And again: "Taxi company considered by a court to be a taxi company". And this is news.
And no, dear US, "taxi" does not mean "ride service that has a monopoly on picking up people on the street, enforced by the use of medallions or similar". Taxi means "A car that takes you somewhere without a preplanned route, for money". This is why this is so bloody obvious.
In any place without a mediallion system or other enforced monopoly, there is NO innovation in what Uber is doing! An app or surge pricing is what everyone does. Ubers sole innovation is pretending that they aren't a taxi company so they don't need to hire and pay their employees properly. And honestly we can do without that innovation.
Exactly, people conflate "taxi medallions" with "special driver licenses for transporting people for money", and I think Uber is encouraging this confusion. I would happily get rid of the first, which gives established taxi drivers a quasi-monopoly - or at least change how limited taxi rights are distributed, if you find they are necessary. I am very glad that the special driving licenses exist, though.
In Germany for example, we have both requirements. But for years there have (legally) been companies who don't have "taxi rights", and label themselves as "rental cars with driver". They are cheaper than regular taxis, but they are not allowed to park in taxi spots, and you can't hire them from the roadside I think. But the drivers still have to pass the same tests as regular taxi drivers (health tests, background tests, knowledge of the city, ...). I think this is a really good model, it gives the customer a cheaper option if they are a bit more flexible with their pick-up spots.
Uber should do exactly this, but instead they want to skirt the person transport license requirements and hire "untrained" drives. They purposely mix the issues of licenses and medallions, hoping to use people's hate of monopolies and high taxi prices to steer public opinion in their direction.
Also, Uber sometimes claims to be a ride-sharing service. Just private citizens who share their car and get compensated, not professionals. Well, every Uber I have been in, anywhere in the world, was very professional. You can't tell me this is just their side hobby. And if they really wanted to offer just ride-sharing, this exists legally in Germany as well. People can connect on car-sharing websites with strangers, and pay the driver their share of the expenses. It's a popular way to cheaply get around. And if the driver only does it for compensation, not as a job, no license is required.
The arguments against special taxi licences are the same arguments against occupational licensing in general.
Do you want every entry level job to require a license and put up barriers to getting these jobs for immigrants? Do you think nail technicians, hairdressers and waiters should require a license to do their job too?
Some jobs should require licenses, or better: exams, some shouldn't. I see no problem deciding that on a case-by-case basis. And as long as the test is not too expensive to take, why not have a hairdresser exam?
The thing that is a barrier for immigrants, in most places, is that they don't get work permits.
I may need you to provide the definition of innovation. Uber enables me to call a cab even before I leave the building, it suggests a price for me, it shows me cab's location, it sends my request to more than one cab.
The only potentially new thing here (though not necessary invented by Uber) was "shows me cab's location", but the remaining three? All of them were supported since people invented telephones and portable radio transmitters.
Uber's primary innovation is, and always has been, their operations playbook, which allowed - and still allows - them to grow a billion-dollar business while routinely breaking the laws in front of everybody and not even trying to hide it much.
But I have no interest in talking to anyone or have essays worth of conversations where to meet and at what time and for what price. Or, like for instance a London competition app and many cab services outside London demand; to book n (even 24 for some) hours in advance.
> I may need you to provide the definition of innovation. Uber enables me to call a cab even before I leave the building, it suggests a price for me, it shows me cab's location, it sends my request to more than one cab.
If there are regulations that would prevent taxi companies from doing that, then that's the problem.
If there is a monopoly so they don't have incentive to do that then that's a problem.
I can use an app to pre-book, pre-pay and track a taxi using any of the local taxi companies (of which none has a monopoly). The problem is solvable...
I have been using taxis a lot -- even as primary city transport service. Early 2000: pretty much I used to go to work and back by taxi.
I could call, they'd know the calling phone location (land lines, so that was fixed). Alternatively I'd have to tell where I was and where I'd like to go to. Either they would tell how much time it'd take, plus the car number picking me... or call back with the same info, if no immediate taxi was available.
The meters were a must - both distance and time and you got a receipt at the end. That's like 17-18y ago.
Not to mention not mess around with cards or cash. No cash is a distant dream for me using non Uber rides. Innovation I do not know but all things you mention work conveniently well in Uber and badly or not at all in most half baked attempts by (for instance the city of Barcelona) taxi service apps.
I think where innovation is poor it's typically because there is a monopoly that simply removes incentives of operators to innovate, and a lack of good regulation, such as what the service must provide (payment options, safety, insurance, apps, ...).
If the regulation says "there can only be one company and they can charge cash only if they want" then the regulation is poor. The regulation should say "Anyone who fulfills the criteria on safety/insurance/skill can operate a taxi business. And oh, they must accept credit cards".
It's like how Apple managed to pass off Apple Pay as a huge innovation because the US has such outdated payment processing infrastructure. When I go to the states chip & pin is still considered exotic - I'm signing a receipt about 50% of the time. Meanwhile Canada has had "tap to pay" credit cards since at least 2009 [1].
