Uber Face Fines Over Drunk Driving Complaints -- And Lost $2.8 Billion Last Year (usnews.com)

While Uber's bookings doubled last year, the company still showed a net lost of $2.8 billion. And now, "California regulators are recommending that Uber pay a $1.13 million fine for not investigating rider complaints that drivers were working intoxicated." An anonymous reader writes: California "requires ride-hailing companies to have a zero-tolerance policy for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs," notes Reuters -- and yet Tuesday's order reports that investigators "found no evidence that (Uber) followed up in any way with zero-tolerance complaints several hours or even one full day after passengers filed such complaints." Investigators from the state's Public Utilities Commission are asking the full commission to examine their findings,

"To confirm the policy, regulators analyzed selected complaints against drivers who received three or more complaints," Reuters reports. Though Uber has sometimes suspended drivers within one hour of customer complaints -- 22 times -- they've apparently received 2,047 drug- or alcohol-related complaints between August 2014 and August of 2015. "The company said drivers were banned from working in 574 of those complaints, according to the order. But regulators then reviewed 154 complaints, and determined that the company failed to promptly suspend drivers in 149 complaints. The company also failed to investigate 133 complaints, and did not suspend a driver or investigate 113 complaints, the order shows... In at least 25 instances, Uber failed to suspend or investigate a driver after three or more complaints, the order states."
An Uber spokeswoman said the company had no comment, but "Adding to Uber's challenges, a Reuters investigation found a ten-fold increase in attacks on drivers in Sao Paulo last year, including several murders, after the start of cash payments on its platform at the end of July." And in addition, a judge in Brazil ruled last week that Uber's drivers are employees, which could make Uber liable for a variety of benefits, following a similar ruling in another Brazilian state court.

But there's also some good news for Uber. A court in Rome suspended a ban on Uber in Italy until the company finishes its legal appeal, and a two-month suspension in Taiwan also came to an end after Uber agreed to partner with license rental car companies.

Comments

Paradox

[Anonymous Coward]

Black males commit over 50% of all solved murder cases in the USA. They are about 6.5%-7% of the population. Most of these murders are black on black crime. Still, a white person is many times more likely to be shot by a black person, than vice-versa. Yet if you respond to these facts rationally - by avoiding blacks - you're somehow a bad person.

Re: Paradox

[Anonymous Coward]

This kind of logic is what creates flat earthers, moon landing hoax supporters and general conspiracy theorists. You take lots of facts, these are not being disputed, and forget how to read between the lines. Right around saying look at these facts and don't know how to contextualize them. You're not wrong, you're just the seventh rock from the sun venting hot gas.

Re:Paradox

[Anonymous Coward]

"Black males commit over 50% of all solved murder cases in the USA"

Non-blacks get away with murder more often than blacks.

"white person is many times more likely to be shot by a black person, than vice-versa"

There are five times more whites than blacks.

"Yet if you respond ... by avoiding blacks"

Systemic racism.

Re:Paradox

[Anonymous Coward]

Non-blacks get away with murder more often than blacks.

Okay - how much more often? 0.01% wouldn't really matter. 35% would. So, care to quantify or is this another drive-by posting?

If (and only if) that's true, why? Are non-black murderers smarter and harder to catch? IQ testing results broken down by racial lines would suggest yes. If not, why not and can you substantiate it?

There are five times more whites than blacks.

This suggests that murders generally happen at random. They don't. The vast majority of murder victims are murdered by someone who knows them. Thus, black males commit most murders AND they generally kill other black males. So inter-racial murders are a minority of occurrences. The "party line" is that whites are racist and tend to want to see blacks harmed. Put all this together - the fact that blacks kill whites more often than whites kill blacks really casts doubt on the whole "white racism" angle. Whites are not some 20-30-50% more likely to be mudered by blacks than the other way around. According to federal government crime stats, which you are free to look up yourself, blacks killing whites is about 12 times more likely, which is 12,000%. Blacks are inherently more violent - if this were any other subject other than race this would have been a foregone conclusion obviously supported by abundant evidence. Racial politics and the whole white-guilt thing are the only reason why this is not more widely acknowledged. That's a social pressure, not a fact-based scientific conclusion.

Systemic racism.

Racism is the belief in the genetic superiority or inferiority of a group of people. It very well could be that black culture is toxic - its disdain of fatherhood and willingness to venerate street criminals are likely causes. The reason why blacks are more violent is irrelevant in that it has no impact whatsoever on the decision making. However they came to be that way, blacks are more violent and more prone to violent crime. In light of this fact, avoiding blacks is a good step towards enhancing one's personal security. In fact if it is not genetic, then that makes it all the more incumbent on the "black community" to solve its own problems by changing their behaviors. If it really is genetic (the racist point of view) then nothing anyone can do will change things because the problem is inherent. So in fact, it is more "black-friendly" to assume it is cultural. Still, the black community does not ask me or you what it should do or what its values should be - thus, in light of my total lack of control over black priorities, avoiding blacks remains my best move. QED.

Re: Paradox

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading between the lines = somehow it's all "de wi man's faul he din du nuffin"

Re: Paradox

[Anonymous Coward]

Internet troll

Re: Paradox

[Fangatafoa]

Great job.

Re:Paradox

[Anonymous Coward]

Black males commit over 50% of all solved murder cases in the USA. They are about 6.5%-7% of the population. Most of these murders are black on black crime. Still, a white person is many times more likely to be shot by a black person, than vice-versa. Yet if you respond to these facts rationally - by avoiding blacks - you're somehow a bad person.

You're a bad person because you posted this off-topic shit on a Slashdot discussion about Uber.

Re: Paradox

[Type44Q]

If it really is genetic (the racist point of view) then nothing anyone can do will change things because the problem is inherent.

And if you travel around, meet enough Africans and black Americans... you'll know it's not; it's clearly cultural.

Re: Paradox

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was a post lamenting the inclusion of systemd it would be fine though

Re:Paradox

[Anonymous Coward]

Stating the truth will never be racism. You are just enabling censorship with Newspeak.
Pity I have modded things here, otherwise it would not be anonymous.

Sounds like an illegal law

[Anonymous Coward]

Denying that drivers due process and all and depriving them of their livelihood. I hope Commifornia gets sued.

Re:Sounds like an illegal law

[Anonymous Coward]

Enforcing state law on companies operating within it is absolutely legal.

