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: 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.