Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Uber
Options
Comments
-
magicbastarder wrote: »i'm like a moth to a flame.
there are three possible ways i could gain utility from your car, and you seem to be treating the three as equivalent:
1. i hire it from you when you don't need it. essentially borrowing for money.
2. we live reasonably close to each other and work reasonably close. we agree to combine our commutes to spare the cost of running two cars for that commute. without the other, either one of us would be driving the route anyway.
3. i pay you to drive me in your car. this is a managed service.
how is what 3 is, different between the uber model and the taxi model?
So what's your point?0 -
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,427 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 47877
-
So just to make sure that I fully understand, you're saying that your original claim that they're a technology company because they operate an app was not accurate - is that correct?makeorbrake wrote: »And you're yet again being disingenuous and obtuse. I didn't shift any goalposts. You could create RenkoApp for a few quid - as a dumb app. That's not comparable to the Uber app - what it does and what it facilitates (and no, facilitate doesn't mean sub-contract or anything similar. It just means facilitate).makeorbrake wrote: »The difference is that you (and others) are being deliberately obtuse. You can't let your point of view stand. Rather than thrash it out honestly, you're trying to play the man - not the ball. It's been done to death - upon its first mention, it was clarified that it's irrelevant to the discussion. You (and others) can go again and again on this - and my answer will be the same (and rightly so).
On the tech company / app thing, asked and answered (see above and see other posts).
Nonsense indeed - the 'four companies' claim is of course fiction that you plucked out of the air in an attempt to beef up a flimsy point. The consequence is that exposes your habit of making stuff up. But feel free to counter this claim anytime by naming the four companies.makeorbrake wrote: »The 4 companies nonsense - asked and answered multiple times. It's of no consequence as we (the original poster who brought up the topic - and i) agreed that it was of no consequence. What you're engaging in here (like a few before you) is deliberately obtuse and not in line with a genuine will to discuss the subject.
The point he made was just silly - that a regulator could act beyond their statutory powers to impose an unreasonable demand across an entire industry. It's nothing to do with taking sides - it's just a silly point, a proposal that would be laughed at in any country across the world.makeorbrake wrote: »
He called you out. The point he made is that one inequitable regulation is wrong (when it doesn't work in the favour of taxi drivers) and the other inequitable regulation is fine (when it works in the favour of taxi drivers). That's the point he made - and he's quite right to correct you on it.
I've repeatedly explained that I'm not a taxi driver and I've nothing to do with the taxi industry. You previously stated that you accepted this, but then you lash out, doing exactly what you've accused others of - playing the man and not playing the ball. And no, there's not a lot of 'hurt' around because the regulator has prevented this with sensible regulation.makeorbrake wrote: »There's a lot of hurt there, right? Ordinarily, I'd empathise but the interaction on this thread (together with the pitiful reputation of the taxi 'industry' and lobby in ireland) mean I'm all out. You need to compete like everyone else. If you will be sorely missed, then taxi's wont disappear. Supply and demand sees to that (if its left to it of course!).
Pure gold indeed, when you do another of your 'moving the goalposts' jumps as the weaknesses of your point is exposed. I didn't have a go at you about 'asking people what they want'. I had a go at you about 'asking people for the knowledge of the legal position of ride sharing in Ireland'. You might as well go out and ask the people about heart surgery techniques or tarmac slip ratios. It's asking people who generally know SFA for technical information. It's not going to end well. If you want to ask people what they want, that could indeed be interesting and possibly valuable - depending on how it's done of course. Check out the old Yes Minister clip about survey design.makeorbrake wrote: »This is PURE GOLD...and a trumpism thrown in for good measure. Priceless. So people don't know what they want? They need to be protected from themselves. Any you are the guy to do it? How wonderful. I mean, I'm in all kinds of misery here - using InDriver every day of the week - saving a fortune, getting better service. If only I had the irish taxi industry to save me!
Consumers purchase the goods and services that add value for them. Ridesharing adds more value than irish taxi's ever will.
I'm getting 64 million for Uber innovation. I'm also getting 16 million for Uber risks. I guess all those that associated those two words are mistaken, right?makeorbrake wrote: »Keep trotting out the same codswallop. The whole world have come to know ridesharing (even if they are prevented from accessing it in some markets). There's a reason for that. Stick "uber" and "innovation" into a google search and you'll get 140 million results. I guess all those that associated the two words are mistaken, right?
It's just getting kinda funny now how you have to misstate and exaggerate everything I say in order to find somebody to argue with. I didn't say that taxis are on a par with doctors. I did make a point that consumers generally aren't great at assessing risk, so regulators need to regulate services - whether medical or taxis - in a manner appropriate to that service.makeorbrake wrote: »This is hilarious! Joe Maxi now is on a par in what he does with a doctor. The long term impact should be better value for consumers, no whinging taxi drivers and a far more efficient use of the existing car fleet.
If you had the slightest clue about the taxi sector in Ireland, you would realise how far off the mark you are. Talk to any Irish taxi driver about the regulator and see if the term 'pandering' comes up. The only laughing stock here is the guy who knows so little that he doesn't know what he doesn't know.makeorbrake wrote: »
The regulator is pandering to the taxi lobby for an easy life - so that they can go enjoy their fat public sector salaries without any headaches (as in work). Rich of you to go complementing the progressive nature of irish regulators when they're a laughing stock across all sectors - and the taxi lobby itself has been fighting with the regulator for years (yet on this occasion, the regulator is yer only man).
Which presumably means 'it deserves lower standards of vehicles and drivers' so that we can have even more cars on the roads, more of the time, doing even more journeys, at a time when Ireland is completely missing its carbon reduction targets and paying out €86 million to buy carbon credits elsewhere. Dublin features in the top 5 lists of most congested cities in the world. And your solution it to put more cars on the roads for more journeys? You're really not a big picture guy, are you?makeorbrake wrote: »Ridesharing and taxi-ing are two completely different things. It deserves its own regulation.
If you need me to explain the point further so it can sink in, please let me know.makeorbrake wrote: »
'You know enough to know what you know'? Thanks for sharing.
Yes, that's right - different laws and regulations in different jurisdictions. Ireland has taxi regulation appropriate to Ireland. We don't need 'the American dream' of blue collar folks needing two or three jobs to survive.makeorbrake wrote: »
Laws and regulations have been wayward many times. Laws and regulations are interpreted differently in different jurisdictions. Go figure how that all comes to pass.
No particular newsletter - just check out the US healthcare system and how people end up facing bills of $50k for having a baby or $500k for having cancer. How many Uber hours would the driver be working to pay that back?makeorbrake wrote: »Well, this is an eye opener! Is there a political newsletter you'd recommend?
Honestly, it's slightly disappointing to have to explain the basic facts of the industry after all this time. But I guess it proves my point about you not knowing what you don't know. Anyway, in case you didn't know, driver vetting and vehicle standards are two very important parts of taxi regulation. Drivers that are going to end up picking up a scantily dressed and probably drunk or high 20-something girl on a wet, cold November night need to be properly vetted, as they are at present. Vehicles that spend a lot, lot more time on the road than other vehicles need higher standards of maintenance checks, as they are at present.makeorbrake wrote: »
People's lives? Interesting. I'll bite. Please do enlighten us as to how a taxi driver does more to protect my life than someone that accesses a ride sharing service?
I'd imagine that Spook will allow himself a wry grin at the ludicrous suggestion that he and I are 'compadres'. I've gone head to head with Spook in heated discussions on other topics in the past. I've gone head to head with taxi drivers, I've had a few swipes at the taxi regulator and the NTA in general. Spook and I are far from compadres, but it just happens that we're both right on this particular issue.makeorbrake wrote: »When you and the rest of your compadres here accept that ridesharing should have its own regulation, then I'll gladly engage with that.
No-one has suggested that you be disqualified from a discussion of this nature, so stop playing the victim. And again, you might want to go back and remind yourself of your previous acknowledgement that I'm not a taxi driver and have no vested interest in the sector. There is no 'overlord of the discussion'. There's just facts about the taxi sector in Ireland - and you're a long way off the facts.makeorbrake wrote: »
Shall I borrow your phrase? "I know what I know". More obtuseness. As a consumer, my depth of knowledge of 'transport policy' doesn't disqualify me from a discussion of this nature'. Furthermore, some taxi driving boffin here who claims to know the ins and outs of the various legal instruments that govern transportation and specifically public transportation doesn't automatically become the overlord of the discussion. And I know that's where you're headed with that nonsense.0 -
magicbastarder wrote: »My point was the question I asked in my post.
Your point is a question. Sorry dude, you'll have to be a bit more specific than that.0 -
Advertisement
-
makeorbrake wrote: »Your point is a question. Sorry dude, you'll have to be a bit more specific than that.
Can you answer the question or not?0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,427 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 47877
If you really want people to believe you're not being disingenuous or a troll, you're not doing a very good job.makeorbrake wrote: »Your point is a question. Sorry dude, you'll have to be a bit more specific than that.0 -
makeorbrake wrote: »That's just pure vitriole right there. You have to resort to name calling. Sad really.
Not so much name calling, as identifying your style of debate and argument. Full of promises, short on everything else.Wiki- a snake oil salesman is someone who knowingly sells fraudulent goods or who is himself or herself a fraud, quack, charlatan, and the like.Yet, you clearly didn't across multiple posts.
Nice use of selective quoting of a half sentence, now perhaps you'd like to put the ball back into play and answer the questions that get put to you, a simple "I Don't know" would probably suffice for most of them!0 -
You can keep going on on this 'point' (?) but it only makes you look foolish. My point remains the same as it ever did. They're a technology company. And at the heart of their innovative approach and business model is the design and development of an app. That's not to say it's the only thing - but it's central to their offering. Can you have an app and not be a technology company - of course you can (but I never suggested otherwise). However, you are usually talking about dumb apps (as per the companies that you listed as examples).AndrewJRenko wrote: »So just to make sure that I fully understand, you're saying that your original claim that they're a technology company because they operate an app was not accurate - is that correct?
Now, you still don't believe that Uber is a technology company and that their approach has not been innovative? Let me go the extra mile to help you.
This is a Forbes contributor article written by Enrique Dans - a consultant in the innovation field.
Title: 'There Are Tech Companies And Then There Are Uber-Tech Companies'
And I quote...."Uber is the most recent company to join the titans of the technology sector thanks to its much-needed disruption of the taxi sector since 2009"
"I said some time ago I saw Uber as one of the great technology companies of the future"
"we’re not talking here about just any old technology company, but instead a commitment to an emerging technology that will soon change the shape of our cities. This is a company leading a megatrend"
Now, if you and others still want to embarrass yourselves by suggesting
1. that Uber has not had an innovative approach
and
2. that its not a technology company
...then go ahead and embarrass yourselves.
All this proves is that you can't debate the actual topic successfully. The only way you can tackle this is to personally attack me about something that would take the discussion down a cul de sac because as the person who originally brought up that point agreed, it was neither here nor there. It proves beyond doubt that you and others are incapable of backing up your own argument on the actual subject.AndrewJRenko wrote: »Nonsense indeed - the 'four companies' claim is of course fiction that you plucked out of the air in an attempt to beef up a flimsy point. The consequence is that exposes your habit of making stuff up. But feel free to counter this claim anytime by naming the four companies.
You're assuming that the comment that I made (that you quoted in coming back with this nonsense) referred to you specifically as a taxi driver when it didn't. In your case, there's still a 'lot of hurt' there given the ideological baggage you bring to the table (as identified from previous comments). In tandem with that, it also addresses your compadres here for good measure - not just you.AndrewJRenko wrote: »I've repeatedly explained that I'm not a taxi driver and I've nothing to do with the taxi industry. You previously stated that you accepted this, but then you lash out, doing exactly what you've accused others of - playing the man and not playing the ball. And no, there's not a lot of 'hurt' around because the regulator has prevented this with sensible regulation.
This isn't 'lashing out' as you term it. It's a statement of fact. As regards your allegation of 'playing the man, not the ball', that's absurd when you bear in mind that I was addressing a rant of yours in which you stated, "Says the libertarian fan-boy rushing to destroy an industry in the name of the 'free market". Libertarian fan boy? And I'm the one getting personal? Please.
It still smacks of the suggestion that people are ignorant and feeds into this theme here - developed through the comments of your compadres on this thread suggesting that taxi drivers are 'professionally trained' and bring 'professional standards' and other such nonsense.AndrewJRenko wrote: »Pure gold indeed, when you do another of your 'moving the goalposts' jumps as the weaknesses of your point is exposed. I didn't have a go at you about 'asking people what they want'. I had a go at you about 'asking people for the knowledge of the legal position of ride sharing in Ireland'. You might as well go out and ask the people about heart surgery techniques or tarmac slip ratios. It's asking people who generally know SFA for technical information. It's not going to end well. If you want to ask people what they want, that could indeed be interesting and possibly valuable - depending on how it's done of course. Check out the old Yes Minister clip about survey design.
As regards needing to know about the finer detail of transport regulation and law, of course the consumer has no interest and nor should they. They know that ride sharing services work for them, that the service offering and value proposition are right on the money by comparison with the taxi industry.
They don't care about illegal. I use ride sharing services out here that are illegal every day of the week. A work colleague hailed an uber some months back and was shot at by taxi drivers. The ball bearings they fired at her missed her head by a few inches. No doubt they were 'professionally trained' taxi drivers, right. She still uses uber. Everyone in my office does - although I choose to use a rival ride sharing app. Go figure.
I don't think you're mistaken at all. The 'risk' referred to would be the 'risk' if you're a taxi-man as your days are numbered. That risk.AndrewJRenko wrote: »I'm getting 64 million for Uber innovation. I'm also getting 16 million for Uber risks. I guess all those that associated those two words are mistaken, right?
Remember, you went down this road on the premise that uber is neither a technology company nor innovative. Experts in the field acknowledge that its both. I know that you accept that now as you've read the quoted statements from one of them at the opening of this post above.