Re:Sounds like an illegal law

[Anonymous Coward]

An "illegal" law, LOL

Re:Sounds like an illegal law

[sunking2]

Courts often strike down laws as illegal/unconstitutional. It's one of their primary jobs.

Re:Sounds like an illegal law

[david_thornley]

A court's primary jobs (at least in the US) is to interpret the law as written and considering precedents and to legally decide matters of fact. Striking a law down is rare, although it does tend to make the news more than the latest civil trial between two companies. Most laws are perfectly legal. Most of the bills introduced in Congress and state legislatures that would be illegal are political grandstanding only and die a quiet death in committee, once the sponsors' constituents have forgotten about it.

2.8 Billion

[rsilvergun]

isn't a lot of money given what's at stake. If Uber pulls off what they're trying to do they'll become the defacto transportation system for basically the entire modern world. Now, any sane society would just have public transportation instead of "Public Transportation with a private company skimming 20% off the top" but that's now how these things usually play out...

Re:2.8 Billion

[Anonymous Coward]

If Uber pulls off what they're trying to do

What they're trying to do is what all corporations run by psychopaths is trying to do: Be the perfect cancer.

And they should be treated as such.

Re:2.8 Billion

[Anonymous Coward]

Any sane society would shut Uber down for what it is; a ponzi scheme that abuses and asset-strips labor.

The regulators and drivers will shut them down well before anyone gets fully reliable self-driving automobiles on the market.

This is Enron all over again.

Re:2.8 Billion

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please. If taxis could ever have been "the defacto transportation system for the entire world", it would've happened decades ago. Having a phone app is an improvement, but not THAT much of an improvement.

And plenty of companies "try" to conquer the world. That doesn't give them the right or ability to handwave away a $3 billion dollar loss based upon their CEO's future dreamworld where they earn $25 trillion a second.

Re:2.8 Billion

[lucm]

isn't a lot of money given what's at stake. If Uber pulls off what they're trying to do they'll become the defacto transportation system for basically the entire modern world.

Uber is losing money on every single ride. That's where the $2.8B went last year: paying drivers. If that money-losing model become a "defacto" transportation system for the entire modern world, it will mean that the bulk of the GDP will be spent on paying drivers to move people around. This is so fucking absurd I really don't get how educated people can even consider that as a serious possibility. The numbers just don't add up.

There's only 2 way Uber can turn a profit:
1) increase their prices to a point where cabs are a lot cheaper
2) use self-driving cars that are cheap to build and operate, and find someone to subsidize production on a massive scale

If they were anywhere near a breakthrough with their self-driving cars, things would be different. But they're not. They've used the worst possible strategy for their business: acquire shitloads of customers long before they can be monetized. They started on that path at a time when it was all the rage in Silicon Valley (case in point: Twitter). But that's not going to work. Tesla, Amazon and Google are all in a much better position to take over this market if it ever becomes cost-effective because they will have the technology to make it happen. Uber only has an app that a handful of RoR retarded programmers could recreate in a week.

Re:2.8 Billion

[tsa]

That's why they're banned in Germany and the Netherlands. We have enough problems with normal taxi companies as it is.

Re:2.8 Billion

[geekmux]

...If Uber pulls off what they're trying to do they'll become the defacto transportation system for basically the entire modern world. Now, any sane society would just have public transportation instead of "Public Transportation with a private company skimming 20% off the top...

Part of what makes Uber unique is the fact that they employ humans, which is a considerable benefit for any sane society to see value in.

If Uber "pulls off" autonomous vehicles (essentially the only road to a sustainable business model), they fucking will be public transportation with a greedy company skimming 20% off the top.

The larger concern is they may force all other competition off the proverbial road in the process, ensuring that your "defacto" option is the only monopoly in town. You thought cab fares were bad? Wait until that shit happens and insurance companies make it financially impossible to afford to own a car or let a "dangerous" human drive one.

Welcome to public transportation circa 2020.

Re:2.8 Billion

[DarkOx]

Wait until that shit happens and insurance companies make it financially impossible to afford to own a car or let a "dangerous" human drive one."

People keep saying this but there is the reality of rural America (most of America geographically speaking). If you live in the city or burbs this seams reasonable. Where I live we have mostly farmers driving their 15 year old pickups around. These often have farm use plates (important point here). Normal registrations, plates, and full rate insurance would already be to much for this market. So the state and insurers have already carved out exceptions. More carve outs will be made.

I expect what we will see is something like you can drive whatever you want in the country, like how in the county roads are 55mph unless otherwise marked and inside city limits they are 35 unless otherwise marked but cities will require either special insurance or automated driving. From a purely technical standpoint this makes sense. Its way easier to automate city driving. Roads have lines, there are signals, its all relatively slow speed, its small area if you have deploy additional network or communications infrastructure, roads are all paved so stopping distances with a otherwise maintained vehicle are somewhat uniform, you don't have excessively steep grades etc, you don't have to pass the tractor on a double line sometimes because...reasons.

Driving around the county on the other hand is easy for humans (at least in daylight) there is little traffic, humans are good at dealing with the slightly out of the ordinary. We are super good at pattern recognition, I tell the difference between a dirt road and an ATV trail, because I just can.

My guess is uber and similar services will fill a niche. We will see things like Park-n-Rides at the edge of town. So I can cruise into town with my manually operated vehicle park it, and jump in a "public" self driver for my errands around the city that day. Already Cities like Waynesboro and Stanton have carpool lots, at the edges of town were folks can meet up and park and share a vehicle for longer trips around the valley. There isn't any public transportation attached to these currently its just a place for people to aggregate nothing more. It easy to imagine a hand full of self driving ubers at these places waiting to be used for trips inside the city.

Re:2.8 Billion

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

In Michigan they calcuated it would be cheaper to hire Uber to carry bus passengers door to door rather than create an enormous multi-county bus service.

Re:2.8 Billion

[swell]

"There's only 2 way Uber can turn a profit:"

Oh, ye of little imagination ...

3) Uber has a captive audience in every car. Ask yourself what Google and Facebook and TV networks do with their captive audience.
4) Uber has vast knowledge about where people go, and inferences about what people do as well as their financial and social status. Ask yourself what Google and Facebook do with similar information.
5) Uber's various conflicts with worldwide governments become an asset as they learn how to manipulate and coerce regulators. They will create favorable conditions for their present and future ambitions.

There are many ways for Uber to profit.

Re: 2.8 Billion

[Anonymous Coward]

Big surprise. Bad company does bad stuff. Just like tesla descrimination against us citizens by not hiring them and instead hiring hb1 visa workers. There are floors of them. All Indian.

