If they can't or won't reform then excellent, let's be rid of them.
I don't want to give any business to a company that are seeking to become a worldwide cab monopoly, and squirrel away any profits to the US. We have a perfectly healthy cab ecosystem in my city, app-driven and with fare competition and city regulation. Which I suppose is why Uber, though present, hasn't really taken off here.
That said, talk of profits may be a little early and AFAICT they're losing money by the fistful. Which kinda says that they're engaging in some dodgy market distortion to me...
This decision has officially nothing to do with tax evasion/optimization. It is on grounds of consumer protection that Uber's licence is not being renewed.
Anyone who has taken a black cab should immediately understand the hypocrisy motivating this decision. The user experience is absolutely horrendous and there's no good tracking system to make black cab drivers accountable. In short, as everyone knows, it is just another artificial monopoly enshrined into law by regulators.
A good thing is that same regulators are losing lots of credibility. For decades they could pretend they were acting on basis of consumer protection. Now it is clear they aren't. People love Uber (not necessarily applies in the US anymore) because the experience is amazing at decent prices. Even in a city with a high density public transportation system like Paris, you are always happy to have that option in case it is past 1:00am or you're in a hurry.
I'm sorry but you will have to do more to explain your point on black cab user experience being horrendous. Whilst it can be hard to get a hold of one at times, in my experience of 20 years of using them, the user experience is great - the drivers are typically friendly and get you there as quickly as they can. I have used Uber many times in London and abandoned it months ago, as the drivers don't have the local knowledge required to quickly move across what is a very busy city. SatNav isn't everything - give me driver experience every single time.
1. When you need one at about 10pm in the City, and stand on the street corner for ages watching dozens of them go by with their lights off and no passengers.
2. When you are less than 1/2 a mile north of the Thames, and the cabbie refuses the ride because he 'doesn't go south of the river, mate'
3. Same as #2 but 'doesn't go north of the river, mate'
4. Same as #2 and #3 but for inside/outside the north/south circular ringroad.
5. Deliberately ignoring your route request, and then snarles the cab up in non-moving traffic all while the meter is still running (Black Cabs charge by time, not distance).
I think the TfL night bus service is a game changer for a lot of people, you may be waiting for 20 minutes for a connect to what would be zone 5+ but the personal security aspect is pretty good and there are no 'South of the river' games played by bus drivers. I like being under CCTV for my journey when on the night bus.
For me it is not 'let's grab an Uber', it is 'drat, missed the last train, where and when do I get the night bus?'
Because traffic is considerably lighter at night the bus goes at a good speed and during the day the bus has its own lane, one which Uber can't be in.
I appreciate that if you have some very important clients arriving then you want to book them a cab, plus there are plenty of other reasons to get a cab, however, TfL is putting together a transport system for everyone, not just people stuck in their apps.
Rarely in a suit. The rest, yes, but the same also applies to my black ex, who incidentally also uses taxis far more than me. No doubt there's plenty of racism in the UK, but of all the places she's complained about racist behavior, black cabs has never been of them. Maybe we've just been lucky. Or maybe you've been extremely unlucky.
Pretty much this, and I have only crossed the channel a handful times to visit friends. Same experience in France when trying out legacy taxis, they are supposed to take cards, they display it on their car, yet, some will refuse it and cause trouble if you try using it.
Basically, it comes down to lack of serious customer support and accountability system. Setting new rules from top to bottom in a legacy industry that has decades of industry malpractice under its belt cannot be effective if you aren't able to enforce those rules.
> I've had black cab drivers insist that I can't use my card, and that I must get out.
> I've had cab drivers refuse to drive me to certain parts of London because it's inconvenient for them.
Report them, by taxi license number (displayed on a plate in the passenger area). Both those things are rare and taken seriously, but the authorities can't do anything if they aren't told.
Then just accept the fact you’re part of the problem. If everyone was like you and only in it for themselves, quality service would be rare, if not ever.
I've had the second (refused to be driven) from Uber drivers in London before, except couched in silly excuses like "there are roadworks, it's not possible", and to add insult to injury, marking the ride as complete so I get charged anyway. TBF Uber were extremely prompt about refunding it.
The last point I won't disagree with; Uber is definitely cheaper, qualitatively so, such that you'd consider it for trips that you'd never take a black cab for.
I've only taken a London cab a handful of times, but I never had a bad experience. I don't think I've had a bad experience with Uber drivers either...maybe one or two weird conversations .. same with Lyft drivers.
