What? Ted Lasso is really popular. The Morning Show too. Coda won best picture. All three of those are pretty mainstream. Not Netflix show levels of mainstream but certainly not limited to the blogosphere.
This isn't exactly an apples-to-oranges comparison. Stranger Things had the advantage of Netflix being a dominant player in the streaming market for many years. Let's compare Ted Lasso with House of Cards, Netflix's first foray into creating an original series:
Looks like they're taking reasonable precautions - following car etc. Not sure a tired cyclist is much of a danger to anyone on an open interstate. Seems rather flimsy justification really.
It’s pretty cheap. Not as cheap as it once was but £9k a year for 3 years with no difficulty in getting the loan and only having to pay it back based on income level after you graduate is a pretty good deal - particularly compared with the US.
The interest rate is RPI+4% which is such an obvious joke that they had to take 5% off the rate recently because it hit 12%, but it's still 7% interest!
Those grads are never going to pay their loans off, so that's a 9% tax on their salary every month forever.
The only ones who can get out are those with family who can lend/gift the money to pay the loans off.
> that's a 9% tax on their salary every month forever
Well, 9% of your salary above £28k, and wiped 30 years after your first payment.
In any case, it means no-one is too poor to study at tertiary level (recognising that there will always be circumstances that mean someone cant') while still making everything can be funded.
I read a lot of sports news (and pay for some of it) and I've never heard of Deadspin. After reading the article I'm also struggling to figure out what they changed. Is anyone more familiar able to explain more clearly?
Deadspin's motto was "Sports news without access, favor or discretion". Unlike traditional media that essentially acts as mouthpieces for the teams that they cover (think of any press conference and the kinds of questions being asked, and the types of response they're designed to elicit), they used their status as outsiders to look at sports with a critical lens, and hold people in power in sports to account.
This didn't mean they hated sports though - you could tell from most of their reporting, especially by the OGs(Will Leitch, Drew Magary, Tim Burke etc), that they LOVED sports and wanted the people and teams involved to just be better. They also broke a lot of bonkers stories like the Manti Te'o scandal (highly recommend reading their report on it)[1] that no one in traditional media did a good job of interrograting or digging into.
The site still exists, but if you read it now you won't see this kind of reporting. It all changed about two years when they were bought by private equity (G/O I wanna say) who attempted to exercise control over their editorial, resulting in a mass resignation. Many of the old writers started Defector (https://defector.com/), which writes in the same spirit.
> It all changed about two years when they were bought by private equity (G/O I wanna say) who attempted to exercise control over their editorial, resulting in a mass resignation. Many of the old writers started Defector (https://defector.com/), which writes in the same spirit.
This really was one of the most fascinating journalism stories in recent years. There was this well respected and financially successful media company, in an industry in which most outlets are struggling. But management had no idea what made that company successful and was seemingly on a mission to kill what made it unique. Eventually management got so bad that the entire staff resigned over the course of a few days. Dozens of people quit their job in a shrinking industry in which any journalism job can be your last. Then after a year of many of the journalists bouncing between freelancing gigs, most of that staff is able to band together to create a new company. This time it is a workers collective in which the journalists are not just employees, but also owners. The new company is almost immediately a success, continues to grow in size, and build on the legacy of the original site. I have never seen anything like that before.
A similar story played out in Jalopnik, an automotive blog with a similar irreverent outsider ethos under the same Gawker Media Group umbrella as Deadspin. Many writers came and went, including a group that started The Autopian (https://www.theautopian.com/) which reminds me of a Jalopnik before the buyout.
Snark was what attracted me to Gawker (the sister site to Deadspin). The general tone was something like "these elites and celebrities aren't as great as they think they are" which made it a guilty pleasure read. Reading it (and I assume Deadspin is similar) was like hanging out with a cool friend who was aware of everything hip going on and had all the right quips.
You know how when you're watching a sporting event and some deranged fan runs out onto the field, the broadcaster, knowing that the team and league wants to discourage such behavior, switches to a distant aerial view while the commentators tut tut about it?
Deadspin would instead gleefully post videos of the madness.
>> I'll keep dreaming of a world where headlines are about the 1.5 million confirmed deaths caused by diarrhea globally
But that's not news. That's well known. Also, generalising 'news' makes no sense. Of course news sources from certain countries will focus on news that effects their readers. Deaths from diarrhea are of little relevance to the readers of any 'western' news source.
If you’re going to chat shit about an important global organisation it’s worth explaining your comments. Given they were handling a once in a century pandemic I feel like they did a decent job.
They didn’t declare it a pandemic until March 11 - extremely late.
They were extremely critical of travel restrictions, while the countries they did the best in the first year defied that advice and had the most extreme restrictions, like New Zealand.
They failed to actually investigate the Wuhan Lab that may have been the source.
They didn’t acknowledge airborne spread for two years - allowing people to live in fear of packages.
How to your two paragraphs go to together? Wordpress websites can be good if they’re set up right (and that’s why Wordpress powers such a huge portion of web content). Medium developed a nice platform and turned it into something completely user hostile and horrible. We shouldn’t be grateful they started with good intentions when it’s currently so awful. I’d says we should be thanking Wordpress and condemning Medium.