Imagine if the 3 million us citizens and legal aliens would be doing this well paid work. Our country would be in much better shape.

Why study stem if you have to 'compete' with foriegn workers and ultimately not get hired. Compete isn't the correct term.

Re: 2.8 Billion

[Anonymous Coward]

The state gets significant revenue by licensing and fuel and other. Don't think everyone will give it up so easy. Driving is as much of a perceived right as gun ownership.

Re:2.8 Billion

[serviscope_minor]

isn't a lot of money given what's at stake. If Uber pulls off what they're trying to do they'll become the defacto transportation system for basically the entire modern world.

It is a lot, because Uber have very little chance of doing that. In terms of self driving cars, they are one of a large number of players. There's nothing much to indicate that they have any particular advantage over anyone else in that regard either.

In terms of taxis, well, they're just taxis. App based ride hailing complete with driver tracking isn't especially new, and given that drivers can have apps from multiple companies, there's not the huge self propagating network effect you get with other systems, and there's very stiff competition.

Now, any sane society would just have public transportation instead of "Public Transportation with a private company skimming 20% off the top"

Only 20%? Luxury. The fuckers at GTR are worse than that. Fuck GTR. Fuck Southern and fuck the Tories.

Re:2.8 Billion

[serviscope_minor]

I tell the difference between a dirt road and an ATV trail, because I just can.

The way to tell the difference between a dirt road and a paved road in NM is that the dirt road has fewer potholes. I expect ATV trails are better still.

Re:2.8 Billion

[bill_mcgonigle]

Now, any sane society would just have public transportation instead of "Public Transportation with a private company skimming 20% off the top"

Only if the government-run model were less expensive.

Many government programs are only 30% efficient. 80% would be seen as a miracle in most of the public sphere.

Re:2.8 Billion

[Strider-]

Yes, because they're getting Uber's investors to subsidize their "transit" system. This is nothing more than the greater fool theory writ large, eventually it will come crashing down like all the other boneheaded dotcoms that have gone bust over the past 20 years.

Re:2.8 Billion

[tehcyder]

The point about Uber is that their investors are prepared to lose a lot of money in the short term, because they believe that in the medium term Uber will have a near-monopoly on self driving cars for hire. Somehow, Uber will be able to buy/produce/run these cheaply enough to let them make a profit whilst having such low fares that it won't be worth buying your own car.

You'd be just as well off investing in a cold fusion company.

Re:2.8 Billion

[tehcyder]

In Michigan they calcuated it would be cheaper to hire Uber to carry bus passengers door to door rather than create an enormous multi-county bus service.

If I had enough foolhardy investors backing me, I could give Michigan (or anywhere else) a completely free bus/taxi service.

Re:2.8 Billion

[tehcyder]

Fuck GTR. Fuck Southern and fuck the Tories.

Jeremy Corbyn should adapt this as his slogan, even the most diehard conservative would have to agree with two thirds of it.

Re: 2.8 Billion

[geekmux]

The state gets significant revenue by licensing and fuel and other. Don't think everyone will give it up so easy. Driving is as much of a perceived right as gun ownership.

Once autonomous driving safety records outshine humans behind the wheel by a considerable margin, there will be a price to pay to maintain the luxury of human driving, in much the same way you pay a premium today for the luxury of driving around a 1960's sports car that doesn't have any airbags, ABS, anti-theft, or other modern features that qualify as deductibles.

People won't give it up because they want to. They may give it up because they have to, due to liability and greed.

Re:2.8 Billion

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not Enron all over; it is Wal*Mart all over.

Re:2.8 Billion

[Anonymous Coward]

... they'll become the defacto transportation system for basically the entire modern world...

No, Über does not represent a tranformative idea. Their IP consists of a scheduling service, nothing more. The only unique thing they did is combine the product (scheduling software) with a business model which relies on taking advantage of desperate people.

If you want to drink the purple Kool Aid, fine go ahead. But, stop trying to sell your cult to others. "Disruption" is just Silicon Valley code for sociopaths finding an opportunity to rape and pillage.

Re:2.8 Billion

[david_thornley]

Part of what makes Uber unique is the fact that they employ humans, which is a considerable benefit for any sane society to see value in.

Nope. A sane society would like a business that employed few people better. Of course, the sane society would also have a better way of dealing with the unemployed and/or a better way to help create more jobs for the displaced humans to do.

Re:2.8 Billion

[david_thornley]

a business model which relies on taking advantage of desperate people.

I have to give them credit for taking advantage of stupid and/or desperate investors along with desperate ordinary people.

How is that possible?

[Mitreya]

a net lost of $2.8 billion

How can a company continue to operate and attract investors / high valuation with $2.8 billion losses?

California "requires ride-hailing companies to have a zero-tolerance policy for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs,"

That's a deeply meaningful policy definition. What about someone who had too much coffee?
Also, are some companies in California allowed to have a 1-tolerance policy?

Re:How is that possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask tesla that.

Re:How is that possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask tesla that.

I asked your mom for some pussy. She said yes.

Re:How is that possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask the United States government that.

Re: How is that possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla is owned by a billionaire.
Dummy.

Re: How is that possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Daddy!!!

Re:How is that possible?

[SirSlud]

It's not complicated. Zero tolerance just means any infraction. You're trying to be clever by conflating tolerance with blood alcohol level or somesuch. One tolerance would be that one conviction is allowed. It's not complicated.

Also, coffee isn't a drug for the purposes of the law in so far as driving is concerned. Honestly, I don't know what you think you're illuminating here. We probably agree Uber is money pit. But none of the other stuff you said makes any sense.

Re:How is that possible?

[Cytotoxic]

But that isn't at all what the state is talking about. They are not talking about DUI convictions, or even arrests. They are talking about complaints.

Meaning, some customer reported that they thought their driver was drunk or on drugs.

What does zero tolerance mean in this context?

A taxi company doesn't have an app for rating every ride. So you have to really, really want to complain. And how well is that tracked?

So now does it make more sense to question what "zero tolerance" means? Surely they don't mean "zero complaints" That would be stupid at every level. And because they are talking about complaints, we know they don't only mean DUI convictions. So the line is somewhere in between.

But we also know that their competition is not going to have nearly the robust and easily accessible complaint system that Uber (and Lyft) have. And they won't have nearly the system for tracking complaints. So how can the state compare a company that tracks every comment with a company that probably says "thank you for your input. We will investigate this immediately." when the customer calls, and then promptly ignores it with no paper trail at all in many, maybe even most cases.

It is a complicated situation to properly adjudicate. And there are lots of incentives to manipulate the system from lots of sources.

Re:How is that possible?

[Dragonslicer]

California "requires ride-hailing companies to have a zero-tolerance policy for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs,"

That's a deeply meaningful policy definition. What about someone who had too much coffee?

If someone has consumed enough coffee that their ability to drive is impaired, then yes, they would probably be arrested for DUI. For the vast majority of people, one or two cups of coffee won't impair them at all. Whether or not "enough" is above the LD50 level, I don't know.

Re:How is that possible?

[PopeRatzo]

How can a company continue to operate and attract investors / high valuation with $2.8 billion losses?

Are you kidding? At this rate, Uber Corporation will become president in 2020.

Re:How is that possible?

[PopeRatzo]

A taxi company doesn't have an app for rating every ride.

Sure they do.

Re:How is that possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

"What does zero tolerance mean in this context?"

Whatever the government wants it to mean.

Re:How is that possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its very difficult to follow up and investigate these things. You would have to test the driver immediately, and there is little UBER can do in that regard. The best approach for them is to have an 'intoxicated driver' alert. The passenger can signal it during a ride or after they have exited, and notification to police will occur so they can pull the driver. This takes the onus off Uber a bit, they can terminate drivers that cops find are intoxicated. Of course, drivers will understand up front that this feature exists and they may occasionally get falsely reported.

Re:How is that possible?

[yodleboy]

"A taxi company doesn't have an app for rating every ride"

It's called a phone.

Re:How is that possible?

[drinkypoo]

Sure they do.

Some do now, most don't, and if you call the taxi company and complain that they were late, or didn't come, or that you were raped, they will ignore you. (Two of my personal friends can attest to that last one.)

Re: How is that possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time a taxi was late when I ordered one (via an app, allowing me to track the cab) it apologised and sent another one which arrived within five minutes of the complaint and only ten minutes late in total.

Re:How is that possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some do now, most don't, and if you call the taxi company and complain that they were late, or didn't come, or that you were raped, they will ignore you. (Two of my personal friends can attest to that last one.)

I find it hard to believe that you had two personal friends that were raped by cab drivers and then ignored. Surely they'd escalate the issue if it were ignored. Probably to the point that it couldn't be.

Re:How is that possible?

[rogoshen1]

uber is basically the manifestation of the current investment bubble.
the fundamentals are bullshit
the company is just evil in it's dealings with their drivers

taxi cartels aren't exactly the optimal solution, but neither is uber.

By 2020 they'll be out of business.

Re:How is that possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup.

And like the other situations, this is also ripe to be exploited by several interested parties.

Cities that want Uber out because of regulatory capture by competing players could easily use this to harass Uber drivers into abandoning the company. Since we have already seen cities using the police to harass Uber drivers, this is certainly not a stretch.

bet they're still eating well

[AndyKron]

Uber lost billions, but I bet the owners aren't eating cat food.

Re:bet they're still eating well

[Anonymous Coward]

American men consume over 2500 calories a day on average. Junk food maybe. Not cat food.

(sorry to squish your stupid liberal progressive Bernie Sanders talking point)

Re:bet they're still eating well

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the red party! The red party is the best!!

Re:bet they're still eating well

[rebelwarlock]

Well no shit they're not eating cat food if they're losing money. Cat food is expensive!

Re:bet they're still eating well

[phantomfive]

Purple purple ftw!

How does a company like Uber lose $$?

[bogaboga]

I mean, to me, UBER is just some form of app running company...with a few servers to handle ride requests; and some hook up to Credit Card companies.

I guess I do not get it but where does such a huge the loss come from really?

Re:How does a company like Uber lose $$?

[wulfmans]

Advertising.

Re:How does a company like Uber lose $$?

[Jzanu]

Yeah advertising, but also through subsidized fare prices; even ignoring driver's real costs and allowing for surge pricing, the operating costs + interest on all the loans, etc. exceeds the value of what is charged to customers. The Uber management has failed at tactics, and also at strategy - it is in the process of eating itself to death. It will not be the scion of sci-fi/fantasy driverless cars, and for that matter neither will Tesla as they ignore user experience and the entire human-machine interface. Uber will inevitably follow the same short-gains model due to lack of experience or insight. It is one of the horrors of the modern age that IT companies were ever viewed as capable, much less the best at anything outside of their limited domain.

Re:How does a company like Uber lose $$?

[Cytotoxic]

I was wondering the same thing.

Theoretically they are operating in the black at the lowest level - the cost of a ride is less than the company pays their drivers.

App development and hosting is in the millions, not billions.

So that leaves advertising and legal fees, right? $2.8 Billion Dollars.... in legal fees and advertising. Wow. Just.... Wow.

So if each high-profile case runs around $10 million in legal fees.... that's, what? .... a couple hundred cases? Hmm... Ok. Worldwide.... I suppose that is plausible.

But with that they'd still have to be operating at only break-even on the rest of their operations. How is that possible? They don't have any employees to speak of. They only get a cut of orders for other people. They claim to have netted $6.5 billion on bookings of $20 billion. And still they lost almost $3 billion.

That is simply a stunning number. How can their costs possibly be $10 billion per year - above what drivers make? That's just a colossal amount of money for a middle-man. .........So I google.... and find that there are some leaked financial documents running around. Apparently they are paying drivers in places like China 50% more than they are charging the customer, as a "driver incentive". So they lost a billion a year in the china market, because driver incentives were 154% of revenues.

Well... that would explain it then. Next question.... why exactly are they paying drivers more than they charge the customer?

Re:How does a company like Uber lose $$?

[Anonymous Coward]

alright - you go start a company in hundreds of cities, across different countries, get hr, staff, legal in those cities and countries, set up payfoll, go to court in all the different jurisdictions, taxes done, across the whole world, and get all the drivers in the world they have to subcontract with you, and get all the people to find out about you. across the whole world.

you should be able to knock that out by writing an app and setting up a few servers.

you are a mindless suburban millennial retard who has no idea how the world works because you've never accomplished anything in your life. you also won't, because you have no vision, and are an idiot. you'll make yourself feel better by comparing yourself to busboy mexicans instead of smart successful people. thanks dad.

Re:How does a company like Uber lose $$?

[tsqr]

why exactly are they paying drivers more than they charge the customer?

So they'll have drivers?

