[nbzklr]

I know a few people that are heavily invested into Uber here in Germany, with over 20 cars and drivers each. They will not be happy about this ruling.

Here is some context on how things worked thus far: Since Uber is not allowed to dispatch directly to independent drivers (see the ruling from 2015), they instead partnered with rental-car companies that employ the drivers. So in theory, Uber would dispatch a ride to one of their partners, who then dispatches it to one of their drivers. In practice, however, everything worked just as you know it from other countries, with the only difference being that Uber would send an email to the business owner containing two links: one to accept the ride and one to decline. Whenever the business owner clicks accept, the driver would get a text message with the approval. But at this time, he already would have accepted the ride in the app and be on his way. So effectively, the business owners had zero control.

It is no surprise that the Taxi companies are mad, because they are unable to compete under the current set of rules. In addition, Uber has heavily subsidized rides with discounts of up to 50% for multiple weeks and generous hourly guarantees for their partners.

[0ld]

There's a taxi company in my city (EU, but not Germany) which doesn't go mad or cry for govt help, and instead provides experience very similar to Uber with its app, runs "full scale" licensed taxis and their prices are very close (and frequently lower) than Uber's. So that I prefer using their service, as they can drive on the bus lanes and in the old town.

What do they do wrong?

[pgeorgi]

"not Germany" may be the keyword: Taxis in Germany are part of the public transportation network and as such part of a regulatory system.

For example, they can't make up their own prices (neither higher nor lower).

There are few taxi companies with more than 20 cars, and most seem to gravitate around 3 cars. Such a company doesn't build "its [own] app".

If your entire operation is controlled by the (county) government, it seems to make sense to ask that government for help. But they didn't even do that: Courts are independent.

[ajdlinux]

As someone who doesn't live in your city, if I were to visit, I'd rather not install another app, create another account, and sort out payment (including capturing receipts for corporate expense claims).

Uber has the advantage of being ubiquitous among a certain class of travellers - this obviously is not an insurmountable advantage, but it does mean I naturally tend towards using Uber when travelling unless there's a particularly compelling local alternative.

Everything else about your taxi service sounds good, and I'd be more than happy to use them, I'm just lazy. (And from other comments, I see that there's taxi company apps like FreeNow which seem to be gaining regional market share?)

[pgeorgi]

> Uber has the advantage of being ubiquitous among a certain class of travellers

Which is funny because Uber's shtick is to complain about the evil taxi cartels, while statements like yours indicate that they're really the biggest of them all.

[TeMPOraL]

That marketing line was ridiculous. Uber is a multinational corporation fighting lots of small local taxi operations, but somehow they've managed to paint themselves as an underdog fighting a "taxi mafia".

[johnnycab]

>Uber's shtick is to complain about the evil taxi cartels, while statements like yours indicate that they're really the biggest of them all.

By rolling with an approved and expensed option, which eliminates certain amount of ambiguity, does not imply that Uber is part of a cartel; irrespective of it's licensing woes and/or impending banishment from multiple lucrative markets. At present, it does not even enjoy a majority position to form an alliance, let alone collude with locally competitive operators.

[ajdlinux]

It's weird - the old taxi companies had their localised oligopolies by law, Uber and Lyft and so on have their global oligopoly through a few other means, not the least of which is their ability to spend billions of Saudi petrobucks on customer acquisition.

But the fact that they offer a fairly consistent experience certainly does help them.

[BrandoElFollito]

Not only this but the fact that if I am in a country with a language I do not speak and with streets I cannot read (or will misread) I prefer to just click twice and wait for a blue car with plate HDGDH56DB. I don't need to speak, just hop in and out, the driver knows everything.

Price is secondary to some extend.

[achow]

For non-visitors (locals), who I assume would be bulk of riders, installing of Uber or another app is same.

Once they become habituated to one app, they would be very sticky.

[ajdlinux]

Locals are probably the majority of riders, but a majority by how much? Taxis are a high volume, low margin business, and losing purely the foreign business traveller market alone to Uber has got to sting.

