The city has just 39 licensed cab drivers.

  • @echo64
    link
    23
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    The apps weren’t profitable. They sold rides for less than it cost them, which killed the industry. That’s what all disruptive companies do, sell for an unprofitable price and have investor money make up the difference.

    Taxi companies could not compete. How could they? It didn’t matter if they were good or bad. There was no chance to compete because they all went out of business.

    Again, the apps didn’t win because they were better, it’s because they didn’t allow competition. In a sane world they would have had to have made a profit, and the taxi companies would have made their own app, and things would be pretty much equal across the board. But that never happened.

    • @ABCDE
      link
      203 months ago

      Again, the apps didn’t win because they were better, it’s because they didn’t allow competition.

      I rarely ever took cabs or other such transport because they’re universally dodgy as fuck. Apps made it convenient and accountable, thus succeeded.

      • @echo64
        link
        -43 months ago

        You miss the point, taxi companies couldn’t compete with apps, they couldn’t have their own app. Because of investor lead disruption

        • @ABCDE
          link
          53 months ago

          Some taxi companies made their own applications.

          • @echo64
            link
            13 months ago

            Again, they did and failed because they couldn’t compete because investors paid for the likes of uber to run everyone out of business. I don’t know how more I can explain this to you, but you don’t seem to understand.

            • @ABCDE
              link
              -13 months ago

              they couldn’t have their own app

              There was nothing stopping them and they set their own up; I’m referring to places in the UK where I know it happened, and some other countries too (SEA).

              I don’t know how more I can explain this to you, but you don’t seem to understand.

              Likely because of your explanation in the first place.

              • @echo64
                link
                13 months ago

                okay you are obviously taking this far too literally, obviously they could make an app, but the apps could not survive and exist because the competition would undersell them, paid for with investor money.

                do you see what i’m trying to get through to you yet? everyone is saying “well the apps are better!” when the reality is that the big investor backed corporations like uber pushed all the smaller taxi firms out with uncompetitive price undercutting, they didn’t die out because they didn’t have an app, they couldn’t survive with an app or without - they couldn’t make that app to make you happy because you’d still pick the 20% cheaper one anyway

                • @ABCDE
                  link
                  03 months ago

                  Well yes, I read what you said as you wrote it. I can’t infer very well over text.

    • BombOmOm
      link
      English
      93 months ago

      Honestly, it was both, plus a third thing.

      • Uber/Lyft pay like shit and run at a loss.

      • Cabs almost universally sucked. Nobody wanted to use one outside of somewhere like NYC; and only then because parking sucked so hard driving yourself is an even shittier option than the shitty cabs.

      • In places like NYC, the government over regulated cabs so hard the medallions cost into the 6 and 7 digits of dollars. Out-competing that simply involved…not paying 7-digit sums of cash just for the ability to work as a cabbie…

    • @ripcord
      link
      43 months ago

      I still don’t understand how Uber and Lyft can be so expensive to run.

      • @stoly
        link
        23 months ago

        They aren’t. You’re paying a smallish dev staff and some people to answer emails. The rest is pure profit. If you’re not making money then you’re an idiot.