Re: How does a company like Uber lose $$?

[Anonymous Coward]

Customer acquisition costs are real (free fare for a new customer, but the driver still gets paid), and buying politicians isn't cheap

Re:How does a company like Uber lose $$?

[Anonymous Coward]

"why exactly are they paying drivers more than they charge the customer?"
To kill any competition is the usual reason. Gaining a customer base is a close second. Then again it is not like there is a high barrier to entry for any competitors so it's not like they'll stay dead and the internet is not known for loyalty.

Re:How does a company like Uber lose $$?

[reanjr]

Their business model appears to be effectively based upon self-driving vehicles. Human drivers are just a stop-gap for bootstrapping the business, so the investors subsidize your ride to get market share now, and later they will reap the profits when they can fire all their drivers.

Re:How does a company like Uber lose $$?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber subsidizes the cost of a ride to keep it's prices low in order to undercut the taxi industry (they lose money on each ride). Taxis have more fixed costs so they can't lower costs down to Uber's level. Just like every other company which does this (Walmart is a good example), if Uber manages to stay popular long enough it'll drive a lot of those taxi companies out of business, then it can raise prices with immunity and use its position to crush anything that challenges it. Taxis used to do that but people complained and regulations were put in place to control pricing. Uber is constantly fighting legal battles to stay outside those regulations and thus they'll be insanely profitable once the taxi industry is gone and until people get fed up enough to vote in new laws, assuming the politicians haven't been bribed.

Uber is currently winning because people only look at the price in front of them and don't think beyond that. They have triggered basically every corrupt company sign there is. Anyone supporting them deserves what they'll get in the future.

Re:How does a company like Uber lose $$?

[ZipK]

why exactly are they paying drivers more than they charge the customer?

Try: why are they charging customers less than they're paying drivers. Answer: So they'll have passengers and not have competition.

Re:How does a company like Uber lose $$?

[Anonymous Coward]

Their stable of lawyers requires significant feeding

Re: How does a company like Uber lose $$?

[Anonymous Coward]

The butt-hurt is strong with this fag

Re:How does a company like Uber lose $$?

[lucm]

Drivers. Basically Uber is spending $1.55 for every $1 people pay for their ride.

https://techcrunch.com/2016/12...

Re:How does a company like Uber lose $$?

[PopeRatzo]

Next question.... why exactly are they paying drivers more than they charge the customer?

Interesting question, considering the average Uber driver is making about $13/hr. How much less you think they're going to be able to pay?

Re: How does a company like Uber lose $$?

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm butt-hurt because someone says something stupid about some big company. gotcha. it's not that i thoroughly enjoy dissing people you are not very bright or anything. it's definitely me being very upset that someone thinks spinning up a huge global company is "writing an app". not the enjoyment of dissing people.

guess what's going on with this comment?

Re: How does a company like Uber lose $$?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a whiny, triggered, simpleton douche canoe.

Re:How does a company like Uber lose $$?

[bayankaran]

If that's indeed the business model (create market share, move to self driving vehicles), what will stop from any of their competitors to replicate this model with cheaper self-driven transportation?

Yahoo had "huuuge" market share. It may still have.

Any rental company teaming with a software shop has a good shot. Even a ZipCar type of outfit.

I guess Uber got lucky. The guy running the outfit seems to be your garden variety sociopath and has run out of ideas. What they need is someone like Zuckerberg (he's indeed good, you can like/dislike Facebook.)

Re:How does a company like Uber lose $$?

[gnasher719]

App development and hosting is in the millions, not billions.

There is also the development of self-driving cars, based on technology that Google claims has been stolen from them, and for which Uber paid many hundred million dollars.

Re: How does a company like Uber lose $$?

[Anonymous Coward]

People who make fun of you are "triggered." gotcha. whatever makes you feel like a part of society, mighty alpha keyboard warrior.

Re: How does a company like Uber lose $$?

[reanjr]

Network effects, deals, name recognition: the usual. Even if they only dominate the world market for a half decade, it could be worth a shit ton.

Re: How does a company like Uber lose $$?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google the word irony please

Who Cares!!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the F*** is paying for all these stories about Uber and who cares so much about this one company?? It's insane. They get more press than any other company. Why should we care?? They're a big nothing, really.

Re:Who Cares!!?

[viperidaenz]

Uber is, that's why they're losing so much money.

Re:Who Cares!!?

[beelsebob]

They get so much press because:

1) They're an outlier in terms of unicorn funding, and also unicorn like losses.

2) Everyone wants to watch a slow motion train wreck.

Re:Who Cares!!?

[lucm]

That wouldn't even surprise me. Making all kinds of noise about their money problems to position themselves for an acquisition by a company that has the means to make this business work.

But really I don't think it's going to happen. Google isn't buying companies like they used to, and the profit margin on transportation is razor thin, so it would be unlikely that a lot of companies would be interested to take on the massive debt.

well now

[Anonymous Coward]

uber lyft, bla bla..
when people get lazy and complacent.
Mangers are worse.. As long as their Peons appear to be producing..
who the fuck cares right..
 

$2.8 Billion USD Isn't A Lot Of Money

[Beau1080p]

All things considered, $2.8B USD isn't a whole lot. If Uber continues to succeed, they will be among giants such as Delta Air Lines and Greyhound but in a more local realm. These guys are WAY more efficient than the public sector transit solutions and are more efficient than the government-sponsored Taxi Cartels. Uber only needs to not be shut down to grow and succeed.

Re:$2.8 Billion USD Isn't A Lot Of Money

[Anonymous Coward]

They're certainly more efficient at losing money than taxi companies.

Re: $2.8 Billion USD Isn't A Lot Of Money

[Anonymous Coward]

Or united airlines.

Re:$2.8 Billion USD Isn't A Lot Of Money

[msauve]

"they will be among giants such as Delta Air Lines and Greyhound but in a more local realm"

Delta filed for bankruptcy once, and Greyhound has gone bankrupt twice. Now, that's an efficient business model to aspire to.

Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Who modded 'em down to -1?

Oblig hot girl to get you pumped up in exchange for moderation.

My bullshit detector just went off

[lucm]

All things considered, $2.8B USD isn't a whole lot.

Are you trying to be cool by association, dropping big numbers like that, or are you just terrible at math? $2.8 is a whole lot of money.

If Uber continues to succeed, they will be among giants such as Delta Air Lines and Greyhound but in a more local realm.

