[mrweasel]

They need money to find a new business plan. Money comes pretty easily due to publicity, and that the people with money to invest are more likely to be people that use Uber, at least that's my guess. So they feel it's a solid business. People tend to believe that products they use are a good investment, because "everyone is using it".

It wouldn't surprise me if Uber is realising that there isn't actually that much money to be made driving people around. Taxies are a artificially limited business, in most places, but you're not seeing a ton of wealthy taxi drivers. Why should Uber be that much better at making money in the taxi business. I'm not saying that there's not money to be made, or room for improvements and increased profits. I just question the size of that potential profit.

[fosk]

You are making the mistake of comparing the Uber market size to the taxi market size.

Uber, by providing an easier way to take rides, has made an existing market much bigger, and they are taking over it. The market size has changed thanks to Uber.

[mrweasel]

>Uber, by providing an easier way to take rides, has made an existing market much bigger,

I honestly doubt it. The market size is the same, Uber just made it easier to get a taxi by adding more of them. Taxi drivers often have a second job (at least in some countries), they aren't wealthy people, despite having essentially a monopoly. The only thing Uber can do, and have done, is add more cars, at the right time.

The issue is mostly that you can't get a taxi when you need one, because most of us need them at the same time, at 2AM on Sunday morning or when it's raining. That's a severely limited niche and the only reason you can't a taxi at these time is because there isn't a business case for have those cars on the road for the rest of the week.

[seizethecheese]

Maybe you're from Manhattan or somewhere taxis are ubiquitous? Where I'm from (Portland) nobody ever used to take cabs, myself included, because they were so sparse and terrible. I'm talking about regular 30min waits. I take Uber all the time now.

[mrweasel]

>because they were so sparse and terrible

My point is: They're sparse, and terrible, because that's what the market will sustain. Uber is making more cars, better cars, available, but I don't think that sustainable in the long run. It's my belief that Uber, and it's drivers, will come to the conclusion that there simply aren't that much money to be made, unless you restrict the supply of cars.

Honestly, does any one believe that the reason of taxies being sparse or terrible is because the taxi companies doesn't give a shit? If they could make more money by having cars on the road, then why shouldn't they work towards that?

[douche]

At least in my area, all of the Uber drivers are fully or semi-retired older people. These are people that certainly wouldn't want to work full-time as taxi drivers, and assuredly aren't going to jump through all the hoops and regulation to run their own taxi company. Uber is really taking advantage of under-utilized resources that would otherwise be wasted.

[mrep]

> Honestly, does any one believe that the reason of taxies being sparse or terrible is because the taxi companies doesn't give a shit? If they could make more money by having cars on the road, then why shouldn't they work towards that?

No, they were sparse and terrible because of the medallion system limiting the supply.

[lokedhs]

That argument only applies in locations that have such systems.