10 ms·

I know I won't be popular with this comment and most likely downvoted, because Uber is so beloved (especially in Bay Area circles). But here it comes: Why do pe

by ulfw 12y ago

I know I won't be popular with this comment and most likely downvoted, because Uber is so beloved (especially in Bay Area circles). But here it comes: Why do people support a single company (like in this case Uber) taking over the business of thousands and thousands of existing companies and hence monopolizing an industry? In most European cities, taxi companies are small, almost mom-and-pop entities with anywhere between one and say twenty taxis. In fact where I am living now I can call 4-5 different ones all in my vicinity. If there was an app that consolidated the booking process for those - awesome! But why would there have to be a company that owns the market globally - from Karachi to Karlsruhe, from Amsterdam to New York, taking 20%, killing competition by it's pure überstrong market presence, brand and financial backing. The same people that hate Comcast for oligolopolizing it's market (and hence using it's almost-monopoly powers for their benefit) yet somehow wish Uber would succeed and take over the market around the world. Why? Because it's a hip SF 'startup' (if you can still call an entity with $1,500,000,000 in funding a startup)?

skwirl 12y ago
You're completely missing that Comcast is a "monopoly" because its customers have no choice while Uber is becoming a "monopoly" precisely because people do now have a choice.
- untog 12y ago
  Uber is taking a huge injection of investment cash and spending it on technology, to a scale that these small mom and pop companies could never replicate. I still don't see that as a good thing in the long term - once Uber has cornered the market there is no choice left.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - benlc 12y ago
    Uber is mostly present in major markets where Taxi companies are more of some sort of mafia than a mom and pop business. The truth is that these very same companies are present in smaller cities as well and asking a driver what he thinks of who's working for quickly shows that they share their hatred with their customers towards the terrible service they have to provide for very little money in return. These companies keep most profit, while Uber, Lyft, Sidecar etc... only take ~20%
    - ulfw 12y ago
      By "mostly present in major markets" you mean SF? Or where? Because frankly there are tons of cities around the world where the 'mafia' sort of business you describe is NOT who owns taxi companies. I haven't seen a statistic outlining in which parts of the globe taxi 'mafias' own the majority of a market vs small-business owners. Have you? Please share.
      - benlc 12y ago
        A few years ago, I tried to launch a service back in France similar to all these ride sharing companies that work with taxis rather than private drivers ( I guess the most comparable in the US market would be FlyWheel ). Things went downhill for us pretty quickly but I learned a lot about the taxi industry, how universally bad it is and why. In most countries you go, you'll notice that getting a cab is not a great experience. Small cities ( very roughly less than ~100k inhabitants ) have local companies. They're ran by local businesses that mostly depend on the quality of their service to survive. They also need to provide an ok job for their taxi drivers. This is why the service is usually more reliable and the quality of your rides is typically higher. Larger markets are much more interesting and suffer from monopoly, which often leads to what can be called mafia companies. The taxi industry is old. Very old. Small taxi companies grew from a few cabs to often controlling a third of the city they're operating in ( sometimes even more ). Laws restricted smaller guys to get into business over the past decades which we can probably put on lobbying. The lobbying part is always difficult to prove but simply looking at the stats talk by itself. Medallion are universally so expensive that taxis are forced to go through these companies that already control the market. This is a quote from wikipedia regarding NYC medallions : "Because of their high prices, medallions (and most cabs) are owned by investment companies and are leased to drivers (“hacks”)" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_States#Yellow_cabs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_States#... . This is more representative of the US and a few european markets but it points out why many of these companies have been running without any competitors for half a century. Where it gets interesting is that many cities have just as many medallions today available for purchase as there were 50 years ago when the market was half the size. So why can we define these companies as Mafia ? Well it depends. Sometimes it is actual Mafia ( in South Africa you might feel safer in a township