[shapov]

  I don't use Uber over taxis simply because I can get the exact same service from a taxi

That's just not true.

Just off the top of my head:

* 3-4 clicks and I have an Uber on its way vs. Having to talk to a dispatcher. Time saved.

* I know ahead of time how much the fair will be vs. at the end of the ride.

* I simply get out of the car once I reach my destination. I don't have to deal with paying, calculating tip, etc...

* Uber cars tend to be newer and in much better condition.

Now, I am not advocating for Uber, but lets not kid ourselves that the two experiences are even comparable from the customer's point of view.

[alkonaut]

I'm talking about where I get a cab where there is app dispatch+ (pre) payment. And no medallions.

Obviously taxi companies that still operate like it's 1990 are going to go extinct - my question was why are they operating like it's 1990?

[brianwawok]

As a monopoly, you usually have no reason to change. You make piles of money with no extra work, why innovate?

Uber/Lyft is eating their lunch. Now they need to innovate or die. Very likely they die at this point.

[alkonaut]

> As a monopoly, you usually have no reason to change.

But they don't have a monopoly and haven't for several years. I mean changing from phone dispatch to apps has to be done in 6-12 months not 6-12 years otherwise yes they will go under.

So what you are saying is that they are too slow to change? What's the reason for that? Is it that the taxi operators are small businesses and they are a too diverse group to be willing to take large risks/investmentst together such as for improving their common dispatch? In that case - the system is almost a perfect storm.

So would you agree that at challenges to traditional taxi in medallion-cities include:

- Small taxi companies (single car to maybe 100 cars) rather than large operators (1000 cars or more) that would have the money to evolve when needed

- Expensive medallions causing overhead compared to Uber/Lyft

- Long history of monopoly causing an unfamiliarity with rapid changes

- (Possibly) regulative hurdles to overcome before you could e.g. pre-charge for a ride or dispatch with an app rather than phone?

[weberc2]

> I mean changing from phone dispatch to apps has to be done in 6-12 months not 6-12 years otherwise yes they will go under.

I think you underestimate the amount of work involved in building a rideshare platform. How are taxi companies going to consolidate and find app developers to build a platform to compete with Lyft and Uber in a tiny fraction of the time, not to mention getting the word out about their platform, when Uber and Lyft are already so good (and cheap). This is to say nothing about disparities in investment and regulation.

[alkonaut]

I mostly have experience of taxi apps from where I live (Stockholm) and basically when one operator had an app, then suddenly all the major companies had apps. The difference is obviously that there are numerous taxi companies (There used to be one monopoly but at that time there were no smartphones) and the big ones are pretty big, like a 1000+ cars each.

The apps obviously look almost the same and it wouldn't surprise me if they came from the same developer in many cases. Here are four of the largest for comparison:

https://itunes.apple.com/se/app/sverigetaxi/id504540989?mt=8

https://itunes.apple.com/se/app/taxi-sthlm/id375988670?l=en&...

https://itunes.apple.com/se/app/taxi-020/id503115316?l=en&mt...

https://itunes.apple.com/se/app/taxi-kurir/id503098740?l=en&...

You can see the last 3 just use a skinned standard taxi dispatch app! I appreciate the effort of creating the platform from scratch, but a taxi company shouldn't have to do that. They just license the app.

These taxi companies each had dispatches with many dozens of operators, so they save a good amount of money on using an app and cutting back on people) No difference from other commerce.

The main difference between Stockholm and Chicago is of course that the "taxi companies" are the large city or nationwide companies battling for market share. A taxi driver or group of drivers can also be a "company" but they just operate under the umbrella of the larger brand - who handles all dispatch, branding etc just like a city wide monopoly usually does.

So while it's understandable that a company unlike a monopoly has more incentive to evolve, I don't see any reason why a city taxi monopoly such as Chicago couldn't just make their product more similar to Ubers (regulations aside). I mean - they must also be able to save a ton by getting rid of phone dispatch staff. And anyone with a medallion obviously has an interest in their services not becoming obsolete.

[emmelaich]

A couple of apps for taxis have appeared in Sydney in less than a year after Uber arrived.