>> It's difficult to feel bad for the legacy taxi industry. It's one of the most corrupt industries and totally resistant to market entrants.
Comments like this are frustrating. The taxi “industry” is made up of lots of small players in every city and small town around the world, each with different regulations and offerings. It’s not some massive conglomerate. Your experience with taxis in the place you use them can be completely different to the experience one town over not to mention in another country.
When self driving cars finally arrive everywhere, they'll be done for. I can't wait for the political battle of "keep the jobs so people can continue being occasionally exploited by transportation".
The Uber propaganda here in this thread is insane. Taxi’s maybe have been shit but that does not in anyway justify Uber breaking the law to conquer the market (btw, now that they’ve done that, they’ve also turned to shit because it was unsustainable).
Perfect may be the enemy of good but we shouldn’t excuse companies using endless VC money and law breaking to achieve something that’s marginally better for consumers.
Obviously there are some exceptions to this in the comments but generally, in modern countries where the taxi firms aren’t run by literal mafias and killing people, we should condemn Uber’s behaviour.
Taxi’s maybe have been shit but that does not in anyway justify Uber breaking the law to conquer the market (btw, now that they’ve done that, they’ve also turned to shit because it was unsustainable).
Literal or not, taxi companies really are as a rule something akin to local Mafiosos. They break the law all the time. The extent to which Uber screwed over it's drivers and to an extent risked the safety of it's riders bothers me. That Uber flouted local regulations intended to keep taxis services in the hands of local politicos' scumbag friends bothers me not in the least.
And as Uber rose, lots of drivers would drive both taxis and Uber, with each having advantageous and disadvantageous. And I also remember finally checking tire pressure on a cab I'd been paying to use for a bit - random amounts between 10 psi to 40 psi with half the tires bald. Taxi companies are filth and I laugh to hear any of them out of business. Sure Uber isn't much better but the point is Uber vs local Taxi company isn't a fight where people should be routing for a side. Tossing bottles at both sides, sure but not taking a side.
"Tossing bottles at both sides, sure but not taking a side."
In the 1920s, Yellow Cab and Checker Cab engaged in shootouts on the streets of Chicago. A guy named John Hertz owned Yellow Cab. He also owned racehorses. In 1923, he bought a rental car company. In 1929, arsonists targeted his stables. He then sold Yellow Cab.
However the story told by this Uber leak is not about one company versus another. The sides in this battle are (a) Uber and (b) the people, as represented through the state or government.
Given what we know about Chicago gangs historically - is that really indicative of the national business model of taxicab companies or is that just what the Chicago gangs invested in and where they chose to flex their might?
> Literal or not, taxi companies really are as a rule something akin to local Mafiosos.
Uber is NOT better. Read the article. They just take a bigger chunk from drivers and do not pay taxes.
I want Uber to disappear because their uncontrollable power, they use ride data to spy politicians, they avoid paying taxes, they mistreat their "employees", ...
Both sides are the same is false, and it is false in almost all situations. (Vote!)
I should admit that I drove for only a month but I also have known quite a few longer-time drivers. And in my defense, the industry was setup so most people stayed for that short time and only a few people, who actually bought their cabs, stayed for longer, literally ate and slept in their cars and made a chunk of money over, who knows, five years but also quit but in better shape financially (and worse shape physically, I'm sure).
Was in an uber once, driver told me he did 14 hour days and was very happy with the money he was making. From memory, 4k £ (UK) though maybe I misremember.
14 hour days, eh? I didn't ask if he thought that was safe. Uber should never let that happen but clearly they were ok with it, or with carefully not looking.
Maybe it is "marginally better" where you come from. Uber and their ill have always been always parity priced or more expensive in the markets I have lived in. The killer value proposition is the car actually turns up in a timely manner and actually takes passengers to where they want to go. Taxis often simply were eother not available to call, rarely showed up even if called and would often refuse to go where passengers want. Uber and its competitors literally makes it possible to live in the cities i live in without owning a car because even if you regularly commute by public transport, for those occasions where you need a car, you know you will get one reliably. In the past that was not an option and you would have to own a car.
Hopefully a good reminder to not extrapolate personal experiences or propaganda of the circle one may be a part of to the whole world.
> and would often refuse to go where passengers want
This happens to me all the time with Uber when I land at LAX and want to go to Anaheim or I’m in SF and want to go to San Jose.
And unlike a taxi, half the time Uber charges me $5 claiming that I ghosted the driver rather than them refusing to take me, something I don’t always catch.
I thought that Uber drivers could not see your destination until they picked you up. Are drivers taking off and refusing at the moment of pickup in SF? Seems like that would be pretty easy to catch behavior.
In NYC, I had several drivers refuse to let me into the car until I told them where I was going. I never took those cars and made them cancel it (and then reported it). However, it is common practice.
i reckon uber could make this a more difficult thing to occur by matching the GPS signals and location data.
If a driver attempts this, they can make it so that the driver cops the fee if the user could either prove that they are near the pickup location, or was able to take a picture of the car (with license plate).
