UberTAXI is arriving in San Francisco(blog.uber.com)
blog.uber.com
UberTAXI is arriving in San Francisco
http://blog.uber.com/2012/10/17/taxi-is-arriving-in-san-francisco/
48 comments
"Automatically adding" a 20% gratuity is a no-go for me. That's about what I normally tip for a cab ride, but it's not their call to do that. Uncool.
It's what makes Uber delightful tho. You just hop out and get on with your day. No impatient cabbie with his hand out. It's fine with me.
Fine, but don't call it a gratuity. Call it a service fee. "Mandatory gratuities" make me look for another service provider.
If I understand this properly, it is a gratuity. The way I understand it, the taxi is still a normal taxi in operation but essentially has hooked into Uber to give it a new way to find fares and to have people pay. If this is the case, then the rate is the same with or without Uber and you still need to pay the gratuity and Uber just automatically selects that gratuity to be 20%. It's actually appreciably different from Uber choosing a rate and then adding a 20% automatic gratuity on top of it.
Agreed with this, but I can get over it for now.
They make you rate them, so you have to do that interaction anyways. Not really much more inconvenience if there was a slider or buttons there for tip %.
With Uber, you pay for a higher-quality of service. The ratings and screening should give you better drivers and maybe even better maintained cars and shorter wait time.
None of those benefits are guaranteed, obviously, but it's easy to imagine it working after having used Uber Black for so long and constantly being impressed by the professionalism of their drivers and quality of the experience.
None of those benefits are guaranteed, obviously, but it's easy to imagine it working after having used Uber Black for so long and constantly being impressed by the professionalism of their drivers and quality of the experience.
If it's automatically added, it's just part of the price. It's like saying "we automatically add 20% for the cost of gas."
I feel like this is what the rating system helps deal with. You should be finding yourself with drastically more taxi experiences where 20% is a reasonable tip.
If it is in fact what you'd normally tip, why would you let this prevent you from using the service? Unless you have an extremely bad experience (which I'm pretty sure you can report) - why let it be the one thing to stop you?
This is probably the fee they charge the taxi owners. This way, the added cost of their service is covered by the customers rather than the taxi owners.
[deleted]
As a San Francisco resident, I don't really see any reason to use this. I have Lyft for when I just need to get somewhere, and it's cheaper and more desirable than riding a taxi (yes, even after the improvements "uber-izing" a taxi makes), and I have Uber for when a black car is more appropriate, and Uber SUV for when I need to transport more than just myself or myself and another person.
It seems like those three services fit the full spectrum of use cases. Maybe this is just a way to appease the taxi cartel temporarily, while they don't realize their service is becoming obsolete.
It seems like those three services fit the full spectrum of use cases. Maybe this is just a way to appease the taxi cartel temporarily, while they don't realize their service is becoming obsolete.
In practical terms, it's a way for Uber to put more cars on their network, which hopefully makes it more likely that there's a ride nearby when you open the app in the Sunset, Richmond, Pac Heights or wherever else there's a low concentration of taxis (OK, so everywhere in SF).
Is Lyft actually cheaper than a taxi?
Uber TAXI automatically charges 20% gratuity + $1 fee so Lyft/SideCar will likely be cheaper, even if it's just because you can specify your gratuity.
Lyft now automatically includes $2 gratuity, fyi. Still cheaper by 10-15%.
[deleted]
What the post doesn't mention: how many taxis they have signed up. This is important. Their launch of UberTAXI in New York was a failure for many reasons, but one was that no-one could ever get a ride, because it turned out they had barely any cab drivers signed up to use the system.
If they aren't mentioning numbers out of the gate then I'm skeptical. Also amused that this story is currently 3rd from top on the home page, but numerous stories about their utter failure in New York were nowhere to be seen on HN.
If they aren't mentioning numbers out of the gate then I'm skeptical. Also amused that this story is currently 3rd from top on the home page, but numerous stories about their utter failure in New York were nowhere to be seen on HN.
Hey there, we have about 65 taxis in SF already and should be up in the hundreds shortly. It's a completely different regulatory environment than NYC, and (thus far) much friendlier toward innovation. You can still use Square to pay for a cab in SF, but not in NYC.
You can still use Square to pay for a cab in SF, but not in NYC.
Why would I want to? NYC cabs have credit card readers.
Why would I want to? NYC cabs have credit card readers.
I've had Chicago cabbies sometimes use Square instead of the card reader. They tell me the card reader costs them 5-7% (too many middlemen) while square is 3%ish
I happily pay with Square to give the guy more money for the service. I pay the same, he gets more and Square gets more business. Seems good to me.
I happily pay with Square to give the guy more money for the service. I pay the same, he gets more and Square gets more business. Seems good to me.
Square would have replaced the readers with their own tablet-based terminal: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2411065,00.asp
Yeah I read about that. I don't understand why I (as a passenger) would care, though- it's replacing one credit card terminal with another. Except the new one will have a more responsive touch screen. Yay?
65? How do you expect this to be any different from NYC if NYC had double? I want to see this grow, don't get me wrong, but 65?
If we can prove to them that they can make more money and have a better experience with Uber, getting several hundred on won't be an issue at all. We've launched taxi in Boston, Chicago, and Toronto with no issues gettings hundreds of drivers.
> Also amused that this story is currently 3rd from top on the home page, but numerous stories about their utter failure in New York were nowhere to be seen on HN.
At least one hit the #1 spot, if I'm remembering correctly.
At least one hit the #1 spot, if I'm remembering correctly.
Hm, if so, I take back my criticism. But HNSearch isn't returning much:
http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/submissions&q=ube...
http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/submissions&q=ube...
