61–70 of 218 posts
Between this and how they handled the girl who was killed by an Uber driver on New Year's Eve in San Francisco...my opinion of them has taken a decided turn for the worse in the past few weeks. And for both, I can't help but think that company culture is set from the top.
That is not only morally wrong but it is flat out stupid. Uber is the leading firm in a growing market with network effects. They should be worried about growing as fast as possible first and above all and not about competition. The network effects will take care of the competition. The worst thing a company in a leadership position like Uber can do is take actions that acknowledge their competition. Even if they are…
I had not heard of Gett before this story.
One man's dirty tricks is another man's free market - http://pando.com/2012/10/24/travis-shrugged/ Who needs pesky Taxi and Limousine Commission busybodies to ensure people aren't arbitrarily blacklisted from being able to call a cab?
I support (!) regulation prohibiting retaliatory blacklists.
I support criminal prosecution of fraud, like the accusation of Uber's fake orders to rivals.
I support background inspections for taxi drivers.
I support regulation that demands a high level of driving skill from taxi drivers. And any supporting regulation, such as mandatory courses, tests, and inspections.
I do not support taxi commissions as creators of privileged monopolies.
I do not support taxi licenses priced above $1 million per car as a tool to enforce monopolies.
I do not support price controls on economic services, including taxis.
I do not support supply quotas on the number of taxi sales.
I do not support any similar attempt at centralized command & control economics.
Those are the reasons I criticize taxi commissions (that and the extreme corruption). Can you accept that this is the position of most of your opponents? Don't strawmen us.
That is not only morally wrong but it is flat out stupid. Uber is the leading firm in a growing market with network effects. They should be worried about growing as fast as possible first and above all and not about competition. The network effects will take care of the competition. The worst thing a company in a leadership position like Uber can do is take actions that acknowledge their competition. Even if they are…
The network effects will take care of the competition. Will it? Why? Unlike social networks, I don't see why would Uber benefit particularly from network effects; it doesn't even have switching costs, since the consumer can use both concurrently.
A consumer can use Uber and a competitor. This, however, is not unlike social networks, it is entirely like social networks. A consumer can use two social networks as well. However, in practice if one car service or social network does a good enough job the consumer is unlikely to use another.
I'm sure it's not a popular opinion, but when Uber itself is a business that seems to exist on the border of legality, this type of stuff isn't that much of a surprise to me. Uber et al. specifically skirt around regulations that cab companies have to abide by, which, at least in my opinion, sets the tone at the top that legality and ethics are somewhat secondary to the mission of the company. IMPORTANT: I've used Ub…
I think it is important to draw a distinction between challenging local regulations like million dollar medallions that hurt both drivers and riders and laws that prevent companies from hurting their competitors to steal their supply, the way it happened here. There are many companies challenging the first kind of regulation that wouldn't indulge in the breaking the second kind of law. Disclaimer: I started one of th…
As far as I understand, the only thing that medallions offer as an advantage in New York City (where they cost a million dollars) is the ability to pick up people who hail a cab off the street. Other car services exist for prearranged rides, and are called car services, not taxis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Non-taxi on-call cars have existed for many, many decades before Uber. Especially in NYC where this article is relevant, car services are a dime a dozen and have been a regular part of city life for decades. The difference is between picking up your phone to get one vs. using your smartphone. Uber was first to market, but it's silly to pretend that without them it wouldn't have happened. That's like calling the Pizza…
So what? You can say that about any large tech companies. Google wasn't the first search engine. Apple didn't make the first music player. Facebook wasn't the first social network. Being unique doesn't matter a single bit. Only thing that matters is that people are using them. And that's the case with Uber. Judge however you will their shady tactics, but it's ridiculous to downplay their success based on that.
That is not only morally wrong but it is flat out stupid. Uber is the leading firm in a growing market with network effects. They should be worried about growing as fast as possible first and above all and not about competition. The network effects will take care of the competition. The worst thing a company in a leadership position like Uber can do is take actions that acknowledge their competition. Even if they are…
MySpace was also the leading firm in its industry.
In Houston I've seen a lot of cabs with some app advertised on them - Hail a Cab or something like that. Actually painted (or maybe long-term decal lettering) so it's obviously embedded somehow in the industry. Eventually you'll see firms with pre-existing relationship take advantage of the business model.
Just this morning there was a story on NPR about how Uber has price-gouging built into their system: during a snowstorm you may pay something like 5x the normal fare.
There's not a law that says you have to charge everyone the same rate - just that you can't base it on certain types of discrimination.
Note: I'm okay with calling all those practices "price-gouging".
One man's dirty tricks is another man's free market - http://pando.com/2012/10/24/travis-shrugged/ Who needs pesky Taxi and Limousine Commission busybodies to ensure people aren't arbitrarily blacklisted from being able to call a cab?
No one; higher fees due to state-enforced limited supply are more than enough to keep the poor from riding taxis. "Nearly half of [NYC taxi] passengers have a household income of $100,000 or more a year." (2014 Taxicab Fact Book)
Overall, keeping cabs expensive is probably a net benefit to the overall city transportation/livability ecosystem.