I can see this personally happening more and more in Romania when I go visit relatives, and locals confirmed me the trend. At some point soon there won't be any reason anymore picking Uber over taxis.
Well, iphones have also only existed since little before Uber came around.
The reason that was the only way cabs were available because those were the only communication technologies available.
Maybe what you should be demanding is that cab services provide apps so you don't have to hail/call, etc. There are several companies that can provide this for your cab jurisdiction area as a third party service and they won't price gouge the cab drivers and/or the customers, and they won't use illegal threats and bribes to change laws to suit their needs.
The reason that was the only way cabs were available because those were the only communication technologies available.
Nah, it was would because taxi company owners are lazy morons. Well, to put a better face on it, a given one-city taxi company would have at a most a few hundred drivers and maybe ten actually back-office/real-employees. That level of small business isn't going to create a web interface to their operations in the early 2000s. Sure, third parties were offering some high priced web-based hailing service but of course that kind of thing would have to be higher priced than the already high-priced (and crappy) "interface" that calling the dispatcher for a ride involved. Why didn't taxis create their own phone/internet hailing service? The same reason Al Gore's "information superhighway" was dead in the water. That is, the average abusive monopolist - like a local taxi company - could only look at the Internet and say "sounds all-right but I'm not lowering my price for that, I'm raising them web-design costs money".
I’ve used non-Uber taxi apps in cities like Austin and they failed to show up multiple times and about 50% of the time the “finding driver” part takes about 15-20 minutes before I gave up and just used Uber (one time my phone died during this process and I was left with no taxi). It’s obviously treated like a 3rd tier part of their companies.
People want tech companies providing taxi services, they don’t just want the old local taxi service with a half-assed app bolted on + the usual dirty city taxi cars w/ no review process.
In Sweden, I have had the opposite experience. The Uber app is never used, due to how low paid the drivers are. The taxi apps are actually decently good and pretty reliable. They are not as feature rich as the Uber app, and more expensive, but when you need a ride at three in the morning, don't expect the Uber app to get you one.
I don't know why the app would need anything more than "I want to be picked up here". Dispatching worked fine when you had to call a phone number. The app could literally be an interface to texting.
Because no one wants to sit and wait around wondering if a car will show up?
> Dispatching worked fine when you had to call a phone number.
Dispatching absolutely did not work fine when you had to call a number. You were often left twiddling your thumbs wondering if a car will actually show up.
> The app could literally be an interface to texting.
Why not start your own competitor then? I'm sure it will be easy to create such a simple app. Better include some load-balancing, because I'm sure everyone will rush to use your featureless app instead of these other apps with nice interfaces, that show you exactly where the car is, with accurate ETAs, integrated payment, safety features, etc.
> You were often left twiddling your thumbs wondering if a car will actually show up.
They always showed up for me. And I have no idea what city/country you think it didn't. I feel like this is just Uber PR.
> Why not start your own competitor then?
Because the network effects of drivers and network effects of riders. It would cost a lot of money to compete with that. Also, to deal with a lot of other backend issues that have nothing to do with the app itself - like making sure the driver's cars are in good repair, commercial insurance, etc.
The actual app itself is much easier compared to the business side of things. If someone wants to do the business side, I'll spearhead the app development.
> Have you ever even used the Uber app?
Yes. Also, I never said it was trivial to create a clone of the Uber app. I said things worked fine before there was a complex app and would work okay with a simpler app. Because the complaint I was responding to wasn't feature parity, it was bugginess. But lets go through your points.
>that show you exactly where the car is
Uber actually has admitted that the majority of the cars you see on your screen are simulated to give you a feeling for how many cars are in the area.
Or do you mean once a driver is assigned, in which case I don't know the point of it. I can just look at the ETA.
> with accurate ETAs
Now who never used the Uber app. Their ETAs are wildly inaccurate.
> integrated payment
That you have to check and dispute in case the bill you for drivers cancelling on you, and a variety of other things hooked directly to your card. I'd much rather pay people what I owe them in a one-off transaction.
> safety features
I've never seen them in action, but I'm glad they're building them.
Can we collectively agree that the reason why people are reporting very different experiences with cabs before uber, is because cab-rides in different locations were very different experiences?
In London, the chance that calling a cab (or even the less regulated minicab services) would result in a no-show seemed remote. In San Francisco, it was a regular occurrence. In the rural UK, calling a cab would have been a rare, expensive event, and would require finding an unoccupied local driver among a very small subset.
I'm sure there is even a wider variety of taxi implementations worldwide.
Uber fails to show up for me about half the time. It just goes through driver after driver, moving to another when the previous one doesn’t come well past the estimated time. Has happened in three different cities in the past three months.
and i’ve used uber in austin and had some of the worst experiences i’ve ever had. personal anecdotes dont really matter— uber is a shitty company and so are taxis, two wrongs dont make a right.
In 2007 I had to drop my car off to get some work done. The plan was to take a taxi ~3 miles down a major road to my office, then taxi back up there at the end of the day.