Excuse me but you did. When you use doctors as your analogy, you're putting them into the same bracket as our 'professionally trained' taxi-men.AndrewJRenko wrote: »It's just getting kinda funny now how you have to misstate and exaggerate everything I say in order to find somebody to argue with. I didn't say that taxis are on a par with doctors. I did make a point that consumers generally aren't great at assessing risk, so regulators need to regulate services - whether medical or taxis - in a manner appropriate to that service.
And what risk is it that consumers are foolishly exposing themselves to by using Uber over taxis? Prey tell, please enlighten us.
Playing the man, not the ball - once again, I see?AndrewJRenko wrote: »If you had the slightest clue about the taxi sector in Ireland, you would realise how far off the mark you are. Talk to any Irish taxi driver about the regulator and see if the term 'pandering' comes up. The only laughing stock here is the guy who knows so little that he doesn't know what he doesn't know.
Quite simply, I disagree.
Asked and answered many times on this thread. People have come on here and clarified that more often than not, they experience higher standards with Uber cars/drivers than with taxis.AndrewJRenko wrote: »Which presumably means 'it deserves lower standards of vehicles and drivers' so that we can have even more cars on the roads, more of the time, doing even more journeys, at a time when Ireland is completely missing its carbon reduction targets and paying out €86 million to buy carbon credits elsewhere. Dublin features in the top 5 lists of most congested cities in the world. And your solution it to put more cars on the roads for more journeys? You're really not a big picture guy, are you?
There won't be more cars on the road if the consumer is unshackled and allowed to vote with his/her smartphone (via ridesharing application) and in the process take every taxi driver off the roads.
Because "You know enough to know what you know"? Pure genius...we'll leave it at that.AndrewJRenko wrote: »If you need me to explain the point further so it can sink in, please let me know.
Ah, yes - here comes that political bile rising to the top. Last I heard, ride sharing is available in a hell of a lot more markets than just the U.S. (but I guess you're not a 'big picture' guy, huh?).AndrewJRenko wrote: »Yes, that's right - different laws and regulations in different jurisdictions. Ireland has taxi regulation appropriate to Ireland. We don't need 'the American dream' of blue collar folks needing two or three jobs to survive.
More political undertones. I guess we're seeing your ideology colour your views here.AndrewJRenko wrote: »No particular newsletter - just check out the US healthcare system and how people end up facing bills of $50k for having a baby or $500k for having cancer. How many Uber hours would the driver be working to pay that back?
Playing the man, not the ball - because your actual argument is weak. Pathetic.AndrewJRenko wrote: »Honestly, it's slightly disappointing to have to explain the basic facts of the industry after all this time. But I guess it proves my point about you not knowing what you don't know.AndrewJRenko wrote: »Anyway, in case you didn't know, driver vetting and vehicle standards are two very important parts of taxi regulation. Drivers that are going to end up picking up a scantily dressed and probably drunk or high 20-something girl on a wet, cold November night need to be properly vetted, as they are at present. Vehicles that spend a lot, lot more time on the road than other vehicles need higher standards of maintenance checks, as they are at present.
Right, and Uber drivers can't be vetted? Well I never. And I guess a taxi driver has never been charged with causing any type of harm to a passenger in Ireland, right?
Well, why don't you and 'Spook' get a room. Maybe you should invite Tobin, P.J. and Squi...AndrewJRenko wrote: »I'd imagine that Spook will allow himself a wry grin at the ludicrous suggestion that he and I are 'compadres'. I've gone head to head with Spook in heated discussions on other topics in the past. I've gone head to head with taxi drivers, I've had a few swipes at the taxi regulator and the NTA in general. Spook and I are far from compadres, but it just happens that we're both right on this particular issue.
Not even worthy of comment.AndrewJRenko wrote: »No-one has suggested that you be disqualified from a discussion of this nature, so stop playing the victim. And again, you might want to go back and remind yourself of your previous acknowledgement that I'm not a taxi driver and have no vested interest in the sector. There is no 'overlord of the discussion'. There's just facts about the taxi sector in Ireland - and you're a long way off the facts.0 -
magicbastarder wrote: »If you really want people to believe you're not being disingenuous or a troll, you're not doing a very good job.
I'm not interested in what you and your partisan compadres think. I just want to body check the inaccuracies in your argument so neutrals can make up their own minds.
You say you are making a point and yet the point is a question? That's some flawed logic right there.
Seems like your level of debate and discussion is coming up short if you have to revert to name calling.Not so much name calling, as identifying your style of debate and argument. Full of promises, short on everything else.
I've sought some further clarification from your fellow traveller on his 'question' if that's ok with you. :-Dnow perhaps you'd like to put the ball back into play and answer the questions that get put to you, a simple "I Don't know" would probably suffice for most of them!0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,427 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 47877
not great news for uber (or lyft):
https://qz.com/1643263/the-cost-to-uber-and-lyft-if-drivers-were-employees/A bill passed by the California Assembly seems likely to classify Uber and Lyft drivers as employees, instead of their current status as independent contractors. Under guidelines laid out in the bill, which is now with the state senate, ride-hail drivers would likely fail the contractor test because they don’t perform work “outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.”
