Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Cab drivers with shitty attitudes, refusing to unlock the doors and just cracking open the window to ask how far it was you were planning to go: Too short? Don't want to take you, fare is too small. Too long? Don't want to take you, won't get a fare back. I

You are citing some problems that aren't "uber vs taxi" but seem to be due to a lack of competition among taxis.

- Taxis shouldn't be allowed to reject you

- Taxis should all take cards, and preferably pre-payment

- Taxis should be bookable with apps

- Taxis should compete for service meaning a nice attitude and a nice car will be common.

So this isn't about "uber vs taxi" this is about monopoly taxi vs. non-monopoly taxi. Once the monopoly is out, Uber will just be like every other taxi company. And better still, all the taxi companies will be like Uber.

It might be that "taxi" in a lot of cities, especially US cities, are monopolies, have shitty cars, no apps, rude drivers etc. But that isn't because they are taxis, it's because they are a monopoly. Uber should be considered a taxi company, because they are taxi. But they should of course be allowed also to operate as a taxi, everywhere they want.



> So this isn't about "uber vs taxi" this is about monopoly taxi vs. non-monopoly taxi.

But that's not true. Uber doesn't fix these issues by being an "alternative", it fixes them by switching the incentives around. What this is about is "order a cab" vs. "hail a cab". By letting drivers opt into a ride, all of GP's issues disappear.

Of course you still do need competition once you're past that layer, yeah; taxi monopolies do sometimes offer cab-ordering services but those services still suck (Only available by phonecall with waiting time, no notifications, no prepayment etc). Simply removing the monopoly would not fix the issue entirely.


I'm speaking from the perspective of an unregulated market.

I can order a regular taxi via an app that is as good as Ubers, or hail one in the street, or go to a taxi stand (I doubt there will be an Uber at the stand, but there is nothing stopping them I suppose). Or I can order an Uber-. I'm not sure if I could actually hail an Uber on the street, but hypothetically if an uber driver was idling and saw I needed a taxi, I'm sure I could just take a seat and order the ride using the app from the passenger seat before we drive off.

Regardless of whether I order a regular taxi or an Uber, I can prepay, track it in the app etc. And regardless of whether I order an Uber or a regular car, I expect a nice driver and a reasonably new car (Not rarely a Tesla).

My point is: when there is no monopoly, the others can't afford to have an app, cars, or services that are worse than Ubers. Also, when there is no taxi monopoly, it's pretty natural that Uber is "taxi" like all the other taxi companies. They provide nothing that the others don't!


> But that's not true. Uber doesn't fix these issues by being an "alternative", it fixes them by switching the incentives around

Depends on the market. In Las Vegas, for example, there is plenty of taxi competition, but the taxis only work the tourist zones. The reason the people of LV forced their local politicians to welcome Uber, above the objections of the taxi cartel, is because the taxis refuse to pick up the locals in the neighborhoods. There's no need to when they can make the same money, or better, being lazy working the tourists.

Uber and Lyft have been a godsend for people with limited mobility, the elderly, those who can't afford or choose not to have a car, and those who would like to have a nice night out without worrying about a DUI. Taxis are despised in Las Vegas. Their lobbying power is the reason the monorail system stops just short of the airport.


> Once the monopoly is out, Uber will just be like every other taxi company. And better still, all the taxi companies will be like Uber.

That is pretty much how things are here in Lithuania. The system works well, you don't really come across drivers or cars with issues, and there isn't really any kind of monopoly. There aren't many true taxis, because being a 'taxi' vs a 'private driver' means you pay more effectively just to be able to drive in bus lanes.

Historically people would phone up to book (and a car would turn up in under 10 minutes), but now you can use a single app to book and pay by card with all the different taxi companies (and get whatever car is quickest or cheapest). Uber were late to the game when they entered the market in 2015, and their launch has gone pretty much unnoticed.


What monopoly? There is no taxi monopoly that I'm aware of. If anything much of the problem with Taxis is because of the heavy competition racing to the bottom.


Depends on where you live. In some large cities there is a maximum number of taxis allowed. They have get permits/medallions to operate. In these cities where Uber is not considered a "taxi" they can operate as many cars as they want.


I don't think that means it is a monopoly.


It may be more accurate to call it an oligopoly, but the distortion of the market from limited supply and competition remain the same.


I’d compare it to how ISPs are in the US. Most people believe ISPs have local monopolies which is why Comcast sucks. But we can’t simply change services because laws restrict ability for new ISPs to be started. Same issue with taxis. There are limited options and the medallion model limits the competition and new options from being created to compete.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: