I don't think cabbies are rude because they are not paid well. I think they're rude because they aren't held accountable for their rudeness and before Uber, there was no meaningful competition. If an Uber driver is rude and got a negative review, in the current system, he would probably be let go rather promptly. It could be that Uber will have to lower the minimum acceptable rating in order to keep enough drivers, but with a system of accountability (rating system) rudeness will be discouraged.

This. As an NYC resident, this and this. Even beyond the review/star system, from what I understand Uber sets expectations of cleanliness and friendliness and general professionalism. I don't think the taxi industry ever started with these base expectations. It's a good start.

You know, I don't even care if they are rude. The UX is sooo much better that it's laughable:

1) No communication problems telling the driver where you are going. If you or they don't speak English, that's fine

2) No tipping.

3) No cash/form of payment shenanigans

4) ETA and location information in near real-time

5) No hailing--great if you are an introverted person/don't know how to whistle like a truck driver/etc.

Honestly, if the taxi industry adopted that dispatch system I would have no problem using it. Uber should do enterprise licensing for "Uber For Cities" so they can finally run their taxicab operations properly.

> I think they're rude because they aren't held accountable for their rudeness

In chicago you can call 311 but you have to register a case and show up in the court on the hearing date.

Chicago has a rudeness court?

You have to fill out an affidavit after making a complaint with the Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection in Chicago.

There are a lot of rules of conduct cab drivers are required by law to follow in Chicago. Stuff like, they can't harass you for cash if you want to pay with a credit card.

You can't really complain about general rudeness, but most usually the really rude behavior breaks at least a couple rules.

The quality of Uber drivers in San Francisco has dropped all the way to the point where I simply will not try to use Uber anywhere near downtown. They will accept the ride and the app will show they are "1 minute" away, however it will often take upwards of 15 minutes for them to reach me because they don't know their way around the city and are confused by all the one-way streets in downtown. I promise I"m not exaggerating, it really does take that long. I've stood there and watched them on the map spending 10-15 minutes driving very long distances away from me before finally turning in the right direction and painfully, slowly, starting to get closer. It's ridiculous.

If I'm in downtown or SOMA, I will use a taxi (either hailing or using Flywheel). It's usually a huge time saver (and there's no "surge" pricing either).

That's more the Uber app's fault than the driver's. I've chatted with drivers about this; the app doesn't actually tell you where the pickup is, it just starts the navigation. It seems to be a security measure.

Probably so people can't poach uber riders with a competing service. You could easily accept riders, relay their location to your services drivers, then cancel the pickup in the Uber app right as your driver shows up.

Sounds like something Uber themselves would do come to think of it.

This might explain why the only time I used Uber the driver did not understand where to find me. I was outside near a fence opposite the expressway. He was told by the app to stop on the expressway and pick me up. This despite my entering the street address when booking. It wasted one person hour of time. The driver told me he can't make more than minimum wage with Uber, he just does it as a hobby.

Some drivers near me will mark the trip 'complete' before dropping off their current passenger. This way they're already in the queue for the next passenger. Then it may take them 5-15min to finish dropping someone off then getting over to you.

I've had exactly the same experience in Bogota, Colombia.

There was a precise cliff-edge over which service levels dropped dramatically, and it came a few months ago when the lowest priced tier, which had nice, big modern cars with really professional drivers who knew the city, was replaced with a tier branded as 'uberX'.

The uberX experience, while still certainly usable, is a very obvious step down from the previous standard. To sum it up, it basically feels less like you're getting an on-demand professional driver/ taxi, and a lot more like you're just flagging a lift from some guy with a car.

The cars themselves are a big step down - much older, smaller, worn out interiors, sometimes even without seatbelts. On numerous occasions the drivers have been far from the professional driver standard. In general they get the job done but they sometimes don't know the roads very well, and I've run the full spectrum of issues like them taking forever to get to the pickup point, often driving past it and circling back round a one-way system etc, having to take ridiculous detours en route because they miss a turn, going via obviously gridlocked routes, asking me for directions along the way to the destination. All of the things you just don't expect to happen with a driver service but you might expect to happen if you asked a friend for a lift. It's not a guaranteed slick service like it previously was, at all.