Well it took three calls and about 90 minutes, but eventually someone showed up to drive me six minutes down the street in blistering 98F. It was more like 2 hours of standing outside baking in the sun to get someone to drive me to the shop at the end of the day. Turns out in my city (Dallas) taxis really only exist to drive to and from the airport. Worst case with ride-share companies, you're looking at ~30 min wait for an uber to arrive, with real-time updates if the driver feels like canceling, and auto-orders you another one.
Taxis work nothing like uber. If you are not traveling to/from a major sporting event, convention center or airport, the taxi does not want your business and will actively avoid/ignore you. For small, one-off trips like a coffee date, going to a concert, dropping your car off for service etc uber is great. Taxis absolutely do not want to be in that business. What this fight is about, is who is allowed to pick up/drop off at places like the airport, metallica concerts, apple wwdc etc.
In my market I can now get an taxi in more consistent time than an Uber. It seems drivers don’t get matched in a timely manner. Unfortunately I was using Uber primarily because of how fast it arrived previously, but the driver numbers fell off a lot during Covid, between some drivers churning out, not wanting to wear masks, and or switching to Uber eats.
Sometimes I wish I could just “even though there is so surge, I would gladly pay a 2x surge to just get a car to arrive here within the next 30 minutes”.
Here in Australia this is becoming a real problem with Uber - drivers seem to apparently have unlimited "cancels" and just cancel rides continuously to drive up demand especially at the airport where they know passengers have no other choice. They'll also almost always refuse rides that are too far, or don't finish in or near a high-demand area (like a CBD or airport). Other ride share apps are worse (DiDi really sucks), but Uber is the most expensive by far and the experience is pretty bad.
Our taxis on the other hand mostly seem to have uber-like apps and you can reliably get picked up just about anywhere even if you live in the middle of nowhere (within reason, of course). They're about the same price as Uber, with no surge pricing as well.
I'm pretty convinced that these boilerplate responses are a result of PR brigading, which happens a lot in threads of this kind online. They always seem way too positively scripted, and they bury real comments.
The Internet is so overrun by engineered smoke and mirrors now, it's hard to trust even online comments concerning corporations unless they're negative comments concerning those corporations.
The best part about Uber/Lyft imo is that I know exactly how much I'll be charged before I even request it. Taxis you get to do a bunch of math that depends on factors like traffic but in the rideshare apps you can decide if the ride is worth it.
If taxis could replicate this more ethically, I would switch in a heartbeat.
They don't always stick to it. From LAX airport, it was showing an initial price of say $30, and then "looking for drivers" spinner goes on for 2-3 min. Then they "found" one that is more expensive, say $45, which you can accept to get "faster" service. Hint: you will have to wait ages to get that initial price, if at all.
Uber has become much more shitty AND much more expensive in the last years. Same with Lyft. I have a tingly feeling Lyft and Uber has struck a deal behind the curtain to not tread on each other, or fix prices.
I once took an Uber who didn't follow the directions of the app properly, missing some turns, resulting in unnecessary cycles. This resulted in the fare being higher than initially stated.
When I reported this to Uber, showing the trace in the map, they said the final price was still within the range stated (it was not), and nothing happened.
In my area, they aren’t very available and don’t like to pick up in many areas, and hate driving to the airport or train station. Previously, the airport and train station authority held cabs to high standards there and they were responsive and clean.
In places like Boston I’ve been straight up stranded in the airport when Ubers just won’t show - don’t know why.
I agree with you except with the marginally better part. Their service is profundly revolutionary.
It isn't lack of capital or brains that prevented the taxi indistry before and after uber to provide the same service but beneficial to their interests. After all these years they are not even trying to compete with Uber they just want things to go back to the way they were where consumers are taken advantage of or discriminated against. Like it or not, Uber is more accessible to all types of consumers not just the ones drivers think will tip the most, they have better background checks and uniform and scrutinized safety controls and providen a viable primary or secondary income to drivers.
The local laws and regulations should get out of the way and enable what uber is trying to do with or without Uber. The livelihood of taxi drivers is not the law's problem, the well being od consumers and the economy however is. An outdated business model should not be put on a respirator by politicians. I am of the opinion that traditional taxi system with medallions and all that should be done with. Anyome who provides consumer transportation can compete fairly with Uber and pals.
The TNCs and local regulators have done nothing to address widespread problems of drivers refusing to provide service to the handicapped. I remember being shocked at the posts in TNC driver subreddits and web forums regarding handicapped passengers. Many drivers see someone in a wheelchair and just bolt - using various methods to cancel/reject the ride - because they see picking up such a passenger to be time consuming, a risk, or annoying.
The service is not revolutionary if you live in the "wrong" part of town. I lived in a "not quite wrong, not quite right" neighborhood where there was plenty of wealthy young people but it was also close to the "wrong" part of town...and when I tried using the service, it'd be 20 minutes to get a ride and usually at least one cancellation. In the "right" part of town? A quarter of the wait, and never a canceled pickup.
I'm curious to your baseline here: my experience with cabs in San Francisco is/was that they would just drive off if you had a wheelchair, whereas Uber/Lyft drivers were already committed, so would follow through. Same for coming out to certain locations. I'm guessing this has far more to do with the norm about drivers being penalised for excessive cancellations/refusing trips, and riders ability to provide direct feedback.
