It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Uber have been kicked out of London

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 04:50 AM
link   
a reply to: slider1982

Oil and water don't mix.

Uber taxis started in a weakly regulated US market, and have gone on to exploit regulation weakness elsewhere in the world.

The Uber model works where supply - rather than quality - is the primary form of regulation. Where quality is regulated, as in London ('the knowledge', vehicle standards, license infrastructure, etc.), the Uber proposition is severely weakened.

What remains is, in economic terms, simply a movement in the 'production possibility curve'. That is, an evolution away from illicit 'taxing' by criminals of cabs for using profitable pitches, to an app based control of market access, and terms of access.

All in all it would have been a bad decision to licence Uber, rather than simply a good one not to.

Perhaps George Osbourne (ex UK Chancellor) and David Cameron (ex-UK Prime Minister) were not such wise hirlings on the part of Uber.




posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Seems like protectionist policy against an American company.. I have a hard time believing Uber drivers are less safe than normal cab drivers based on experience and the fact that you have the drivers name in your phone after you get dropped off.
I think lots of migrants drive taxis but have a harder time getting involved with Uber. So maybe it helps increase migrant wages and assimilation - which is a good thing IMO.



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Doxanoxa
a reply to: slider1982

Oil and water don't mix.

Uber taxis started in a weakly regulated US market, and have gone on to exploit regulation weakness elsewhere in the world.

The Uber model works where supply - rather than quality - is the primary form of regulation. Where quality is regulated, as in London ('the knowledge', vehicle standards, license infrastructure, etc.), the Uber proposition is severely weakened.

What remains is, in economic terms, simply a movement in the 'production possibility curve'. That is, an evolution away from illicit 'taxing' by criminals of cabs for using profitable pitches, to an app based control of market access, and terms of access.

All in all it would have been a bad decision to licence Uber, rather than simply a good one not to.

Perhaps George Osbourne (ex UK Chancellor) and David Cameron (ex-UK Prime Minister) were not such wise hirlings on the part of Uber.


Uber is a successful business which provides a great service. That’s why people use it and prefer it to normal cabs. Governments disallowing people to use services they like seems like encroachment on freedom to me.



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Uber makes money by dodging taxes, paying poorly and undercutting properly regulated taxi firms, making things less safe an worse for everyone.



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Uber makes money by dodging taxes, paying poorly and undercutting properly regulated taxi firms, making things less safe an worse for everyone.


100% with my only caveat being Uber don't actually make any money. They have lost billions and can only expand the way they have due to massive deep pockets provided by venture capital.

A cynic might suggest that plan is to establish monopoly position then rack up prices.



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Doxanoxa
a reply to: slider1982

Oil and water don't mix.

Uber taxis started in a weakly regulated US market, and have gone on to exploit regulation weakness elsewhere in the world.

The Uber model works where supply - rather than quality - is the primary form of regulation. Where quality is regulated, as in London ('the knowledge', vehicle standards, license infrastructure, etc.), the Uber proposition is severely weakened.

What remains is, in economic terms, simply a movement in the 'production possibility curve'. That is, an evolution away from illicit 'taxing' by criminals of cabs for using profitable pitches, to an app based control of market access, and terms of access.

All in all it would have been a bad decision to licence Uber, rather than simply a good one not to.

Perhaps George Osbourne (ex UK Chancellor) and David Cameron (ex-UK Prime Minister) were not such wise hirlings on the part of Uber.



Uber started because of an over regulated market, not a weakly regulated one. Taxi services is a highly regulated market to eliminate competition resulting in poor quality and service. This is what makes Uber so popular. The cars are nicer. The service is better and more efficient. Uber was able to exploit the general weaknesses of the Taxi market.

Uber was able to put online the "gypsy cab" market where people would give rides to others because taxi services ignored the geography.

The were able to expand quickly with the backing of deep pockets which made it harder for the taxi cartels to put pressure on their political minions who know the regulations are just there for the benefit of the taxi cartels.

Granted, taxi driver's in London a bit more professional than the typical American taxi driver, but the economics are still the same.

The only time I ever get a cab these days is if I am on a street corner and decide at that every moment to take a cab and one just happens to be where I can hail them to stop. Otherwise, I use uber. I've never had a bad Uber experience. The cars have always been clean and new. The driver's have always been pleasant. Most importantly, they have been far more convenient than a cab.



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot



A cynic might suggest that plan is to establish monopoly position then rack up prices.

That's not cynicism, it's mostly the truth.

Usually the plan is to enter a new market & cut the prices until you have a large share of the market or until your competition collapses from the price war. It doesn't matter if you're running a deficit for that time period because that was already planned and budgeted for. But once your competition starts collapsing, you can either keep pushing until they're bankrupt or buy them in a merger (or both). If you merge with them, you can save massive amounts of money by eliminating any of the redundancies and your merged company now has an even larger share of the market.

You don't usually start turning a profit until later, when you're the dominant company in that market or when you can profit from the economies of scale. And once you're the dominant company, you can start raising prices because there's no competition to undercut you... until the next well funded startup comes in & tries to take your spot by using a similar business plan.

edit on 23-9-2017 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Excellent decision on the part of London Council. A place where good decisions have been somewhat lacking for the past decade or two.