rather than in a taxicab, no joke. ). On more developed countries, these companies simply have control on our local governments. Las Vegas is the perfect example : taxi drivers are pissed because they're not getting paid crap and are even being taken a percentage of their tip ( either they get one or not ) based on their fare... When it comes down to introduce competitors ( Uber, Lyft, Sidecar etc... ), it usually is a lengthy battle since these companies refuse to match what the taxi companies pay our local governments. I could go on and on but every market has their own things going on and iterating over old legislation rather than keeping up with modernity put the taxi industry in a very bad place. Anyway, sorry for the long answer. I currently work to one of the major ride sharing companies (I won't mention which one but this time I'm working with private drivers instead of actual taxis), and I'd love to share some of the stats we often have access to but it's obviously confidential...
  - syntern 12y ago
    Taking cash and spending it doesn't provide you success on its own. I am all for the mom and pop companies, but in this case Uber provides a way better service. People are choosing it not because Uber has spent its money, rather because it provides a great service for their customer's money.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  You're completely missing that Uber would probably love to eventually become that sort of "only option in town" monopoly.
  - hnbro2 12y ago
    miss? so would almost any company, it's moot.
  - praxeologist 12y ago
    He isn't missing anything. Your point is invalid until Uber actually uses the state to enforce a monopoly a la Comcast.
    - watwut 12y ago
      Preventing monopoly creation is an important regulatory task. Fighting them after they are powerful takes years, often dozens of years.
    - ceejayoz 12y ago
      I'd generally prefer things not get to the "too late!" stage.
      - wooter 12y ago
        in the US, we generally believe in "innocent until proven guilty" - especially before banning an industry
        cygx 12y ago
        They are obviously in violation of German law. What exactly is it you're arguing here?
cheeze 12y ago
> Why do people support a single company (like in this case Uber) taking over the business of thousands and thousands of existing companies and hence monopolizing an industry? In many cases (in USA at least) the industry is already a monopoly as it is. Uber is coming in and offering an alternative which is way better than the current yellow cab system. In many cities in America, getting a cab at 2am after the bars get out is nearly impossible due to demand, so you end up walking a few miles home because it's quicker than waiting around for a cab. Uber and Lyft have largely changed that. Furthermore, I don't think that there is some strong allegiance to Uber or anything, it's just the largest company of it's type now. I quite enjoy and use Lyft as well, and would definitely be open to anybody else who wants to enter the market. Taxi companies may be small mom and pop businesses in some areas, but in most large cities in the USA, they are breaking the monopoly, not creating it.
- hack_edu 12y ago
  I'm shocked at how often a "bar rush" is the primary example used to define it's utility. Keep it up and people will hate insular millennial techies even more. :/ Also note, even in the bay area, that once you leave the Big City limits the cab companies quickly become small business and not the monopolies we easily blame things on. It's those companies that are getting murdered and shit poured on them unfairly.
  - ulfw 12y ago
    Very true. You don't even have to leave California to see there's tons of smaller taxis companies besides Yellow Cab. I used to live in Santa Monica and a quick Google Search shows dozens of independent taxis firms (about 3-4 of which I have used to get to LAX). Furthermore - who says that during 'bar rush' prices might not 'surge' so high that a simple 'black cab' ride across town ends up costing you more than your whole evening of pub crawling? It's not like there aren't numerous stories of those around: http://valleywag.gawker.com/470-uber-ride-cost-more-than-a-ticket-to-a-three-day-m-1619486909 http://valleywag.gawker.com/470-uber-ride-cost-more-than-a-t...
  - kinghajj 12y ago
    "Unfairly?" How is it at all unfair? Uber and Lyft provide service that is more convenient than what their existing competition can, and if those businesses don't adapt, they will slowly lose market share to the newcomers. That's how business works!
SlashmanX 12y ago
> If there was an app that consolidated the booking process for those - awesome! Hailo?
- this_user 12y ago
  Mytaxi works pretty well in Germany. They basically offer the same kind of functionality like Uber while making use off the existing drivers.
  - codebeaker 12y ago
    I came here to say that, MyTaxi is great, and most of the drivers love it too.
