[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.