256

The city has just 39 licensed cab drivers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] echo64@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The apps weren't profitable. They sold rides for less than it cost them, which killed the industry. That's what all disruptive companies do, sell for an unprofitable price and have investor money make up the difference.

Taxi companies could not compete. How could they? It didn't matter if they were good or bad. There was no chance to compete because they all went out of business.

Again, the apps didn't win because they were better, it's because they didn't allow competition. In a sane world they would have had to have made a profit, and the taxi companies would have made their own app, and things would be pretty much equal across the board. But that never happened.

[-] ABCDE@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago

Again, the apps didn’t win because they were better, it’s because they didn’t allow competition.

I rarely ever took cabs or other such transport because they're universally dodgy as fuck. Apps made it convenient and accountable, thus succeeded.

[-] echo64@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago

You miss the point, taxi companies couldn't compete with apps, they couldn't have their own app. Because of investor lead disruption

[-] ABCDE@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Some taxi companies made their own applications.

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Again, they did and failed because they couldn't compete because investors paid for the likes of uber to run everyone out of business. I don't know how more I can explain this to you, but you don't seem to understand.

[-] ABCDE@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

they couldn’t have their own app

There was nothing stopping them and they set their own up; I'm referring to places in the UK where I know it happened, and some other countries too (SEA).

I don’t know how more I can explain this to you, but you don’t seem to understand.

Likely because of your explanation in the first place.

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

okay you are obviously taking this far too literally, obviously they could make an app, but the apps could not survive and exist because the competition would undersell them, paid for with investor money.

do you see what i'm trying to get through to you yet? everyone is saying "well the apps are better!" when the reality is that the big investor backed corporations like uber pushed all the smaller taxi firms out with uncompetitive price undercutting, they didn't die out because they didn't have an app, they couldn't survive with an app or without - they couldn't make that app to make you happy because you'd still pick the 20% cheaper one anyway

[-] ABCDE@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

Well yes, I read what you said as you wrote it. I can't infer very well over text.

[-] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

Honestly, it was both, plus a third thing.

  • Uber/Lyft pay like shit and run at a loss.

  • Cabs almost universally sucked. Nobody wanted to use one outside of somewhere like NYC; and only then because parking sucked so hard driving yourself is an even shittier option than the shitty cabs.

  • In places like NYC, the government over regulated cabs so hard the medallions cost into the 6 and 7 digits of dollars. Out-competing that simply involved....not paying 7-digit sums of cash just for the ability to work as a cabbie...

[-] ripcord@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

I still don't understand how Uber and Lyft can be so expensive to run.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

They aren’t. You’re paying a smallish dev staff and some people to answer emails. The rest is pure profit. If you’re not making money then you’re an idiot.

this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2024
256 points (98.5% liked)

News

37208 readers
356 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS