Mr Khosrowshahi, who took over at the firm less than a month ago, wrote: "While Uber has revolutionised the way people move in cities around the world, it's equally true that we've got things wrong along the way.
[...] In a letter addressed to Londoners, the new boss said the firm "won't be perfect, but we will listen to you".
"On behalf of everyone at Uber globally, I apologise for the mistakes we've made."
[...] Mr Khan, who is also chairman of TfL [Transport for London], told the BBC: "What you can't do is have a situation where unfair pressure is brought on a quasi-judicial body, where there are officials working incredibly hard.
"I appreciate Uber has an army of PR experts, I appreciate Uber has an army of lawyers - they've also made aggressive threats about taking us to court."
Wielding the coercive power of government is stressful enough without people fighting back?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by canopic jug on Tuesday September 26 2017, @09:28AM (21 children)
What a non-apology. Will he apologize for actively trying to knock the bottom out of the taxi labor market? Will he apologize for trying to promote the low-pay and unstable gig economy globally? There are a lot of reasons to not use Uber [stallman.org]. Even better, ban them.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by fraxinus-tree on Tuesday September 26 2017, @10:09AM (13 children)
Not that I say that Uber is any good, but if you insist that Uber is worse than your local taxi mafia, present some proof, please.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @10:19AM (3 children)
Nope, the proof is on you to show that Uber is worse than the local taxi services in Western Europe, specifically in London. All I ever hear is people whining that the medallion system is unfair, which is a US-specific thing.
(Score: 2) by fraxinus-tree on Tuesday September 26 2017, @01:37PM (1 child)
Well, my bad. I don't live in Western Europe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @08:51AM
But London is in Western Europe. Well, sort of. ;-)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 27 2017, @12:55PM
They wouldn't get any market share, if their service was absolutely worse than the local taxi services. No one is going to pay more for worse service.
(Score: 5, Informative) by zocalo on Tuesday September 26 2017, @10:44AM (4 children)
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday September 26 2017, @11:21AM (3 children)
No it isn't. Black cabs in London are tightly regulated with regards to access requirements. They can't discriminate against particular customers, and they can't refuse to take you on trips that they think might not be as profitable as the next one. There are a number of 'mystery shoppers' who flag them down and pretend to be normal customers and can (and do) take away the driver's license if he or she refuses to pick them up or refuses to take them to their destination (or doesn't go by the optimal route).
Don't waste your breath. Uber apologists will simply assume that these companies pay their bribes but TfL wants a larger bribe from Uber.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @01:03PM
And that is supposed to be a bad thing?
Anyway, how does that hinder anyone's entry into the market?
(Score: 2, Disagree) by tomtomtom on Tuesday September 26 2017, @04:10PM (1 child)
The argument is not that the decision was corrupt, but that it was heavily politicised. Sadiq Khan is the Mayor of London and in that capacity sits as the Chairman of TfL. Given that Uber appears to have passed all previous audits and had no issues with TfL until early this year, Sadiq Khan was elected as mayor of London in the middle of 2016 and the position he sits in, it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that he may have personally intervened. As to why - he is a member of the Labour party and has not been shy about his ambitions to become the leader of that party (and presumably Prime Minister) one day. To do that, he needs the support of the union movement which is increasingly strong in the Labour Party - controlling a third of the votes on who gets to be leader and providing an even larger share of the party's financing. The GMB union is one of the largest and is amongst those which are most closely associated with the Labour party. It has been very openly running a campaign against Uber [gmb.org.uk] specifically.
TfL also have a rather unique position as both a regulator and a provider of public transport in London. Not only that, but they regulate both the Hackney carriage industry (black cabs) and the private hire industry. The Black Cab industry has previously staged a number of protests against Uber which gridlocked central London for hours at a time and have been very vocal in their opposition to it. Often in politics it matters more how vocal you are than how many people support your perspective. So TfL are very far from being without conflicts of interest as an institution even without the political overlay of Sadiq Khan within the Labour party. In other words, there is more than enough reason to suspect this decision might not be one which was made from a totally unbiased perspective.
