I like that a good chunk of the article was about service in DC. When I lived there I still ran in to the occasional Uber driver that would not want to take me to my home in Alexandria from the heart of downtown.
I'll also echo the author's comments that Uber opened up parts of DC that I would have otherwise avoided including Georgetown, Adams Morgan, and the Eastern end of H street / Northeast DC.
At the time Adams Morgan was getting more parking but I really didn't enjoy driving up there and getting a taxi was still spotty at certain times.
I don't live there any more so I don't know if the H street light rail is operational yet but I can say that I never would have frequented Dangerously Delicious Pies without Uber.
As a previous working Washingtonian I wish Uber the best and if nothing else am happy for the change they are driving. (Pun intended ;)
One problem with the ride-sharing apps (Lyft and Uber) is insurance companies are now wise to them.
I just got my renewal, and they specifically exclude coverage for vehicle damage, occupant injuries, pedestrian injuries, and pretty much everything else, should your vehicle be used in a ride-sharing program.
If you drive more, you are more likely to get into an accident. This is why taxi drivers have to pay more for insurance than commuters. They definitely should pay a higher premium (or a premium scaled to usage).
I remember when I was in Russia back in 2205 and it was so much simpler than that. I just went to the edge of the road and raised my hand. within seconds a car pulled up. How much to go to the central bus station I asked. He quoted the price, I knew that I had the right change in my pocket because in Russia, you always keep mental track of what you have. I got in, we drove a few km to the station. I got the cash out of my pocket, handed it over and got out. Simple.
Of course it was because in the uber-capitalist Russian Federation either there were no laws about taxis or everyone ignored them. Anyone needing to earn some spare cash offered people rides. Always round numbers in cash negotiated in advance. Simple.
The main selling point of Uber is the app--but eventually Yellow Cab, et al will also have slick apps. What's the long term competitive advantage, besides evading regulation? Self driving cars, most likely.
That's a lot of "eventually." Uber is a software company that runs cabs, basically. Their competitors - the old school, that is - are cab companies who are now faced with the challenge of writing good software. The track record in general of industries where long-established players find that they have to become software companies and put out a polished product there, in addition to whatever they were already doing, suggests to me that the timeline for old-school cab companies putting out an app that doesn't look like total garbage next to Uber's, is likely to extend so far out that it might as well be never. They may turn around and subcontract the work of creating and maintaining the app, but that has its own problems that we're all familiar with.
Why couldn't some software company license out their app to cab companies? The Uber app is slick, but it's not exactly groundbreaking tech--somebody could clone it.
This seems like a good business idea, but it would likely be fairly messy and hard to provide a uniformly good user experience. But I'm guessing that a lot of cab companies would pay for this software dispatch service, if you just sent them customers (perhaps according to bids they set?)
I'd suggest that perhaps the entrenched culture of traditional taxi companies is negative in so many ways that even with the best software they'd be at a disadvantage. Pure speculation of course, but from reading the article it doesn't seem that farfetched.
Uber exists, primarily, because the slick apps didn't work. Taxi Magic, for example, was out years before Uber. It failed because taxi drivers, frankly, don't give a shit about dispatch. They just pick someone else up on the way.
If Taxi drivers had simply been willing to pick people up who call into dispatch (or book via Taxi Magic), Uber probably wouldn't exist.
Recently a (one of many) Swedish cab company had one of their more islamic drivers throw out a gay couple. Nothing has happened. No one got fired, no head rolled, nothing on Twitter.
Well, one advantage is having any competition at all. The taxi market has been so badly broken for so long that just being able to introduce new drivers and companies results in lower prices and better service all around.
I agree, but in the context of the comment you're responding to, this is subsumed in evading regulation. You are more or less saying, "Taxi regulations are bad because they reduce competition without corresponding advantages that outweigh the cost, so Uber's wins when it evades those regulations and reintroduces competition." But it's still "evading regulations." Although I'd prefer to think of it as avoiding regulations -- avoidance is legal and evasion is illegal.
This depends on where you are. A lot of "regulation" appears to me to be monopolistic pricing because there were no other choices. I'm in Australia so the below is my experience.
Moving to Uber as I have means I don't have to pay the ridiculous 10% to use a card. Originally the only way to pay card with a taxi was to use the company "cabcharge" who put their terminals in the cabs and the 10% was charged anytime card was used instead of cash. This has nothing to do with regulation and there has been an investigation started around it.
Further to this the cab companies are charging $2.50 (flagfall) + ~$3.00 (booking fee) if I book through them online or over the phone. The booking fee doesn't go to the cabbie, just to the company for picking up the phone. Uber charges me $3.50 flat. Once again, not regulation.
Actually it is more like privatization of taxi regulations. Instead of paying for a burdensome and ineffective government bureaucracy, a libertarian would let private companies handle it.
The tricky part is avoiding monopoly and arguably, monopoly is at the root of the problems with burdensome and ineffective government bureaucracy.
I've had Uber drivers say not to bother using the app at LAX. They need to get a separate permit from airport officials to pick up the passenger, so it's at minimum a ~30 minute ordeal to arrange pick-up.
Uber isn't right for every use-case; especially pick-ups from regulated areas where taxi stands are already prevalent.
I always use Uber when arriving at SFO now. I know the pricing ahead of time (Uber does flat-rate between SF and SFO). I don't have to worry about having cash on me or getting a disapproving glare when I ask about using a credit card. I don't have to even think about calculating a tip. If my driver is rude or unsafe or anything negative, I have an easy avenue to report that without having to make a phone call, wait on hold for who knows how long, and then push my complaint into the black hole. If I'm especially tired and want to treat myself, I can order an Uber Black instead of an UberX. Hell, most UberX cars are nicer than most cabs I've seen.
The only downside is that there's a short wait if I don't time the ride request just right. Since there are tons of taxis at the airport, I wouldn't have to wait taking a taxi. But the above more than makes up for this point.
Uber has higher-quality cars and you get to rate the drivers so they tend to be a little more polite and professional. Not that taxis can't have high-quality cars and drivers but it's more of a crap shoot.
Well, the author's "palm-to-head moment" was going TO the airport. But even getting picked up at the airport can be a bit nicer in a town car. No line, no wondering if they take credit card, no dirty car, no tip, etc.
Yeah, there's just that little price gouging problem during times of scarcity. I think they took a big PR hit when the cost of rides skyrocketed during recent storms. Old style regulated cab companies can't do that.
The thing is the alternative to the "gouging" isn't "lower priced rides for everyone", it's "most people can't get a hold of a cab no matter how badly they want one".
The "gouging" has three big effects: (1) More drivers willing to deal with the weather for the increased pay, so more people can get out of the storm; (2) A (highly imperfect) way to prioritize the people who most want/need the service. A person who really, really, really needs to move quickly has a way to credibly express that preference over someone who would kind of like an Uber, but could do without - by being willing to pay the higher rate. (3), or course, is more money for Uber. (1) and (2) are very good things, and I'm indifferent to (3).
"Gouging" is generally only a thing when there's a monopoly, which Uber doesn't have on transportation. People can look up Uber rates and decide if it's still worth it to them to go Uber or take something else.
I got hit by a price modifier during my last trip using Uber, but I didn't (and still don't) think gouging is the right word. I figure it's supply and demand modifier. They can't change supply, but demand has gone up for some reason (storms, in your scenario and mine, actually). Some people aren't willing to pay more, so it curbs demand, while incentivizing drivers who may not wish to drive in inclement weather to stay out. Of course, it's really just taking advantage of a situation to Uber's benefit, but I still think "gouging" is too strong of a word for it.
Price gouging is supply and demand. It's just supply and demand in ways that seem particularly unfair, like withholding food to make a profit.
As noted elsewhere in this thread, the alternative is a shortage—that is, not being able to acquire it for any price. Wanting to make a good or service unavailable to anyone at any price is... odd.
Surge pricing lures more drivers to the road because of the extra profit. More passengers are moved with surge pricing than without it. You're saying that it's more "fair" for fewer people to get the rides they want?
Laws against price gouging are almost always against the public interest.
Is there evidence for this actually happening, or is it still just a hypothesis? I don't remember seeing any evidence for "more drivers drove during the storm/on NYE than would have without increasing prices" the last few times it came up.
Business isn't fair, and not all services are targeted at all consumers. Rates stabilize to what the market will bear. If the $texas higher that Uber was during peak times was the norm, Uber wouldn't have business. If it was lower, cars would never be available. This is just an adjustment that they specifically call out. Besides, this is a black car service we're talking about and not public transit, and even the bus costs more during some times of the day.
Also, it's not an overall shortage. Take San Francisco for example: there are lots of public transportation options, yellow cabs, and Uber clones, forgetting walking or bicycles. What's in shortage? Only Uber.