I just want to know if Uber drivers can average the same income as cabbies working the same hours. In New Zealand, several Uber drivers use to be cabbies and switched from Wellington Combined because they earned more money with Uber. That was years ago and I'm curious if that's still the case or if those drivers have switched back. In Berlin, the Uber app hails a regular taxi driver that's under standard taxi regulations from the city, so there it's more just a billing system.
Everywhere else I've taken Lyft/Uber, the drivers never started out in taxis. It's turning the taxi industry into a "gig economy" I realize a lot of people got their start in new cities as taxi drivers; immigrants from generations back. Things are changing. It's not good or bad, just different.
The biggest concern is Uber as a company. Most of the rides I've mentioned I've taken with others. I prefer public transport when possible, Lyft when I have to. For a while on HN, ever week was another post: Greyball, the Hell map, the two harassment blog posts, anti-union efforts against drivers, hiring Eric Holder for damage control, the continuing Google/Waymo self driving tech court case, etc.
Are there any recent posts on how much drivers earn? I've heard it's going down each year. Is it worth it to lose an entire career path for some people for cheaper rides?
> I just want to know if Uber drivers can average the same income as cabbies working the same hours.
I have no data, but my prior based on conversations in London is "no way". Uber pays similarly to minicabs --- minimum wage-ish when car maintenance is accounted for. Pre-Uber, I heard cabbies made £40k-£60k pretty steadily.
uber is pretty much useless in zone 1 since the roads are too narrow and the traffic too extreme. you could literally take a leisurely walk from the british museum down to leicester square garden faster than a minicab. black cabs have the benefit of being allowed to travel on bus lanes and that makes all the difference in central London.
that said, black cabs get more and more unreliable the further away from central London you are.
I've been turned away by a black cab driver because they didn't want to go where I wanted to go.
Yes, during the rush hours they are faster than ubers (mostly because they have priviledged access to bus lanes etc). But catching a black cab at night is almost impossible.
Also some of my friends regularly get ignored by black cabs when they try to hail it.
Black cabs need to be kicked out of bus lanes. They should be for mass transport of people, not chauffeuring businessmen from Euston to Canary Wharf quickly.
I saw those links, and can Google others as well when searching for Uber wrongdoing. I want their details, not a commenters.
I saw the Tfl's statement which only had four abstract bullet points. What did they ask about Greyball and what was answered? Which unreported crimes and were there cover-up attempts by the company?
In general, one might expect a level of detailed transparency in these rulings lest it's seen as a foregone conclusion retroactively finding reasons. Is there a commission report I can read or a committee hearing I can watch?
I presume it's available somewhere, if one looks hard enough. london.gov.uk has a lot of detailed info, including minutes of transport committee meetings, various FOI requests (including an Uber one from earlier in the year - https://www.london.gov.uk/foi-disclosure-log/foi-uber-meetin... )
If there isn't enough already published then you could consider submitting an FOI yourself.
--edit-- This may be interesting and has various links to rulings by the London Assembly, and other bits and pieces:
"healthy cab ecosystem"? Have you lived in outer London? If you're out as far as one of the houses outside Brixton, the cab system isn't even in existence, let alone healthy.
That comment was about the city I live in now, Southampton, where we have multiple cab firms with reasonable prices and reasonable apps.
That said I used to live in Streatham in the mid 00s, and sure, the transport situation wasn't great. There was choice back then, but between terrible or worse.
In what part of London aren't there multiple cab firms operating locally? Certainly not "as far out" as Zone 2, where I've caught a cab from dozens of times, and that's not even thinking about firms like Addison Lee that operate across London.
I live in Croydon, zone 5, much further out than Brixton, and have no problem relying on black cabs several times a week, on top of at least half a dozen minicab companies.
In my city, especially as a disabled person, I've had vastly better experience with Uber than with regular cabs. Just being able to indicate precisely where to stop on a map is an incredible improvement for me over having to provide instructions to a cab driver who can't find the spot. Not having to deal with cash, drivers more willing to help etc. gives me a much better experience with an Uber.
I hailed a cab during the big tube strike a few years back. 60 GBP got me, not to the airport, but the DLR (automated trains; no drivers). We had to stop by an ATM since he didn't take cards. Uber had surge pricing at the time due to the strike, so I'm not really sure which one would have been worse.
Uber is far from unique in refusing service dogs or wheelchairs. It seems the rules are more clearly explained to regulated taxis than they are to less regulated minicabs.
Here in Vilnius I feel the same. Uber was late to the game (which is weird as they have an engineering office here) so there were a number of other apps launched by local companies that worked with the existing taxi companies. They provided exactly the same service (mobile app where you can specify pickup and drop off locations, and card payment) as Uber, so when they finally launched it wasn’t a big deal.
