You're obviously being sarcastic. But Uber really is an improvement on pre-Uber traditional taxi services, where you can call and not really be sure if or when a taxi will show up.
Uber was really two innovations: (1) using an app to reserve a taxi and (2) making the process and the product reliable, customer-friendly and consistent.
> Uber really is an improvement on pre-Uber traditional taxi
Not in Denmark. It was only ever cheaper for a while, while the investors sank money into choking out competition, which they failed at.
> using an app to reserve a taxi
Unlike in Germany, Uber actually brought apps to taxi companies in Denmark, before Uber got banned.
> making the process and the product reliable, customer-friendly and consistent
Uber was never more reliable or consistent than traditional taxis in Denmark. More friendly, sure, full-time career taxi drivers are more socially distant.
I once waited for an Uber that was “just around the corner”, except the blip on the screen with a name and a picture was just a visualisation, there was no car. The street it was supposedly stuck in traffic on was empty.
The app was simply lying to me, hoping a car would become available before I tried another taxi service.
Hardly an improvement. Just cheaper for reasons that were not possible long-term or fair to the drivers (not sufficiently factoring in the cost and risk of the car).
> I once waited for an Uber that was “just around the corner”, except the blip on the screen with a name and a picture was just a visualisation, there was no car. The street it was supposedly stuck in traffic on was empty.
> At the time, Uber had just started its ride-hailing service in Portland without seeking permission from the city, which later declared the service illegal. To build a case against the company, officers like Mr. England posed as riders, opening the Uber app to hail a car and watching as miniature vehicles on the screen made their way toward the potential fares.
> But unknown to Mr. England and other authorities, some of the digital cars they saw in the app did not represent actual vehicles. And the Uber drivers they were able to hail also quickly canceled. That was because Uber had tagged Mr. England and his colleagues — essentially Greyballing them as city officials — based on data collected from the app and in other ways. The company then served up a fake version of the app, populated with ghost cars, to evade capture.
It does sound like I was "greyballed".
Imagine a real taxi company doing that.
Doesn't seem like a strategy that will keep you popular in town.
In Denmark Uber was cheaper, more reliable and vastly better than taxies until it was banned by the government to protect the taxi cartel. And it was actually profitable for Uber. I don't have to make up an anecdote about poor taxi service.
Cheaper: Yes, because VC. [1] Uber quit Denmark before their prices rose elsewhere.
Profitable: Hard to say! According to their tax statement, they made a whopping $5600 in Denmark in 2021. [2] When Uber drivers, unlike taxi drivers, have to factor in the expense of casually ride-sharing their car, that does count towards Uber's profitability.
Banned by the government to protect the taxi cartels: Not exactly. They changed the taxi law in one way to remove the cartel effect (the rule about how many taxis there could be), and introduced rules that effectively targeted ride-sharing apps like Uber and Lyft. New taxi companies do exist today because of that: E.g. Drivr, Viggo.
The new taxi law requires taxis to have equipment like meters and seat sensors, and requires drivers to take an additional driving course, pass a health check, have had a driver's license for 3+ years, and speak Danish. So effectively, this targeted Uber and Lyft and other companies with a clear message that there's a lower bound for what's considered a taxi service in Denmark.
Claiming that's a cartel effect is turning a blind eye to a widely held opinion that one disagrees with.
There were Taxi-apps in use in Germany before Uber became a thing here. What Uber had was infinite pockets and the willingness to simply ignore the general existence of regulations their competitors complied to.
> But Uber really is an improvement on pre-Uber traditional taxi services, where you can call and not really be sure if or when a taxi will show up.
Not where I live. With a taxi, it was the usual confirmation "The taxi will be at your address in 15 minutes" or so, and it always was there. Once or twice I couldn't find it so I called them back and it turned out the driver was waiting at the other side of the building etc.
With Uber, Bolt, FreeNow and so on... First I wait for anybody to agree to accept the ride, and sometimes nobody does it. Then, a car arrives, with a person from Pakistan or Bangladesh, who sometimes doesn't even speak English. They use Google maps to navigate and if something is broken they are completely lost. I once asked the driver: "I'm waiting for my wife and kids, they will be here in half a minute, OK?" He said, "OK" and drove away.
Also, there were multiple reports of drivers running away after the accident and leaving the car and the victims as they are. The drivers are hired by middlemen owning the cars and exchanging multiple drivers in a car so you can never be sure who is driving. Most often they are not insured, and so on and so forth. Plus a few cases of rape in the last years. So I've been using taxis exclusively recently and only pick up Uber etc. when there is no alternative.
Uber was really two innovations: (1) using an app to reserve a taxi and (2) making the process and the product reliable, customer-friendly and consistent.