Using the UK, as an example, there are two very distinct types of taxis:
1. Those hailed on the street or found waiting at a taxi stand/rank. These are metered services. They drive you somewhere and you pay the amount shown on the meter. In London, and some other parts of the UK, these are known as Black Cabs (because the vehicles have traditionally been painted black).
2. Pre-booked services. Essentially a passenger phones to make a booking, informs the service of the pick-up address and destination, agrees a price, then waits for the taxi to arrive. These are known as Mini Cabs.
Both these services are licensed and regulated in the UK.
Uber very clearly falls into the second category. They're just a Mini Cab firm with a fancy app.
So the term "Mini Cabs" are a result of confusing arising from weird local regulations in UK cities. The same as people think its normal that in NYC you can get a "Black car" which is different from a (Yellow) taxi.
But again: all these terms are just effects of the madness that is a local monopoly on one type of ride service (typically, but not always, the one that can use taxi stands and be hailed without pre booking on the street).
This has made people associate "taxi" or "cab" with just that one type of ride service, in their city. Which is understandable - but it makes no sense when discussing laws across a continent, or worldwide.
"Taxi" has a very simple definition: it's a vehicle for hire with a driver. An Uber is a taxi service even if it's not (yet) allowed to perform the same services as a yellow cab in new york, or a london taxi
> That's not what taxi means unless you consider all ride services such as black cars taxis -- which I don't think anyone does.
No that's what I mean. You can put a label on then depending on local regulations for monopolies which is why in some cities there are lots of silly distinctions such as cab/minicab/"black car" or whatever.
But all those distinctions have just appeared because of the local monopoly - not becasuse they are inherently differnent. From an insurance/employment/etc. standpoint they are "cars that take people from a to b for money" - and whether you call that "cab firm" or call it "ride service" or something else is irrelevant.
> Also taxis don't hire people, people rent taxis and then drive them.
Again - this is a local phenomenon. There are places where cab firms are one man businesses, co-ops, owned cars/rented cars etc. It doesn't really matter either.
Well, if we're nit-picking the ruling made was simply that Uber must be considered 'a service in the field of transport', not a taxi specifically. I think it would be hard for anyone who wasn't an Uber lawyer to deny that one.
> Also taxis don't hire people, people rent taxis and then drive them.
Over here they very much do hire people, taxi drivers are normal employees. The same company is also contracted for temporary work by the local bus company and by the municipality for bringing disabled kids to schools, that sort of thing; it's all the same drivers.
Uber's argument is that they're more like a limo service in the sense that you call and book a driver. But you do this with Taxis too. It's just in most cities, taxis can also take immediate bookings on the street or from a taxi stand.
Technology really blurs the line, and for most purposes, they act and fulfill the market that is provided by Taxis.
That's not what they argued. The ECJ ruling is that the Uber is a company providing "‘a service in the field of transport’
within the meaning of EU law."
Uber claimed they weren't. They were claiming to be just an infrastructure service without any influence over the transportation part of the business. They wanted to do this since transportation services are subject to the local regulations as a specific exception to the normal Single Market rules on the provision of services (where you only required to follow your home regulations).
P.S. Your home regulations will include all the common European regulations but customer local regulations could be different.
In 2017, yes. But despite the fact that in some countries, Uber clones appeared before Uber did, Uber was, as far as I remember, the first to implement such a model.
And everyone who remembers ordering a taxi in advance and waiting for 20-30 minutes for a bad, rude driver, for 2-3 the money that taxis cost now, can appreciate the innovation.
> And everyone who remembers ordering a taxi in advance and waiting for 20-30 minutes for a bad, rude driver, for 2-3 the money that taxis cost now, can appreciate the innovation.
I think what people are confusing here are the effects of a removed monopoly and technical innovation.
The solution isn't removing employment safety, the solution is just removing the monopoly in cities where there are taxi monopolies. All Uber did was simply circumvent the monopoly regulations.
Try a non-uber taxi in a city without taxi monopoly and it's exactly like uber.
Did cities with monopolies start dropping the monopolies in the last decade? I lived in a city that dropped the monopoly before Uber so I haven't noticed the change in the last decade.
> And everyone who remembers ordering a taxi in advance and waiting for 20-30 minutes for a bad, rude driver, for 2-3 the money that taxis cost now, can appreciate the innovation.
And no, dear US, "taxi" does not mean "ride service that has a monopoly on picking up people on the street, enforced by the use of medallions or similar". Taxi means "A car that takes you somewhere without a preplanned route, for money". This is why this is so bloody obvious.
In any place without a mediallion system or other enforced monopoly, there is NO innovation in what Uber is doing! An app or surge pricing is what everyone does. Ubers sole innovation is pretending that they aren't a taxi company so they don't need to hire and pay their employees properly. And honestly we can do without that innovation.