It’s been two years since Uber launched and they still haven’t really taken off, mainly because they are a lot more expensive than the other apps and don’t have as many cars. Although Uber’s cars are a bit nicer (executive car vs 10yo Prius), people here are cost sensitive so that isn’t really a selling point.
User experience is why I avoid Uber. I've only used ride hailing services at airports, and Uber drivers tended to be very aggressive on the roads compared to Lyft or regular cab drivers. I had one driver miss an exit on a freeway, and then proceed to REVERSE on the freeway to get back to the exit. That about sealed it for me with Uber.
Yes, I hate that about Uber and Lyft drivers but I don't blame the company for it. It's the passengers. They could rate these aggressive drivers one star. It will correct driver behavior.
Uber has a maximum driver count in most cities. In many places if you get below a 5 from multiple riders, you get cut. In Seattle, this meant a lot of them switched to Lyft exclusively after Uber dropped them. Lyft drivers in Seattle were terrible. One didn't stop for an ambulance. Another cut off several cars in an intersection.
I still prefer Lyft and haven't had big problems in other cities. But it's worth mentioning.
> I don't want to give any business to a company that are seeking to become a worldwide cab monopoly
Do you buy from Amazon? Essentially the same thing, and I for one use it regularly. Like you, I worried for a while about a monopoly, but I think capitalism will pan out.
Amazon and any other online retailer that can successfully provide massive selection, good product review system, and reliable and fast home delivery will drive a change in the landscape of retail locally. This will eventually lead to smaller local physical stores through agreements with those retailers where the most popular items are stocked.
(The exception for the short-term will be supermarkets. And you've already seen the attempts at transformation; many generic retailers are half-grocery store now. That's what they will become in full, if they survive. But, home delivery will take that over also, eventually.)
Uber had poor decisions made, but along with Lyft in the US, Mytaxi in the UK, etc.- these are the "early Amazons" of the transportation business. The old method that Taxi services use is no longer relevant now that anyone can find directions easily. London is somewhat unique in that some of its cab drivers are known worldwide as those that have incredible memories, and that's great, but they are the typewriters of the future- used by some, but not by most. All of the dispatch and directions have been automated.
Had a terrible experience my first trip to London with black cabs. Headed to Heathrow express, late for flight as it is, He tells me 3/4 of the trip through, no cabs accept credit. We pull up to a stop light, and a cab directly to our left, has "we accept credit" on the window. So now I'm sitting here driving around with the cab guy to find an ATM at 5am just to pay him.
I've learned to always, ALWAYS ask when I first step into a cab whether they accept card payments, anywhere in the world. As far as I can remember, every time I've done this the answer has always been "yes" and the card payment worked without a hitch at the end of the ride. Yet just about every time I took a cab without asking about cards upfront, the driver would tell me his reader isn't working and he'd have to drive me to an ATM. Funny how conveniently finicky those readers are...
Counterexample -- happened near London. I asked to the cab driver if he accepted card payments and he says no. I asked him if we could stop to an ATM machine on the way and he said no and had me leave the cab (it was raining and there was a huge queue to get a cab).
That's a great strategy too if you know the law is on your side and are bold enough to pull it off. But I'm pretty non-confrontational (even when dealing with people I know are trying to cheat me) and when I take a cab I'm usually in an unfamiliar place where I didn't have the foresight to check on the cab regulations beforehand, so I'm going to stick with mine :)
I was half drunk / no sleep at the time. I probably did ask them, or just assumed like every other cab in the civilized world takes them. Anyhow, horrible.
True, but not taken seriously by cab drivers. I've had many broken card machines in a black cab, and when challenged, it almost always lead to a, "alrite, get out mate" — or a, "well I can try if it works again, it didn't earlier..." I didn't report them, and with their ongoing nonsense and this now, I'll definitely make sure I will from here on forward.
You absolutely 100% must report them. Seriously. Every time. It's the only way we make it better for everybody.
The requirement for it to always be available is a new one - it was introduced in recent months. So if your experience pre-date that, that behaviour may have changed.
If it hasn't you absolutely 100% need to report the driver to TfL.
Was after October last year, I should've reported and will do so now. It's a bit intimidating to take a photo of the license, but I guess it's easier when outside the cab. Which is, again, one more thing I like about Uber, I open the app, and it's all there. If a driver takes a wonky route, I complain and don't need to proof it much and get into an argument with the driver, the evidence is there, I merely deal with customer support, and I always get my money back.
> It's the only way we make it better for everybody.
