[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?"

[em-bee]

i don't get what you are trying to say. the question is, why does the law have these mandates? and do they really make sense? some do, some don't. as it is, we have a bunch of laws that are unnecessary and should be removed. would that help uber? i don't know.