Uber has lost more money in 2016 than the entire revenue of Greyhound. Two more years of such losses and Uber will have lost more money than the entire fleet, equipments and offices of Delta are worth.

These guys are WAY more efficient than the public sector transit solutions and are more efficient than the government-sponsored Taxi Cartels. Uber only needs to not be shut down to grow and succeed.

No they're not. The bulk of the $2.8 loss is money paid to the drivers by Uber. Their business model is not sustainable unless they figure out a way to make self-driving cars work. Knowing the current state of technology, it's unlikely to happen before investors pull the plug.

Re:My bullshit detector just went off

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, they basically "bet the farm" on self driving cars while effectively subsidizing around 70% of the true cost to gain market share (basically own it) and getting their brand out there and familiar. The heat must be on since they had to steal from Google to get some self driving tech.

Subsidizing, that thing Americans hate. All Uber is doing is providing underpriced service at the expense of investors - aka wealth redistribution.

But its not ok for the government to do that for the greater good of the average person and the economy as a whole, yet here are the wealthy subsidizing people who either can’t afford their own cars, dont drive, or just need a convenient ride somewhere. That thing that underfunded public transit and taxi’s are supposed to provide.

Re:My bullshit detector just went off

[CindyFahnestock-Scha]

I have to agree, because how much do they gross a year? I do want to say I am shocked that their CEO can't handle things more "caring" and "concerned" to the public over recent issues. The public wants you to show a little bit of compassion, but I guess he doesn't care. Ubers have nearly put taxi's out of business in cities like Baltimore!

Abusing labor isn't their long term goal

[rsilvergun]

self driving cars are. Millennials won't be able to afford cars. Their wages are dropping and there's no sign of that trend stopping. Once that hits critical mass (e.g. enough of them of voting age who can't buy cars but aren't completely crushed by poverty) they'll be demand for public transportation. That's where Uber is positioning itself. The investors are letting them bleed money because, well, 2.8 billion only sounds like a lot of money to you and me. It's not chump change to the investors, but it's not going to really put them out. We've let wealth inequity get pretty crazy and we don't punish folks at that level for mistakes; so it's not really a risk to them. Maybe it woulda been in the 60s and 70s but not today.

Re:Abusing labor isn't their long term goal

[Anonymous Coward]

Millennials were born between ~1980 to the mid '90s. Plenty, or even most, Millennials have cars.

I'm a Millennial and don't know a single one that doesn't have a car.

Re:Abusing labor isn't their long term goal

[Anonymous Coward]

Generations are not arbitrary and are basic on common socio-economic factors. People born 1980-1987 DO NOT have the same socio-economic factors as those born 1988-1997. The common markers for the "millenial generation" are shared by those born 1988-1997. Not sooner nor later. Millenials, do not have cars. Gen Y has cars, and they are the ones who are Uber drivers right now.

Re:Abusing labor isn't their long term goal

[ruir]

Wake and smell the coffee. Millennials wont be able to afford many things, and the previous generation is fucked wether they have children or not.
If they have children, well guess who will be "helping" them to enable their bosses to keep going paying them peanuts;
if they do not have children, they will be heavily taxed, and their gold and savings directly confiscated, or savings severely diminished due to negative taxation.
Having a car is also being heavily taxed, both in gas, in repairs, in absurd sale taxes in many countries, hefty insurance, mandatory regular inspections and mandatory driving license renewals, that will be shorter and shorter as time goes on.
In fact, the reality is that the middle class is ever shrinking, and the government does not see eye to eye you having disposal incoming because it is "their money" you are depriving, essential money to "give to the poor"...so any car owner is targeted as having sufficient disposable income to be robbed.
So put it other way, both millennials and their parents are fucked, and the current generations bellow 60-50 years old wont be able to afford having a car in their old age - at least if they stay in Europe or the olde USA.

Re:Abusing labor isn't their long term goal

[ruir]

And it is a question also of doing the math...between all the ongoing maintenance expenses, devaluation, and taxes, when you are retired, right now, it is probably cheaper to hire Uber or hire a car when you really need to do a long travel, than owning a car.
The problem is that you also rob a lot of independency to old folks who cannot already walk very well, and depend on a car every day to do their small errands.

Re:Abusing labor isn't their long term goal

[Anonymous Coward]

self driving cars are. Millennials won't be able to afford cars. Their wages are dropping and there's no sign of that trend stopping. Once that hits critical mass (e.g. enough of them of voting age who can't buy cars but aren't completely crushed by poverty) they'll be demand for public transportation. That's where Uber is positioning itself. The investors are letting them bleed money because, well, 2.8 billion only sounds like a lot of money to you and me. It's not chump change to the investors, but it's not going to really put them out. We've let wealth inequity get pretty crazy and we don't punish folks at that level for mistakes; so it's not really a risk to them. Maybe it woulda been in the 60s and 70s but not today.

No that was in the great recession of 2007 - 2013. Presently their wages are going up. I am older and went to school later in life and graduated in 2009 with classmates hitting the worst economy in 70 years!

$12/hr was good back then and they were grateful and moved in with their parents upon graduating. Today 2 are millionaires and own companies. Now jobs are exploding due to age discrimination as employers want a 22 year old I.T. guy. Not a 40 year old. THey can afford cars, but in a recession a sevre one too guess who gets hit the hardest? Criminals, low lifes with shady holes on the resume, and those with no experience. Remember 8 years of HTML 5 iOS experience for jr level jobs just 5 years ago :-)

Things change when the economy does.

Re:Abusing labor isn't their long term goal

[Anonymous Coward]

That was true a few years ago. IN the 1980's the same was true with younglings with 0 experience as HR wants the best and if you have +45 people for each opening the experienced folks get all the entry and jr level jobs first :-(

But now it is different. 30 aged folks are preferred due to age discrimination and many of these millennials now have experience working for $13/hr after graduating who are now worth $55k!

The folks who do Uber are us. Old +40 age farts who have been out of work for awhile and have too many gaps and wrinkles for H.R. to care to interview for. They want the young folks instead. Immigrants too love Uber and I see them all the time.

Re:Abusing labor isn't their long term goal

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that Gen Y and Millennials are one in the same? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials and generally agreed to be those born early 80's to mid to late 90's

The next generation you are probably thinking of, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Z were born in the mid to late 90s/ early2000's and just about now hitting their college years. This will likely be the generation coming into a world where a lot of their entry level jobs after college begin to be automated away.

Re:Abusing labor isn't their long term goal

[Anonymous Coward]

Gen Y are millenials.