Hopefully the company finds itself out of the country altogether.



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: ScepticScot



A cynic might suggest that plan is to establish monopoly position then rack up prices.

That's not cynicism, it's mostly the truth.

Usually the plan is to enter a new market & cut the prices until you have a large share of the market or until your competition collapses from the price war. It doesn't matter if you're running a deficit for that time period because that was already planned and budgeted for. But once your competition starts collapsing, you can either keep pushing until they're bankrupt or buy them in a merger (or both). If you merge with them, you can save massive amounts of money by eliminating any of the redundancies and your merged company now has an even larger share of the market.

You don't usually start turning a profit until later, when you're the dominant company in that market or when you can profit from the economies of scale. And once you're the dominant company, you can start raising prices because there's no competition to undercut you... until the next well funded startup comes in & tries to take your spot by using a similar business plan.


That is very much what they are trying to do and it makes sense strategically. The company that gains the most share is who is most likely going to be used in the future. There is only so much room in the market place for this type of service and the winner is who has the most drivers and customers. It is kind of like Facebook. A new entrant would have a hard time because everyone is already on Facebook, so convincing them to leave Facebook would be difficult even if the product/service was better. See Google circles...

With that said, I've felt like Uber didn't charge enough for the services / product provided. As a frequent user, I'd pay more...



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Uber makes money by dodging taxes, paying poorly and undercutting properly regulated taxi firms, making things less safe an worse for everyone.


100% with my only caveat being Uber don't actually make any money. They have lost billions and can only expand the way they have due to massive deep pockets provided by venture capital.

A cynic might suggest that plan is to establish monopoly position then rack up prices.



yeah, colour me cynical too

edit on 08pSat, 23 Sep 2017 10:18:08 -050020172017-09-23T10:18:08-05:00kAmerica/Chicago30000000k by SprocketUK because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Health

originally posted by: Doxanoxa
a reply to: slider1982

Oil and water don't mix.

Uber taxis started in a weakly regulated US market, and have gone on to exploit regulation weakness elsewhere in the world.

The Uber model works where supply - rather than quality - is the primary form of regulation. Where quality is regulated, as in London ('the knowledge', vehicle standards, license infrastructure, etc.), the Uber proposition is severely weakened.

What remains is, in economic terms, simply a movement in the 'production possibility curve'. That is, an evolution away from illicit 'taxing' by criminals of cabs for using profitable pitches, to an app based control of market access, and terms of access.

All in all it would have been a bad decision to licence Uber, rather than simply a good one not to.

Perhaps George Osbourne (ex UK Chancellor) and David Cameron (ex-UK Prime Minister) were not such wise hirlings on the part of Uber.


Uber is a successful business which provides a great service. That’s why people use it and prefer it to normal cabs. Governments disallowing people to use services they like seems like encroachment on freedom to me.


Nah it's a parasitic foreign company that is destroying local competition through it's horrible business practices.

It's business model is basically to force a monopoly through a race to the bottom.

We already have enough parasitic foreign companies around ballsing up the country without Uber throwing their hat into the ring.



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 12:31 PM
link   
The stated reason was a public safety issue due to assaults by drivers, but London cab drivers are on record as assaulting more people over the same time period.

Thus obviously, this is not really about Uber being unsafe compared to cabs and it's certainly not about saving the black cab. It's pretty obvious that the Brits will simply be backing a different app based rideshare champion.

So which rideshare app company is London going to favor instead? It's probably one that already has a presence in London and so an easy guess for somebody who lives there.

What do you want to bet that Mayor Khan already has an under the table deal with somebody? Alternatively, this is just a shakedown and Uber will eventually pay whatever Khan's kickback demand price is.
edit on 23-9-2017 by 11andrew34 because: sp



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

I didn't write from personal experience but rather research. There is nothing to suggest the US taxi market was or is regulated on anything other than a volume of licences basis. See the link below.

I reject your comment regarding the level of training required of UK versus YS drivers. UK drivers are vastly more trained and examined than there counterparts in the US.

The regulated taxi cab business in the UK is predicated on the notion of 'public service' and pre dates public transport, I believe.

In the US there is no difference between Uber and a Cab Co. That is a weakness of the US not a triumph of Uber.

Uber is not a business model with legs in any regulated market. If it were, we would see a viable brand extension into child care, which I don't think is on the agenda in any country - though I maybe wrong.

en.m.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: 11andrew34

That is very possible. The level of corruption that goes on at mayoral level in London is insane. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Khan has another deal lined up.



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Ohanka

I once had to get surgery for wisdom teeth removal early in the morning. I called a taxi company the night before and ordered a cab (before Uber). The first cab did not come within an hour, so I called another taxi company. The first taxi came about 30 minutes later - so an hour and a half later when I had to call for it the night before, lol.. With Uber I can be 100% confident I will have an uber driver at my location within 10 minutes of opening the app. And they will be driving a nicer car, be held accountable through a rating system, and it is SO MUCH cheaper.
Anything I said there wrong?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join