...
In a report earlier this week, equity research analysts at Barclays estimated that reclassifying workers could cost Uber and Lyft an additional $3,625 per driver in California. That’s enough to boost Uber’s annual operating loss by more than $500 million and Lyft’s by $290 million.0 -
What is the point being made by people who keep bringing up the Court of Justice of the European Union decision? Uber made an argument that it wasn't a transport company and lost. What effect do people think that would have here?
Even if Uber had won, the drivers would still need to comply with the law. Those of us are arguing that the law should be changed to remove artificial barriers to entry to allow ride-sharing. Uber will comply with the law and be regulated as a dispatch operator pursuant to local law here.0 -
usernamegoes wrote: »What is the point being made by people who keep bringing up the Court of Justice of the European Union decision? Uber made an argument that it wasn't a transport company and lost. What effect do people think that would have here?
Even if Uber had won, the drivers would still need to comply with the law. Those of us are arguing that the law should be changed to remove artificial barriers to entry to allow ride-sharing. Uber will comply with the law and be regulated as a dispatch operator pursuant to local law here.
Just clarify for people exactly what are you defining as ride sharing?0 -
usernamegoes wrote: »What is the point being made by people who keep bringing up the Court of Justice of the European Union decision? Uber made an argument that it wasn't a transport company and lost. What effect do people think that would have here?
Even if Uber had won, the drivers would still need to comply with the law. Those of us are arguing that the law should be changed to remove artificial barriers to entry to allow ride-sharing. Uber will comply with the law and be regulated as a dispatch operator pursuant to local law here.
this is already the case. uber are regulated the same as any of those cab companies that don't directly operate the vehicles that work for them, who dispatch cars and take a fee for providing the work.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
Amazing what you can find on Google.
https://www.newstalk.com/news/mytaxi-charge-e5-passenger-cancellation-fee-857398It is also introducing terms for a 'Match' service.
This allows passengers to share a licensed taxi with other passengers, who are travelling in the same direction, and split the cost.
The Match service is optional and currently only available in Limerick
Not sure how that will pan out but it is GENUINE ride-sharing not some half baked allow anybody to drive anybody anywhere in any car idea.0 -
I am a hackney driver. Car licensed and I am licensed as a SPSV operator. I do the same job as Uber, but Uber doesn't want hackney drivers in Ireland even though I am fully legal to operate for them. Why ?
Hailo, Mytaxi or whatever their name is now ... same issue. They said their drivers would object to hackney cabs picking up fares in the city. But that is what hackneys are ... you book me and I go pick you up. Totally legal in Irish law. But they said "no".0 -
end of the road wrote: »this is already the case. uber are regulated the same as any of those cab companies that don't directly operate the vehicles that work for them, who dispatch cars and take a fee for providing the work.
Problem with Uber in Ireland is they were nearly 3 years behind Hailo in introducing it and had such a bad name by then that driver's weren't easily lured, even with bonus offers of 2-300 euro each. In fact a lot of driver's signed up for the bonuses and did nothing but the minimum to get paid.
Feb 2015
http://www.theeffect.net/2014/02/26/uber-officially-launches-dublin/
April 2012
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/hailo-brand-drives-off-into-sunset-as-mytaxi-arrives-1.29967660 -
I am a hackney driver. Car licensed and I am licensed as a SPSV operator. I do the same job as Uber, but Uber doesn't want hackney drivers in Ireland even though I am fully legal to operate for them. Why ?
Hailo, Mytaxi or whatever their name is now ... same issue. They said their drivers would object to hackney cabs picking up fares in the city. But that is what hackneys are ... you book me and I go pick you up. Totally legal in Irish law. But they said "no".
That you'd have to ask them, is your vehicle not suitable to class it as a limousine in style?0 -
That you'd have to ask them, is your vehicle not suitable to class it as a limousine in style?
Mytaxi said that I could sign up as a limousine. But that is specific work. There is much more available work on Mytaxi ordinary. My car is "just" an Octavia. They told me that I could NOT take work in Cork city (even though I am legally entitled to take pre-booked jobs). Fact.0 -
Mytaxi said that I could sign up as a limousine. But that is specific work. There is much more available work on Mytaxi ordinary. My car is "just" an Octavia. They told me that I could take work in Cork city. Fact.
So they aren't saying you can't work for them but as a limousine you could work for them even though you are officially a hackney, can't really see your complaint then. Just use them in addition to your normal base to get extra work0 -
Advertisement
-
Mytaxi said that I could sign up as a limousine. But that is specific work. There is much more available work on Mytaxi ordinary. My car is "just" an Octavia. They told me that I could NOT take work in Cork city (even though I am legally entitled to take pre-booked jobs). Fact.
