4 ms·

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 c

by 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.
- antimagic 12y ago
  I'm rather skeptical of your claims - the courts decided against Uber because Uber drivers didn't have taxi licenses. If licenses were so easy to come by, I can't think why Uber would even bother going to court, they'd just get licenses! There's obviously a significant barrier there.
  - Xylakant 12y ago
    Well, Uber Black is the properly licensed service with professional drivers and properly licensed and insured cars. It's in operation and not affected by this injunction. There's some nitpick about whether they should or should not be allowed to pick up people from the street, but that's minor. The service affected here is UberPop that allows any private person to use their private car with domestic insurance to pick up people and transport them commercially. Uber has decided that this is the market they want, but that's just not legal in germany. Private persons that want to just earn a little on the side won't spend the time and money to pass the test and get commercial insurance. Since UberPop targets private persons it's also an invitation to tax evasion, but that's a different issue. Uber could restrict themselves to the legal business model but have chosen not to. There is a barrier here and it separates the people that want to be professional drivers from the non-professionals. The professionals are allowed to transport people for commercial motives, the non-professionals are not. This separation exists in a lot of areas, for example when producing and selling food, construction work etc. If I want to provide a professional service that has an associated risk, I must pass some certification that shows I at least roughly know what I'm doing.
    - antimagic 12y ago
      Ahhh, right, my bad. They weren't terribly clear in the article as to which entity they were talking about, and I'm used to seeing "Uber" by itself to refer to the original "professional" service.
      - Xylakant 12y ago
        It's a common confusion, even in the news. Avoiding the confusion is a good litmus test on how good the article about Uber is.
- fromtheoutside 12y ago
  I don't think that's the whole truth. Berlin is still special in Germany and has a high cab density. Actually you need a cab license to drive a cab in most german cities. And the number of these licenses is limited by the city. While the German taxi system is in dire need of a reform most people believe Uber is not the answer.
  - Xylakant 12y ago
    UberBlack is operating legally as "Mietwagen mit Fahrer" which is less regulated (doesn't need the taxi license), but UberPop doesn't even fulfill those lower requirements.
- pgeorgi 12y ago
  To be fair, counties or cities can limit demand, but they're limiting demand to "these current 200 tiny companies because with 10 more, no one can make a living anymore", not to "that big juggernaut and nothing else". The law actually demands it (both limiting for economical reasons and spreading the load). And the reason for why they interfere in such a way is that taxis are considered a mode of public transportation, which was declared at some point a county issue. Thanks to that we also don't have that mess of three different types of uncoordinated local railway and bus systems that the bay area "enjoys". (not Xylakant but in general:) Please don't assume your third world style problems also apply to everyone else. (like Uber and their fans do with that endless "taxi mafia" nonsense)

by josu 12y ago

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.
antimagic 12y ago
I'm rather skeptical of your claims - the courts decided against Uber because Uber drivers didn't have taxi licenses. If licenses were so easy to come by, I can't think why Uber would even bother going to court, they'd just get licenses! There's obviously a significant barrier there.
- Xylakant 12y ago
  Well, Uber Black is the properly licensed service with professional drivers and properly licensed and insured cars. It's in operation and not affected by this injunction. There's some nitpick about whether they should or should not be allowed to pick up people from the street, but that's minor. The service affected here is UberPop that allows any private person to use their private car with domestic insurance to pick up people and transport them commercially. Uber has decided that this is the market they want, but that's just not legal in germany. Private persons that want to just earn a little on the side won't spend the time and money to pass the test and get commercial insurance. Since UberPop targets private persons it's also an invitation to tax evasion, but that's a different issue. Uber could restrict themselves to the legal business model but have chosen not to. There is a barrier here and it separates the people that want to be professional drivers from the non-professionals. The professionals are allowed to transport people for commercial motives, the non-professionals are not. This separation exists in a lot of areas, for example when producing and selling food, construction work etc. If I want to provide a professional service that has an associated risk, I must pass some certification that shows I at least roughly know what I'm doing.
  - antimagic 12y ago
    Ahhh, right, my bad. They weren't terribly clear in the article as to which entity they were talking about, and I'm used to seeing "Uber" by itself to refer to the original "professional" service.
    - Xylakant 12y ago
      It's a common confusion, even in the news. Avoiding the confusion is a good litmus test on how good the article about Uber is.
fromtheoutside 12y ago
I don't think that's the whole truth. Berlin is still special in Germany and has a high cab density. Actually you need a cab license to drive a cab in most german cities. And the number of these licenses is limited by the city. While the German taxi system is in dire need of a reform most people believe Uber is not the answer.
- Xylakant 12y ago
  UberBlack is operating legally as "Mietwagen mit Fahrer" which is less regulated (doesn't need the taxi license), but UberPop doesn't even fulfill those lower requirements.
pgeorgi 12y ago
To be fair, counties or cities can limit demand, but they're limiting demand to "these current 200 tiny companies because with 10 more, no one can make a living anymore", not to "that big juggernaut and nothing else". The law actually demands it (both limiting for economical reasons and spreading the load). And the reason for why they interfere in such a way is that taxis are considered a mode of public transportation, which was declared at some point a county issue. Thanks to that we also don't have that mess of three different types of uncoordinated local railway and bus systems that the bay area "enjoys". (not Xylakant but in general:) Please don't assume your third world style problems also apply to everyone else. (like Uber and their fans do with that endless "taxi mafia" nonsense)