    - ulfw 12y ago
      MyTaxi just got bought by Daimler!
sergiotapia 12y ago
You hit the nail on the head. Even here in Bolivia I can call up about 30 different cab services to pick me up.
josu 12y ago
Two remarks to your comment: They haven't only closed the doors for Uber, they have prohibited Uber and any other potential competition. Thus, perpetuating a cartel with huge entry costs. Uber's prices are competitive and they are allowing potentially anybody to become a driver, hugely increasing supply. The service they offer is much better than that of a Taxi; no Uber driver has ever tried to trick me or gotten lost. On top of that, if the 20% cut that they take is too much, don't worry, competition will show up. Really, Uber's "monopoly" is a momentary phase and any regulator should be able to see this.
- Xylakant 12y ago
  > Thus, perpetuating a cartel with huge entry costs. The key difference being that in germany at least, there is no such thing as a cartel with huge entry costs. You'll need a properly licensed car, commercial insurance and a special drivers license that costs about 250 EUR plus a few weeks learning. (my uncle got his license in a week while at the same time going to university). Then you can be a regular limo-for-hire driver. If you want a step up and become a cab owner, you need to paint you car white and spend a few hundred euros for the license (don't have the exact numbers ready) and fill in some forms. Then you're a cab company. Everyone who wants to in Berlin can be a cab driver. Used to be a typical student job and there's still a lot. There's no lack of supply. It's not like in NY where you pay a million USD for a medallion.
  - krschultz 12y ago
    Don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
  - ulfw 12y ago
    Exactly this! And that's exactly why a global 'disruptor' doesn't really make sense, because there isn't so much to disrupt. Uber grew out of a very local need (in San Francisco), which ended up translating quite well into other US markets as well as some international ones. Frankly it didn't translate so well in many other international markets. The Germany example is a great one where tons of small taxi cos co-exist peacefully. Many other markets like Turkey are the same. But even if you have large established companies, that isn't always such a bad thing that needs 'disruption'. I had a 50SGD coupon to try Uber (Black) in Singapore last year when I was at a conference. I took a Comfort Taxi to the conference (booked via app, taxi arrival 3-4 mins, took me straight to the right hall of the conference center in 20 mins. Cost about 18SGD) and then took Uber back to downtown. Uber ended up costing me over 70 SGD (i.e. even with the 50SGD coupon it was more expensive than the taxi). I had to wait 15 mins for it to show up (the app showed 5 mins away, but the driver drove in circles and couldn't find my location even with GPS, driver barely spoke English, driver didn't know one of the main streets downtown that I was going to, so I had to direct him). You can book taxis via phone, SMS, web or app. They are cheaper than Uber. Taxis are clean, regulated, always use meters, accept NETS and Credit Cards and if you want a nicer one you can get a Chrysler or Daimler for a little extra fee. Nationally regulated 'surge pricing' exists too.
lnanek2 12y ago
Taxis are nearly worthless in SF. I've called them many times and they only show up half the time, and that's if they are open and serving your area. There's no penalty for them if they pickup someone else on the way to pick you up. I had to call 4 different numbers on a trip to Redwood city once. Sometimes they don't answer and sometimes they have no one in the area. I've never managed to hail one off the street as I do in NYC. I'm happy if all the Taxi companies die because they aren't providing good service. Uber and clones let you tap a couple times on an app, know instantly without asking anyone if there are cars in the area because you see them on the map, and then watch the cab come to you on the map. If the driver has trouble finding you they call you. Then at the end payment is all automatic, you just get out.
- Xylakant 12y ago
  So why can't we let Uber disrupt the SF market while still sticking to regulations in germany. The market and the problems of the market are obviously different. The most annoying thing about Uber for me is that they try to shoehorn a solution that fits large US cities on a market that's a bad fit. There's an app that does the same as Uber just for regular cabs. It's such a better market fit, Uber could have done the same, but no, that would be boring, they need to DISRUPT!
  - stdgy 12y ago
    That app doesn't do the same thing as Uber, though. Uber's variable pricing model and liquid supply(that is, drivers who are encouraged or discouraged to participate based on current demand) encourages fleet sizes that will correctly meet usage. Really, it's an attempt to algorithmically reach an optimal solution for the given marketplace.
