Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 520 posts

Re: Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing

#371

Post by Barrin92 »

harel wrote: post #246
crazygringo wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who attempt a violent takeover of a market What is a "violent" takeover? What would a nonviolent takeover be? I'm all for new companies providing better services to consumers. If they take over a market, isn't that because the existing market wasn't meeting consumer needs? A new company taking over a market is generally a good thing, the creative force of capitalism itself. (Provided it's not done by ignoring legit…

Why do people have the need to take over a market in the first place? There is room in such a big market for many players. Big and small. This obsession with growth is not healthy. I don't care if Uber takes me or Lyft, or Kapten. No brand loyalty here. I do care that SOMEONE takes me safely and at a reasonable price.

>There is room in such a big market for many players. Big and small.

there is no real room for big players which is why Uber's business model is burning investment money and dodging regulations.

Have you ever seen a taxi monopoly? There is no scale effect to this business because adding more drivers and more taxis just drives your costs up linearly, and given the diseases big business suffers from and all the tech overhead of Uber it's probably worse than that.

That's why transportation like trucking or the cab industry is dominated by small business.

Re: Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing

#372

Post by marcosdumay »

bart_spoon wrote: post #283
harel wrote: post #198

I'm not a fan of companies like Uber or AirBnB who attempt a violent takeover of a market. However, as a consumer who needs to get from A to B, or stay at some random city, I find those services invaluable. The black cabs in London are expensive, never around when you need them, and until recently might have refused card payments (now they just seem unhappy about it). At the very least I was hoping Uber would make th…

Uber is cheap because they are subsidizing your fare with investment dollars at an unsustainable level. They are selling $2 for the price of $1. The ride sharing economy is convenient, but I can't see it lasting for much longer. At least not without losing some of what makes it so convenient, like low prices.

Somehow here in Brazil there was a startup (recently sold) that had cheaper fares, paid more to drivers, and was still lucrative.

I imagine Uber is incredibly badly managed.

Re: Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing

#373

Post by echelon »

geocar wrote: post #330
eggy wrote: post #247

If the concern over rider safety was that somebody could pose as an Uber driver and update a photo to make it work, why are black cabs not also deemed unsafe? Couldn't somebody borrow a friend's black cab, slap on a fake photo, and work the city? Maybe a stretch, and more work, but the same concern is there, no? I guess the black cabs have some powerful lobbyists in parliment? Yellow taxis in NYC were a monopoly, and…

> why are black cabs not also deemed unsafe? A black cab driver has made a more significant investment in that license and will be much less likely to jeopardise it than some shmuck loaning out his uberx login -- especially when Uber not only doesn't do anything to stop it, but encourages it with more dark patterns.

> some shmuck loaning out his uberx login

Literally what? Who does this? The app is a source of income, why would anyone share it?

If anything, this ban makes me feel like London is run by a bunch of protectionist luddites.

Re: Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing

#374

Post by pjc50 »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #282
gorgoiler wrote: post #240

After living for years in London, it’s hard to compare Ubers with black cabs. In the centre of town during the day black cabs are often ubiquitous, immediately available, and skilled at getting you the hell out of dodge. Something for which I’m happy to pay a premium. Anywhere else they can be capricious and scarce. After 11pm this is the case with in fact almost all black cabs anywhere in the city, when a very diffe…

Sounds like Uber provides valuable service to the poor who are more likely to work night shift and also less likely to be able to afford the premium for the nicer black cab service during the day.

Nobody who could reasonably be described as poor is going to commute by black cab or Uber in London. Think about the cost relative to minimum wage or "London living wage". They'll take the night bus and/or walk. It's a big nuisance that the Tube is closed overnight, though.