Re:Abusing labor isn't their long term goal

[Anonymous Coward]

Afford newer cars or older clapped out cars?

Every car I have owned when bought was at least 10 years old, and driven until too expensive to fix, and did my own fixing where possible. Now at age 38 I finally was able to afford a car that was 3 years old.

Then it was a private sale that I got a personal loan for - long story short, is a reconstructed title because an insurance company felt that a minor fender bender (damaged hood, fender and busted up bumper, nothing structural or mechanical damaged or replaced) wasnt worth paying out to fix. Car in otherwise mint condition, the guy who bought it and fixed it seemed honest, and I couldn't fault it after taking good look for any frontal damage and replaced bits. So I got it for about 40% less than the same thing from any car dealer around, because people dont want to touch reconstructed titles, screw around getting it inspected and getting a set of plates on it, also right before Christmas when everyone is broke. I've since repaid 50% of what I borrowed by dumping last years bonus from work onto it once it got paid out.

Are you sure the Mellennals are not just complaining they cant afford newer cars on credit with no credit rating from car dealers at top dollar?

I've noticed with my wife who is of this generation is they put ZERO effort into getting something cheaper, or waiting for something good to come up that requires some leg work and a brain. She just wants to pay what ever it costs to solve the immediate problem right now. She commented at the time she would have just gone to a car dealer for a new car, and I explained thats why you would have paid 40% more for the same thing because there is "no risk", its easy, and you drive it away there and then, where as I had to make my own judgement and take on some risk, and also drive 600 odd miles round trip to get it home.

And she used to be like this with EVERYTHING until I made money a problem for her by delegating some of my pay check into her account and making it her problem to manage the stuff she handles - and I dont mean to sound like we're from the 1950's but its grocery shopping or food procurement, and clothing procurement, what does save she can spend on what ever. Now she looks for good deals, spends time cutting out coupons and leverages their rewards systems. and I no longer get surprise credit card balances because it was too easy to put no effort into reducing costs and getting into miniature debt spirals I would then take over and manage our way out of.

end_rant

Re:Abusing labor isn't their long term goal

[Anonymous Coward]

The common markers for the "millenial generation" are shared by those born 1988-1997. Not sooner nor later. Millenials, do not have cars. Gen Y has cars

You just made that shit up right there. All of it. You just pulled it right out of your ass.

Re:Abusing labor isn't their long term goal

[david_thornley]

Given enough hardship, people will vote for change. Clearly, they won't necessarily vote intelligently, but either the powers that be will go along or there will be chaos.

Re:Abusing labor isn't their long term goal

[ruir]

You clearly are not paying attention.
We already have negative taxes in the banks.-
Everyone and their dog are outsourcing many jobs to Philippines/India/Former Eastern Block countries, being broadband a reality nowadays.
In Europe and USA you still have a momentum/inertia in the economy with the old generation dipping into their economies and retirement packages, that somehow still hold some value after all these years of inflation to support the younger generations. That generation is dwindling btw, and with them the middle class is dying their last breath.
The new generations wont have neither saving nor purchasing power in their "golden" years...
The ones that will have some savings and or somewhat a better retirement package/salary are being robbed now, and that will only worsen in the future. The political/elites want to keep up their lifestyle - their nice taxes and cushion jobs to friends and family, and the pool of money to rob is shrinking as time goes by.
The changes have been coming like the proverbial frog in the boiling pan, and they have been coming for long now....
Vote for change?...dream on...there is coming a great equaliser, the problem is that the levelling is done by the lowest common denominator...we will be another 3rd world country.
As for voting, why do they think they are opening the door to a flurry of undocumented aliens with any documentation at all? The elites just want to accelerate as much of possible our metamorphosis to a global 3rd world planet.

Re:Abusing labor isn't their long term goal

[david_thornley]

You're talking about bad things happening. I'm talking about the reaction to bad things.

This is something the elites at least should be worrying about. If things get too bad, there will be Changes, and the elites won't like that. It looks to me like the majority don't want to live in third-world countries, and they definitely don't want to be first up against the wall when the Revolution comes. To a small extent, we're all in this together.

Re:Abusing labor isn't their long term goal

[ruir]

You are seeing people getting used to it, and no reaction at all. You honestly think the sheeple will do something?

Re:Abusing labor isn't their long term goal

[david_thornley]

Why do you think all those people voted for Trump? It wasn't because he was a reasonable, moral, honest, or intellectual individual. Sanders came close to winning the Democratic nomination despite not being a Democrat.

In other news...

[Applehu Akbar]

Uber drivers in several states have been reported cutting off mattress labels that plainly say, DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG.

A good chunk is

[rsilvergun]

and a good chunk is research and patents. What you're seeing here is basic research being done. The investors used to be able to get the gov't to do it for them for free but they traded that for tax cuts. Given we've gone from 90% top tax brackets to effectively 0 (thanks to Dutch Sandwiches and such) I'd say it was a good deal.

Re:A good chunk is

[lucm]

Stop guessing stuff. A "good chunk" is NOT on research and patents. Of the $2.8B loss, a bit over $2.6B went to drivers. Uber is trying to kill the competition by subsidizing their drivers with investors money.

Even if it was to work, it's still not worth it.

Do the math. Average cab fare: $14. In NYC there's about 240 millions taxi trips per year. So roughly. that's a revenue of $3.4B. About half of it goes to car expenses (acquisition, fuel, repairs, etc). The other half goes to drivers.

On a national scale, the revenue is around $11B. This means that if Uber was to take over 100% of the taxi market and replace those 250,000 cars with self-driving cars (that don't exist yet) that are not more expensive than existing non-self-driving cars, they would stand to make an annual profit equivalent to what Facebook makes in profit every quarter. And they start with a huge debt of almost $10B.

There's no money in that business. Costs are too high.

Re:A good chunk is

[gnasher719]

Stop guessing stuff. A "good chunk" is NOT on research and patents. Of the $2.8B loss, a bit over $2.6B went to drivers. Uber is trying to kill the competition by subsidizing their drivers with investors money.

People are obviously happy with Uber rides being cheap. And then they think that Uber has some excellent ideas and implements them well, and that's why they are cheap. WRONG. It's very easy to offer cheap rides if you just subsidize every ride with investors' money.

In China drivers were paid more than the customer paid at some point, so clever drivers let the whole family book rides, didn't drive anyone, paid back the ride fees, and kept the difference in their pocket. Free money, straight from the pocket of an investor into the pocket of a driver in China.

