Exactly this! And that's exactly why a global 'disruptor' doesn't really make sense, because there isn't so much to disrupt. Uber grew out of a very local need (in San Francisco), which ended up translating quite well into other US markets as well as some international ones.

Frankly it didn't translate so well in many other international markets. The Germany example is a great one where tons of small taxi cos co-exist peacefully. Many other markets like Turkey are the same.

But even if you have large established companies, that isn't always such a bad thing that needs 'disruption'. I had a 50SGD coupon to try Uber (Black) in Singapore last year when I was at a conference. I took a Comfort Taxi to the conference (booked via app, taxi arrival 3-4 mins, took me straight to the right hall of the conference center in 20 mins. Cost about 18SGD) and then took Uber back to downtown. Uber ended up costing me over 70 SGD (i.e. even with the 50SGD coupon it was more expensive than the taxi). I had to wait 15 mins for it to show up (the app showed 5 mins away, but the driver drove in circles and couldn't find my location even with GPS, driver barely spoke English, driver didn't know one of the main streets downtown that I was going to, so I had to direct him). You can book taxis via phone, SMS, web or app. They are cheaper than Uber. Taxis are clean, regulated, always use meters, accept NETS and Credit Cards and if you want a nicer one you can get a Chrysler or Daimler for a little extra fee. Nationally regulated 'surge pricing' exists too.

To be fair, counties or cities can limit demand, but they're limiting demand to "these current 200 tiny companies because with 10 more, no one can make a living anymore", not to "that big juggernaut and nothing else". The law actually demands it (both limiting for economical reasons and spreading the load).

And the reason for why they interfere in such a way is that taxis are considered a mode of public transportation, which was declared at some point a county issue.

Thanks to that we also don't have that mess of three different types of uncoordinated local railway and bus systems that the bay area "enjoys".

(not Xylakant but in general:) Please don't assume your third world style problems also apply to everyone else. (like Uber and their fans do with that endless "taxi mafia" nonsense)

I don't think that's the whole truth. Berlin is still special in Germany and has a high cab density.

Actually you need a cab license to drive a cab in most german cities. And the number of these licenses is limited by the city. While the German taxi system is in dire need of a reform most people believe Uber is not the answer.

UberBlack is operating legally as "Mietwagen mit Fahrer" which is less regulated (doesn't need the taxi license), but UberPop doesn't even fulfill those lower requirements.

I'm rather skeptical of your claims - the courts decided against Uber because Uber drivers didn't have taxi licenses. If licenses were so easy to come by, I can't think why Uber would even bother going to court, they'd just get licenses! There's obviously a significant barrier there.

edit: Just to be clear, the service in dispute is UberPop.

Anyone can get a taxi license as long as they fulfil some (basic, really) conditions.

To get the taxi license you have to show that you and your car are fit to drive and that you probably will not cause too much damage in the process. That means taking exams, regularly having your car checked (there is a difference between checks for commercial and non-commercial vehicles here) and having insurance that lives up to German standards (an insurance that pays 1 000 000 $ per accident like the one shown on that certificate of Uber's is a joke).

Not that significant a barrier but it keeps out the duds and the crazy. The whole process is easy enough so that supply well meets or exceeds demand in most German cities, even at strange times of day. Maybe Uber is too stupid? I don't think so...

Uber does not want any of that. They only want to have a clear path for the race to the bottom. They do not care about safe transportation, just about their bottom line (I would, too, if I had raised that amount of capital for what is basically a phone app). That's ok, they are for-profit, this is what they're here for. The Frankfurt court has done what it is there for. It has told them that, while rules are in place, they need to be followed. Uber had plenty of time to prove to authorities that they are OK guys. They didn't. They are not "disruptors". By not following regulations, they are, most probably, simply breaking the law and competing unfairly.

Of course you can be cheaper if you skip the background check, driving test and reliable insurance.

Well, Uber Black is the properly licensed service with professional drivers and properly licensed and insured cars. It's in operation and not affected by this injunction. There's some nitpick about whether they should or should not be allowed to pick up people from the street, but that's minor.

The service affected here is UberPop that allows any private person to use their private car with domestic insurance to pick up people and transport them commercially. Uber has decided that this is the market they want, but that's just not legal in germany. Private persons that want to just earn a little on the side won't spend the time and money to pass the test and get commercial insurance. Since UberPop targets private persons it's also an invitation to tax evasion, but that's a different issue.

Uber could restrict themselves to the legal business model but have chosen not to.

There is a barrier here and it separates the people that want to be professional drivers from the non-professionals. The professionals are allowed to transport people for commercial motives, the non-professionals are not. This separation exists in a lot of areas, for example when producing and selling food, construction work etc. If I want to provide a professional service that has an associated risk, I must pass some certification that shows I at least roughly know what I'm doing.

Ahhh, right, my bad. They weren't terribly clear in the article as to which entity they were talking about, and I'm used to seeing "Uber" by itself to refer to the original "professional" service.

It's a common confusion, even in the news. Avoiding the confusion is a good litmus test on how good the article about Uber is.

Why would Uber start actually following taxi law at this point?

Don't let facts get in the way of a good story.