worth. This is the crux of why this abuse by Uber shouldn't be given a pass. In order for the transport market to function there must exist competition, and any anticompetitive behavior - whether it's coming from Uber or cab companies or elsewhere - needs to be shut down, hard.
- baddox 12y ago
  > But in the mean time we're looking at decades of the Dark Ages where the monopolist pillage the market for all it's worth. Why decades? Uber started in 2009, and UberX launched in 2012, and that was them (and their competitors) starting "from scratch" in the sense that consumers and drivers weren't familiar with the concept. It wouldn't take long at all for competitors to pop up. Remember that the profit incentive for new firms to enter the market is strongly correlated to the "badness" (as judged by the potential customers) of the current firms.