Do people actually claim Uber is a successful business?
In the UK, none of the original companies that built the railroads still exist. Many of the railway companies were never particularly profitable and the railway boom was a stock market bubble. Lots of them were fraudulent or poorly run. Eventually they all either went out of business, or amalgamated and ultimately got nationalised.
Nevertheless, they proved the railway as a viable technology and built infrastructure that still exists and is used today (Ship of Theseus caveat). Were they successful as profit making businesses? Ultimately no. However society benefited greatly in the long run from their existence, even though we've all forgotten their names.
I can't see Uber as a company surviving the next few decades, but without them the taxi experience would likely still be as horrific as it was in the 90s.
An interesting perspective, but I think the key difference is that Uber has built no lasting infrastructure. I do agree that Uber has improved the taxi/private vehicle transport industry in essentially every market it entered. In London (UK) for example, taxis were previously mainly used by tourists, the rich, or the very drunk. Uber changed this completely, making it accessible for many more people.
If Uber disappears I’m not sure what a follow-up company can build on top of? The only lasting impact I can see is that Uber popularised “gig work” so that future companies and even Lyft, DoorDash, etc. had an easier time to roll out the same model.
The infrastructure they built is:
1. the concept of ride sharing as it works today. If they disappear tomorrow a follow up company can build a more or less identical service based on that invention.
2. A large digital infrastructure. All those servers and the knowledge required to run it is about as unlikely to just "disappear" as the railway tracks in England.
I suppose it's hard to see what the future will hold, but at least in London there's Gett and Freenow, and a lot of the traditional players like Addy Lee now have apps of varying quality. As you point out, stuff like Deliveroo might not have existed without Uber.
Not quite the same as metal rails running up the country I agree, but I think in hindsight Uber will be remembered as a significant innovation. Think Napster.
Well if I’m thinking Napster then first to mind is Spotify and Apple music, both of which are profitable and here to stay. But even if Uber gets mismanaged and driven into the ground Lyft or one of the other competitors would take over with more or less the same product.
Uber’s model is basically the same as the cab/taxi model, but likely much more efficient due to software. That business model (hiring private drivers for point to point public transit) has been profitably working for over a century now.
Also keep in mind Taxis, unlike buses and trains, are usually not even subsidized, which lends even more credence to the business model.
"basically the same" yet uber did have a transformative effect, in some countries taxi systems were very hostile and disorganized, and uber has raised the standard significantly... they've created a certain expectation
My point is that if Taxi’s were profitable essentially being a worse Uber, then it makes the argument that Uber is in a bubble industry seem ludicrous, which it is.
ah ok, thanks for clarifying... I guess the bubble might be the pricing model? it has been artificially too cheap to support the labor for a while. Early on I was commuting to work for only a couple dollars more than public transportation.
If Uber can’t turn a profit then how did cab companies (essentially Uber but with a worse product, no software efficiencies, and bad UX) turn a profit for over a century?
Even if you subscribe to this belief that somehow artificial conditions allow for taxis to exist, you have to start wondering maybe they have a good reason to exist since taxis are pretty much universally available everywhere you go. Even in their previous crappy form, they were ubiquitous like cockroaches. If literally every city in the world adopted this form of regulatory capture, maybe Uber et al can benefit from the same thing, except with a better non-cockroach like UX.
There is also good kind of regulatory capture. Like controlling supply ofc, annoying during night when bars closes, but also on other hand ensuring that someone is there to provide service at night during weekday. Or even capping the prices. And then having enforcement by cancelling licenses if proven wrongdoings where to happen.
System could function... And it did in some countries, apart from supply issues at most popular times. It was bit expensive, but driver's time or vehicles aren't cheap in expensive to live countries...
> I can't see Uber as a company surviving the next few decades, but without them the taxi experience would likely still be as horrific as it was in the 90s.
100% this. Uber made "Uber" a solved problem, so spinning off clones became cheap and easy.
Usually markets consolidate, rather than fragment, especially in the software industry. We actually had more Uber competitors early on (Sidecar et al) and that died off. Most uber competitors are now just regional ones, with geographically segregated markets.
In the UK, none of the original companies that built the railroads still exist. Many of the railway companies were never particularly profitable and the railway boom was a stock market bubble. Lots of them were fraudulent or poorly run. Eventually they all either went out of business, or amalgamated and ultimately got nationalised.
Nevertheless, they proved the railway as a viable technology and built infrastructure that still exists and is used today (Ship of Theseus caveat). Were they successful as profit making businesses? Ultimately no. However society benefited greatly in the long run from their existence, even though we've all forgotten their names.
I can't see Uber as a company surviving the next few decades, but without them the taxi experience would likely still be as horrific as it was in the 90s.