Given Uber is one of the few companies who are lucky enough to have a separate page for all the controversies on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Uber), they also have their own fair of experience with police raids on their offices. They've also used "‘kill switch’ during raids to stop police seeing data" (https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak...) before, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was some sort of legal "kill switch" or whatever that got triggered, so they can get rid of everything faster.
I would pay extra because I don't want the cognitive load of haggling on the cost. When I want/need A ride, it's because I'm either overloaded, away from home, or drunk. These are three times that I didn't want to bother with any more nonsense.
One anecdote for a datapoint: Not sure if it's better now but I've lost a phone in an InDrive and I've lost an expensive bag in an Uber and it was significantly easier and less sketchy to get the bag back. I'm not a price sensitive rider so the insurance of a reputable 'comfort' tier Uber driver paid off. The InDrive driver made me get another ride to him then demanded $1000mxn (~$55usd) to return my phone. The Uber app had me pay ~$250mxn if I remember correctly and the driver promptly returned the bag.
I have a controversial take: outside the US/Europe, Uber is mostly a tourist app.
If you actually live in developing regions:
1) your income is much lower, and you are quite price sensitive. The Uber price premium (20-40%) hits much harder.
2) the Uber alternatives are noticeably cheaper for the exact same trip.
Regarding your experience, if you were local, that inDrive driver likely would not have tried to extort $1000 MXN out of you. They saw you were a visitor and took advantage of you.
In Nigeria or Uganda there are few tourists, so Uber cannot rely on a stream of price-insensitive travelers to fill their cars. It makes total sense why they struggled in (and gave up on) the local market there.
Insurance goes up. Who knows how much liability they need to cover transportation. They likely deal with claims of being kidnapped or held hostage by driver on a regular basis.
Even in countries where taxis are regulated, sometimes Uber is more expensive but safer. Like in Romania. When I used to go there a lot the official taxis were mandated to offer such low standardized rates that there was a lot of scamming going on. One of my colleagues was basically abducted by a taxi driver (taken to a dangerous gypsy area and told they would kick him out of the car unless he paid them hundreds of euro). Uber was a lot safer because you have tracability on the driver, but more expensive too. And there weren't a lot of them.
There were ways to get safe drivers in some cases by booking them through the yellow machines. But in the end the company hired private drivers for us. Though personally I would just use the metro and tram a lot too :P If you know where you're going it's not a dangerous place.
Not sure if the taxi situation is still as bad there by the way. I would hope not.
taxis “weren’t competitive” when Uber rides were heavily subsidized and Uber was burning billions. I ride taxi now exclusively because it is almost always cheaper than Uber
I disagree, that was only true 15 years ago. In developed countries, ride hailing is highly regulated. Uber is one of the few companies willing to implement all the required regulations.
According to some people on X, they shut down immediately, while rides were still active. Sounds like an unplanned (and quite crazy) action.
https://x.com/gergelyorosz/status/2095256757178188113
Given Uber is one of the few companies who are lucky enough to have a separate page for all the controversies on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Uber), they also have their own fair of experience with police raids on their offices. They've also used "‘kill switch’ during raids to stop police seeing data" (https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak...) before, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was some sort of legal "kill switch" or whatever that got triggered, so they can get rid of everything faster.
> They've also used "‘kill switch’ during raids to stop police seeing data
If Uber wasn't a VC backed company, they would have been charged with destruction of evidence or similar.
They likely were but Companies don't go to jail they pay fines
This is hilarious. They are legally kidnappers at this point. No reason to even stop the ride and let you get out for free.
Makes sense, Uber's 30-50% cut is far too much. How can they compete with inDrive which only takes 10%. And on inDrive you set your own fare.
Rides are 20-40% cheaper elsewhere, why would anyone pay extra for Uber?
I would pay extra because I don't want the cognitive load of haggling on the cost. When I want/need A ride, it's because I'm either overloaded, away from home, or drunk. These are three times that I didn't want to bother with any more nonsense.
Its not that much. And you can just bypass it by accepting the first offer you get
haggling when drunk is super fun
but haggling with drunks is not
One anecdote for a datapoint: Not sure if it's better now but I've lost a phone in an InDrive and I've lost an expensive bag in an Uber and it was significantly easier and less sketchy to get the bag back. I'm not a price sensitive rider so the insurance of a reputable 'comfort' tier Uber driver paid off. The InDrive driver made me get another ride to him then demanded $1000mxn (~$55usd) to return my phone. The Uber app had me pay ~$250mxn if I remember correctly and the driver promptly returned the bag.
I have a controversial take: outside the US/Europe, Uber is mostly a tourist app.
If you actually live in developing regions:
1) your income is much lower, and you are quite price sensitive. The Uber price premium (20-40%) hits much harder.
2) the Uber alternatives are noticeably cheaper for the exact same trip.
Regarding your experience, if you were local, that inDrive driver likely would not have tried to extort $1000 MXN out of you. They saw you were a visitor and took advantage of you.
In Nigeria or Uganda there are few tourists, so Uber cannot rely on a stream of price-insensitive travelers to fill their cars. It makes total sense why they struggled in (and gave up on) the local market there.
Your take isn't controversial, it's just wrong. And you seem to be implying everywhere outside of USA and Europe is a developing region?
Insurance goes up. Who knows how much liability they need to cover transportation. They likely deal with claims of being kidnapped or held hostage by driver on a regular basis.
Bolt (the CEE ridesharing app) is the primary player in Nigeria. In Uganda it's primarily a bunch of local startups.
Driving for Uber in Lagos I suspect has to be very challenging
why they do that
In developing countries, the taxi market is largely unregulated and Uber faces actual competition. Uber cannot compete on price in these regions.
Even in countries where taxis are regulated, sometimes Uber is more expensive but safer. Like in Romania. When I used to go there a lot the official taxis were mandated to offer such low standardized rates that there was a lot of scamming going on. One of my colleagues was basically abducted by a taxi driver (taken to a dangerous gypsy area and told they would kick him out of the car unless he paid them hundreds of euro). Uber was a lot safer because you have tracability on the driver, but more expensive too. And there weren't a lot of them.
There were ways to get safe drivers in some cases by booking them through the yellow machines. But in the end the company hired private drivers for us. Though personally I would just use the metro and tram a lot too :P If you know where you're going it's not a dangerous place.
Not sure if the taxi situation is still as bad there by the way. I would hope not.
Even in Ukraine, it's far more expensive than the local equivalent which works flawlessly.
Does no one have any memory of what taxis were like and how much they cost? The taxis are gone because they weren't competitive.
And taxis weren't competitive because they were heavily regulated in most markets by a medallion system that artificially kept the supply low.
taxis “weren’t competitive” when Uber rides were heavily subsidized and Uber was burning billions. I ride taxi now exclusively because it is almost always cheaper than Uber
A taxi to the airport in Melbourne was >AUD100 from where I am more than 10 years ago. An Uber is ~AUD70 still, past all the subsidies.
Yes but what’s a taxi to the airport cost now? Otherwise the comparison doesn’t mean much.
Counterpoint : in Portugal they are regulated under TVDE, and Uber is competitive with Bolt
That's not a counterpoint.
In other words Uber did not bribe the politicians enough in their favor, market was not favorable for them, so they exited.
their only leg up in 1st world countries was largely going around any laws governing taxis
I disagree, that was only true 15 years ago. In developed countries, ride hailing is highly regulated. Uber is one of the few companies willing to implement all the required regulations.
Read the article to find out.