> I lived in a "not quite wrong, not quite right" neighborhood where there was plenty of wealthy young people but it was also close to the "wrong" part of town...and when I tried using the service, it'd be 20 minutes to get a ride and usually at least one cancellation. In the "right" part of town? A quarter of the wait, and never a canceled pickup.
Is it possible fewer people were calling Ubers from that part of town, so there were fewer drivers there? Whereas the wealthier part of town was busier? Drivers go where they are called more frequently, hence the shorter wait time in the other part of town. What do you propose Uber do differently here, force drivers to idle in less busy parts of town?
“I had to wait twenty minutes for a ride” what’s your complaint here, that Uber is evil and transphobic, or that you’re upset a livery servant doesn’t show up the moment you snap your fingers? This “I had to wait 20 minutes for a ride” complaint shows a really entitled and self centered attitude.
I’m really curious what you think Uber should do differently in that case, and why you were calling Ubers at all if they’re so evil and taxis are just as good. The last point really makes me scratch my head.
Pretty easy, they control the ability to cancel and the ability to get work. If they cared about these problems, they’d reward the drivers who don’t fuck around.
The cancellation one is the easiest, you just purge the top cancellers.
Everything you said is an attempt to find a rare case to make your point. I do live in a bad part of town where insurance companies cancel on me because of risky neighborhood and I use uber many times a week. Majority of my drivers are african americans or a minority who would not be able to drive a Taxi without fronting a lot of money or have a connection with a someone who will rent a medallion and then of course do it full time to break even. I even had family members who drove Taxi and it was so miserable for them because on off seasons they barely made enough to cover gas and medallion rental. Minorities that have a hard time getting work or living in areas with economic drought (chain stores moved out due to white flight or crime so jobs are far away) can just drive uber at least as supplement which is what they tell me they do when I ask them.
As for trans folks, their face should match what is on their ID. This is a safety issue. Even if your stare or country won't let you set preferred gender they won't stop you from updating your picture. Bad guys can game the system otherwise.
> After all these years they are not even trying to compete with Uber they just want things to go back to the way they were
Who are you describing? Can you name anyone?
> where consumers are taken advantage of
I've never felt taken advantage of in a taxi. I know Uber pushes this all the time, but can you give examples? I know with Uber or Lyft they collect data on me such as where I am and where I go.
> or discriminated against
Is there any evidence that it's better with ridesharing apps? I mean evidence, not the same claims long made by Uber.
Pre-uber it was common at McCarren Airport (Las Vegas) that taxis would intentially take you the wrong way to spike their fare. Those who knew would have to demand the driver to not take the tunnel, and even then they would argue with you. There is no reason not to think that this was common everywhere.
Why do you think TNC drivers don't do this, especially when the company is incentivized to ignore it? Pro tip: if the driver's phone isn't visible from the rear passenger seat, pull up the route on your phone and watch them like a hawk.
The uber/lyft driver subreddits and web forums used to be full of stories of drivers bragging about intentionally taking the 'long way'. Drivers bragged about how the often strange and dynamic routing used by Waze and Google Maps made it very easy to take a random turn that adds miles to the trip (or lots of traffic, preferable if the driver has a hybrid) and how they could just dismiss the customer's questions with "oh, I don't know, I'm just following the app" (except for the purposeful wrong/missed turn.)
I used to take Uber/Lyft occasionally and I'd always pull up the route on my own phone because I'd frequently catch my driver starting to make an unexplainable turn, or intentionally choose a very high-congestion route instead of a faster arterial road.
If you don't know the city well, it's easy to miss the driver purposefully making one accidental wrong turn that ends up adding significantly to the fare.
The difference in my city is that if your taxi driver did this, you could complain to the police unit overseeing taxis.
Now? You complain to Uber and they give you a discount or correction if you're lucky and haven't been too much of a squeaky wheel.
In some places (I don't think it's everywhere) Uber charges/pays the estimated fare from before the trip regardless of the route actually taken, I believe. In theory that makes it harder to do the thing being described, but it also obviously means a driver who gets stuck in traffic on the route uber says they should take is gonna get screwed.
There is plenty of reason - while I heard rumors of it, I never experienced it. Also, in most locales taxis make a significant bonus from the 'flag drop', the start of a ride. Prolonging rides isn't as profitable as finding new ones.
I’ve been taken on much longer rides than necessary in multiple cities. Las Vegas and Chicago are the first that come to mind. It’s also nearly impossible to know how much a taxi ride will cost in advance. The app and “quote” are the game changer with Uber and Lyft. If the Taxi companies (especially in Vegas) would build a similar app and pre-quote my trips, I’d probably still use them, even if they are a little more expensive, because Uber stops are typically much farther away. But Taxi companies don’t seem to want to.
>Obviously there are some exceptions to this in the comments but generally, in modern countries where the taxi firms aren’t run by literal mafias and killing people, we should condemn Uber’s behaviour.
hehe love it. In the first world, ...
How about this, I want to arrive at an airport, walk out the front, check a number plate and put my suitcases in the boot knowing that if anything happens I'm not going to be risking 10k worth of stuff.
Oh officer, it was a yellow car that said taxi on the side, you think you'll find my stuff?
