This seems kinda odd, because one of the main plus points for me is that Uber worked somewhat internationally. I use Lyft only, but that was a key differentiator for me actually.
As a more interesting question, is there any difference between saying SoftBank is competing with Uber and that SoftBank has hedged against an Uber investment? I feel like the latter may be more the framing of these investments.
Same here. In the States I mostly use Lyft, but internationally it's easier to just use the Uber app instead of first figuring out which other options are available. In many cases installing the local apps doesn't even work because they are limited to their own local app stores.
One of the next steps for those companies is probably to get roaming agreements with each other: When I'm in a country where, e.g., Uber doesn't operate I'd still like to be able to use the Uber app to order cars from whatever local companies Uber has an agreement with.
The problem with Uber/Didi in China is that the driver will Always call to discuss your pickup location in Mandarin, which can be difficult enough face-face.
The further complication is that Didi only accepts patent through a China bank account. As a result, you usually need a local friend to book your ride, even if you pay cash.
Didi has been accepting payment via credit card for at least a few months now. It can be a pain to set up and doesn't always work but at least it's possible now.
The success of Didi in China has been interesting. They have largely co-opted the taxi pools in Beijing/Shanghai/Shenzhen by allowing you to bid/pay the driver to pick up riders. It has changed dramatically in only a few years.
Although locals tell me it is illegal you can wait over an hour and a hundred green-lit taxis before one will stop to pick-up someone without an app that is willing to bid a few yuan. Train stations and airports have cues where you can still get a ride, but don't count on hailing a car in the evening even in a busy downtown district.
As a result they control all of the taxi business and all of the ride-shares. I must say not having to transact in cash is nice.
This highlights why many governments dislike ride hailing services.
As riding hailing becomes dominant (with their rise only being enabled by being able to skirt regulations) it creates a transportation system where one needs a mobile phone to participate. This excludes low income persons and persons with low technical literacy.
The way that ride hailing slices away only part of the population and ignores the rest is highly undesirable for governments which are required to provide transportation solutions for all persons.
In my city low income people are technologically literate enough to have smartphones.
The poor are excluded from traditional taxis as well, whereas at least ride-hailing can pool people together to lower prices. In the future we might see larger van formats operating like buses with ad-hoc routing.
I personally favor subsidized public transit options, and don't think ride hailing apps discourage that any more than taxis. If anything, ride hailing apps help transition people away from car ownership and into mixed use transit.
In the extreme situation that these services somehow killed traditional public transit, we'd figure it out. This is not a hard problem to solve. Imagine an iPad inside a bus stop.
This makes sense. I don't think Uber would survive without scaling down its ambitions. Sooner or later, they have to exit unprofitable cities and leave those markets for smaller players. Uber isn't in the same league of business as Google is. It can't scale without bringing range of issues while profitability still remaining out of sight.
If that holds true, Softbank has managed to have a stake in every major app-based-taxi company of the future.
Yes, but scale of countries like Bahrain doesn't make a dent. Also, in each of those countries Uber has a competition that is usually more successful than Uber. That's not true in Brazil and Mexico and that's why Didi is rushing there!
India is ripe for Ride sharing cabs. In major metros, OLA (specifically OLA Select) is the ride of choice for middle class youth. With free wifi and one hour work commutes common, the ola ride becomes time to get emails and secretarial work taken care of.
Didi isn’t in South, Central, or North America yet, so talking about how successful they are doing there isn’t very meaningful. Didi will also face competition in those countries as well when and if they decide to enter those markets, not to mention they’ll have to aggressively rebrand (even their name might have to change).
Uber's relative failure in the highly deregulated Swedish taxi market to me indicates that their competitive advantage is avoiding regulations. So it's not clear why "to much regulations" would be a problem for them.
Over-here in Romania Uber is also scoring it big in cities like Bucharest or Cluj, almost all of the middle-class people between 20 and 40 years of age now use it, they've almost all stopped taking taxis (seen as too dirty). I'm one of the few exceptions in my circle of friends (I'm in my late 30s) who still uses taxis taken directly off the street or by actually calling a phone number, because I don't want another company tracking my every move (it's enough that Apple and most probably Google are doing it).
I fervently hope it's the US only. I will talk to my MLA and show him a nice collection of news about Uber in hope they will not allow them to operate their scam in Vancouver.
How is it a scam? It gave me a ride to the airport for $26 bucks. I took a cab once and it cost over $50 bucks. My need some tweaks here and therem but overall its a great service for customers
The missing $24 were health insurance, car insurance, pension payments for the driver etc. All not being paid.
Uber is no ride share service, it is a test project to figure out if modern society will accept a larger lower income working class without any social security, and that is what all investment firms bet on.
> The missing $24 were health insurance, car insurance, pension payments for the driver etc.
Car insurance, maybe; car companies don't pay health insurance or pensions either for their drivers, who are also characterized as contractors rather than employees.