I hope this does not spell the end of UBERx (http://blog.uber.com/2012/07/03/sf-vehicle-choice/). As of right now, I can still see UBERx cars on the map so I have my fingers crossed.
Definitely not - UBERx is still going strong and we'll keep adding cars to it. We just didn't want to confuse people by lumping X/Taxi into one post.
First I thought this wasn't worth the news, but then I realized that this isn't just a new service for Uber. I imagine this is a way for them to deal with SF taxi services that want to get rid of black town cars.
Uber is now giving taxies a way out. By adding them to the system, cabbies cannot complain that Uber is awful and illegal competitor.
If the cab service sucks, well, it's the Taxi's fault and you can still book Uber Black. Uber wins. If the taxi service works, Uber will get a cut from the transaction.
Either way, Uber wins.
Uber is now giving taxies a way out. By adding them to the system, cabbies cannot complain that Uber is awful and illegal competitor.
If the cab service sucks, well, it's the Taxi's fault and you can still book Uber Black. Uber wins. If the taxi service works, Uber will get a cut from the transaction.
Either way, Uber wins.
I talked to a few drivers about Uber Taxi when they launched here in Toronto about a month ago. They seemed to love it. Pickups have a rating and verified identity, which is a safety bonus. Fares are pre-paid with 20% gratuity automatically. And they don't have to pay the credit-card processing fee.
As someone who lived in Toronto and moved to SF, it's a different scenario. Taxis in Toronto are plentiful, and there are almost always taxis available - just not where you want them so it fits. In SF it's different - there's not enough and they can pick up rides anywhere. That's why calling a taxi doesn't work as well as Toronto (where you can call one and they'll show up). In SF half the time they don't show up because they'll pick up a far on the way.
I'm wondering how they plan to justify a markup on taxis though. Uber Black isn't much more expensive than a taxi as it is, so if I'm going to pay above what a normal taxi costs, I'd just as soon go that route. If they plan to take a 'referral fee' from the taxi companies, I think they're still going to get a bunch of opposition as that'll cut into margins.
I don't know nearly enough to know whether or not taxi services currently offer any kind of referral benefits or what, but I envision taxi services as low margin operations as they are (though that could be way off the mark).
I don't know nearly enough to know whether or not taxi services currently offer any kind of referral benefits or what, but I envision taxi services as low margin operations as they are (though that could be way off the mark).
They've had free Uber TAXI in Boston since Tuesday morning (until Thursday 8pm) and it's been awesome. I ubered home yesterday and to work this morning.
I'm pretty sure the idea was to get the cabbies onboard. And it worked: both cabbies I used were in love with the extra cash and said that they and all their friends would use Uber from now on. They had amazing revenue nights! We'll see what happens when the traffic dies down, but I'm betting it was a smart investment on Uber's part. I wonder how much it cost.
According to one of the cabbies, they tried charging $200 for the iPhones when they initially rolled out, and it went nowhere. Then they gave them away for free, and a lot of cabbies got the phones, but the traffic was too low so they just left it in the glove compartment. Now they're on board. Well done, Uber!
I wonder if they paid the regular Uber drivers for the reduced traffic during the promotion...
I'm pretty sure the idea was to get the cabbies onboard. And it worked: both cabbies I used were in love with the extra cash and said that they and all their friends would use Uber from now on. They had amazing revenue nights! We'll see what happens when the traffic dies down, but I'm betting it was a smart investment on Uber's part. I wonder how much it cost.
According to one of the cabbies, they tried charging $200 for the iPhones when they initially rolled out, and it went nowhere. Then they gave them away for free, and a lot of cabbies got the phones, but the traffic was too low so they just left it in the glove compartment. Now they're on board. Well done, Uber!
I wonder if they paid the regular Uber drivers for the reduced traffic during the promotion...
"There are only about 1,500 “medallions” (essentially permits) that allow taxis to operate in San Francisco. To put that in context, NYC has over 13,000."
Wow, intentional abuse of statistics used without context, while claiming to provide context. NYC is 10x the population of SF, so has fewer per capita mediallions than SF.
Wow, intentional abuse of statistics used without context, while claiming to provide context. NYC is 10x the population of SF, so has fewer per capita mediallions than SF.
That may be, but most of NYC is devoid of hailable medallion cabs. Manhattan, where an overwhelming majority of cabs are to be found, has a population only 2x that of SF.
That said, there are parts of SF without hailable medallion cabs too, so... :)
That said, there are parts of SF without hailable medallion cabs too, so... :)
Zamfi nailed it - NYC is 10x the population, but Manhattan is not. If you've ever tried to get a cab in both NYC and SF, you know that difference in medallions is very real.
I think I maybe once saw a cab in Brooklyn, but it turns out it was just a yellow car driving like a maniac.
(99% of taxi trips in NYC start or end in Manhattan. There are no cabs in the outer boroughs and they will only take you there if you get in, close the door, and get out your phone to call 311 if they refuse to take you. I don't even try anymore.)
(99% of taxi trips in NYC start or end in Manhattan. There are no cabs in the outer boroughs and they will only take you there if you get in, close the door, and get out your phone to call 311 if they refuse to take you. I don't even try anymore.)
What's cheaper? UberX, Lyft, or UberTAXI?
Lyft < UberX
Haven't tried UberTAXI yet to know, but I would expect it to be in the middle.
Just got out of an Uber cab in Boston (due to the free cab promotion for this week). So far so good. The driver did get yelled at by another driver because he was a Boston cab picking up in Cambridge, but I'll bet people will get over that.
I'm liking using taximagic.com in Portland, and love it, so I'm excited to see taxis also available through Uber.