Could you say what those are? I agree you don't need to ride roughshod on regulations to be innovative.
Of course many taxi companies will have their own apps.
While the taxiphone app is branded Geneva it also works in other cities. Basically, it is a locally branded app but the infra is in 42 cities/regions and works in the "foreign" ones.
Uber is a bit cheaper during the night, but not always during the day and certainly not during rush hours in the city center.
Address search could be a bit better but otherwise it is as good as the uber one. At least it doesn't have this annoying inbuilt Dev recruitment tool, that stupidity almost ruined the day of a blind developer I know.
When booking a ride ahead of time e.g. to the airport with family the taxiphone website is best. You can arrange child seats etc.. and they will have them and arrive on time.
All the major companies, perhaps the top 10 - have apps with pre-paying and hailing or pre-booking in the app.
I haven't called a taxi by phone or hailed one on the street for years. I can't find when the first company launched their app, but I'm pretty sure I hadn't heard the name Uber when they did (which doesn't mean Uber weren't first - just that I hadn't heard of them because they didn't exist in Sweden then).
There are obviously no taxi medallions or similar, so anyone is free to start a taxi service and the cost for doing so is low. Usually you'd join one of the bigger players to be connected to a booking central and app service but you can just get a license and start driving.
So the bottom line is - in ANY city where there isn't a US-style medallion bureaucracy surrounding taxis I just don't see the point of Uber. Uber is Taxi. If there are 100 taxi companies with apps, then with Uber they are 101.
US cities (and others worldwide) should just buy back all medallions at the last transfer price and then allow free competition.
For example, take the New York market with the limited number of taxi medallions, prior to Uber there was stricter regulation and enforcement against individual drivers illegally operating rides for hire. Though when Uber comes along they facilitate these types of illegal ride for hire operations all over the country, even in many jurisdictions where Uber drivers are arrested for illegal operations Uber itself never has to answer for their roll they simply pay a lawyer of their choice to represent the drivers in these cases in order to protect Uber's interest not the driver.
Apply the same organization to any other illegal activity (drugs, prostitution, etc...) it becomes clear very quick Uber has been legally protected even though their driver continue(d) collecting fines and arrests.
And all these great US internet companies you speak of I'm pretty sure are global companies and have global headquarters in Europe (Ireland) specifically in order to avoid pay US taxes, but again are protected by laws designed to protect their entrenched interests.
>"when Uber comes along they facilitate these types of illegal ride for hire operations all over the country"
How did you go from Uber operating in NYC resulting in "facilitating illegal ride for hire operations all over the country in your next sentence?" Uber didn't start in NYC. I don't see the connection, can you explain?
Illegal ride for hire in NYC are what are informally known as "Gypsy Cabs"(not a politically correct term but its not mine term.) I have not seen or heard any evidence that the presence of these has increased with the introduction of Uber. Please provide a citation.
I am quite doubtful that given the availability now of Uber/Lyft along with the already existing licensed yellow cabs, green cabs and livery cabs that people are at all inclined to elect to take an unlicensed cab.
You can get an uber in any major city in the USA, now.
The best way to get rid of bad laws is to break them.
Taxi services across EU (at least in my experience) are usually of significanly better quality than those in US. Well, at least I've yet to meet a cab smelling of piss and shit as opposed to SF.
There are more studios per capita in the nordics than anywhere else. Obviously the games industry is just one niche but those are examples of somewhat successful companies.
Consumers overwhelming support ridesharing because of how cheap it is.
Also, if a consumer doesn't like these service, they are free to use any number of other transportation services.
That is what this fight is about. Letting consumers decide for themselves which services they prefer.
Consumers may choose from any service that follows regulations set forth by government.
At least in the US, much of the fear mongering over the possible outcomes of Uber drivers not being properly licensed never came to pass.
-Facebook makes it nearly impossible to delete your account permanently or reactivates on accidental clicks from 3rd party websites(which increases their metrics),
-You can be opted in for email messaging without you opting in explicitly (increases advertising companies "reach"),
-Uber just ignored regulations it didnt like, or would be detrimental to their bottom line if they actually followed them.
This mentality is wholly rewarded in the US, that isnt necessarily a good thing.
MySQL is another one not on that list but I guess thats because Oracle bought them over.
what's innovative about pirate taxis? they're as old as taxis
Any example of those laws and regulations?
It seems like the state of taxi services in the US somehow self regulated out competition?
It's been 17 years since the internet has become widespread, how many successful information technology companies have come from Europe, a continent with 500 million people, many of them well educated? Maybe it's time to look inward.