Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Uber Finally Accepts Cash -- For Autorickshaws In Delhi

Posted by timothy on from the diffusion-of-innovations dept.

An anonymous reader writes Car-hailing giant Uber has launched a new service called UberAUTO in Delhi, which will not only make no charge for hailing an autorickshaw, but will permit customers to pay cash for the first time in the company's history. As there seems to be no specific reason why the three-wheeled carriers should be exempt from Uber's online-only payment policy, the move invites speculation that the $40 billion firm is experimenting with unlocking another revenue stream.

62 comments

  1. April fools? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely it must be for Uber to foresake payments.

  2. Won't work in the US by mitcheli · · Score: 2

    Cash payments, while really nice for the drivers, would open them up to attack. In markets like DC. Uber drivers have to have clear signage indicating they are driving for Uber (see how many you can spot on the street corner sometime). But if they have this signage, there's nothing saying they can't be carjacked or mugged.

    --
    Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
    1. Re:Won't work in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why is that problem unique to the US? Do indian bandits not rob people for cash?

    2. Re:Won't work in the US by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      Most regular taxis take cash.

    3. Re:Won't work in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Nope, India is a paradise.

      Just that people shit in the streets and women are just meat socks for mens raping pleasure. Oh and the smell. And that the people are all lying assholes. Why do we want more H1Bs again?

    4. Re:Won't work in the US by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 2

      Cash payments, while really nice for the drivers, would open them up to attack.

      Autorickshaws are a type of mini-taxi common in India. They are already cash-based operations.

      The summary says:

      there seems to be no specific reason why the three-wheeled carriers should be exempt from Uber's online-only payment policy,

      ...but as they're typically metered anyway rather than fixed price, there's a very good reason -- Uber are moving into an established market sector, not creating a new one. They're effectively trying to be "central dispatch" to a bunch of existing self-employed taxi drivers.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    5. Re:Won't work in the US by transporter_ii · · Score: 1

      Obviously a large amount of Americans are able to make web-based payments. In India, this is probably the exact opposite situation. The reason they would do this is obvious if you think about it, and the reason why they would not want to do it here is also obvious. It would make it A LOT harder to get their cut if people were paying in cash.

      --
      Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
    6. Re:Won't work in the US by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Open to attack, wow.

      The world must have really many bad places.

      In Germany I doubt you find a cab that accepts a credit card. Processing fees are much to high for that and I certainly never saw a cab with an option to pay with card.

      However in common "holiday countries" using credit cards to pay a cab are more common.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re:Won't work in the US by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      In Germany I doubt you find a cab that accepts a credit card.

      Well, unless you consider Munich, Frankfurt, and Berlin to not be part of Germany, your doubt is very misplaced. I've used a credit card in taxis in all three cities. Not every cab takes them (although I can't remember ever having to go past the second taxi in the rank to get one, so I'd say at least 50%), and there's usually a fee (a Euro or two), but it's not at all unusual.

    8. Re:Won't work in the US by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well, I did not try for years since I had really trouble to pay once when I realized they don't accept them.

      Point is: cabs are usually payed in cash ... and the "attack/assault" danger is close to null in civilized countries.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:Won't work in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ugh, stupid racists always looking for something to hang their hat on. Fuck off asshole.

    10. Re:Won't work in the US by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Cab payment patterns pretty much match overall payment patterns. Americans use credit cards for a much larger portion of transactions than Europeans. I never pay with cash when I can pay with a card, it's simpler, faster, and cheaper to use a card.

    11. Re:Won't work in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What .... you mean they are a proper taxi company? Bugger me!

    12. Re:Won't work in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's pretty right though.

    13. Re:Won't work in the US by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, the passenger rapes you!

    14. Re:Won't work in the US by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      autorickshaw/tuktuk drivers work in cash only anyways so not sure how different uber drivers would be from your regulars.

      they all work cash only.

      all of asia between turkey and korea is cash only for most daily matters.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    15. Re:Won't work in the US by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      I know... dangerous precedent, isn't it?

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    16. Re:Won't work in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cash is legal tender, you can legally always use cash .... These big corporations are not above the law.

      I'll stick to taxis, thanks.

    17. Re:Won't work in the US by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      How can it be cheaper to pay with a credit card? With the signing etc. I doubt it is faster. It might be fast in countries where you simply enter a PIN code.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    18. Re:Won't work in the US by davester666 · · Score: 1

      They would be an improvement on US culture?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    19. Re:Won't work in the US by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      You don't sign or put in a pin code. Just swipe, and you're on your way. As for cheaper, I get at least 2% cash back on all my credit card purchases, 5-7% in some cases.

  3. New revenuestream? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...experimentig with unlocking another revenue stream...

    Since most of Ubers business model seems to be based on "ignore local law, regulations, ignore having expensive insurance, ..."

    Let me guess, this new revenuestream is based on "skip reporting GST or income tax too"

    1. Re:New revenuestream? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      If they accept cash, they're pretty much guaranteed the uber "drivers" are going to lie about the actual distance and short them on their percentage, so it's not much of a revenue stream. I'll bet they are amazed how many of the rides they arrange only travel a single block...

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  4. It's a farce by OverlordQ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Still trying to say you're not a taxi service at this point is getting pretty ridiculous.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:It's a farce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a taxi driver? If not why do you care? Uber means lower prices.

    2. Re:It's a farce by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lower prices at what cost? It appears their business model is based on not paying taxes licensing fees and not paying for commercial insurance. Lower cost due to an unfair competitive advantage gained by being scofflaws... is that the kind of business model we want to encourage?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:It's a farce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you a taxi driver? If not why do you care? Uber means lower prices.

      I care because I want to be able to safely hail a cab at 3:00am and not get gouged, robbed, raped, or abandoned in a ghetto.

      The reason why taxi laws exist, in nearly every country on the planet, is always initially due to consumer protection.

      The "draconian" and "tyranical" "protectionist" taxi laws help make it safe for the consumer/rider and ensure certain things like:
      Accountability.
      Driver licensing and insurance.
      Vehicle maintenance and safety standards.
      Access for people with disabilities.
      Round the clock service availability.
      Non-discrimination.
      Fair caps to prevent gouging.
      and much more that your inexperience and ignarance doesn't yet have a clue about.

      The regulation also limits or prevents;
      Gouging.
      Being thrown out/dropped off in unreasonable locations.
      Criminal predation.
      Industry domination by organized crime.
      and lots more.

      These "ride share" services with their hipster Prius drivers provide none of these assurances and CAN represent a significant danger to the public. Dangers that have been largely eliminated by regulating bus, taxi, and limosine services.

      Here's an example:
      In my area limosine services have a legally mandadted minimum charge. At first this seems ridiculous and anti-free market. But, the reason is that taxi services are required to provide round-the-clock service. Limosines are not. This places an unreasonable hardship on taxis, if limo services can undercut taxi prices which must have "padding" in order to be able to provide round-the-clock service without going out of business.

      Lower prices don't benefit you if you can't get a ride when you need one, do they?

      Sadly, bus, taxi regulation has been proven to be a requirement over and over and over again. Letting ride share services enjoy the income benefits without having to adhere to ANY of the requirements is ridiculous and unsustainable.

    4. Re:It's a farce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That depends. Are the licensing fees and mandatory insurance actually beneficial to the cab driver or customers or are the rent seeking by municipalities and insurance companies?

      I'd argue Uber (and similar services) is an experiment in whether or not we actually need/want those regulations.

    5. Re:It's a farce by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Still trying to say you're not a taxi service at this point is getting pretty ridiculous.

      So is claiming that limiting the number of taxis through a medallion system is for the benefit of consumers.

      --
      Do you have ESP?
    6. Re:It's a farce by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      I'd argue Uber (and similar services) is an experiment in whether or not we actually need/want those regulations.

      There was a time when there were no requirements. The taxi laws were built over the years to deal with problems. The experiment has been done and the result is the current system.

    7. Re:It's a farce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a taxi driver? If not why do you care? Uber means lower prices.

      No, I'm not a driver ... I'm a potential passenger.

      I care.

      Uber means higher risk to me.

    8. Re:It's a farce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am as distrustful of uber as the next guy, but circumstances have changed since the accretion of those rules into the current system.

      In theory the internet's ability to connect everyone enables the kind of accountability that the current set of regulations provides. I really don't like the fact that uber does double-duty - handling the accountability and making money from each transaction - that's straight-foward conflict-of-interest which is untenable for a system of accountability. FWIW, I don't like angie's list for the same reason - because of their business model their interests are aligned with those of the companies that pay them for inclusion on the list while at the same time selling themselves as a source of accountability for those businesses.

      What I think we need is a sort of P2P "web of trust" for implementing accountability, one where the costs are evenly distributed across all of the users - buyers and sellers alike - and there is no one with enough power over the system to corrupt in the first place. But... that lack of a central authority means it would be hard for any developer to make enough money to justify the creation in the first place.

    9. Re:It's a farce by tmosley · · Score: 2

      Sorry, but they do, in fact, pay for commercial insurance. The other costs are the fault of government intervention in the marketplace on behalf of the taxi companies. Fuck them both is a broken broomhandle. Medallions are fascism, plain and simple. The merger of government and corporate power to produce income for the government and shield the corporation from competition. Uber is what will make THEM behave, not the other way around.

    10. Re:It's a farce by tmosley · · Score: 1

      "The taxi laws were built over the years to deal with problems."

      Yes, problems like competition from the little guy limiting the cash flow for the big boys.

    11. Re:It's a farce by tmosley · · Score: 2

      Funny, since a taxi driver can rape you, murder you, and dump the body without leaving any evidence that you were ever in his cab, as opposed to Uber where the company knows exactly when and where you got in and out, what route you took, etc. An Uber driver raping a passenger is like a guy raping someone in the lobby of a police station. He's going to get caught, and he knows it. So in reality, it just doesn't happen, except maybe when someone just poses as an Uber driver, but fuck, you can pose as a police officer and rape someone too.

    12. Re:It's a farce by volmtech · · Score: 1

      This is an ongoing subject. According to some other poster it cost x amount of dollars to run a cab. A taxi can't run at a loss so the more taxis there are the less riders per taxi means higher fares to keep all those cabs running. That million dollar medallion might have something to do with cost though.

    13. Re:It's a farce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ignoramus. They provide commercial insurance. You are spouting the myths of the mob-like cartels of officials and their taxi-company-owning cronies in those statements. I see either a shill or a fool behind them words!

      And why should Americans, land of the free--whose declaration originally included the right to "pursue industry" but changed it to "of happiness" to be BROADER and provide language that would--obviously, to them, INCLUDE that right, have to obtain licenses to work?

      That's left-commitee-Sovietism masking as "good governance", and since it means every single regulator is a potential obstruction and useful tool to be bought directly or through the laws they "have" to enforce (and often, make-up), it is why 400,000,000 or so Americans can have a 1% growth rate and police beating of those who do nary more than set-up a food stand near other restaurants because "public safety!"

    14. Re:It's a farce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Refusing "licensing fees" might make them scofflaws, but now that's an unfair advantage?

      Did you consider businesses that refuse to pay the mafia protection money as having an unfair advantage again?

      Licensing fees, as far as medallions go, are literally nothing more than protection money. "Hey, look, if you don't pay us, you never know what sort of terrible things might happen. I mean, it sure would be awful if your taxi ended up behind locked gates with armed guards around, wouldn't it?"

    15. Re:It's a farce by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      This is an ongoing subject. According to some other poster it cost x amount of dollars to run a cab. A taxi can't run at a loss so the more taxis there are the less riders per taxi means higher fares to keep all those cabs running. That million dollar medallion might have something to do with cost though.

      It's so funny to see stuff like this written so seriously by someone who doesn't understand basic economics.

      Here's something to chew on: why does this "problem" only apply to taxis? Why don't we have a medallion system for grocery stores?

      Be careful, your brain might catch fire thinking this hard....

      --
      Do you have ESP?
    16. Re:It's a farce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullcrap, a lot of taxis have cameras and GPS, taxi companies and drivers are required to keep trip logs, drivers are required to get police clearance, etc. Your arguments are biased and ridiculous. You sound like an uber idiot, sorry.

      Uber's business model is criminal, clearly the Uber corporation is fraudulent, irresponsible and unethical.

    17. Re:It's a farce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because grocery stores don't drive along public infrastructure, you dumb fuck.

    18. Re:It's a farce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's so funny to see stuff like this written so seriously by someone who doesn't understand basic economics.

      Here's something to chew on: why does this "problem" only apply to taxis? Why don't we have a medallion system for grocery stores?

      Be careful, your brain might catch fire thinking this hard....

      We do have exactly the same situation for every business, it's called location and good will. If I want to buy an existing business, I have to pay to take over the location and pay for the good-will (clientele) that already exists. Taxi medallions or plates are no different, it's simply a business that is being bought from someone else. Are you suggesting that a business has no right to sell itself based upon the revenue it generates? It happens all the time and the taxi business is not different at all.

      So many people shoot off their mouths with no real understanding of the basic facts.