Re: Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing

#375

Post by [deleted] »

harel wrote: post #198

I'm not a fan of companies like Uber or AirBnB who attempt a violent takeover of a market. However, as a consumer who needs to get from A to B, or stay at some random city, I find those services invaluable. The black cabs in London are expensive, never around when you need them, and until recently might have refused card payments (now they just seem unhappy about it). At the very least I was hoping Uber would make th…

[deleted]

Re: Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing

#376

Post by MisterTea »

AllanHoustonSt wrote: post #118
asah wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYer here: you should read how the taxi companies exploited their workers. And NYC was at least regulated. Moreover, the cabs were filthy, they often refused passengers due to race, disability or other illegal prejudice, refused certain destinations, spoke little English, didn't know the city, would drive inefficiently to drive up costs and on and on. Oh, and cellphones arrived and they did NOTHING until Uber pushed…

Also good luck getting reasonable (or any) cab service outside of Manhattan and NW Brooklyn. It was even worse pre rideshare days. Those are the areas that would need something like rideshare more since they're both less dense with less expansive public transit. I don't know if private transport is ultimately unsustainable. That's something people much smarter than me will have to figure out how to measure. But I do…

Not really. I had a very dumpy car service by my home in south queens. You had these retired neighborhood riff raff drivers, some who I knew were coke heads because they did it right off the toilet tank in the local dive bar. They're all dead now. Wonder why. The best was when we got a car to run down to brooklyn one night and "frankie" pulls up all coked up and I got to enjoy him snorting his spit while I'm sitting next to him. As fucked up as they were, they got you to your destination. Green cabs didn't exist and yellow cabs were only found in people's driveways and because JFK is nearby.

Now with Lyft I can get a car in just a few minutes, hop in, get driven to my destination, and get out. No worrying about cash or tipping. Just go. A lot nicer.

Re: Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing

#377

Post by dls2016 »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #317
dls2016 wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Uber is not putting a gun to anyone's head. But their platform has a near-monopoly in many markets, which they use to set prices while simultaneously classifying drivers as independent contractors.

>while simultaneously classifying drivers as independent contractors. They are independent contractors. There's no time you have to be at work. There's no amount of time you have to work a given day of the week, or during the whole week. If they were forced to turn them into employees, that would all go away.

I understand, but in certain jurisdictions your viewpoint is being challenged. See: AB 5 in California or an announcement from the state of New Jersey that Uber owes $640 million in back taxes and fines for misclassifying employees.

I personally have a moral problem with drivers not being allowed to charge their own rate while simultaneously being labeled independent contractors.

Re: Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing

#378

Post by dominotw »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #354
thathndude wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for posting the raw numbers. London is citing this 14,000 number as if its egregious, but my initial reaction was: "Out of how many total?" Based on the numbers you're posting Uber was literally 99.9% compliant. That's definitely not "unfit." This is politics plain and simple. And not the first time Uber has had to play the game. This same thing played out in 2017. The courts will side with Uber.

The number is actually quoted as "at least 43". I should have quoted more carefully. Sorry for that. You can google the URL and then click on the link to get through the paywall.

> The number comes from Cognizant

I don't see that here http://archive.is/mNxBo

was it edited out after u read it?

Re: Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing

#379

Post by wutbrodo »

geocar wrote: post #322
V-2 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's indeed so hard to find a good Uber driver, you'd expect them to be driven out of the market by customers themselves. And if they compensate for that by eg. lower price, then how is it different from any other market. You want premium quality, you pay extra - you're fine with compromising on it, you go for the cheaper option.

> you'd expect them to be driven out of the market by customers themselves. Customers will frequently do things that are bad for them and bad for everyone, just because they have received advertising. That's why I think Uber is basically the antivaxx of taxis; they ignore regulations and break laws, putting people at risk and do everything they can in bad faith, but remain incredibly popular in some circles so I expe…

> putting people at risk

Given that this is the only part of your comment that remotely reaches "bad for the customer" [1], can you elaborate on this? I've heard scattered reports of safety concerns but they never seem to add up to much, and I've never seen anyone try to do an apples-to-apples comparison to taxis. There's obviously inherent danger in large numbers of people getting into strangers' cars, and the question is whether Uber is less safe than taxis.

[1] I mean directly, not via "bad for everyone"

Re: Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing

#380

Post by fauigerzigerk »

dominotw wrote: post #378
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number is actually quoted as "at least 43". I should have quoted more carefully. Sorry for that. You can google the URL and then click on the link to get through the paywall.

> The number comes from Cognizant I don't see that here http://archive.is/mNxBo was it edited out after u read it?

I can't open your link for some reason. But it's all still there in the original FT article.

It is a bit unclear though which numbers and findings come from Cognizant and which are from the TfL investigation.

Post reply on HN