Not true. Alternatively, you can have competition and consumer choice which can also make it better for everybody. Not everyone wants to be a squeaky wheel on these things, nor should they be forced to.
> It's the only way we make it better for everybody
All the reporting in the world didn’t help my black friend hail a yellow New York City taxi. You know what did ? Uber exerting competitive pressure on the Taxi & Limousine Commission and its drivers.
Well you kinda do... If he's done a good job (direct route, not taken the piss, been polite) then the custom is to round up the fare to the nearest £1.
Well, in restaurants now the tip's already on the bill, unless you want to make your entire group or date uncomfortable by "talking to the waiter about taking it off".
Really? I rarely have dinner over 20 pounds a person (which isn't cheap, I get it, but for London prices it's also not expensive), and I haven't seen a bill without service charge added in months (excluding Whetherspoons). As soon as I don't manage to order at the register, and instead someone brings a menu, there will be a service charge.
There was one restaurant recently that didn't have one, and we almost freaked out about it.
Not really, it's a service charge that in most places is charged for groups over a certain size (4 or 5). There is no culture of compulsory tipping for anything, because it's ridiculous.
My experience does not match what you are saying. I was always taught that (unless a service charge is already included) you should tip 10-20% in good restaurants. Not to tip I believe is generally seen as rude/a sign that service was bad.
Of course, most of us don't regularly eat in "good restaurants" - pretty much anything on the high street/your local shopping centre isn't, and anywhere you can get a meal for under £15 a head before drinks doesn't count as a "good restaurant", in my books.
I mean where you draw the line is up to you, but if there are three of you x £15, plus drinks lets say total of £64 , I would normally round it up to 70. By good restaurants I meant anything that isn't fast food (Subway, McDs). But perhaps I am not a typical customer, I don't know.
Often I go out to a restaurant with a friend and order fairly common food - totalling <£30 including drinks, and not making many demands of the staff. I don't think tipping someone to do the bare bones of their job is reasonable.
On the other hand, if I were to go with a reasonably sized group of people, had to get a table big enough for the lot of us, have people with dietary requirements or order cocktails or who otherwise make many demands of the staff... it's worth tipping as we're a pain in the ass, basically. And many restaurants automatically add a service charge in that case anyway.
"Yes", or if they make a fuss, report them - you've got their license number on the plate right in front of you, and actual accountability rather than an unaccountable star-review system.
Why would I pay more money for a higher chance of getting into an argument with some asshole cab driver instead of using Uber, saving money, and avoiding the hassle entirely?
If this is a problem, write an app that emails/faxes/whatever a report to TfL? Could even integrate some CV stuff to read a license plate number from the phone's camera. This is the sort of thing that takes large organisations a while to build, but could be a weekend project for an interested developer.
Still would need to be popularised to actually give any benefit (i.e. similar levels of accountability for minor shittinies as uber's ratings). people are lazy. Rating an uber takes seconds, and is built in to same app you need to order it. I am guessing many people don't rate anyway. Also, making an app that that does this well is NOT a weekend sized project.
If the anecdote and the law are both accurate, then that certainly goes to show exactly how effective all those stringent regulations are. It seems like this one would be simple to check.
You can just refuse to pay any other way except by card. There is not much a black cab driver can do in response to that, since they are now not even allowed to be on the road accepting customers if they don't have a working card machine.
More than 400 London cab drivers charged with crimes last year [0]. Not sure if this includes Uber, but from your comment, Uber doesn't report to DBS, so it doesn't. When you judge a service, you should really ask "compared to what". I prefer knowing the name and track record of my driver, not to mention an easy way to report mis-behavior, a history of my ride and ability to share my ___location. I don't have any stats, but from my experience, these factors greatly increase safety and comfort
> The FOI showed the number of people charged who gave their occupation as a taxi driver or minicab driver.
That would include Uber drivers.
> I prefer knowing the name and track record of my driver
You know their name, but their track record? You can see previous ratings, but that's not exactly going to include "1*, driver sexually assaulted me" is it?
I personally never had a negative enough of an experience to warrant a bad rating, but I know people in the US that rated their drivers a low score for some reason (poor navigation, speeding, cell phone use), and they subsequently had an Uber rep reach out to them to discuss. It seems that they take the ratings very seriously. And it also shows because many of the drivers I spoke to were concerned about their ratings and even offer such amenities like water and cell chargers to make the ride more pleasant. As for yellow cabs in NY, many times I've witnessed the cab driver speaking on his phone and refusing to open the door before final destination is disclosed. Also, reports about not picking up minorities or people in less wealthy neighborhoods. These bad behaviors have gotten better over the years, but I attribute that to more competition from Uber
Oh definitely. I think Uber has, on the whole, improved the rider experience here in London. That doesn't excuse them from complying with regulations like ensuring drivers have valid DBS checks though.