So do the limousines not do the prebookings then?0 -
Limousines have specific requirements. First my Octavia is not a limousine as per regulations. Insurance companies will require a limousine to only be engaged in "limousine work".So do the limousines not do the prebookings then?
I don't believe that picking up Mrs. Murphy and her shopping at the supermarket would satisfy an insurane company. Therefore she could claim directly against me and my career and financial life would be in the bin.
I like working, but I want to be safe.0 -
You seem to be struggling with attention to detail. Where exactly did I suggest that Uber is not a technology company? My question was to whether you're still standing over your claim that 'they're a technology company because they operate an app'. It's just a bit strange that you seem to be avoiding clarifying this point.makeorbrake wrote: »You can keep going on on this 'point' (?) but it only makes you look foolish. My point remains the same as it ever did. They're a technology company. And at the heart of their innovative approach and business model is the design and development of an app. That's not to say it's the only thing - but it's central to their offering. Can you have an app and not be a technology company - of course you can (but I never suggested otherwise). However, you are usually talking about dumb apps (as per the companies that you listed as examples).
Now, you still don't believe that Uber is a technology company and that their approach has not been innovative? Let me go the extra mile to help you.
This is a Forbes contributor article written by Enrique Dans - a consultant in the innovation field.
Title: 'There Are Tech Companies And Then There Are Uber-Tech Companies'
And I quote...."Uber is the most recent company to join the titans of the technology sector thanks to its much-needed disruption of the taxi sector since 2009"
"I said some time ago I saw Uber as one of the great technology companies of the future"
"we’re not talking here about just any old technology company, but instead a commitment to an emerging technology that will soon change the shape of our cities. This is a company leading a megatrend"
Now, if you and others still want to embarrass yourselves by suggesting
1. that Uber has not had an innovative approach
and
2. that its not a technology company
...then go ahead and embarrass yourselves.
I'm still not seeing the great innovation though, given that Uncle Jim had the same business practice going with his Cortina in the 70s.
If you think you've been 'personally attacked', you should report the post to the moderators urgently. I haven't attacked you personally. I've simply asked you to produce some evidence to support the claim that you made earlier? Or if you can't back it up, the obvious thing to do would be to withdraw it, given that you're convinced it is not a material point anyway. It's another simple request for clarification - no more and no less.makeorbrake wrote: »All this proves is that you can't debate the actual topic successfully. The only way you can tackle this is to personally attack me about something that would take the discussion down a cul de sac because as the person who originally brought up that point agreed, it was neither here nor there. It proves beyond doubt that you and others are incapable of backing up your own argument on the actual subject.
You said; " You need to compete like everyone else."makeorbrake wrote: »You're assuming that the comment that I made (that you quoted in coming back with this nonsense) referred to you specifically as a taxi driver when it didn't. In your case, there's still a 'lot of hurt' there given the ideological baggage you bring to the table (as identified from previous comments). In tandem with that, it also addresses your compadres here for good measure - not just you.
What do I need to compete on, given that I'm not a taxi driver.
You seem to have missed the fact that 'libertarian fan boy' was a direct response to your 'champagne socialism' jibe! And then you get all hurt? Are you one of those guys who can dish it out but can't take it?makeorbrake wrote: »This isn't 'lashing out' as you term it. It's a statement of fact. As regards your allegation of 'playing the man, not the ball', that's absurd when you bear in mind that I was addressing a rant of yours in which you stated, "Says the libertarian fan-boy rushing to destroy an industry in the name of the 'free market". Libertarian fan boy? And I'm the one getting personal? Please.
It's not a suggestion that people are ignorant. It's a fact. Most people are ignorant of most stuff. I'm not sure what you do for a living, but if you go out and ask 100 people about some detail of what you do for a living, you'll probably find that 98 of them are ignorant about that detail. That's how it works for my profession, and for most people's professions.makeorbrake wrote: »It still smacks of the suggestion that people are ignorant and feeds into this theme here - developed through the comments of your compadres on this thread suggesting that taxi drivers are 'professionally trained' and bring 'professional standards' and other such nonsense.
As regards needing to know about the finer detail of transport regulation and law, of course the consumer has no interest and nor should they. They know that ride sharing services work for them, that the service offering and value proposition are right on the money by comparison with the taxi industry.
If you want to ask the public about what kind of taxi services they want, that's great. Asking the public about the detail of implementation of taxi legislation in Ireland, they will be largely ignorant.
Congratulations on your appointment as spokesperson for the consumer though. I guess I missed the memo about your new position. Do let us know how exactly you've worked out 'what consumers want'.