I'm not sure what happened here but this, along with the Android app being fairly buggy and seeming to get worse over time (takes minutes to lock GPS coordinates, really kills my battery, sometimes completely freezes when you're tracking them coming to pick you up, gives you a locking error message when you've lost your data connection so you can't even see the map, or the license plate of the car, any more) has really downgraded my impression of uber from something which was all-round vastly better than taxis, to a something which is basically on the same level and that I'll just use when it's not that convenient to hail a taxi on the street. And I'm no big fan of taxis.

It's a shame, I used to rave about uber to anyone who'd listen, but if the level of service for the same cost continues to slide like this here and in other cities then I could see myself looking for and switching to competitors much more often where previously I had no real need or desire to.

Sounds like an opportunity for Uber to improve their software to include GPS navigation for fare pickup.

No joke. When my brother uses Uber on the south end of Mercer Island, it regularly shows the "closest" car as being in Seward Park - about 1/2 mile away across a lake. The bridge of course is far north, and pretty much every Uber in Seattle's downtown or centrally-located neighborhoods is significantly closer than the one Uber picks.

Seems like they are simply using as-the-crow-flies distance, which is kinda crazy.

They are, you can easily verify by estimating pickup times to a destination a mile out into the Pacific or Atlantic :)

As other commenters mentioned, the quality of Uber definitely has decreased. Worse than what you are saying, not only do you have mediocre cab drivers but also people that basically don't know what they are doing. UberX is the worst offender here and UberBlack generally has provided good service. If the only option is UberX I will probably take a cab instead.

Based on what Uber is spending on acquiring new drivers I would assume they have eased up on threshold for booting poorly rated drivers. Based on the recent revelation that the map view of nearby cars is now simulated I would assume that the published reviews should no longer be taken at face value either.

At the beginning the pitch went something like Uber would win because it had so much data that it would be able to route drivers much more efficiently than any new competitor. The pick up times rather have gone the other direction over the year. If anything, there are far more opportunities for vehicle transport services now.

I wondered, what if the future Uber, rather than offering the awesome service it had in the beginning, ended up being just as mediocre as what we had before -- cabs, buses, towncars you booked a day before -- but just in different ways?

But drivers must maintain a 4.5 star rating, which means the cabbies would at least have to fix their behavior or suffer the consequences. There are no consequences for bad taxi drivers.

That's the current policy with the current rates. If they cut the rates too much, they may have to choose between changing the policy or having no Uber drivers.

You obviously arent aware of how the Uber app works. If a driver receives only 1 or 2 severely low ratings, they are contacted by their managing office. After warnings they will eventually be fired.

Uber adds a level of accountability that NYC cabs do not have.

Per my driver last night, if you do get dropped from Uber because of poor ratings (minus 4.7 I believe), you just pay $60 to go to a Driver Enlightenment class to get reinstated in Uber.

Okay. $60, being out two days of driving... how many cabbies can afford to do that on a regular basis? $60 might not sound like much to me or you, but it's probably a third of a cabbie's daily take.

I'm not saying it's cheap, just stating what I learned about being dropped from Uber as a driver.

So the yellow cab cabbies I see running Lyft + Uber while being horrible drivers must be the exception, right?

I feel like cabbie turnover is so high, if 1000 join Uber.. 200 get canned so switch to Lyft... 200 more cabbies will just join Uber the next month.

A rating system is good over the long term, but if people have an average life in a market of a few months - it doesn't do a bunch.

At least there is a feedback mechanism in place? That and cabs that will not pick up in certain areas or certain times are the biggest problem with taxis I have experienced.

Re #4: really? How long do drivers with <4 stars last on the platform? (If [1] is correct, they don't last at all, because they get booted below 4.5).

All else equal (and many say all else isn't equal here of course, though that argument cuts both ways), a system with SOME accountability is better than a system with none.

[1] http://uber-partners-static.s3.amazonaws.com/chicago_uberx/f...

I find it ridiculous that a 5 star rating is expected for an OK (average) ride. 5-stars should be reserved for exceptional rides.

I agree from a 'correct' sense. It would be interesting to see a graph of what people rate.