    - Xylakant 12y ago
      Ubers attempt may or may not be a good attempt at solving the problem of maximizing market efficiency, however it operates under the assumption that we want to optimize for market efficiency. The current system treats cabs like a utility and ensures fair access for everyone, a property that Ubers algorithm does not account for. It maximizes availability and access for the wealthier among us, a property that's at least in germany not as important as in the US. Bad market fit, as I said. MyTaxi operates whithin the framework of the current system and retains its properties while adding value and efficiency. It's obviously not as efficient from a market perspective, but that's a feature. Now a system that combines the desired properties of the old system with better efficiency is certainly thinkable and desirable, but Uber is not that system, at least not in it's current incarnation.
fthssht 12y ago
Comcast has a monopoly because regulations and high costs of infrastructure make it difficult for competitors to emerge. Somehow you think they deregulation of the taxi industry will recreate this situation. Cost of a car and the regulations gone? You've already called a uber monopoly?
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  Uber has taken $1.5 billion in funding, which they're using to lock up as many drivers as they can to create those sorts of barriers to entry. No one wants to use competing apps with a small handful of drivers - they want the one with a car right around the corner.
fthssht 12y ago
Comcast has a monopoly because regulations and high costs of infrastructure make it difficult for competitors to emerge. Somehow you think they deregulation of the taxi industry will recreate this situation. Cost of a car and the regulations gone? You've already called a uber monopoly?
fthssht 12y ago
Comcast has a monopoly because regulations and high costs of infrastructure make it difficult for competitors to emerge. Somehow you think they deregulation of the taxi industry will recreate this situation. Cost of a car and the regulations gone? You've already called a uber monopoly?
baddox 12y ago
I haven't seen anyone supporting the elimination of existing taxi companies, other than what might happen through market competition. Most people who welcome Uber don't think that only Uber should be allowed to do ridesharing, but Uber makes most of the headlines because it's the largest player. Sometimes, I will carelessly use "Uber" to refer to the entire ridesharing-via-cell-phone industry, because it gets verbose to say Uber/Lyft/Sidecar/etc. every time.
mcintyre1994 12y ago
The tough thing is that while they can provide a better service (let's qualify that - cheaper, faster, easier to book) they don't do what taxis need to do to be useful - objective model for when they can and cannot refuse a ride, effectively guaranteeing service by some provider. If they run taxis out of business by stealing the cash cow of inner city rides but don't replace that somehow then that'd be the worst kind of disruption - disrupting the customer in a horrible way. And if you're in the inner city and get the better service from Uber nobody can blame you for using it. But I can definitely see why regulators have genuine concerns around the people served by taxis who won't be worth ubers time.
runeks 12y ago
> But why would there have to be a company that owns the market globally - from Karachi to Karlsruhe, from Amsterdam to New York, taking 20%, killing competition by it's pure überstrong market presence, brand and financial backing. So you would like to increase competition by preventing Uber from competing?
- cygx 12y ago
  They can still compete - but just like everyone else, they have to do so in accord with local law. If their business model is illegal in Germany, tough luck - consulting a lawyer before launching a large-scale business operation is generally considered a good idea.
fiatjaf 12y ago
Monopolies are monopolies only when the State supports them.
Houshalter 12y ago
Well your argument doesn't just apply to Uber. Why do people support any large businesses if they are all necessarily monopolies that kill small competition?
- ulfw 12y ago
  Very true. And people later often come to regret it once monopolistic tendencies start to settle in. Having healthy competition is rarely a bad thing.
fwn 12y ago
You compare two different types of monopoly. It may be true that Uber will "monopolize" the market regarding the amount of suppliers, but: You always can use potential future alternatives. Those small taxi organisations who are defending their market share in Germany right now do that not by better service or lower prices but by lobbying through their state protected cartells. This causes German taxis to be awful. Often they want to talk to you, are dirty, expensive and play poor people pop on interrupting volume.