It's not gouging when there's competition - all of the other ways of getting around (cabs, public transit, friends who have cars, other ride sharing/providing services) are as available as they were previously. If Uber were the _only_ way to get around, then it could _potentially_ be gouging.
Regulated cab companies simply sold out during the snowstorm -- there were more people asking for rides, and fewer drivers willing to drive.
Uber's approach solved both problems: filter down the list of ride requests to those who really need to go, and provide an incentive for drivers to drive during the really nasty weather.
Uber is a luxury good, and the price floats with supply/demand. There's nothing wrong with that, and no one is entitled to use their service.
Have you tried getting a regular cab ride during a snowstorm? At the beginning of this year it took me three hours to get a cab after Boston got a few inches of snow.
You have 10 cars and 20 customers that want them. If you think you can write a "who really needs it" algorithm that, I dunno, asks them if they're going to visit their sick grandmother and then has a human balance that against getting to class on time or something, then by all means make that product.
In the meanwhile, price is the way the rest of the world works.
I will accept Uber's argument when they zero their own commission (or perhaps lower it to whatever it costs to keep the lights on) whenever surge pricing is in effect. Then they have the ability to say, "we're also suffering here". Right now, they make more money when surge pricing is in effect and, since I don't have a view into the algorithms, I can't rule out that they more aggressively surge-price than is reasonable. In fact, I'd believe it to be almost certain that they do.
It's the fact that Uber profits from misfortune (not surge pricing itself) that is making everyone hate them.
Ultimately it's about trade-offs, not absolutes. Is that 5x price hike saving me (compared to how long getting a cab would take) two hours, or 20 seconds? That would be worth knowing. If it's 2 hours, the supply-and-demand argument makes sense: apparently, that's how high the rates must go to compensate drivers for the unpleasantness. If it's 20 seconds, then that's a case of me getting screwed for a minor convenience priced unreasonably.
"If it's 20 seconds, then that's a case of me getting screwed for a minor convenience priced unreasonably."
Wow, you must be REALLY fun to stand behind in line at the coffee shop. "WADDYA MEAN $3 FOR THIS COFFEE? I COULD HAVE MADE IT FOR 10 CENTS! WHY ARE YOU SCREWING ME?"
For reference, "getting screwed" would be what was happening if surge pricing was applied when you got out of the cab without your knowledge - not a advertised-up-front price that you don't agree with.
Uber's justification for surge pricing is that the waits for cabs would be unacceptably long without it. If it's cutting hours off what the wait time would be without surge pricing, then that claim is correct. If it's a 20-second difference then a reasonable person would disagree.
I'm confused as to why Uber's justification matters. If surge pricing seems unjust to you, don't pay surge prices. Use a competitor, like taxis or your bike.
When there are few/no alternatives, or the cost (in terms of money, time, effort, anything) is significantly larger, it is a lazy argument. But that isn't the case here. Uber is a convenience service, and there are easily-found alternatives to it.
Surge pricing does two things: it decreases demand ("don't use it" as you say) and increases supply (by encouraging more drivers to work). If demand is not decreased, e.g. by increasing costs ("don't use it"), then services will be denied ("can't use it") because you can't pull something out of nothing!
Given that you don't believe in the principle of supply and demand (or you think it is extremely lazy, as you said). How would you balance demand with supply in extreme situations? What is the non-lazy solution? I guess we could try:
* Force more drivers to drive at the normal price to match demand (the totalitarian approach)
* Ensure that there are enough drivers to meet peak demand through subsidies to get them through normal demand times.
The phrase is normally used as an argument to "quit complaining". In fact, complaining is a perfectly valid behavior and a key way to influence other consumers as well as service providers.
I don't mind surge pricing. I think ubers implementation can be very excessive. And I don't like that they don't scale down their commission or their smug attitude on the whole thing.
But that doesn't matter. Uber provides a service, at a price they set. Those who don't want to pay the price can just find an alternative. It's not as if their mission is to provide some kind of community service.
I'll also echo the author's comments that Uber opened up parts of DC that I would have otherwise avoided including Georgetown, Adams Morgan, and the Eastern end of H street / Northeast DC.
At the time Adams Morgan was getting more parking but I really didn't enjoy driving up there and getting a taxi was still spotty at certain times.
I don't live there any more so I don't know if the H street light rail is operational yet but I can say that I never would have frequented Dangerously Delicious Pies without Uber.
As a previous working Washingtonian I wish Uber the best and if nothing else am happy for the change they are driving. (Pun intended ;)