In Germany, Berlin of all cities, I had my bagage held to ransom by a taxi driver who "forgot" to start the meter and then decided the 250m we drove was worth an extra 10eur on top of the 15eur trip.
So sorry this is more Uber propaganda, but for the ~1000 Uber reciepts I have in my inbox, I've had few and only little problems. And a lot of these are from a city where people do go missing if they get in the wrong taxi.
Do I love Uber? No. They're sometimes shit. Surge pricing, allowing drivers to pick up a trip and then just cancel, 6 minute arrival timers that are actually 10 minutes away, wait fees from the first minute onwards, grumpy covid mask reminder emails even though I'm always wearing a mask, reissuing fees when they adjust the price and holding extra money on my card until it's all cleared.
But touch wood, I've never been in a crash in an Uber, I have in a taxi (single car, solely the drivers fault), even though it's a 20:1 ratio for journeys I've taken.
1051 trips supporting a clearly criminal business. They admit that basically themselves, until they claim to have changed their direction a couple of years ago.
E.g. here in this country drivers got criminal charges, got all their fares confiscated and some ended up in personal bankruptcy. Uber even kept the 20% commission and the leaked documents say they knew they were operating fucking illegally.
Yea I really couldn't care less about that. It's illegal in the country where most of those trips took place, drivers can have their cars confiscated.
But here's the thing, it comes down to "you can't use ride sharing at the airport". Why you may ask? "BECAUSE, you can't use ride sharing at the airport".
You should familiarize yourself with the leaked material. Breaking the law fully intentionally happened in many countries and in many aspects, not only against some stupid regulations which car can pick up passengers where. Why did they have kill-switches in their offices? And all the time they systematically made sure that if something happens the drivers will be punished, but their own money is in tax heavens. The whole business model is about exploiting people: I bet > 90% of their drivers don't understand the concept of deprecation. Somewhere else in this thread it was said in Switzerland a full-time Uber driver earns about as much as a traditionally employed taxi-driver. Except that in a traditional employment the employee doesn't pay for the expenses of running the business (including deprecation). It's the same as if a naive business owner does not understand that revenue is not the same thing as profit.
Besides that the whole model is about exploiting people they implemented it in so many shady and criminal ways. They claim no longer doing the latter after the management changes.
Some people think buying clothes from sweatshops in Bangladesh is fine. Others think exploiting local drivers is fine. Or they just deny to learn the facts. I am not one of them.
> The whole business model is about exploiting people
Which is why people stopped voluntarily working for uber and the company has gone out of business.
> Or they just deny to learn the facts. I am not one of them.
So if ignorance isn't an excuse, tell me about the slave / child workers that mined and assembled the materials for the device you're using to come off as a giant hypocrite right now.
In the city I took most of those rides, people get cut up and dumped in drains for the price of an iphone because they took the wrong taxi late on a Friday night. I'll take kill switches in an office over that, but thanks for your selective concern.
I am aware of blood mineral problem. I am typing this in Europe on a low end smartphone produced for the Indian market around 2015. While my footprint is not zero, it should be a much lower than regularly updating to the next high end device.
The driver is registered at the responsible office and will be blocked in this case.
Unfortunately we can't do anything about the price, because we are only a mediator and have no influence on price.
Best regards from Hamburg
von FREE NOW
Support Agent Passenger & Driver Care
Intelligent Apps GmbH
Grosse Elbstrasse 273, 22767 Hamburg
I won’t use Uber. It’s terrible and far worse than my experience with taxis. I’ve also said here before that many UK cities had better taxis systems before Uber but was shouted down. The only way Uber could compete was unprofitably undercutting the local market with a worse service.
Just because SF needed a new taxis system doesn’t mean they had to inflict it on the rest of the world.
You want to get to the airport for 5AM tomorrow morning? Good luck getting an Uber, they won’t let you book ahead and if you want to hail at the time they will cancel on you 4 times.
I’ve never had this issue with a taxi company and have got a pre booked taxi to time critical things a lot of times in my life.
But yeh, they have an app (weren’t even the first though) so HN loves them.
I mean “inflict it on the rest of the world” come on. They wouldn’t be selling if you weren’t buying. Uber categorically provides a better service than taxis in almost all places and provides a far safer experience in others. But once again it’s likely some self righteous first world person’s opinion who has no context for how other countries function. Par for the course on HN.
Taxi companies operate with the advantage of state monopolies. They have lobbyists too, and they were so well-connected that they allowed exactly zero innovation for decades before they got blown out of the water by Uber.
Maybe in some countries, but where I live the taxi monopoly was removed long before Uber existed and Uber managed to outcompete with VC backed price dumping plus breaking the law.
In the UK and Australia, the taxi experience was generally better than that. Uber came along and undercut them, and at first they had a great experience.
Now uber is usually more expensive, and usually less reliable. It's very fortunate that they didn't quite manage to completely kill off the competition with their subsidies.
I think Uber coming along was absolutely a net win for consumers. They managed to
1. Upend the existing monopolies with cab drivers and create competitions in many different markets
2. Funnel VC money directly into the hands of consumers in the form of subsidized rides, especially in the years from ~2012 to 2018.