> Enhanced DBS checks are carried out on drivers every three years when they renew their taxi or private hire driver's licence, and every individual's fitness to become a licensed taxi or private hire driver is considered on a case-by-case basis.
And failure to properly conduct DBS checks is one of the four reasons given by TfL for suspending Uber's license.
Uber drivers were accused of 32 sexual assaults on passengers in 2015/16. In 2015, 126 London taxi drivers were charged with violent or sexual offences — or 521 over the past five years.
> Failure to properly check medical certifications
I can't see why doctors forging documents for people that they later use to become drivers is anything to do with Uber. The article even says those doctors did the same for drivers applying to other minicab companies.
This does appear just to be a summary article and a bit more background would be good.
A click on the subject tag gives me some recent political criticism from the Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on taxis (who knew such a thing existed?) -
"It stands accused by the police of failing to properly handle serious allegations of rape and sexual assault of passengers.
It had to be dragged through the courts to recognise its responsibility to provide even the most basic rights and protections to Uber drivers. Its business model is based on saturating London's taxi and private hire market to drive its competition off the road."
That is factually a quote from the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, as reported in the article. It is not the journalist's job to provide specifics on the behalf of others.
> You're not just supposed to blindly reprint things people say.
They did not reproduce what he said as though the content of his statement was factual - they reproduced it to report what he had said.
To illustrate the point further, they had his quote:
> Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said: "I fully support TfL's decision - it would be wrong if TfL continued to license Uber if there is any way that this could pose a threat to Londoners' safety and security."
and then several paragraphs later they had this from an Uber driver:
> But one driver with Uber in London said: "I don't think it is a fair decision. Uber offers a flexible schedule, and a weekly income."
The also reported on statements by "Fred Jones, head of cities for Uber across the UK and Ireland", and "Uber's general manager in London Tom Elvidge".
Reporting on the statements of a range of parties interested in a particular dispute is perfectly reasonable journalism, and should not be compared to opinion-led journalism where the statements of favourable individuals are rewritten as though they were facts.
To clarify, I'm not claiming that the BBC as an institution is devoid of opinion-led journalism, I just don't think that demanding that journalists substantiate the claims of interested parties (as O.P. did) is very reasonable.
>> Who said anything about them seeking to become a worldwide cab monopoly?
They behave as if they are attempting this, IMHO.
>> They are a cab company
I believe, depending on which way the wind was blowing, they might dispute this. Their argument is that they are not a cab company, merely a service for connecting drivers and potential passengers. This is how they avoid pesky things like employment laws.
>> Any other company can do that too, if they want.
Few others have the access to VC money that Uber do - I would consider this reliance on an absolute ton of investment, which allows them to operate at the prices they do, to be something of a market distortion.
This is like the idea that every rational company must skirt the very edges of the law, regardless of good ethics, to maximise profit.
I don't personally believe either to be true, and I do believe there's a very real difference between out-competing the competition and using a ton of VC money to undercut them, or skirting rules and regulations that may add cost.
Not really, there are lots of private-hire firms in London.
>> Are you seriously siding with "banning potential monopoly" to protect an entrenched centuries old monopoly.
Nope. That's a wilful misreading of what I've been posting and I'm not sure it warrants much response. I'm siding with protecting a diverse market from an unethical company who appear to be bending the rules and sinking a ton of investor money into distorting the market in an effort to capture it.
> Not really, there are lots of private-hire firms in London.
If thats your definition of monopoly, then UBER is also not a monopoly. Those still exist and can continue to exist.
> I'm siding with protecting a diverse market
You are not siding with protecting a diverse market because you are eliminating an option. Its the exact opposite direction.
The rules are written by the same people that invented taxicabs. If the rules are removed, UBER would not be bending any rules. Its a problem created exclusively by the government, and uber drivers and passengers are being disregarded. This is what people want, and you are advocating for restricting those people in favor of another.
To help one side, you are advocating the attack of another one. That is not an even standing.
Some companies are happy to serve a restricted demographic, provide work for the owners and employees; you don't have to be a megalomaniac to lead a company. That seems rational, can you explain why it isn't?
Some people aren't primarily motivated by power and profit.
> Some companies are happy to serve a restricted demographic
Right, but whatever their target demographic is, they're still going to want to have an exclusive stake in it. I'm not saying that Taco Bell can/should seek to monopolize all food.
