[spikels]

Maybe public transit only runs certain hours or that high quality taxi is too expensive. The billions of trips on Uber and similar platforms indicate that this is often the case.

If in fact there is "little actual need" for Uber, then nobody will use it. That's the beauty of allowing consumers the choice. It uncovers whether assumptions like this are actually true. It is like constantly running an experiment.

[TeMPOraL]

> The billions of trips on Uber and similar platforms indicate that this is often the case.

> That's the beauty of allowing consumers the choice. It uncovers whether assumptions like this are actually true. It is like constantly running an experiment.

From hundreds of years of running market economies in the world we already have a clear experimental result: consumers prefer cheaper goods/services to more expensive ones of equivalent quality.

If you can make your service cheaper by subsidizing it with VC money and then even more by ignoring regulation, then there's no surprise consumers will use it - even if long term, the service is unsustainable and socially destructive.

[coffeestickoil]

Why wouldn't I prefer Uber to Taxis even if the price was the same? I've ridden in tons of Ubers and taxis and the quality of the Uber ride has always been better: cleaner car, a non-monetary rating system that enforces good behavior (I think it's clear that tipping does nothing), working GPS and credit card usage, drivers always know where to go, etc.

I've never had to tell an Uber driver where to go or approximately where my destination is, so it's really frustrating when I can remember a few times where I would get into a taxi and have the taxi guy be frustrated at ME, the paying customer, for not knowing what region of the city my destination was.

[imartin2k]

Well, I explicitly wrote "BEYOND convenience and luxury needs"

Of course some people take Uber. For almost any kind of service there will be customers. But that's not the point. At least not my point. My point is that the large majority of people in Europe do not need Uber for their mobility needs. And therefore, Uber should - in my point of view - not get outsize influence over transportation policy.

Because Uber is not just a startup that wants equal terms. It is a predatory (I really rarely use this word, but for Uber, I do) giant that has zero consideration for social responsibility and very deep pockets for lobbyism. Once they have a foot in the door, they'll push it wide open. Which is why cautiousness in this case is really necessary, in my eyes.

[narrowrail]

It seems like the key argument hinges on whether or not venture capital is significantly subsidizing these rides. If Uber ever turns a profit (not a financially engineered one), that might change the discussion a bit.