And they did this in a commodity market, so it's super easy for entrants to just copy the idea. Bad for Uber, great for everyone else. The fact that a good hunk of the money that got lit on fire during this process was Saudi oil blood money is just icing on the cake, IMO.
I think that your point 2 is a positive when taken in isolation, but with negative consequences for wider society - it did drive other firms out of business.
I also don't know how many markets uber entered were actually monopolies. London certainly wasn't, though the minicab firms there were dodgy as hell. It will have increased standards of service in that market longer term, even as it unfairly competed.
You can “prebook” an Uber but they explicitly state that they will only try and find you a car automatically at that time, not guarantee one/arrange a driver in advance. So it’s basically just automating the “find me an Uber” button press. At least this is how it works in the UK.
I’d support anyone who broke the sf taxi cartel. For all the high minded rhetoric folks spew about how the regulations protected the consumer - it was a clear cartel - racist, poor service, insultingly bad in fact. The fact that govt agencies and departments bent over backwards to support this garbage is all you need to know about the peoples representatives
There is a world outside SF. Some places had great taxis, others had awful and most somewhere inbetween. Uber used the same underhanded tactics in all places.
I would take Uber lobbyists over taxi lobbyists in Hong Kong any day. Manipulating the number of taxi licenses so the current license are worth millions of HKD, holders get rich just by letting hundreds of licenses to drivers who don’t earn much after rent, while also being pawns of CCP? I don’t think people would really like them.
My observation is that nearly every municipality had a taxi service with negative press, isolated in local news under different taxi brands, and in municipal court filings. This being about local taxi that bent the law to become entrenched themselves.
Whereas any incident with Uber is international news.
Makes it harder for me to elevate Uber’s issues as being as egregious as presented. I recognize their flaws, I also recognize the market need which still remains. So sure, make a better one thats more compliant. When I and others point this out we’re not giving Uber a pass. Just assigning a weight to the problems.
> This being about local taxi that bent the law to become entrenched themselves.
Can you give an example? I've never heard of that. They usually lack any power at all.
> nearly every municipality had a taxi service with negative press
Everyone seemed satisfied in my experience. I did see Uber's talking points everywhere on social media - how terrible taxis were. Unforunately, taxis lacked the money to run their own information campaign.
> Ask actual individuals, take taxis yourself, ask people that try to be their own driver.
You know, I was a taxi driver in Phoenix when Uber/Lyft came to town and watched the fallout of their actions — absolutely nobody cares about that and every time I post about my firsthand experience in some Uber article I get downvoted to nothing.
The disconnect (and astroturfing) is phenomenal. I don’t think people would cheer on the Robber Barons 2.0 if they didn’t personally benefit through direct subsidies. The funny thing is rates are basically what they were before they destroyed the taxi industry with the exception that drivers get paid a lot less than before, once the daily (or weekly) lease was paid up on the cab the rest of the money went to the driver. On a good day you could have the car paid for in the first few hours and then it’s easy money. When I lived downtown I’d get up early and do 2, 3, 4 back-to-back airport trips ($15 airport special which usually paid $25ish) in an hour or so and have half the car paid off before the medical appointments started to come out. I also used to make two or three hundred on Friday and Saturday nights just working out a cab stand at one bar.
Then Uber/Lyft came along and started charging less than cost and all that went away. You basically had to figure out who had what medical appointment when and be sitting on that call to even think about paying for the cab let alone gas and maybe, if you had a good day, could get all fancy with some Carl’s Jr.
I don't know what it was like in Phoenix, but in the city I live in -- and frankly most cities I've visited in north america(1) -- price has never been a motivating factor in uber vs. taxis.
It's always been that taxis don't come when I need them. Sometimes they're fine if you're at a bar and a cab will come by for hailing because they know business will be there, but if you're carless and need to get somewhere at a particular time cabs have always been a nightmare.
I've called to get a cab to come pick me up and then waited 2 hours while dispatch couldn't find a cab to come because they were all too busy picking up opportunistic rides. I've never had an experience anything like that with uber or lyft.
I would -- and now that the money train has dried up for uber a bit, do -- pay as much for an uber as I did before for a cab, except now the uber actually comes. In my particular city most cab drivers also aren't union, and they pay to rent their cars for their shifts from the people who own the plates. Most of the protest of uber coming to town was from cab owners (some operators, but many not) who were using their license as a retirement plan.
I recognize that the drivers were put in a tough spot, and most of this isn't their fault, but things were deeply broken before, and they still are. But I think there's a lot of rose tinted glasses going on here, and people who needed cabs were often literally left out in the cold by the way things were.
(1) Pretty much the only city I've ever had good experiences with cabs is NYC.
> I've called to get a cab to come pick me up and then waited 2 hours while dispatch couldn't find a cab to come…
Yeah, that happened a lot when it was busy because you don’t make any money chasing around stale calls where the people probably aren’t there. And there were big chunks of the Phoenix Valley that were off limits after the sun went down, doesn’t matter if you’re running an app and aren’t carrying around a few hundred in cash so there’s not as much incentive to avoid certain areas. I’d talk to new drivers who would make “all the money” working those areas at night and then they would just stop showing up to get a cab after not too long.
