Take away the gig economy part from Uber and it becomes a regular taxi market, an industry that has been around for a hundred years already, with all the checks and balances installed already (from driver and passenger rights to ride fares to maximum amount of drivers allowed to operate in a certain area to avoid oversaturating the market).
And in that environment it is not viable. Or, not viable to SF standards, in that it cannot sit on their arse and print money while their devs churn out fancy looking apps. They're competing with the local taxi company with a dozen cars and a phone number.
I know it's popular to criticize Uber and similar apps nowadays, but when they launched, they were a breath of fresh air. It allowed you to get from point A to B in a new, clean car, without having to negotiate the price and without the risk of taxi driver scamming you for money (especially tourists who don't speak local languages fall victim to taxi drivers) or taking you on a much longer route on purpose. Also the phone app is much more convenient and safer than calling a taxi company to arrange a pickup. I don't want to go back to times before Uber, and I am glad 'traditional' taxi companies have also adopted the mobile app model.
Wasn’t the gig economy part of regular cab driving? Sure they had medallion requirements, but cab drivers in US cities always worked whenever they wanted (usually when it was busy).
> Take away the gig economy part from Uber and it becomes a regular taxi market, an industry that has been around for a hundred years already, with all the checks and balances installed already (from driver and passenger rights to ride fares to maximum amount of drivers allowed to operate in a certain area to avoid oversaturating the market).
Let's not forget that in that world uber drivers are unemployed while taxi drivers make more money.
So minicab companies pay more and charge less than uber? How does that work economically? And wouldn't everyone just switch to the mincab companies, both drivers and passengers, if that's the case?
Varies very much by company. Many of them are small operators covering much smaller areas than Uber. Many of them will intentionally keep far fewer drivers available to keep their drivers busier. I'm sure there are plenty who are much worse than Uber too, and there's plenty of room to get rid of more of these operators.
Uber has captured market share by being visible, and covering the whole city so you don't need to care which companies cover where you are. There are a few others that covers all of London and aim for the same over-supply of drivers, and most of them are not cheaper.
And in that environment it is not viable. Or, not viable to SF standards, in that it cannot sit on their arse and print money while their devs churn out fancy looking apps. They're competing with the local taxi company with a dozen cars and a phone number.