    19. Re:It's a farce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "whose declaration originally included the right to "pursue industry" but changed it to "of happiness""

      Yeah, no. That is false.

    20. Re:It's a farce by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      Are you a taxi driver? If not why do you care? Uber means lower prices.

      Not necessarily : taxi fees are regulated, Uber fees are not.
      In Bangkok for instance, official taxis are one of the cheapest mode of transportation, especially if you are a tourist. Because prices are regulated, they can't overcharge you (although some may attempt to scam you by not using the meter).

    21. Re:It's a farce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While it's true that any criminal activity could be perpetrated by a taxi driver, the licensing background checks, cost barrier to entry and these regulations significantly help to mitigate those risks. That's why the laws were eneacted!

      Uber and other ride share services require noting more than a car/autorickshaw and a burner phone. There are a few assurances with taxis and there are ZERO assurances with Uber.

      Frankly the most interesting aspect of the entire Uber debacle is their seeming impunity. While any individual would be arrested for doing exactly what Uber is doing, municipalities seem powerless against Uber. Their only recourse against Uber, for patently breaking countless laws, is launching civil suits against Uber.

    22. Re:It's a farce by tmosley · · Score: 1

      No, the laws were enacted to protect corrupt taxi cartels (you know, the ones signing your paychecks) from competition.

  5. Next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next thing you know they will be taking passengers off the street who pay cash. You know, like a taxi.

  6. $40 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope, we're not in a bubble. no sir

  7. how DID it work? by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    I've never used Uber. Do they normally do some kind of escrow thing or prepay only or invoice the customer after the fact?

    1. Re:how DID it work? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      You give them your credit card when you sign up, and they charge it once the ride ends and email the receipt.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:how DID it work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have your card on file. It gets charged sometime after the ride is over. A customer would only need to be invoiced when their payment method doesn't clear, which is quite rare.

  8. "... first time in company's history" == 2 yrs??? by DutchUncle · · Score: 2

    Overdramatic much?

  9. Autorickshaws market is tough by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2
    The autorickshaw market is brutal, on the customers. It is ripe for taking. The Indian autorickshaw drivers routinely tamper with the meter, haggle with the customer, demand tips on top of the metered rate, refuse to fares etc etc. Most Indians are fed up with them and those who could afford the wait time and money prefer to use "call taxis". But..

    It will be a tough market to break into. Most of these autorickshaws are actually owned by the traffic policemen and lower level politicians with strong criminal nexus. The actual driver is usually a hired hand. Some of them rent the vehicle for a flat per-diem rate. The policemen do not enforce the laws on the book for "their" autorickshaws. If they decide to selectively enforce all the law on the book on uber affiliated drivers, Uber will find it difficult to handle.

    Unless Uber gets into cahoots with a local politician with enough clout, this won't work for Uber. Even if it works, it won't work for the ordinary Indians. Corruption in USA is distant, does not affect the daily life directly, it is more abstract. In India, it hits you right between the eyes, in every turn. From getting simple driver license renewal to getting the building permits to getting electricity connection to getting a death certificate to legal heir certificate to... every where there is a someone sheepishly grinning with a hand held out, "Saar, take care of the usual saar"

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Autorickshaws market is tough by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Uber is using existing autos licensed for public transportation. Autos for private uses are non existent anyways (for it be used like regular Uber)

    2. Re:Autorickshaws market is tough by bayankaran · · Score: 1

      The situation has changed in most urban centers of India as far as auto-rickshaws are concerned. Most have electronic meters which are resistant to tampering.

      About policemen owning auto-rickshaws - you may find some outlier cases in certain areas of India, but the way you generalize a whole country is illogical and untrue.

      There are enough problems in India...but there is no need to exaggerate or generalize such a vast country in broad strokes.

      --
      Tat Tvam Asi
  10. Support Your Assertion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The system's longterm development to deal with countless real-world issues indicate that the medalion system is indeed benefitial for the consumer. It is a huge body of work that is publicly available to anyone willing to do even a basic Ggoogle search. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X07000534

    Backup your assertion or STFU.

    1. Re:Support Your Assertion by tmosley · · Score: 0

      Why don't you log in? Afraid you'll be made for the shill you are?

    2. Re:Support Your Assertion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Classic argumentum ad hominem! You should get a prize.

      He provided a scientific paper supporting his position and your response is to call him a shill, for not logging in? Will you call him a fag next?

      Bravo!

    3. Re:Support Your Assertion by tmosley · · Score: 1

      "Him"

      Whatever you say, same"fag".