We have customers who go to other places for our niche services (art/craft), I don't have a problem with that. We could seek to get those customers exclusively to use our services, I just don't find a compelling reason to do so (of course I'm greedy for money, but other than that?).
Could you expand on that point please because my understanding of the term monopoly, "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service." would align with the point the other commenter is raising.
Some independent stores simply aren't interested in being the monopoly in their local area for their particular product. Sometimes they just run the business because its a product they enjoy and running their own business is preferable to being an employee for someone else.
Another example of businesses not run like monopolies is with consumables like fast food. You might have a successful fish and chip shop, Chinese or Indian take-away. Most UK towns will have multiple different independent restaurants but you seldom see these restaurants open up more shops in town, or even in other towns. Yet there is clearly a demand for good take-aways.
> Could you expand on that point please because my understanding of the term monopoly, "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service." would align with the point the other commenter is raising.
pbhjpbhj's comment implies that by addressing a niche market, you would avoid the drive to monopolize. I'm arguing that if you are addressing a niche market, you are working to monopolize that market, and you don't have to monopolize the whole market of similar services to be a monopoly. For example, Microsoft has a monopoly (in this case a government one) on producing Microsoft Windows, but Microsoft Windows is not the only PC operating system.
Similarly, you could monopolize a certain demographic. For example, Microsoft has an effective monopoly in PC operating systems when it comes to government administration workstations in most countries.
>> I'm arguing that if you are addressing a niche market, you are working to monopolize that market, and you don't have to monopolize the whole market of similar services to be a monopoly.
That's pretty much what a monopoly is, and even in your niche, not everyone wants to be a monopoly.
I have a friend who runs a small craft beer bar. Another craft beer bar is going to open two doors down. To him this is great - the area becomes known for craft beer and more people come along. There is no monopoly there.
>> For example, Microsoft has a monopoly (in this case a government one) on producing Microsoft Windows, but Microsoft Windows is not the only PC operating system.
But they tried to make it that way, and came close for a while. That's the time period they had various anti-competition lawsuits aimed at them.
This is what most people are talking about when they are talking about monopolies, and it's clear that not every business aims to be one.
The sibling comment by laumars puts the position well - perhaps you could explain where I'm erring? I consider a monopoly to be exclusive control of a market niche by one company (eg limited to a particular geographic area). Uber would have a monopoly if they drive out competing taxi services (or "private hire" in the UK, depending on the scope of the niche you want to focus on).
Every company should attempt to be the best in their field, yes. However, that does not in general encompass taking vast piles of VC money to run a loss-leader service for years and years on end in an attempt to monopolize an entire sector by undercutting all the competition that has to actually make a profit pretty much every quarter, with their valuation almost entirely based on the idea that they can succeed and then raise prices to become profitable.
I know plenty of small - and, actually, big - companies which have reasonably good relationships with their competition, actually. Craft breweries regularly collaborate with each other, as an example - even those which have taken significant capital investment.
Craft brewers are not in strict competition with all other craft brewers for the whole market. They would have to expand their operations immensely to do so (and likely no longer be considered "craft"). If I want a pilsner with more or less hop, a smooth saison, or a high-alcohol belgian-style wheat beer, no craft brewer I know of can afford to serve all of these whims. That said, a craft brewer could seek a local monopoly on the citrusy saison, and collaborate to serve different niches.
Craft brewing is almost defined by a premium on variety, and that marketable variety creates an highly recursive system of market segmentation. Since flavour/atmosphere/taste has so many facets, and there is so much variance in terms of "customer success", all product categories which are differentiated by flavour and/or atmosphere and/or taste tend to multiply markets rather than consolidating them. Coca-Cola, for example, could be seen to have no competition at one level (the market for Coca-Cola specifically), and enormous competition (the market for all beverages). Legal restrictions on transportation and processing of raw coca leaf, and on marketing products as "Coca-Cola", help the Coca-Cola company retain a monopoly on Coca-Cola specifically.
> Who said anything about them seeking to become a worldwide cab monopoly?
I think everyone who looked at them, for the past 3 years or so. It's been plainly visible that they're a) reaching globally, and b) not afraid of using any means necessary, including illegal ones, to destroy their competition - both from the taxi world and other Uber-like companies.
They are losing money at the moment, despite their 'success'. It is theorised that the only way they could become profitable is through monopoly and price rises.
Not if they want, if they have enough cash to burn as Uber does.
Just look at Lyft, they don't have the bankroll of Uber to play so it's very hard to compete on the global scale when your competitor is basically playing a price dumping scheme with investors' money.
Not really. Regulated cab companies, for example, can’t offer surge pricing or things like that (a big part of Uber’s viability), or a single app in every market without a million different kinds of meters, etc.