You're really doing a bang-up job on encouraging implementation of ride sharing with details of all those illegal services. It's great that we have decent regulation over here that means that illegal taxi services are a rare event - few and far between.makeorbrake wrote: »
They don't care about illegal. I use ride sharing services out here that are illegal every day of the week. A work colleague hailed an uber some months back and was shot at by taxi drivers. The ball bearings they fired at her missed her head by a few inches. No doubt they were 'professionally trained' taxi drivers, right. She still uses uber. Everyone in my office does - although I choose to use a rival ride sharing app. Go figure.
Eh no. Try it yourself, Google 'uber and risk' and you'll gets stories about the dangers to drivers and to passengers, not the dangers to competitors.makeorbrake wrote: »I don't think you're mistaken at all. The 'risk' referred to would be the 'risk' if you're a taxi-man as your days are numbered. That risk.
Remember, you went down this road on the premise that uber is neither a technology company nor innovative. Experts in the field acknowledge that its both. I know that you accept that now as you've read the quoted statements from one of them at the opening of this post above.
Uber Can Be Risky: 5 Reasons Why (for Drivers and Passengers)
Disgruntled drivers and 'cultural challenges': Uber admits to its biggest ...
What Uber's IPO tells us about its risks for profitability — Quartz
Uber Can Be Risky: 5 Reasons Why (for Drivers and Passengers)
Uber for Business: More Dangerous Than We Realized : Risk ...
Uber S-1 Risk Factors: Competitors, DeleteUber campaign, reputation
'Uber-style scheme would put users at risk of murder' - Irish Examiner
Uber's Risk Is Politics - WSJ
Uber lists the biggest risks to its business - Yahoo Finance
Mitigating Risk in a Three-Sided Marketplace: A Conversation with ...
Uber Risk Analyst Jobs | Glassdoor
I literally didn't compare taxi drivers to doctors. I made about about laissez faire regulation - no more and no less.makeorbrake wrote: »
Excuse me but you did. When you use doctors as your analogy, you're putting them into the same bracket as our 'professionally trained' taxi-men.
I've just explained that above - remember the point about driver vetting and vehicle safety?makeorbrake wrote: »
And what risk is it that consumers are foolishly exposing themselves to by using Uber over taxis? Prey tell, please enlighten us.
You're welcome to disagree of course, but it would be interesting to know what your disagreement is based on. Have you spoken to many Irish taxi drivers, or looked at the degree of enforcement done by the Regulator or what?makeorbrake wrote: »Playing the man, not the ball - once again, I see?
Quite simply, I disagree.
Funnily enough, a few posts on a bulletin board isn't exactly evidence. But again, if the Uber drivers / cars have higher standards, they'll have no difficulty getting through the standard regulatory process, right?makeorbrake wrote: »Asked and answered many times on this thread. People have come on here and clarified that more often than not, they experience higher standards with Uber cars/drivers than with taxis.
Consumers are 'unshackled' today. Most taxi firms have apps to let the consumers 'vote' with their smartphone. The only difference is price - you want to cut the prices to an unsustainable level, so we'll have drivers working unsafe levels of hours in unmaintained vehicles. Remind me again how this helps consumers?makeorbrake wrote: »There won't be more cars on the road if the consumer is unshackled and allowed to vote with his/her smartphone (via ridesharing application) and in the process take every taxi driver off the roads.
So you don't get it, OK then. Check out Donald Rumsfeld's comments from around 2002/2003 about the known unknowns and unknown unknowns and see if you can work it out.makeorbrake wrote: »
Because "You know enough to know what you know"? Pure genius...we'll leave it at that.
And there was no ideology from you in this thread, by any chance?makeorbrake wrote: »
Ah, yes - here comes that political bile rising to the top. Last I heard, ride sharing is available in a hell of a lot more markets than just the U.S. (but I guess you're not a 'big picture' guy, huh?).
More political undertones. I guess we're seeing your ideology colour your views here.
Seriously though, isn't it strange that you feel qualified to dictate how the Irish taxi market should work when you really don't get how things work on the ground here?makeorbrake wrote: »
Playing the man, not the ball - because your actual argument is weak. Pathetic.
They can't be vetted at present, because only designated bodies can do Garda vetting. But if Uber drivers want to meet the same standards as all other drivers, they are welcome to do their thing, once their vehicles meet the required standard too.makeorbrake wrote: »
Right, and Uber drivers can't be vetted? Well I never. And I guess a taxi driver has never been charged with causing any type of harm to a passenger in Ireland, right?
Presumably because it was 100% correct, right?makeorbrake wrote: »Not even worthy of comment.0 -
In rural Ireland there is very little public transport. Hackney cabs are an important option for many people who do not have their own transport. I think that such people want the least expensive transport option. Limousines for these people is a totally ridiculous suggestion.