[nbzklr]

If there are laws that your competitor is clearly violating, then defending your business is not "crying for help". The Taxi companies are just doing what they can given the legal framework that our government created.

[alkonaut]

> It is no surprise that the Taxi companies are mad, because they are unable to compete under the current set of rules.

Apart from subsidies Uber might use, why aren't taxi companies able to compete? Is something stopping them from doing exactly what Uber is doing (Such as have good apps, pre payment etc.)? If that's the case, that they are bound from developing their own business by regulation - why is that?

[usrusr]

One difference: regulated taxis are not allowed to cherry-pick as hard as Ubers.

Germany actually considers Taxis part of public infrastructure, even if universally outsourced. The assumption that profitable routes subsidize less profitable is deeply embedded in the system. It's similar to how no amount of free market ideology should allow emergency rooms to cherry-pick.

[zimpenfish]

> Is something stopping them from doing exactly what Uber is doing

I should imagine "not wanting to lose thousands/millions every month whilst they pay for people to develop software, etc." is a big factor. Life is a lot easier when you can throw money at problems like Uber, especially if you're (unfairly) subsidising your service to drive competitors into the ground.

[TeMPOraL]

I think subsidies are the key here. Apps are dime a dozen; in Poland there are individual taxi companies with apps and pan-european networks with apps, all operating legally. I assume the situation is the same in Germany. But local taxi markets can't afford to continuously offer below-market price; they don't have the money reserves.

[saiya-jin]

You are expecting market behavior in business that for decades was pure monopoly. We all know the answers to those questions.

In open market, taxi business in its current form would be dead long time ago. But not if you gave state-guaranteed monopoly on a service that many people simply need and have few other options.

[usrusr]

Where is that monopoly you are talking about? "Taxi" is not a company.

[saiya-jin]

Oh boy, I see I ruffled some feathers here, 10 downvotes within few minutes.

Where I live, taxi drivers need to purchase medallion from given municipality, a massive investment. You can't just slap a taxi logo on the car and start driving people. From customers perspective this is a monopoly since they are all the same, charge all the same, have all the same drawbacks and most people hated them. From customer's perspective, they are indeed a 'taxi company'.

Uber was the first competition to entrenched taxi driving business.

[em-bee]

exactly that. i have lived in germany for years. this is the first time i hear that they are all small businesses with 3-20 cars. all taxis have the same color, and prices are fixed.

it looks more like a franchise than competing businesses.

i don't think a business should be allowed to offer services below cost, nor should it be allowed to break the law, but on the other hand, the restrictions that exist in some places make no sense. a rental car has to return to the main office after each ride ??? what kind of nonsense is that?

[usrusr]

> nor should it be allowed to break the law

What if the law mandates that some services can only be provided in a certain way? If a simple label swap could give a free pass then why stop at taxis? "I did not steal that money, I was just providing a free surprise disposal service. Would it help if I sent a bill?"

[odiroot]

> It is no surprise that the Taxi companies are mad, because they are unable to compete under the current set of rules.

They're mad because it ruins their monopoly. Taxis are ridiculously expensive in Germany, also known to use tricks to charge you extra. I would never consider ordering a taxi here.

[zaarn]

Not my experience. I live south of Munich and Taxis are very cheap for the service and I've never had a problem with one overcharging.

[distances]

My experience from Berlin is quite different. Taxis were reasonably priced and service was good, didn't see any foul play. I was using the "MyTaxi" app to book rides.

[davezatch]

In comparison with any other major city where Uber operates, taxis are quite expensive here.

[tilolebo]

You should go to Paris, then.

Order a taxi during "peak hours": 5 EUR. Then they charge you with an "approaching fee". Basically, they make you pay for the distance they traveled on their way to pick you up.

So last time I took one, I jumped in and was already charged for 21 EUR before the ride even began. The ride itself just cost 10 EUR...

[davezatch]

Yeah I probably should have clarified a bit :)

In North and South America, and in other European cities (though certainly not all!), my experience has been that Uber is 99% of the time

1. better UX, and 2. cheaper

than taxis, _generally_. In Berlin, taxi service is generally professional/clean/fine, but it's quite expensive, and when I travel to other places I get quickly spoiled by the Uber experience/cost. I understand why they ban it here, but from an end-user perspective, really wish they didn't.