Most Uber-sized companies squirrel the profits to tax havens in the Caribbean. Getting the profits to the reach of the US tax system would be unexpected.
So, you're arguing the majority of companies over, say, a $50 billion market valuation in the US are hiding all their profit in the Caribbean and none or very little of it is reaching the US tax system.
Conveniently, a few minutes going through public financial statements disproves that outlandish, comical premise.
They're all going to be very upset to discover the 20-35% tax rates they've been paying on their earnings, they could easily have avoided by just squirreling it away in the Caribbean.
One could also do a few minutes of research:
"The average effective tax rate among S&P companies that had posted calendar fourth-quarter results as of Friday was 24.11 percent"
Not all their profits. Just the profits that occur outside of the US. The US corporate tax system is relatively unusual in that it attempts to tax not just profits earned within it's borders but worldwide profits for any company incorporated within the US.
So what US companies tend to do is incorporate subsidiaries in tax friendly locales like the Caribbean (Ireland is also popular) to avoid paying US corporate taxes on this money.
In the US, I don’t think I’ve ridden in a small, local cab company whose cars didn’t smell like cigarettes and was barely legal to drive, and often had drivers trying to scam you. It was always nice expensive black car service, or shitty local taxi company, which was a super last resort.
The transparency and accountability that Uber brought has been preferred by everyone I know, and people are voting with their dollars.
It might be due to the fact that in most parts of Europe there's a cheap and good public transport available, so cabs must compete with it too. In USA, there's not much to choose from, so cabs have local monopolies, hence higher price and lower quality service.
Canada is in the same position. Cab drivers regularly take longer routes than necessary to drive up the meter and often pretend their card machines aren't working to force cash payment.
most taxi services in Europe are quite bad and hugely overpriced due to artificial monopoly, to the point that I try to stay away from the countries without Uber
In my opinion as a local, Lisbon is pretty bad. Scamming and rude drivers, unreliable when requested by phone, forget about paying by card (now some have apps, but that's a post-Uber development), plus the organization leadership is very corrupt (getting around licensing limits by putting them under their families names, outright snatching licenses from members when they ask for help renewing them, leaving small towns without cars by using the licenses to drive in big cities, etc).
Before Uber, I already avoided taxis as much as I could, only taking a couple per year.
Game theory makes it clear why anonymous cabs paid in cash will almost always provide worse service than a rating sensitive system.
The notion that people will be kind and nice because of social norms or "plain decency" or something is sentimental hogwash. People behave well when the system rewards them for doing so and penalises them for not.
Yes, I pay with credit card 9/10 times and get a receipt. I doubt any of these companies are big enough to have offshore companies to route their income through.
"Then why not just let them compete?"
They do. There's quite big competition in my city among public transport (city owned), many local taxi companies, private taxi drivers and Uber. Competition is quite fierce and costumers can choose freely whatever they prefer. I prefer taxi, I call taxi, some of my friends prefer Uber - they call Uber. What other competition do you have in mind?
I dont think people appreciate the uneven response. They equate allowing Uber to Uber vs taxis. But thats not whats being discussed: cabs arent banned. Its Uber vs Governments. The foe is large and abusive.
You can exercise your opinion by not taking an Uber. Why would you ban a third person from using uber?
Yes, I was talking only about my city and my personal experience, I agree that it's more of an exception than a rule (at least judging by many comments here, especially coming from USA).
For now, sure, but you may have missed the word "monopoly".
Fact is, Uber is running an unsustainable business in a lot of markets to gain market share. It's anticompetitive business practice. Free market fanboys will argue that the issue will fix itself after Uber raises prices - thus allowing more healthy competition, but this takes time. Not everyone can drive or rely on public transportation. In modern society, transport is a utility, and to act like people can simply "not use" a taxi service is ridiculous.
>Free market fanboys will argue that the issue will fix itself after Uber raises prices
The "issue" will likely fix itself by uber going under and losing all of its investors their money in a spectacular and richly deserved hubristic implosion.
What uber is attempting has been managed before (e.g. the 'bus wars') but it's unlikely they will achieve a sustainable monopoly.
"For now, sure, but you may have missed the word "monopoly"."
The Taxi business in every city is a 'monopoly'. Shares in this 'rent seeking entity' are bought by owning 'medallions'.
It's hypocritical that a cabal of local medallion owning rent-seekers want to attack Uber for their 'monopolistic' practices.
The cab drivers who don't own medallions aren't getting much out of it.
Uber is not a monopoly, nor has it been demonstrated that their drivers are 'more unsafe' than other drivers.