Re:A good chunk is

[110010001000]

The taxi industry revenue in the US alone is $19 billion. Uber is global(ish). $10 billion isn't a huge debt. They had revenue of $6.5 billion and an increase of 100% of bookings last year. The theory is that you lose a lot of money now, but due to the large growth you will eventually get positive. It worked for Amazon. It might work for Uber too.

Re:A good chunk is

[yodleboy]

so... "i sell at a loss but i make it up in volume"? yeah, that's not gonna work...

Re: A good chunk is

[Type44Q]

Of the $2.8B loss, a bit over $2.6B went to drivers.

Now that's funny... they had to pay their drivers and "apparently took a loss doing so." I wonder if they'll ever figure out where to source those funds from...

Re:A good chunk is

[Enigma2175]

[citation needed]. Where are you getting your data? The linked article doesn't give data like that and Uber is still private so there aren't SEC 10-k filings for them. From an accounting standpoint, Uber doesn't pay drivers, they give them the portion of the fare that the driver earned (at least in the US). Drivers are not Uber employees, they are independent contractors that have a relationship with Uber for booking and payments in the driver's taxi business. Uber doesn't recognize the portion of fares it gives to drivers as revenue, so how can you say that that money is the bulk of the loss when it wasn't revenue to begin with? You can't lose something you never had. That's like saying my bank incurred a $100 loss because I made a withdrawal.

If you have a source of data that is not public then it's not worth discussing here. If you do have a public source of data on where Uber is spending its money, I would love to see it. How much are they spending on W-2 employee salaries? Marketing? Lobbying? R&D? Inquiring minds want to know...

Re:A good chunk is

[lucm]

It was on wired a while ago:

According to analysis by Horan, Uber passengers are only paying 41 per cent of the actual cost of a trip, with Uber using subsidies to undercut rivals and potentially achieve a monopoly.

http://www.wired.co.uk/article...

You can also check on bloomberg, they discussed financials with Uber.

Re:A good chunk is

[lucm]

It worked for Amazon. It might work for Uber too.

Uber has an app, a lot of users, huge debts and no profit in sight. They're not like Amazon, they're more like twitter.

You can buy toilet paper, books and flat screen TV on Amazon. That's a huge barrier to entry for the competition. On the other hand, writing an app that includes gps and credit card payments is something pretty much anyone can achieve. If there was money in that business, there would be competition.

Re: A good chunk is

[lucm]

Of the $2.8B loss, a bit over $2.6B went to drivers.

Now that's funny... they had to pay their drivers and "apparently took a loss doing so." I wonder if they'll ever figure out where to source those funds from...

Customers pay 41% of the actual price on each ride. Someone has to pay the difference. That's where the $2.6B loss comes from.

Re:A good chunk is

[tehcyder]

The taxi industry revenue in the US alone is $19 billion. Uber is global(ish). $10 billion isn't a huge debt. They had revenue of $6.5 billion and an increase of 100% of bookings last year. The theory is that you lose a lot of money now, but due to the large growth you will eventually get positive. It worked for Amazon. It might work for Uber too.

If Uber had all that $19 billion in revenue in the US but still made a loss, the company would logically have a negative value.

Presumably, Uber's plan is to put its competitors out of business so that it can then ramp up its charges dramatically and make a profit.

If this was Microsoft doing something similar, everyone here would be up in arms demanding the Government fined them out of existence.

What about the stars?

[jediborg]

Maybe I'm getting my uber and lyfts confused, but i was under the impression that if you have less than 4 stars, you can't drive for the company. Uber driver intoxicated? Give him zero stars. A driver should only be able to weather about 3 zero stars before they can't drive anymore.

Are riders not giving their drunk drivers zero stars? Or is the state of California just complaining that this system to remove drivers isn't fast ENOUGH?

Uber Bros are Exempt, Duh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly, the California regulators didn't get the memo that Uber Bros don't follow the law because they believe they know better. And the public is dumb enough to give them business and let them destroy the taxi industry.

That's nothing

[slapout]

Uber: We lost 2.8 billion

Hillary Clinton: Hold my beer

Re:That's nothing

[nealric]

This post appears to be based on a story that was reported wildly inaccurately. The state department did not "lose" the money. It was spent on actual goods and services. The records department in State could not produce the original contracts corresponding to the payments when the internal audit was conducted- it was a failure of internal controls. There was still a record of who they had paid and how much. Yes, this spoke to bad accounting and record retention practices, but it's not the same thing as what was alleged. And to anyone who understands how accounting in a giant organization like the State department works, it's laughable to think Clinton shared primary blame, or that it was only a problem on her watch.

More Complicated

[nealric]

I have very mixed feelings about Uber (and ride sharing in general), and I think it's hard not to when you really think about it.

One one hand, cost aside, the user experience for Uber is simply much better than cab companies. If I need a ride somewhere, all I have to do is pull up an app. It will tell me exactly how soon someone can get to me, when I will likely arrive at my destination, and how much it will cost. By contrast, if I call a cab, I have no idea where they will dispatch it from or when it will arrive. With meters, it can be hard to even guess how much it's going to cost me. Another feature is the ability to contact your driver. My wife recently left her phone in an Uber. In a cab, she would have probably been totally SOL. With Uber, we were able to contact the driver who was nice enough to mail it to us (out of town even). Regarding background checks, I've had far more sketchy drivers in yellow cabs than Ubers. As a result of this, I take ubers on trips I would have never called a cab for- especially when I'm traveling. I now rely on Uber when I might otherwise have rented a car, or might otherwise have just not taken the trip at all.

On the other hand, I totally see what Uber is doing by essentially "dumping" services by driving the cab companies out of business, when they can jack up the rates. I also object to their treatment of customers and horrid corporate culture. And its hard to reconcile that with use of their service.

Overall, I just don't see how the traditional cab model makes it in the long run, unless yellow cab companies form a national app of equivalent quality (not the flaky local ones that often exist) and start being able to compete on service as well as price. I think our salvation (to the extent we get it) is more likely to be competition from other ride sharing companies. However, with automation, I think the game will change yet again. I'm not convinced that Uber will necessarily be the winner if and when autonomous vehicles become common.

Re:More Complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

> My wife recently left her phone in an Uber. In a cab, she would have probably been totally SOL

so you live in a fucked up country where every expectation of a decent human being being your neighbour is zilch.

My guess would be ...

nah strike that.

Bah.

[Meski]

Zero tolerance policies are unworkable, IMO.