by ulfw 12y ago

skwirl 12y ago

You're completely missing that Comcast is a "monopoly" because its customers have no choice while Uber is becoming a "monopoly" precisely because people do now have a choice.

untog 12y ago
Uber is taking a huge injection of investment cash and spending it on technology, to a scale that these small mom and pop companies could never replicate. I still don't see that as a good thing in the long term - once Uber has cornered the market there is no choice left.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- benlc 12y ago
  Uber is mostly present in major markets where Taxi companies are more of some sort of mafia than a mom and pop business. The truth is that these very same companies are present in smaller cities as well and asking a driver what he thinks of who's working for quickly shows that they share their hatred with their customers towards the terrible service they have to provide for very little money in return. These companies keep most profit, while Uber, Lyft, Sidecar etc... only take ~20%
  - ulfw 12y ago
    By "mostly present in major markets" you mean SF? Or where? Because frankly there are tons of cities around the world where the 'mafia' sort of business you describe is NOT who owns taxi companies. I haven't seen a statistic outlining in which parts of the globe taxi 'mafias' own the majority of a market vs small-business owners. Have you? Please share.
    - benlc 12y ago
      A few years ago, I tried to launch a service back in France similar to all these ride sharing companies that work with taxis rather than private drivers ( I guess the most comparable in the US market would be FlyWheel ). Things went downhill for us pretty quickly but I learned a lot about the taxi industry, how universally bad it is and why. In most countries you go, you'll notice that getting a cab is not a great experience. Small cities ( very roughly less than ~100k inhabitants ) have local companies. They're ran by local businesses that mostly depend on the quality of their service to survive. They also need to provide an ok job for their taxi drivers. This is why the service is usually more reliable and the quality of your rides is typically higher. Larger markets are much more interesting and suffer from monopoly, which often leads to what can be called mafia companies. The taxi industry is old. Very old. Small taxi companies grew from a few cabs to often controlling a third of the city they're operating in ( sometimes even more ). Laws restricted smaller guys to get into business over the past decades which we can probably put on lobbying. The lobbying part is always difficult to prove but simply looking at the stats talk by itself. Medallion are universally so expensive that taxis are forced to go through these companies that already control the market. This is a quote from wikipedia regarding NYC medallions : "Because of their high prices, medallions (and most cabs) are owned by investment companies and are leased to drivers (“hacks”)" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_States#Yellow_cabs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_States#... . This is more representative of the US and a few european markets but it points out why many of these companies have been running without any competitors for half a century. Where it gets interesting is that many cities have just as many medallions today available for purchase as there were 50 years ago when the market was half the size. So why can we define these companies as Mafia ? Well it depends. Sometimes it is actual Mafia ( in South Africa you might feel safer in a township rather than in a taxicab, no joke. ). On more developed countries, these companies simply have control on our local governments. Las Vegas is the perfect example : taxi drivers are pissed because they're not getting paid crap and are even being taken a percentage of their tip ( either they get one or not ) based on their fare... When it comes down to introduce competitors ( Uber, Lyft, Sidecar etc... ), it usually is a lengthy battle since these companies refuse to match what the taxi companies pay our local governments. I could go on and on but every market has their own things going on and iterating over old legislation rather than keeping up with modernity put the taxi industry in a very bad place. Anyway, sorry for the long answer. I currently work to one of the major ride sharing companies (I won't mention which one but this time I'm working with private drivers instead of actual taxis), and I'd love to share some of the stats we often have access to but it's obviously confidential...
- syntern 12y ago
  Taking cash and spending it doesn't provide you success on its own. I am all for the mom and pop companies, but in this case Uber provides a way better service. People are choosing it not because Uber has spent its money, rather because it provides a great service for their customer's money.
ceejayoz 12y ago
You're completely missing that Uber would probably love to eventually become that sort of "only option in town" monopoly.
- hnbro2 12y ago
  miss? so would almost any company, it's moot.
- praxeologist 12y ago
  He isn't missing anything. Your point is invalid until Uber actually uses the state to enforce a monopoly a la Comcast.
  - watwut 12y ago
    Preventing monopoly creation is an important regulatory task. Fighting them after they are powerful takes years, often dozens of years.
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    I'd generally prefer things not get to the "too late!" stage.
    - wooter 12y ago
      in the US, we generally believe in "innocent until proven guilty" - especially before banning an industry
      - cygx 12y ago
        They are obviously in violation of German law. What exactly is it you're arguing here?

cheeze 12y ago

> Why do people support a single company (like in this case Uber) taking over the business of thousands and thousands of existing companies and hence monopolizing an industry? In many cases (in USA at least) the industry is already a monopoly as it is. Uber is coming in and offering an alternative which is way better than the current yellow cab system. In many cities in America, getting a cab at 2am after the bars get out is nearly impossible due to demand, so you end up walking a few miles home because it's quicker than waiting around for a cab. Uber and Lyft have largely changed that. Furthermore, I don't think that there is some strong allegiance to Uber or anything, it's just the largest company of it's type now. I quite enjoy and use Lyft as well, and would definitely be open to anybody else who wants to enter the market. Taxi companies may be small mom and pop businesses in some areas, but in most large cities in the USA, they are breaking the monopoly, not creating it.