So, without surge pricing (which was illegal under Arizona law unless it was posted on the side of the cab in letters of a certain height) cab drivers go 100% mercenary when it gets busy and people get left out in the cold where they couldn’t get a cab for any (legal) price. It was a problem and on nights like New Year’s Eve we would get our revenge on the people we would profile as “non-tippers” because, well, that’s what they get.
I honestly don’t think anyone would have had much of a problem with Uber/Lyft if they didn’t undercut the existing cabbies by violating the law on things like commercial insurance (which was expensive), mandatory background/drug testing (which, ironically, the law didn’t say you had to pass) and certified meters (so the passengers didn’t get ripped off). That’s all it took to be a legal livery vehicle in Arizona and they would give the window stickers out to all sorts of shady characters who would (legally) rip off the tourists and drunks because they had their extremely high rates posted as was the law.
I remember having online debates in the early ‘00s with people claiming the evil capitalists would move into a market, put the competition out of business by charging less than the actual cost of whatever product they were selling and then once they had a de facto monopoly jack the prices up. I’d always say “show me one real example of this happening” (which they never could) and now that’s the business plan of all these Silicon Valley companies people applaud their actions. People who would boycott Walmart because they believe they engage in these tactics happily use the services of companies who unapologetically do. I just don’t understand…
I have taken more taxis in more cities than you imagine. Thousands, I would guess. I've talked to many cab drivers and rideshare drivers about this exact issue: IME most think Uber/Lyft screw them, that cabs were better as their fate was in their hands (and they didn't have to provide a car!), but as Uber/Lyft control access to rides (the only real value they provide), the drivers have no choice.
Uber/Lyft also use corruption to get free use of our public commons - the streets that they clog - while with cabs it was fairly distributed in free market bidding for the public resource (i.e., medallions).
> I have taken more taxis in more cities than you imagine. Thousands, I would guess.
Thousands? That’s daily commute level which puts you in one of the extremely rare locations that had a semi functional cab system.
You don’t understand how miserable the cab system was (and generally still is) in most of the US because you lived in an aberration.
> Uber/Lyft also use corruption to get free use of our public commons - the streets that they clog
Not even on the top 10 of concerns surrounding Uber for the 95% of the population who don’t live in a super dense city. Also, it’s not free use because the drivers pay the same road taxes we do. They just aren’t double taxed without the medallion system.
> You don’t understand how miserable the cab system was (and generally still is) in most of the US because you lived in an aberration.
That's circular - you repeat your conclusion (cabs are poor) as evidence for it. I've taken cabs in many, many cities. Some cities do lack sufficient cab service; I'll agree with that.
> Not even on the top 10 of concerns surrounding Uber for the 95% of the population who don’t live in a super dense city
The standard isn't 'super-dense', and more people live in cities than you think. Plus, why are the concerns of people in cities any less important than yours?
> it’s not free use because the drivers pay the same road taxes we do. They just aren’t double taxed without the medallion system.
It's not the drivers using it, it's Lyft and Uber. Corporations are separate entities using the road space for profit.
> The standard isn't 'super-dense', and more people live in cities than you think. Plus, why are the concerns of people in cities any less important than yours?
The standard absolutely is super dense. I live in a spread out city and your concerns are completely hollow. Nobody in Houston is concerned about the number of Ubers on the road.
> It's not the drivers using it, it's Lyft and Uber.
It’s the driver’s car. The driver is driving it. It’s the driver.
> Not even on the top 10 of concerns surrounding Uber for the 95% of the population who don’t live in a super dense city.
How does it make economic sense for Ubers to circle around non-dense areas that couldn't support a taxi system? If there's an answer beyond a combination of VC subsidies and convincing drivers to assume additional economic risk, I'd love to know! (So would Uber, for that matter. Or at least their investors.)
In my country we used to have Uber but they pulled out maybe 4-5 years ago. I wish they have stayed, because now we only have one and it is driving the price way up high due to lack of competition.
>Taxi’s maybe have been shit but that does not in anyway justify Uber breaking the law to conquer the market
Why not?
MLK (and Im sure others before him) said you have a duty to disobey unjust laws. The law should conform with what is right, not just be followed blindly. If uber can improve outcomes and do no net harm then good luck to them and anyone else in a similar situation.
Propaganda is idealistic. It runs counter to its audience’s real-world experience. To the degree anyone is propagandising, it is those condemning Uber. Uber’s supporters, not of all of it, but certainly of its raison d’être, have practical, real-life experiences to sustain their arguments. The other side, condemning Uber, evokes moral outrage.
Not making a concluding argument for either side. But would hold back on the accusation that one side or the other is serving corporate or populist propaganda.
A lot of folks here seem to be confusing breaking the law in the name of justice and social progress (e.g. Rosa Parks) vs the blatant corruption of companies like Uber. At least the Uber VPs knew they were corrupt.
Indeed. And many may have joined not knowing the real workings of the company; heck, the same situation could also be true for many of us now. But to continue defending the company even after knowing the facts is certainly a thing to marvel at.