That depends on the country. In Europe transportation is regulated, and fees are higher and also arrive at the drivers, since they actually have pensions etc.
Meaning Uber eliminates basically the most prominent achievement of the working class with its service. Turning everyone into an independent contractor eliminates social security. Swiftly.
The driver uses that money to pay for his own health insurance and retirement. Contrary to your post, Uber provided me with commercial vehicle insurance when I was driving for them.
That is the problem here. Employed work means sharing the duties of social security between company and employee. Uber moves their payments on your shoulders.
And that point is exactly what makes up Ubers' valuation. Ignoring the questionable ethics of that this should be reconsidered though because comparing to the technical value of their service they are requiring way too many engineers to deliver their services, which is a considerable risk if they grow any further.
There is no duty for a company to provide social security for contractors. Same way as an Uber contractor has no responsibility to drive a certain amount of time or at certain hours.
Additionally taxis are regulated so as to create a reasonably universally publicly accessible transportation system. That is that you can call a cab and it will pick you up and you will have an understanding of the price you will pay.
In an Uber/Lyft ride hailing system cabs can only be hailed via an app, and will only accept the most profitable rides. Surge pricing may also make the ride only affordable to the relatively wealthy. In such a system, low income persons in relatively remote areas lose transportation options.
Part of the extra price of cabs is the price of creating a transportation system that is accessible to everyone, not just the most wealthy.
Uber and Lyft actually succeeded in creating an accessible system that everyone could afford. You have it all backwards. The common person can actually afford Uber, not cabs.
A button that calls you an Uber is as easy to build as a button that calls the taxi dispatcher for you, but I don’t think the elderly appreciate the taxi experience of demanding cash because they’re pretending the card reader broke.
(You can already get a voice assistant to book a ride for you too.)
Ask your grandma etc if they would use that. Anyone above 50 these days will probably not give you a nice answer to having to use smartphones or voice assistants that usually understand less than a newborn child.
As someone around that age get off your virtue signaling high horse. People in their fifties today helped build most of the tech you use every day, but even if they hadn’t your implicit ageism levied in service of an accessibility rant is a level of irony that just can’t be ignored.
Lol, where I live, the idea of finding any cab, even if you knew the cab company and called them, was laughable. Uber at least will come, and will give you an estimate beforehand.
The fear that I've heard described by politicians in my city is that uber drivers could position themselves in areas where they know from experience they will be most profitable (eg. dense downtown core) while avoiding areas that over time are not as profitable (eg. sparse outer areas). This fact, coupled with the fact that they are not obligated to travel to a certain area to receive a fare, means that certain areas could receive less reliable service as drivers chase high profit areas and are able to ignore others.
Your politicians are lying to you because they are paid off by the taxi monopoly. Service everywhere increases because of Uber and Lyft. The behavior you describe is exactly what taxis do. If you look at how things improved in all cities, service improved by orders of magnitude. In NYC, service to all 5 boroughs improved dramatically because of Uber and Lyft, because taxis would only service manhattan.
Before you follow blindly what your politicians are telling you, do some research and educate yourself first. Don’t rely on headlines and word of mouth.
Uber drivers aren't obligated to accept hail requests.
As Uber gains dominance over regulated taxis (which are obligated to serve everyone), the level of accessibility to transportation in certain generally unprofitable areas may decrease.
Uber is (in my opinion) a scam, and (objectively) not ride sharing.
'Ride sharing' does not even begin to describe Uber. There is no sharing going on whatsoever. It's a taxi company that just ignores the law on principle to gain an advantage, while also spending VC money like crazy in a very illegally anticompetitive manner.
I don't see the VC money and avoiding regulation to be essential parts of the business though. I very rarely take a cab, and am not price sensitive. I tried Lyft, albeit not Uber, and like people repeatedly say, the good things about it are (a) you get fast response and a direct way to contact the driver, (b) you see how close they are to you on a moving map, (c) you get an up front estimate, and (d) they don't demand cash. While it might slow them down if they weren't subsidizing drivers, or drivers weren't subsidizing them, it wouldn't change the fact that the things they do are actually worth more than a regular cab, so they could charge more and not less, as far as I'm concerned.
If Uber and Lyft are "just taxi companies" then why don't all the other taxi companies just make a similar app and then promote the idea their upstart competitors are regulation-avoiding scum? It ought to be more effective than ignoring why people use them.
Softbank has stakes in Didi, Didi has stakes in Uber, Uber has stakes in Didi, with this Softbank got stakes in Uber.
Uber is mostly successful in North America and Southern Americas. Didi is obviously successful in China and will expand to Southern Americas soon.
Europe is not an important market for these companies. Too much regulations and good public transportation won't allow them to thrive.
Softbank probably wants Uber to be limited to North America and have its companies like 99 and Ola compete with Uber in their markets.
If Uber is limited to US and Canada and a few small markets here and there, then it makes sense to see its valuation go down like this.
Softbank is competing with Uber in a global scale using a network of companies it invested in, including Uber!