What a great question. I know people that hate Uber, but I’m not convinced they actually know why. I think it’s probably the company’s business practices and the fact they have been creepy, more than anything.
Why do we hate Uber?
What a great question. I know people that hate Uber, but I’m not convinced they actually know why. I think it’s probably the company’s business practices and the fact they have been creepy, more than anything.
I don’t use Uber, and I don’t plan to. I only occasionally take taxi’s in Washington D.C., but when I have, the experience has been, without exception, good to fair. Still, my sample size is so small that I am more than willing to believe that my experience is a significant outlier. Still, I hate Uber.
I hate Uber because of the subjective air of superiority that surrounded it’s customer base in the early days of the service (that is, at least, how I perceived the people who I saw tweeting about Uber three years ago). I hate Uber because the company is trying to usurp the lawful authority of my local taxi commissions, and replace them with the authority of an unaccountable corporation based, at best, in some other state (if not in some other country. I don’t know that Uber is incorporated in the U.S.A. They could just as easily be incorporated in the Bahamas, for all I know). And, yes, I hate Uber because their CEO, and apparently many of his immediate reports, are sexist, objectivist, amoral, creepy, scoff-law dirt-bags.
So I ask you, is there any better reason for hating a company than because it’s business practices are creepy, offensive, and just plain illegal? I can certainly think of some worse reasons.
It seems a lot of tech bloggers and analysts recently have been suggesting we give Uber a second chance. And a third chance. And a fourth chance. And a fifth chance…
Seriously, they can keep screwing up and continue behaving in a totally awful way and people will still keep defend them.
I hate UBER because it moves in the same realm Payday Lenders occupy… they offer a little extra money to the working poor while siphoning a usury level of those folk’s resources to pad their bottom line. Jim, imagine UBER GUITARS for people who want to play a guitar, you get ‘paid’ to lug your beautiful guitars to strangers who play them any which way. They might get scuffed or strings get stretched and abused. You have to pay for new strings and fix any problems. UBER GUITARS makes a profit on your time & your guitars while some folk get to pay under the market price for the rental and act like they’re doing you a favor by using your guitars.
What part of slimy are crazy people supposed to like?
Some of the laws and regulations that govern traditional taxi service are there to protect an overly-complacent guild, to be sure.
Many of the laws and regulations that govern traditional taxi service were enacted to protect customers and all citizens against abuses documented in the past. For example, refusing to pick up customers in the wrong ethnic neighborhood.
Uber /of course/ is only breaking the first kind of laws, not the second. Of course. And they are perfectly justified in believing themselves above the rule of law, just as other elements of our ruling class have done over the past 30 years.
I’ve never used Uber and I rarely use cabs but friends who do use cabs a lot are always complaining about the condition of the vehicles and the attitude of the drivers. Cab companies have a virtual monopoly in a very controlled industry so there is really a place for an Uber scheme.
The company certainly made mistakes and that likely comes because the’ve had to be aggressive every step of the way. At least they have created a new model that will let similar companies step in.
“Maybe we hate Uber for its ultra-competitive, ethics-dodging business tactics. Uber staff have been caught in a variety of ethically compromising positions, including deliberately calling up drivers from competitors like Lyft and then canceling the job at the last minute, or catching the rides and offering rival drivers a pile of cash to switch allegiances right then, right there. “
That pretty much sums it up for me. FFS, tech CEOs don’t have to be Mohandas Ghandi or Tenzin Gyatso, but don’t we already have enough Larry Ellisons, Mark Pincuses, and Dov Charney’s in the business world?!
Harassment, misogyny, assault, price gauging, exploitation. Need I keep going?
I agree that the way the taxi industry is regulated almost everywhere is terrible, and we should change that. However, allowing over-funded companies run by over-grown adolescent sociopaths to ignore regulation isn’t an acceptable solution.
i agree that the cab companies are awful. in my city they routinely refuse fares, lack the ability to schedule pickups, wont give ETAs when calling for one, and refused to use credit cards until forced by the city (and still sometimes lie about them not working). they are operating w/ 60 years behind here….at least Uber will force them to try to improve their operations some.
their CEO seems like a slimeball jerk. getting revenge on journalists? get real.
Isn’t standardized pricing part of the second? I would call surge pricing a violation of that.
They are unethical. Their CEO is a self-entitled jerk. They don’t want legal controls that protect the public. They want their cake, and they want to to eat it too.
Whatever good they do, such as them forcing improvements in the working conditions for taxi drivers to compete in today’s world, it is offset by their unbridled greed.
Not saying that Uber is or isn’t creepy, but some critical thinking in these situations is usually a good idea.
Uber business model seems to be fundamentally based on breaking numerous laws and violating numerous regulations in multiple jurisdictions, then daring enforcement agencies to do something about it. Is that a “business model” that our society should encourage?
Sometimes the best way of changing a bad law is to violate it, and have your day in court.
Laws that artificially create cartels such as many big city have for taxi services are one such type of law.
“They don’t want legal controls that protect the public”
Dubious claim that the taxi medallion laws protect the public. They protect the established taxi businesses from competition.
By the same account though, Uber is beginning to lobby for newer laws that also exclude competition, (so long as they are on the inside). So Uber isn’t exactly pure on this either.
Good for you! Not wanting to join a lynch mob doesn’t necessarily mean you are a defender.
I’m not talking about medallion laws. I’m talking about laws that protect passengers from disreputable unregulated taxi and taxi-like services. Such as, they can’t refuse to take you where you want to go. If you want to go to a bad part of town, they have to provide you transportation to that part of town. The public has to be able to rely on taxi services that treat everyone equally. That they don’t doesn’t mean they shouldn’t.
They can’t overcharge you for a trip. For example, the cost of a taxi ride from JFK to downtown Manhattan is a specific price that can’t be exceed. Unlike unregulated Uber that charges upwards of $1,000 in high-demand times such as holidays. That way passengers know what they’re going to pay.
Uber doesn’t want to follow the rules that protect consumers. Medallions are a whole different thing.
They are not subjecting journalists to the “same thing.” They are trying to scare journalists away from telling the truth about Uber.
Same methods if not same intent.
Does Uber say how much the ride will be ahead of time? Or is it a mystery discovered after they bill you? If they are up-front about their fees, why can’t they charge what they want?
If a service is in high demand and low supply (like holidays) then charging more is an appropriate response. It will help encourage more supply, and the pricing signals help consumers realize that they might be better off traveling during a time services are in lesser demand. (Supply and Demand driving pricing and vice versa… economics 101)
Should movie theaters be prohibited from having more expensive evening shows compared to matinees? (I know we consider that a discount for matinees, but that’s just the arbitrary setting of which category is the “normal”.
Most pricing rules also prohibit “under-charging”. In practice, this is what most price controls are in existence for. If I understand correctly, Uber is promoted as a bit of a premium service over taxis, so it probably doesn’t run afoul of that side of things.
And being “regulated” does not make a service more reputable. Especially when the regulated have the political connections to help make the regulations tilt the playing field in their favor. (case in point, look at the banking industry)