However, Uber also have a sophisticated and competent PR machine and have recruited many of their customers as evangelists for their side of the story via this route - so there is rather a lot of heat and not much light being shone at the moment on this issue. Especially in the absence of any publicly available comparator data for how well or badly other private hire companies comply vs Uber, it's difficult even to say whether they are being singled out or not. But what is abundantly clear that many, many people felt much safer travelling using Uber than using smaller private hire ("minicab") firms.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @08:58AM
How is that abundantly clear? The only thing that is clear is that those people chose to go with Uber. Why they did so is pure guesswork.
It may be the price, it may be a better app, it may be their state of knowledge (quick, tell me the name of a "minicab" company in London, without resorting to a web search!), or any of a dozen other possible reasons, or any combination of them.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday September 26 2017, @05:55PM (3 children)
One follows the laws in their jurisdiction as evidenced by their continuing operation.
The other violates the laws in their jurisdiction as evidenced by their ban.
That makes one better than the other.
Is that enough proof?
(Score: 2) by fraxinus-tree on Tuesday September 26 2017, @07:07PM
In this particular case, maybe. Generally, not always. In our case (Sofia, Bulgaria) Uber was really a whole lot better than the "yellow fever". Uber operated here about a year and got banned, but at least stirred the taxi companies into some competition. Taxis got a lot better in terms of cars being clean, drivers knowing the city, having a change, accepting CC, not smoking in the car, not engaging in crime - at least not to the extent to get in the media, and so on. YMMV.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @02:41AM (1 child)
If you don't like The Race to the Bottom, Stallman lays it all out why Uber sucks.
...meanwhile, there's a worker-owned cooperative taxi company in Denver called Green Taxi. [yesmagazine.org]
...and another in Philadelphia called Alliance Taxi. [google.com]
...and there's a ride-hailing app besides Uber and Lyft which apparently is a FOSS thing.
Swift [googleusercontent.com] (orig)[1] [inthesetimes.com]
(That mentions a co-op in Frisco that failed, but doesn't go into details.)
[1] Jacobin's page has malformed links.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @02:58AM
Transunion Car Service in Newark.
(In the article with Green Taxi.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday September 26 2017, @11:42AM (6 children)
Why should anyone apologize for that? Richard Stallman at least has a relevant point with his privacy concerns.
My view is that the gig economy idea is actually something really positive here. People keep forgetting just how popular Uber is among drivers as well as passengers.
(Score: 3, Informative) by lx on Wednesday September 27 2017, @04:10AM (1 child)
You could make the same argument for cocaine. Very popular among both drug mules and users.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 27 2017, @04:27AM
And oddly enough, I'm in favor of legalizing cocaine. Who knew?
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Wednesday September 27 2017, @05:41AM (3 children)
Why shoud they apologize for that? They should apologize because knocking the bottom out of a market to collapse it to try to gain a monopoly or near-monopoly leads to decreased choice, poorer service, and higher prices. Always. That's something they should apologize for even thinking about. But they've done much more than think and have actually caused a lot of damage, so reparations are in order not just apologies.
Perhaps the ultimate targets are unions in general, not just driver unions, and that may be why there is so much faux support for Uber. In Europe, unions are still mostly useful and helpful even if they are mostly crushed. Then again taxi service in most European countries is night-and-day different from what passes as taxis in the US.
Uber is funding its drivers from venture capital [vanityfair.com] and using those subsidies to break the taxi market. When Uber runs out of venture capital the price dumping stops. They look like they're aiming to last until they can launch an IPO and either cash out or crush the taxis.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 27 2017, @12:43PM (2 children)
If that were true, you should be able to show evidence for the assertion.
A counterexample is Standard Oil from the late 19th century which resulted in better service and lower prices. I won't disagree that it resulted in decreased choice. But the oil production industry was a mess before they took over, in fact that was why they were able to take over.
My take is that Uber wouldn't have gotten anywhere, if the taxi markets in most of the world were competitive. Somehow, when Uber gains market share by providing a cheaper and better service, it results in "decreased choice, poorer service, high price", but where are you with the existing taxi cartels? That too should result in "decreased choice, poorer service, high price" by your reasoning.
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Thursday September 28 2017, @04:47PM (1 child)
Uber is only able to undercut the taxis because the fares are currently subsidized by venture capital. That money is quickly running out. There are multiple articles about that including the link above.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 28 2017, @05:51PM
Then the problem, such as it is, will fix itself once the money runs out. Keep in mind that taxis can use Uber as well and thus, stay in business long enough to outlast Uber.