hack_edu 12y ago
I'm shocked at how often a "bar rush" is the primary example used to define it's utility. Keep it up and people will hate insular millennial techies even more. :/ Also note, even in the bay area, that once you leave the Big City limits the cab companies quickly become small business and not the monopolies we easily blame things on. It's those companies that are getting murdered and shit poured on them unfairly.
- ulfw 12y ago
  Very true. You don't even have to leave California to see there's tons of smaller taxis companies besides Yellow Cab. I used to live in Santa Monica and a quick Google Search shows dozens of independent taxis firms (about 3-4 of which I have used to get to LAX). Furthermore - who says that during 'bar rush' prices might not 'surge' so high that a simple 'black cab' ride across town ends up costing you more than your whole evening of pub crawling? It's not like there aren't numerous stories of those around: http://valleywag.gawker.com/470-uber-ride-cost-more-than-a-ticket-to-a-three-day-m-1619486909 http://valleywag.gawker.com/470-uber-ride-cost-more-than-a-t...
- kinghajj 12y ago
  "Unfairly?" How is it at all unfair? Uber and Lyft provide service that is more convenient than what their existing competition can, and if those businesses don't adapt, they will slowly lose market share to the newcomers. That's how business works!

SlashmanX 12y ago

> If there was an app that consolidated the booking process for those - awesome! Hailo?

this_user 12y ago
Mytaxi works pretty well in Germany. They basically offer the same kind of functionality like Uber while making use off the existing drivers.
- codebeaker 12y ago
  I came here to say that, MyTaxi is great, and most of the drivers love it too.
  - ulfw 12y ago
    MyTaxi just got bought by Daimler!

sergiotapia 12y ago

You hit the nail on the head. Even here in Bolivia I can call up about 30 different cab services to pick me up.

josu 12y ago

Two remarks to your comment: They haven't only closed the doors for Uber, they have prohibited Uber and any other potential competition. Thus, perpetuating a cartel with huge entry costs. Uber's prices are competitive and they are allowing potentially anybody to become a driver, hugely increasing supply. The service they offer is much better than that of a Taxi; no Uber driver has ever tried to trick me or gotten lost. On top of that, if the 20% cut that they take is too much, don't worry, competition will show up. Really, Uber's "monopoly" is a momentary phase and any regulator should be able to see this.

Xylakant 12y ago
> Thus, perpetuating a cartel with huge entry costs. The key difference being that in germany at least, there is no such thing as a cartel with huge entry costs. You'll need a properly licensed car, commercial insurance and a special drivers license that costs about 250 EUR plus a few weeks learning. (my uncle got his license in a week while at the same time going to university). Then you can be a regular limo-for-hire driver. If you want a step up and become a cab owner, you need to paint you car white and spend a few hundred euros for the license (don't have the exact numbers ready) and fill in some forms. Then you're a cab company. Everyone who wants to in Berlin can be a cab driver. Used to be a typical student job and there's still a lot. There's no lack of supply. It's not like in NY where you pay a million USD for a medallion.
- krschultz 12y ago
  Don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
- ulfw 12y ago
  Exactly this! And that's exactly why a global 'disruptor' doesn't really make sense, because there isn't so much to disrupt. Uber grew out of a very local need (in San Francisco), which ended up translating quite well into other US markets as well as some international ones. Frankly it didn't translate so well in many other international markets. The Germany example is a great one where tons of small taxi cos co-exist peacefully. Many other markets like Turkey are the same. But even if you have large established companies, that isn't always such a bad thing that needs 'disruption'. I had a 50SGD coupon to try Uber (Black) in Singapore last year when I was at a conference. I took a Comfort Taxi to the conference (booked via app, taxi arrival 3-4 mins, took me straight to the right hall of the conference center in 20 mins. Cost about 18SGD) and then took Uber back to downtown. Uber ended up costing me over 70 SGD (i.e. even with the 50SGD coupon it was more expensive than the taxi). I had to wait 15 mins for it to show up (the app showed 5 mins away, but the driver drove in circles and couldn't find my location even with GPS, driver barely spoke English, driver didn't know one of the main streets downtown that I was going to, so I had to direct him). You can book taxis via phone, SMS, web or app. They are cheaper than Uber. Taxis are clean, regulated, always use meters, accept NETS and Credit Cards and if you want a nicer one you can get a Chrysler or Daimler for a little extra fee. Nationally regulated 'surge pricing' exists too.

lnanek2 12y ago

Taxis are nearly worthless in SF. I've called them many times and they only show up half the time, and that's if they are open and serving your area. There's no penalty for them if they pickup someone else on the way to pick you up. I had to call 4 different numbers on a trip to Redwood city once. Sometimes they don't answer and sometimes they have no one in the area. I've never managed to hail one off the street as I do in NYC. I'm happy if all the Taxi companies die because they aren't providing good service. Uber and clones let you tap a couple times on an app, know instantly without asking anyone if there are cars in the area because you see them on the map, and then watch the cab come to you on the map. If the driver has trouble finding you they call you. Then at the end payment is all automatic, you just get out.

