The ride-hailing app, which expanded into Europe five years ago, has come under attack from established taxi companies and some EU countries because it is not bound by strict local licensing and safety rules which apply to some of its competitors.
Uber’s dispute with Barcelona’s main taxi operator, which in 2014 accused it of running an illegal taxi service via its UberPOP service, is seen as a landmark case which could lead the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) to label it a transport company rather than a digital service.
That is the crux of the argument—is Uber a transport or digital company? Arguments can be made for both sides. I haven’t used a taxi since Uber and Lyft started offering their service. All the legal arguments aside, the app-based services are much better, friendlier, and professional than any taxi service I’ve ever used.
I think it’s a transport company. Nobody can physically get from point A to point B digitally. Everyone must be physically transported.
Hailing the Ubers and Lyft drivers happens digitally, of course. But there is nothing stopping the traditional taxi companies, e.g. Yellow Cab from using similar hailing technology.
And, if and when the traditional taxi companies start using apps on mobile devices to hail their cabs, then what is the difference? What is the one difference between Uber and Yellow Cab in that scenario? Licensing. Not saying that the mafia-like licensing scheme is either good or bad, but there it is.
This is like the Pro Life and Pro Choice groups arguing when life truly begins. Each side argues as if the definition is rational and clear as day. In fact, each side simply makes arguments to fit its own interests.
We all do, in any circonstance.
it is called argument, and defending one´s interest.
If Uber pays drivers to transport customers, then they are more than just a digital app. If they were the middleman and only made money connecting cars to people then they might defend not being a taxi service. Similar to AirBNB not being a hotel.
And why courts decide the legalities
Precisely. Let’s say the local taxi company has a great app, just as good as Uber or Lyft. Does that mean they’re now suddenly exempt from the laws and regulations they’ve been working under? IF not, why should Uber and Lyft be different?
Honestly, it’s cute to watch the digerati turn logic into pretzels in silly attempts to try to make distinctions like this.
Here in Manhattan borough of New York City, Uber is definitely a transport company skirting the regulations and licensing that yellow cabs must follow. If I were a medallion owner, I would be pissed. On top of that, I have seen no evidence that Uber is any better here. I can order a taxi with an app, pay with Apple Pay, and see the ID of the taxi driver. And there is an agency to handle complaints, not a private company that disavows all responsibility.
Uber is a bullshit business. It is a Taxi service, and is hiding that fact to avoid all the regulations that a Taxi service must have. Ride sharing used to mean that people would get rides to use things like the carpool lanes on the freeway. Heck, there is even a place by my work where people wait and then get picked up by fellow people who want to do this. That is ride sharing.
Uber is a taxi service and should abide by the rules that taxi services must follow. Period.
Uber is not a taxi company, but it is not a “ride-sharing” company either.
I just got back from a trip to Italy. The taxi drivers were all as polite as could be. But there were two types of “taxis”. There were the real taxis, lined up at airports and train stations and whatnot. And there were non-taxi people calling themselves taxis. Some would accost you directly and some used hawkers, and they’d take you to a private car, and they were pretty much guaranteed to rip you off. Took me awhile to figure it out. I’ve never used Uber yet, and here in the US, I’ve never needed a taxi since I have a car and a wide circle of friends and family. But in Italy, at least, the taxi people I’ve seen didn’t warrant any criticism.
No. Many people actually do try to consider the full intricacy of a question fairly. StruckPaper is talking about people being excessively partisan in how they frame the argument. Being partisan and dishonest is not a necessary part of argument.
I agree with this argument, insofar as what Uber is. But I wonder if there’s actually also another problem. There’s a lot of regulation and licensing involved for taxis. Being in a (different) heavily regulated industry, I can tell you that there’s an enormous difference between the often laudable idea of a set of regulations and the almost universally bad reality of its implementation. And regulation & licensing is often a means by which industry use government as the strong arm for anticompetitive practices. Maybe the answer isn’t 100% to bring Uber into the world of the taxi services; maybe the answer is to allow the taxi services to exist in a less rigidly regulated framework. Personally I don’t know. I still haven’t used Uber; it seems very unreal to me. And one of my assistants uses it all the time. The only guys in Italy who ripped me off were the ones driving private, unmetered cars. None of them (taxi or private) were rude, except in the sense that ripping somebody off feels a lot like rudeness.
In my opinion Uber is clearly a transport company.
Uber is one of the most fascinating post-iPhone start ups. The idea and technology is just brilliant and one has to wonder why taxi companies were so late to embrace and adopt the future. That Uber saw an opportunity while the establishment slept means they deserve their success.
There is a flip side to the positive I have said. While Uber might be a great representation of the start up culture. It is also a great representation of the horrible unchecked capitalist system we have in place. They have built a fortune and a position of incredible strength by putting all the expenses on their drivers allowing them to take majority of the profits with next to no expenses. We can also see that Uber intends to race towards and attempt to arrive first at a future where cars drive themselves. When that happens then all these drivers who invested in their vehicles will get dropped like yesterday’s trash.
You might say this just the natural way of progression. It probably is, but we are rapidly approaching a future where people without work will greatly outnumber people with work. So seeing a company reduce employs to freelance contractors knowing they will be dropped in maybe 5 years is a little heartbreaking.
As opposed to a non-regulated “competitive” system with collusion (see Airline Industry). The taxi system here did not need Uber to make it better or cheaper. The problem here is that there were not enough taxis in the outer boroughs and it took way too long to institute taxi hailing apps. The medallion fees are way too high for the driver/owner as well.
When a technology or business model disrupts an industry, and gives the tradition workers in that industry no recourse to modernize effectively, you get Donald Trump.
have a nice day with that.
Except Uber and Lyft are wrong.
I agree. I think the crux of the matter is the pricing model. If Uber charged drivers a flat fee (per customer, monthly, etc), they could more credibly claim they are a digital company. Adobe doesn’t get a cut of what graphic designers’ make on their software.
Aesop covered that well. “He that is neither one thing nor the other has no friends.”
Disruption changes things in unforeseen ways. Some gain, some lose. The reaction or backlash is inevitable, and indifference to it, as you say, brings its own consequences.
I did not say such thing.
Only that All is about defending ones interests, subjective as it is.
Like voodoo economics, people taxes goes for the rich ( not people with fresh/job creation potential ideas, but the rich ), hoping that they will invest in productive job creations. It is a lie, never worked, but it is the base policy of the current Republican party.
Go tell them it is crap policy, they believe in it, for them it is not crap.
After all 2016 is a postTruth year, isn´t it?
Trow them in a ring.
A democracy is sustained by the rule of law.
We all should abide.
Disruption does NOT disregard the law.
Disruption within the law, fairness is what people want.
Health care you meant?
How many will lost their insurance?
The beautiful thing in a democracy is that people pay for their stupidity.
Customers are the best friends!