
Rough patch for Uber service's challenge to taxis - codegeek
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101365116
======
bronbron
It's interesting watching this, because it seems inevitable that Uber will
become exactly like the service it was meant to compete with: the Taxi
industry.

The whole saga has good, bad, and meh elements to all of it.

It's good that the question of auto insurance is coming up. I imagine that
many of these drivers are painfully unaware that they are in serious insurance
limbo. If someone's a de facto Uber employee, then yeah, Uber should pay for
damages that the driver causes. It's definitely an exaggeration to say that
Uber will "leave a trail of bodies in the street", but it's also unfair that
the victim gets screwed here (because there's no chance in hell the driver's
personal insurance will cover this).

It sucks that the odds are so stacked against them for providing (what at
least used to be, I rarely use them nowadays) a good service. I remember being
in SF a couple years back and trying to hail a cab for 30 minutes before
getting an Uber in ~5 minutes. It was really shitty, and Uber really came
through in the end. I was glad to pay the price difference.

Regardless of what happens, there's a lot of interesting ideas here that
hopefully get noticed. Surge pricing's an interesting idea. Whereas taxis
sacrifice reliability for relatively stable pricing, I'm glad there's a
competing service that sacrifices stable pricing for reliability. It lets you
make the decision about which is more important, and I'm sure we've all been
in situations where getting somewhere quickly was worth the extra money.

~~~
steveklabnik
> It's interesting watching this, because it seems inevitable that Uber will
> become exactly like the service it was meant to compete with: the Taxi
> industry.

It's almost as if
[http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html)
_also_ applies outside of software.

> The idea that new code is better than old is patently absurd. Old code has
> been used. It has been tested. Lots of bugs have been found, and they've
> been fixed. There's nothing wrong with it. It doesn't acquire bugs just by
> sitting around on your hard drive. Au contraire, baby!

Now re-apply that to things like taxi and hotel regulations.

I'm not suggesting things are perfect, but in many cases, these laws exist for
a reason.

~~~
dnautics
when you change things slightly sometimes a shift in the regulations might be
bigger than you expect. A lot of the taxi regulations have to do with the
taximeter - as a passenger, you're have to have trust that the taximeter isn't
shafting you (FWIW I don't think that lyft or uber necessarily completely
solve this problem because you don't pick your route at the outset, unlike
other livery services). Other parts of the taxi regulation to do with
congestion caused by taxis that are cruising, which certainly seems like less
of an issue for these "alt-taxis".

------
awwstn
It's interesting how Uber's messaging has evolved to coincide with argument
that they simply facilitate the connection between drivers and people who need
a ride. Where they used to say "Everyone's private driver," [1] now they say
"The Uber app connects you with a driver at the tap of a button." [2]

[1] Uber.com, January 2013:
[http://cl.ly/image/261W1r3J1r00](http://cl.ly/image/261W1r3J1r00) [2]
Uber.com, today:
[http://cl.ly/image/302s342N2r3l](http://cl.ly/image/302s342N2r3l)

~~~
calbear81
Their lawyers probably told them to make the change since it will help them
defend against possible lawsuits arising from accidents the independent
drivers who use their platform get into while driving and/or waiting for a
fare.

------
amiramir
The experience with these older business, like cabs and hotels, seems
highlight the role of legal and regulatory frameworks in encouraging or
retarding innovation. Uber and Airbnb seem to be simple and elegant businesses
that in part increase supply by freeing up unused resources while competing on
price and service with established industries such as taxis and hotels. Now
that they have made some headway people are specifically buying apartments and
cars to participate.

This issue seems like Airbnb's in NYC where room/apartment renters are being
required to play by the same rules as the hotel folks with respect to
insurance and safety.

One thing that recently impressed me and that I would like to see happen more
generally is the Attorney General's response to the challenge of banking with
respect to marijuana businesses in Colorado and Washington. Banks were turning
away pot shops that are legal at the state level but illegal at the Federal
level. Within a few weeks of the advent of legal marijuana sales the AG's
office has stepped in to say that they want to find a solution to enable
marijuana merchants and banks to do business. I am impressed by the
responsiveness of "the law" in this case. Such "innovation" around regulation
would be welcome in other cases where innovation mediated by technology is
happening at a faster rate than regulation is used to adapting.

------
beagle3
You might also want to look at Uber's DDOS attack on rival Gett[1] ; Seems
like Uber is not the good guys they seemed earlier (at least to myself). This
is mentioned in the last paragraph of the linked article, but is worthy of its
own discussion.

[1] [http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/24/black-car-competitor-
accuse...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/24/black-car-competitor-accuses-uber-
of-shady-conduct-ddos-style-attack-uber-expresses-regret/)

~~~
davidgerard
Uber's entire advantage is attempting to evade regulations. They'll be ahead
of the game precisely as long as that holds, and have until then to destroy
the competition. Hence the culture of dirty tricks.

------
debt
Every time I get into an uberx the driver starts driving away while fumbling
with the gps on their phone keying in my destination. I think Uber should take
the "distraction" problem much more seriously.

Regardless, we all know Uber is not going anywhere. Uber is pulling $20 MM a
week. However, if they don't address the potential safety liabilities more
aggressively, lawsuits might end up eating a big chunk of their revenue.

------
mikeyouse
One thing I've been wondering about with respect to Uber;

When they were taking all that flak for surge pricing during the storm, their
defense was "Raising the price increases the supply of drivers."

That's all well and good, simple supply and demand matching.

But then a week or so later, they came out with a substantial price reduction
on the UberX service. So if raising the price increases the supply of drivers,
what happens to the supply when lowering the price? Isn't this the cause of
the constant surge pricing on UberX since the price decrease?

~~~
calbear81
It depends on whether you are in a situation where demand outstrips supply
(surge pricing) or supply outstrips demand (UberX).

By lowering the price, they are trying to get more people to opt for UberX vs.
taxi/Lyft/etc which theoretically brings the supply/demand into equilibrium.
There is potentially the effect of lowering prices so much that drivers don't
find it worthwhile to pick up fares in which case you once again help get into
equilibrium since now supply is closer to demand levels. If Uber wants to
counter that secondary effect, they can lower the prices by reducing their own
margin w/o impacting the driver's cut.

------
Domenic_S
> _' And the only people getting rich are the investors and the executives.'_

Wat. Did he expect to get rich driving people around? I don't understand this
statement at all.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Its supposed to remove the taxi company cut from the equation. But Uber's
confusion about tips seems to have eroded that to nothing?

------
jds375
It's unfortunate that there are so many legal issues with a seemingly very
simple service. Having to worry about insurance policies and driver damages
has got to be a pain. But, that's all part of the business I guess...

~~~
dnautics
it's not simple at all, because unlike a web service, you are actually
responsible for bodily harm that could happen to people.

------
sneak
I know, let's sue the dispatcher for the irresponsibility of the driver. That
ought to work.

~~~
silentOpen
It's about informing Uber's de facto employees that they have liability and
must carry appropriate insurance. Should the employee decline to take this
responsibility or should Uber fail to appropriately inform their employees,
those who have been hurt or killed are left with nothing.

To _ensure_ that drivers are _insured_ , Uber has responsibility.

------
jgalt212
Uber mistreats its customers, suppliers, and competitors. How can one do
anything, but hope they fail?