Xylakant 12y ago
So why can't we let Uber disrupt the SF market while still sticking to regulations in germany. The market and the problems of the market are obviously different. The most annoying thing about Uber for me is that they try to shoehorn a solution that fits large US cities on a market that's a bad fit. There's an app that does the same as Uber just for regular cabs. It's such a better market fit, Uber could have done the same, but no, that would be boring, they need to DISRUPT!
- stdgy 12y ago
  That app doesn't do the same thing as Uber, though. Uber's variable pricing model and liquid supply(that is, drivers who are encouraged or discouraged to participate based on current demand) encourages fleet sizes that will correctly meet usage. Really, it's an attempt to algorithmically reach an optimal solution for the given marketplace.
  - Xylakant 12y ago
    Ubers attempt may or may not be a good attempt at solving the problem of maximizing market efficiency, however it operates under the assumption that we want to optimize for market efficiency. The current system treats cabs like a utility and ensures fair access for everyone, a property that Ubers algorithm does not account for. It maximizes availability and access for the wealthier among us, a property that's at least in germany not as important as in the US. Bad market fit, as I said. MyTaxi operates whithin the framework of the current system and retains its properties while adding value and efficiency. It's obviously not as efficient from a market perspective, but that's a feature. Now a system that combines the desired properties of the old system with better efficiency is certainly thinkable and desirable, but Uber is not that system, at least not in it's current incarnation.

fthssht 12y ago

Comcast has a monopoly because regulations and high costs of infrastructure make it difficult for competitors to emerge. Somehow you think they deregulation of the taxi industry will recreate this situation. Cost of a car and the regulations gone? You've already called a uber monopoly?

ceejayoz 12y ago
Uber has taken $1.5 billion in funding, which they're using to lock up as many drivers as they can to create those sorts of barriers to entry. No one wants to use competing apps with a small handful of drivers - they want the one with a car right around the corner.

fthssht 12y ago

baddox 12y ago

I haven't seen anyone supporting the elimination of existing taxi companies, other than what might happen through market competition. Most people who welcome Uber don't think that only Uber should be allowed to do ridesharing, but Uber makes most of the headlines because it's the largest player. Sometimes, I will carelessly use "Uber" to refer to the entire ridesharing-via-cell-phone industry, because it gets verbose to say Uber/Lyft/Sidecar/etc. every time.

mcintyre1994 12y ago

The tough thing is that while they can provide a better service (let's qualify that - cheaper, faster, easier to book) they don't do what taxis need to do to be useful - objective model for when they can and cannot refuse a ride, effectively guaranteeing service by some provider. If they run taxis out of business by stealing the cash cow of inner city rides but don't replace that somehow then that'd be the worst kind of disruption - disrupting the customer in a horrible way. And if you're in the inner city and get the better service from Uber nobody can blame you for using it. But I can definitely see why regulators have genuine concerns around the people served by taxis who won't be worth ubers time.

runeks 12y ago

> But why would there have to be a company that owns the market globally - from Karachi to Karlsruhe, from Amsterdam to New York, taking 20%, killing competition by it's pure überstrong market presence, brand and financial backing. So you would like to increase competition by preventing Uber from competing?

cygx 12y ago
They can still compete - but just like everyone else, they have to do so in accord with local law. If their business model is illegal in Germany, tough luck - consulting a lawyer before launching a large-scale business operation is generally considered a good idea.

fiatjaf 12y ago

Monopolies are monopolies only when the State supports them.

Houshalter 12y ago

Well your argument doesn't just apply to Uber. Why do people support any large businesses if they are all necessarily monopolies that kill small competition?

ulfw 12y ago
Very true. And people later often come to regret it once monopolistic tendencies start to settle in. Having healthy competition is rarely a bad thing.

fwn 12y ago

You compare two different types of monopoly. It may be true that Uber will "monopolize" the market regarding the amount of suppliers, but: You always can use potential future alternatives. Those small taxi organisations who are defending their market share in Germany right now do that not by better service or lower prices but by lobbying through their state protected cartells. This causes German taxis to be awful. Often they want to talk to you, are dirty, expensive and play poor people pop on interrupting volume.