[distances]

I'm more familiar with the Nordics, so it may be my view is somewhat tainted by the expensive end of the spectrum.

[vosper]

> It is no surprise that the Taxi companies are mad, because they are unable to compete under the current set of rules.

(Caveat that I’m going entirely off your comment, with no background info): the middlemen businesses sound like small taxi companies, where the bookings come from Uber rather than directly from customers. Why can’t the taxi companies compete by building an app that provides the booking part?

[nbzklr]

They do have an app, it's called "FreeNow" and works OK imo. The main reason Taxi companies are complaining is that there are different sets of rules for Taxi companies (that are supposed to operate in the public interest) and rental companies with drivers (which are not). E.g. Taxis have to wait at designated parking spots and are not allowed to drive around between rides.

I don't necessarily agree with their arguments, but I also don't think Uber should get a "free ride".

[jdjdjjsjs]

They can. Uber added nothing to market other than an app, which everyone was doing for every potential business at the time anyways.

Their differentiators though were primarily the crazy amount of VC money they were willing to lose and the fact that they had absolutely no qualms about trampling about each and every law they could. To the point that they would break laws that they didn't even need to.

But asking for forgiveness when you have a ton of VC money is obviously better than not messing up in the first place.

Only good thing is thst, I hope, the market is seeing through these criminals (at best).

[distances]

> Their differentiators though were primarily the crazy amount of VC money they were willing to lose and the fact that they had absolutely no qualms about trampling about each and every law they could.

It's nice to see European bureaucracy at work and actually enforcing rules. Seems like it's much more resistant to regulatory capture than the US where, looks like, you can just flaunt any laws if you have enough money.

[a254613e]

Taxi companies do have apps "free now" (formerly "mytaxi") and "taxi.eu" that majority of them use. The functionality is more or less the same as with uber.

https://apps.apple.com/de/app/free-now-mytaxi/id357852748?l=...

https://apps.apple.com/de/app/taxi-eu/id465315934

[mr_mitm]

I'd be happy with FreeNow instead of Uber, if it was available outside of large cities. Many taxi drivers still refuse to sign up for FreeNow. I spoke to one taxi driver and asked her why she wouldn't use FreeNow and she mentioned something about the fees being too high. Of course, she only accepted cash, too. I was just glad that I wasn't getting yelled at for paying with a 50 Euro note.

[pgeorgi]

> Of course, she only accepted cash, too.

Cash? In Germany? Outrageous!

(When in Rome, do as the Romans do)

[y4mi]

I'm German and haven't used cash in years.

There are still a few people that use it exclusively, but they're getting rarer each year. You can pay with cash almost everywhere though, so I can understand how this believe keeps getting repeated

[pintxo]

It‘s not about acceptance, but about the law. German law mandates every business to accept the legal tender which is Euro notes and coins.

[ovi256]

>Why can’t the taxi companies compete by building an app that provides the booking part?

Yes, why can't they ? Turns out building apps users will use is not a commodity that can be bought off the shelf.

[TeMPOraL]

Actually, those apps are very much a commodity. Everyone and their dog has one. However, users are price-sensitive, and apps need marketing - both of those concerns turn competition into money spending game; Uber has more money and exploits the international scale of their business.

[_pmf_]

> Why can’t the taxi companies compete by building an app that provides the booking part?

They have. The ruling is completely arbitrary.

[pgeorgi]

The ruling doesn't look arbitrary to me:

Uber pretended to not be part of the transaction, while they were a) the public face to the customer, b) offering the ride at a given price, c) negotiated with a specific driver to fulfill it (and only then got the middleman on board to sign off on the transaction).

As usual for Uber they went for the sketchiest way possible to deal with regulations, as if they're looking for ways to argue about them in court as often as possible.

Their problem: no court (except one) in Germany makes law because we don't have the Anglo-saxon concept of case law.