> I also don't think Uber's biggest competition is cars or taxis, I imagine it is public transport.

Also worth noting: Los Angeles is not like London or Paris or NYC where you can very often walk to a nearby mass transit station. In many parts of Los Angeles, Uber can serve as a useful complement to the public transport system. For example, one can quickly take Uber to a rail station which then travels the rest of your route underground -- thus avoiding traffic jams.

If Uber did not exist in LA, one would be more likely to just get in one's car for the entire journey: buses take too long to get you to the underground station, and taxis are too expensive.

It's also important to keep in mind that, in Los Angeles, Uber cars arrive really promptly by comparison to public transport buses. If your time in, say, the office, is really valuable, then the Uber service offers more value than a bus, because buses require a lot more time to transport you than an Uber car does.

I know this sounds like an ad for Uber, but I have no connection to the company, except as an occasional customer.

I don't know about London, but in my area an UberX ride is 4-5x the price of a bus ticket (~10km). This only gets worse as the distance grows. Public transit is not Uber's competition and it'll never replace mass transit.

You can split an Uber 4 ways but you can't split a bus fare. So if you go out with a few friends it becomes much more reasonable for short trips. If Uber gets more expensive, some people will go back to public transit.

>You can split an Uber 4 ways but you can't split a bus fare.

Like a taxi?

Uber will never come close to moving the sheer numbers that public transit does. You can't do it, not enough road to fit all those cars. Especially in downtown cores.

So Uber competes with public transit as much as taxis compete with public transit.

Yes, like a taxi. The primary benefits Uber has over traditional Taxis are 1. price; 2. they have an app, and it works well; 3. drivers arrive in vaguely predictable times that are less than 45 minutes; and 4. it doesn't discriminate as badly as cabbies.

> Uber will never come close to moving the sheer numbers that public transit does. You can't do it, not enough road to fit all those cars. Especially in downtown cores.

I never suggested anything of the sort. Especially not at commute hours.

> So Uber competes with public transit as much as taxis compete with public transit.

I think we agree. I just noted that if Uber prices rose, some Uber users would prefer to use public transit rather than pay higher Uber prices or Taxi prices.

The only thing uber has over most taxis in Germany is that they’re cheaper. And that they don’t have proper insurance.

2-4 apply to every taxi firm these days too

I wasn't sure if it was just me, but in that case what makes Uber so valuable? Are they banking on putting all the taxi companies out of business and then monopolising the market?

Not in the US. Taxi companies in US cities are terrible.

A great marketing win for Uber here. It became known worldwide as an "innovative technology company" even though outside US, it's only innovation is funneling SV money to lawyers so that they can maintain their illegal business practices while they conquer the local markets. E.g. in Europe we've already had all the other "innovative" stuff. But people don't notice it, instead naively buying the "Uber = innovation" marketing.

The funny thing here is that a couple cab companies have done seemingly irreparable damage to the worldwide taxi industry, merely by virtue of being based in San Francisco and allowing drivers to regularly flake or refuse service to slightly less profitable areas.

Interesting. In my mid-sized town, the local, independent taxi firm has all of them. The app, text messaging when you book, when the driver is on his way, when he's at your front door along with the make, colour and license plate of the car, etc etc.

That only holds true at peak hours. For off-peak uses, ride-sharing can compete with buses; in an electric car world, cost-effectively as well.

Taxis are a kind of public transit. So call me skeptical if Uber manages to sink taxis and this is part of their long term strategy, because unless they have enough money to become the sovereign in their dominant markets, they're going to end up being regulated by the local government should they supplant taxis.

I know what point you're trying to make, but taxis are explicitly not public transit. Busses, trains, planes, ferries, etc., are all public transit, regardless of whether they are publicly or privately owned. For-hire taxis, coaches, limousines, private jets, etc., are all private transport.

Interesting. I think this is a very valid point.

Eventually governments will get wise to the fact that this is not magic. Just a new way to dial up a ride.

Governments didn't allow individuals to install a radio into their private car & drive around making rides. Why should they allow the same just because you have a smartphone?

Nope, but most people who take public transit regularly already have a monthly fixed-price subscription. So that trip is pretty much free already, unless people start commuting by taxi...

I don't think the multiple is the relevant metric. People aren't going "should I buy 5 bus tickets or should I buy 1 uber x ride?" The number of rides is pretty much fixed. The choice they are making is "should I upgrade my ride experience, if it means I have to downgrade an experience in another area?" So you should rather compare the price to other "upgrades" people are buying.

Sample size of one, but I haven't used public transit in probably close to 10 years, and I use Uber all the time. I definitely would not turn to public transit if Uber shut down. I'm sure it depends on the city and the quality of its transit offerings.

I think buying up the whole value chain is an effect of monopolies, not the cause. DeBeers, for example, got their start in diamond mining. I suppose they could have stopped there, but when you're the only supplier, it becomes very easy to buy up those of your customers that are making money so you can capture more of the total cash.

So I don't think Uber needs to buy roads. All they need to do is have a broad enough base and deep enough pockets that they can drive everybody else out of business. Or, possibly better, keep a few sickly competitors forever on the margins. That way they can pretend they're really competing.

I think it's unrealistic to think that Lyft will be a sickly competitor. It has less cash to push toward subsidizing rides but I could foresee it sticking around, especially since many drivers use both ride share apps.

I thought that each network will stop giving you rides if you don't take them & you are in the area without a fare.

Uber's biggest competitor will be an open-source p2p-system, like openbazaar, that achieves the basic functionality of uber.

What advantage will such a system have?

Probably none. By having an open system, prices will invariably get pushed down (better for end users) which will deincentivize drivers (worse for end users)

There may be some equilibrium somewhere, but I don't believe it will be in the users best interest having to wait for cars.

Just my thoughts. I'm probably wrong.

By having an open system, since there is no longer a corporate middleman entity which takes a cut off a profit, and since anyone can compete, therefore prices will get pushed down. But just like any other perfectly-competitive system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition), the price in equilibrium will approach the marginal cost when marginal cost equals marginal revenue, not get pushed down indefinitely. I guess that would approximately equal to the market price of uneducated labor willing to drive plus the cost of the car+gas usage, insurance, etc. So price won't drop lower than what is needed to get people to actually drive the cars.

Now of course, maybe also need to be concerned about autonomous cars using this p2p app, in which case just need to pay a slave robot with the minimal energy it requires to drive.

In an open system, how do you ensure basic safety needs are met - eg, do drivers have licenses?

I sure as hell am not getting into a car with an unlicensed driver

a reputation system.

Once robo cars are here, it'll be game over. Google wins.