Love or loathe Uber - this is a political move - and it's scary. A government can come along and arbitrarily decide they 'don't like you because you're foreign' or whatever and ban you from doing business?
If London wants to make 'cabs outside of those holding medallions' illegal, I would disagree with it, but it would be fair at least.
It seems that there is room for competition in London in terms of taxi services.
40 000 people are going to be out of a job - let's say 1/2 are full time - that's 20 000 jobs.
Literally, a US 'startup' creates 20 000 jobs for people in London alone using tech - and the Mayor squashes it?
'We don't want jobs' is the essence of his argument.
It would seem there's quite a lot of rent-seeking in the Black-cab business if London can sustain an additional 20K full time drivers, that can't be ignored.
This is really quite insulting to the 20 000 - 40 000 people who are about to lose their source of income - most of them at the lower end of the economic scale - and the millions of users of Uber for whom Black cabs are just too expensive, because medallions or not - the system is de-facto a controlled economy.
I highly doubt that a fairly operationally competent entity such as Uber would simply fail to supply some information or adhere to some basic regs when the writing was clearly on the wall that they needed to do so or lose their license.
This from the BBC: "But a wave of bad publicity about its corporate culture, its lax attitude to checks on its drivers and its treatment of this freelance army seems to have spurred TfL into action." - i.e. a populist action.
Yet that's exactly what has happened in multiple markets now. Uber have a history of pulling this stuff.
--edit-- and now I'm back at a real keyboard:
>> This is really quite insulting to the 20 000 - 40 000 people who are about to lose their source of income
So by that logic we should allow any company to continue to operate, regardless of how badly behaved?
I don't think this argument has much merit, especially when unemployment is at a record low and there is clearly a lot of appetite for services in this sector.
>> i.e. a populist action.
Which must mean it's wrong, obviously? That couldn't be a wave of information coming to light about how bad they are, and how they are not in line with regulations?
If they were given only a '4 month extension' in London - and told to 'comply' with certain things - this is a very direct 'shot across the bow'.
Uber creeped into markets 'under the radar' - but when the regulators are directly holding your business hostage - and are saying point-blank: 'do these things or no permit' - it's time to believe them.
Uber is not stupid. They know the difference between 'being under the radar' - and when things are 'for real'. They can ignore city councillors here and there, but this was not that.
Uber is, if anything operationally competent. They'd have had a legal team, strategy sessions etc. on this. It's London - maybe their #2 largest market globally (or at least top 5) - so they're not going to screw around on this.
If Uber was definitely continuing to cheat - and if they were definitely non-compliant, and there were in fact 'a lot of rapes' or whatever with Uber ... then I have no problem with them being banned.
But I believe this is a hugely political move - irrespective of what Uber was and was not.
European regulators from bottom-to-top have been attacking American companies with special regulations.
Apple had to pay a 'magical' $25B tax bill. EU regulators are now trying to create special 'google' and 'Facebook' taxes. They want Uber off their turf.
It's politics and geopolitics as much as anything. And there is a strong whiff of economic protectionism.
It's entirely possible that Uber was just breaking all the rules - but it would also be very naive to not see the geopolitical interplay here.
It's how 100% of international business works. There's no such thing as 'free trade' in reality.
They were given a four month extension, they didn't fix the problems. Now they are down to an appeal process. I have no doubt they will drag it out as long as possible.
Well tough - by your argument companies that adulterate food should be protected because "think of the workers" - though in China they have put people in front of a firing squad for food adulteration scandals.
> This is just not true, and the medallion system doesn't seem to exist outside of the US.
We have licenses in argentina which are basically the same. While the taxi drivers that are unionized flipped out cars and threw stones at Uber offices down here, they claimed Uber wasnt safe.
At least 50% of taxis in argentina dont have working seatbelts.
>> Does that mean that you can only order for a cab via an app? Or are apps an alternative?
Well, apps are my primary way of ordering cabs now, because I can set the pick-up and drop-off precisely by map, and track the vehicle before it arrives etc.
I'm not an original OP, but in my city there's a centralized call center and several apps -- you may choose to use whichever you prefer as most cab companies support all or at least many of them.
I don't want to give any business to a company that are seeking to become a worldwide cab monopoly, and squirrel away any profits to the US. We have a perfectly healthy cab ecosystem in my city, app-driven and with fare competition and city regulation. Which I suppose is why Uber, though present, hasn't really taken off here.
That said, talk of profits may be a little early and AFAICT they're losing money by the fistful. Which kinda says that they're engaging in some dodgy market distortion to me...