Is it up to private individuals in Ireland to solve the problem of lack of public transport ? I have tried my best, but regulations and costs have made me quit. Rural Ireland is dying. Our old aged country relatives have fewer options every year. The pub closed 5 years ago, the shop 2 years ago and the husband died last year .... now she is isolated. And her hackney cab has stopped working because he can't pick up other work on apps like Uber or Mytaxi but his insurance company raises his premium every year even though he has never had a claim against him.
That's my story.0 -
In rural Ireland there is very little public transport. Hackney cabs are an important option for many people who do not have their own transport. I think that such people want the least expensive transport option. Limousines for these people is a totally ridiculous suggestion.
Is it up to private individuals in Ireland to solve the problem of lack of public transport ? I have tried my best, but regulations and costs have made me quit. Rural Ireland is dying. Our old aged country relatives have fewer options every year. The pub closed 5 years ago, the shop 2 years ago and the husband died last year .... now she is isolated. And her hackney cab has stopped working because he can't pick up other work on apps like Uber or Mytaxi but his insurance company raises his premium every year even though he has never had a claim against him.
That's my story.
Bear with me, while I just clarify some details.
1 How do MyTaxi calculate the fare, hackney's in my experience charged a set fare usually based on a fixed charge per head and used to be the epitome of ride sharing, in that if four customers came out of the local pub, they would all be accommodated by the local hack at a price per skull regardless if they were one stop or 4 stops?
2 Are MyTaxi using the map app in a pseudo taximeter mode and calculating fares by distance? If not what's stopping you from charging in the traditional hackney model?
3 Are you still an SPSV driver as you now say you've quit?
4 Have you considered costing either a rental taxi or purchasing a WAT to avail of this extra work available?
5 Everyone's SPSV insurance has risen afaik it's like fuel and maintenance it's an overhead, I haven't had a claim or penalty points in 16 years and my insurance still goes up.0 -
I’m a neutral but..... I’m not long back from the USA and Uber was a lot cheaper than a cab. It was also more efficient and you knew how much the trip cost before you ordered it and it was cashless. The main thing being that it was cheaper. Uber is in nearly all of Europe too.
If it ever comes here , I’d use it .. to the detriment of taxi drivers. It’s all about satisfying the customer at the end of the day.
I feel that Ireland is a backward place because we have folk here , I’m presuming they are taxi drivers, slating Uber and wishing that it never comes to Ireland0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,427 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 47877
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 22058
I’m a neutral but..... I’m not long back from the USA and Uber was a lot cheaper than a cab. It was also more efficient and you knew how much the trip cost before you ordered it and it was cashless. The main thing being that it was cheaper. Uber is in nearly all of Europe too.
If it ever comes here , I’d use it .. to the detriment of taxi drivers. It’s all about satisfying the customer at the end of the day.
I feel that Ireland is a backward place because we have folk here , I’m presuming they are taxi drivers, slating Uber and wishing that it never comes to Ireland
I'm not a taxi driver.
But I must say, fair play to you. In 1 fell swoop you've just gone and shot down makeorbrake's whole premise of what Uber is.
Anyhow, anyone who thinks uber is the competitor for taxi, is really missing a trick with GoCar. They'll be the game changer. Becuase that's where the innovation is.0 -
magicbastarder wrote: »because it's haemmoraging money.
it's not sustainable, unless they change something. (i wonder what they might change...)
To that point, something I posted earlier...[Deleted User] wrote: »Once Uber burns through the last of its funds its fubar. It'll have to do one or a combination of the following
1. raise prices to normal local rates
2. slash the percentages paid to drivers
3. Hope they can crack autonomous driving in all their markets asap. This will allow them to drop all drivers at which point they become a fleet owner
While #3 is most definitely on the way at some point, there's no way it'll be here before the funds run dry.
Implementation of 1 or 2 will see Uber take a nosedive in popularity
It's only cheap because its using other people's money to subsidise the ride cost0 -
Advertisement
-
I’m a neutral but..... I’m not long back from the USA and Uber was a lot cheaper than a cab. It was also more efficient and you knew how much the trip cost before you ordered it and it was cashless. The main thing being that it was cheaper. Uber is in nearly all of Europe too.
If it ever comes here , I’d use it .. to the detriment of taxi drivers. It’s all about satisfying the customer at the end of the day.
I feel that Ireland is a backward place because we have folk here , I’m presuming they are taxi drivers, slating Uber and wishing that it never comes to Ireland
I’m not a taxi driver and I’ve never been described as backward in my views. I do detest dubious corporate activity though. Uber is an illusion. It loses bucketloads of money each year; it has to subsidise fares on a massive level to retain market share; it depends on treating its drivers as something other than employees to function. And it is only trying to capture a monopoly so that it can up prices in the medium term; and roll out driverless cars in the long term.
We absolutely should resist deregulation and a race to the bottom in terms of employee standards for a cheaper taxi. Uber are simply not worth it. They are not real and viable in the long term.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement