Per http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/11/07/number-of-uber-l... in SF there are 1.8k taxis and 45k Uber/Lyft drivers. That's 4% taxi vs. Uber/Lyft.
Barring changes in the law, number of taxis is limited by number of medallions. Number of Uber/Lyft is limited only by demand, which we probably are not even close to meeting (surge pricing during rush hours is still a thing).
If anything, the reports are that number of taxi rides went down and some taxi companies literally went bankrupt.
So taxis are not a competition.
You claim it's easy to compete with Uber/Lyft. Where is this competition in SF?
How do you explain what happened in Austin? When Uber/Lyft stopped service in Austin, several local competitors emerged.
When Uber/Lyft came back, they all folded within weeks. They just couldn't compete on price or availability.
Furthermore, if you claim that Uber, at their scale, has to subsidize to stay in business, how does that not apply to any other competitor.
Either this can be profitable business, in which case Uber has significant advantage due to their scale, existing user base and marketing presence, or it's not, in which case no-one can make money.
This is spoken like someone who hasn't lived in a city that only had a taxi monopoly before Uber arrived. It's like saying all the iPhone did was take an iPod and put it in a Nokia. It completely misses all the little nuances and subtleties that made Uber successful and makes people keep coming back to them.
Before Uber, in New York City:
* To get a taxi, I had to be physically near a taxi (and before the outer borough cabs, I had to be basically in Manhattan or Brooklyn right next to the East River). Good luck getting a lift home from south Brooklyn at 2:30 in the morning.
* I had to be physically near the street to hail a cab. With Uber, I can get a car moving towards me while I'm still indoors. This is huge when it's raining in the city. It's huge when you're in a shady area and you don't want to stand outside waiting around, asking to be mugged.
* I was vulnerable to someone walking in front of me and grabbing the cab I was getting the attention of
* I had to be in the cab with the door closed before telling the driver where to go. And if he huffed and said he didn't want to go there, I'd have to threaten him with a call to 311. Great start to a trip where you're stuck in someone's backseat - threatening them after they told you they don't feel like driving somewhere you need to go.
* I often had to carry cash because (even though it's illegal to have a non-working card reader) many taxi's card readers just "stopped working man." I don't even need to have my wallet with me to take an Uber.
* I've had cab drivers get out of the cab and yell at me on the street because he didn't think my 15% tip was enough. Similarly I'm sure some people don't tip. Uber helps both drivers and passengers by providing ratings for both.
And, I don't want to speak for anyone but I imagine plenty of black New Yorkers have some experiences with cab drivers and hailing a cab and the difficulty of getting a ride somewhere. I wonder if any black folks who've dealt with racist cabbies agree with you that all Uber does is collect payments and coordinate dots on a map.
The real test is how all the competitors in Austin are doing. We'll find out in a year or so.
https://www.curbed.com/2017/6/14/15803138/austin-uber-lyft-t...
> completely agree, but are the small, local competitors not subsidized by investors like Uber? I don't understand how a competitor without backing could compete against an established super corp.
The small local competitors were doing this long before Uber came along. They're called taxis. Sure, they did a good job increasing competition in this market. But by and large, all they've done is transferred money from poor drivers and rich investors to middle-class customers.
All they do is collect payments, coordinate dots on a map, and provide driver rating. And any competitor starting now has the advantage of not being $8 billion below water.
?> The sheer volume/scale of scandal engulfing the company may be impossible to recover from
? I think this is magnified by the Valley -- peers and friends outside of California seem to either not know, or not care deeply. I honestly don't think Uber's bottom line has been harmed.
Uber has many stakeholder that are more important than customers: they need their drivers' motivation, they need employees (valley!), the need politicians and judges, and they need investors. All of these groups differ from their customers that they're much better informed, and engaging with Uber is a much bigger risk for them than just using their service.