Personally I give a 5 star as default unless they are sub-service given I know they face being cut if below ~4.5. So for me it almost works as a negative only scale with no positive points for exceptional service.

I think this was the reason YouTube dropped the 5-star rating, people just put 5 or 1. So now they have only like/dislike.

And then some newcomer comes in and disrupts Uber, and the cycle repeats. Except, this time, there's an opportunity for there to be change, and riders will briefly have gotten a better experience than before.

It's not necessarily a bad thing for business models to be cyclical. Even when it results in a downwards spiral, it usually allows the problem space to be explored, and that spiral can be disrupted upwards... at the cost of temporary lack of quality.

Step 1.5) Uber implements a fleet of autonomous vehicles to replace the need for drivers.

Steps 3 and 4 are no longer relevant.

Exactly. Uber has a whole bunch of people literally climbing over each over to put themselves out of business.

I'm not sure what the solution is with this whole mess though.

But currently Uber is cheaper than cabbies anyway. You're saying Uber will drop rates even lower?

Not rate to customer. Rate to drivers - which makes the good drivers leave.

In a new market Uber will pay something like 95-110% of fares taken in to drivers (not exact numbers, would need to look). Over the long run I think it drops to 60-70%, or something significantly worse (as clearly paying drivers 110% of income is not sustainable).

Not true. Uber sets a commission (differs across different markets) with a new driver and that's what they get from the miles + time portion of the fare.

If Uber decides to change the commission it almost always grandfathers existing drivers to what they had when they joined.

Surely there is enough driver turnover that this is a distinction without a difference.

Well sure, they don't have a monopoly _yet_.

I have never taken an Uber in NYC that was cheaper than the equivalent cab ride. Somehow it always manages to work out to more.

you also pay less when you don't tip - there's none included in the uber fee.

Here is the solution;

1) Uber comes in pays well - sources on the net for hip drivers - You get awesome English speaking nice drivers

2) Uber starts to drop rates

3) Good Uber drivers quit for lack of pay, existing cabbies start to drive for Uber

4) Alternate company, takes lower margin, pays drivers well and offer better customer experience.

5) Uber hold some inertia in via brand name while the majority of the market recognises new services is better and uploads new app on their phone over the course of a year or 2.

This is the beauty of the Uber model. Its relatively easy for new entrants to enter. There's no medallion system holding out innovation. The day Uber mucks around their customers/drivers significantly I'll delete their app. I already use an alternate one occasionally for comparison and cause I like to see competition in the market.

> 4) Alternate company, takes lower margin, pays drivers well and offer better customer experience.

It doesn't seem to me that your crucial step will work. Uber is worth >$50bn, but more importantly has a substantial amount of cash on hand. I can't imagine anyone could out last them in a price war.

Certainly Uber are becoming an increasingly formidable competitor in this space for alternatives. And money helps ALOT. But Uber started out as nothing against an industry worth more than 50bn.. They won on 1) price, 2) convenience and 3) customer service.

Give that response was largely about someone saying when Uber has lost their customer service quality, that would be a large switching point alone. I went to Uber more for service and convenience. Price was a bonus.

And they will be limited on price wars. If someone comes in at slim margin, paying more to drivers, Uber can hardly go negative in pricing. Firstly they have investors to appease. And in many countries they would be charged with predatory pricing and be in a heap of trouble. They might knock out a few competitors this way but eventually anyone competing would have massive regulatory protection in this area.

Convenience is another protective moat. Simply having cars available. But its easy for a car to run 2 versions at once if they feel the demand is there, even if Uber demand exclusive service (again possibly causing regulatory issues), policing it would be nightmare when one can simply have a second phone in the car. And pushing for exclusive would likely shoot themselves in the foot if there is increasing demand from the market elsewhere as some drivers will be forced to jump ship hurting their own service.

Ok, that may happen. But with Uber-like services some group can decide to differentiate by offering better service at higher prices, while others may focus only on price.

Taxis do not compete in any meaningful way.

4.5) Quality drivers move to other service. 5) You use Lyft or any other competitor.

If we get no change except surge pricing, that's at least some improvement