|Source: European Commission|
Last week taxi drivers protesting in several European cities delivered a huge
branding gift to Uber Technologies, a 5-year old Silicon Valley firm, which has
a smartphone app for requesting taxis/ cabs.
Uber has no fleet and gets a cut of 20% from the fare; the app calculates
fares based on distance travelled and time taken. Off-peak rates are cheaper
than traditional London black cabs and there is a “surge” pricing system,
whereby fares rise in busy periods and on other occasions, such as during bad
A recent fund-raising valued Uber at over $18bn, enabling
the firm to further
expand from about 130 cities worldwide.
The Financial Times reported that more than nine times the number of
passengers in the UK signed up for the Uber app last Wednesday compared with a
week before, according to the company. It jumped more than thirty places in the
rankings over the course of the day of protest in London to become the third most-downloaded app in
the Apple’s UK App Store, according to app analytics site App Annie.
The FT's Lex has said that an average Londoner or New Yorker spends $238 on
taxis each year, data from the City of New York and London’s Licensed Taxi
Drivers Association show. The potential customer base is - - at the very least -
everyone living in a big city, or 1.5bn people and $357bn in revenue.
"If profit margins settle at 10%, the global profit pool is about $7bn. If
Uber can capture just half this market, its $17bn valuation is five times
Of course, Uber has rivals but where US startups
gain an advantage is in the big single winner-takes-all home market. Then the
company is ready to strike offshore and also dodge taxes!!
Where this model can cause a lot of disruption is
in the rest of the transportation industry and then teh development of driverless cars
is a huge threat to existing structures.
Apps like Uber have both huge positives and negatives.
Neelie Kroes, EU commissioner for
the Digital Agenda
for Europe, previously served as competition commissioner where she
had a merited reputation for toughness, and last April she reacted with fury when a
Brussels court banned the Uber app.
The Dutch national who will be 73 next month,
did not mask her views with
The court says Uber drivers should have €10,000 fines for every pick-up they
attempt. Are they serious? What sort of legal system is this?
This decision is not about protecting or helping passengers - - it's about
protecting a taxi cartel. The relevant Brussels regional minister is Brigitte Grouwels. Her title is 'Mobility Minister.' Maybe it should be 'anti-Mobility
Minister.' She is even proud of the fact that she is stopping this innovation.
It isn’t protecting jobs Madame, it is just annoying people! [ ]
No-one is saying that Uber drivers should not pay taxes, follow rules, and
protect consumers. But banning Uber does not give them the chance to do the
right thing! If Brussels authorities have a problem with Uber they should find a
way to help them comply with standards instead of banning them.
Many licensed taxi drivers - - the ones with open minds that I have spoken to -
realise Uber is also a way to get more passengers for themselves, to develop
good relations with regular customers.
I’ve met the founders and investors in Uber. My staff have used the service
around the world to stay safe and save taxpayers money. Uber is 100% welcome in
Brussels and everywhere else as far as I am concerned.
And how is this ban going to work? It is an important question. Are the police
now going to spy on our phones to see when we are making Uber booking? Don't you
think the police in Brussels have something better to do.
It’s not like the current system is working ... take a
moment to consider the 23 recent gang-rapes of women by people posing as taxi
drivers. You would think the taxi industry would be more worried by
that damage to their reputation than by the threat of competition from Uber!"
In response to last week's European taxi protests, Kroes
said in a blog post:
The debate about taxi apps is really a debate
about the wider sharing economy. That debate forces us to think about
the disruptive effects of digital technology and the need for entrepreneurs in
our society. And that’s what the Taxi protests are really about.
It is right that we feel sympathy for people
who face big changes in their lives. Drivers need to feed their
families and plan for the future - - but how can they if that future includes not
only price competition from Uber, but also driverless cars? It can clearly be a
tough profession to work in. Many are also locked into an expensive licensing
system, where the license effectively forms part of their pension. So I don’t
think it helps to be dismissive of real concerns that cab drivers have about new
forms of competition. But we cannot run away from these debates either.
Whether it is about cabs, accommodation, music, flights, the news or whatever.
The fact is that digital technology is changing many aspects of our lives. We
cannot address these challenges by ignoring them, by going on strike, or by
trying to ban these innovations out
That is why a
strike won’t work: rather than 'downing tools' what we need is a real dialogue where
we talk about these disruptions caused by technology."
Before dealing with disruption, a remarkable positive from
the US over the
past decade is that
American interest in driving is waning and this is not just related to the
With more of the population living alone, interest in living in cities near
services has grown.
The average age of an American car was
11 years in 2011,
up from 9 in 2000; in 2010,
average age of a European car was 8 years,
up from 7.5 in 2004 - - more than a third of cars are over 10 years old.
A service like Uber can reduce the need to have a second car or even one car.
The driverless car would have a huge impact on several sectors including
“What automation is going to allow is repurposing, both of spaces in cities, and
of the car itself,” said Ryan Calo, an assistant professor at the University of
Washington School of Law, who specialises in robotics and drones,
according to The New York Times.
"Harvard University researchers note that as much as one-third of the land in
some cities is devoted to parking spots. Some city planners expect that the cost
of homes will fall as more space will become available in cities. If parking on
city streets is reduced and other vehicles on roadways become smaller, homes and
offices will take up that space."
A chart in Part 3 of this series shows huge jumps in US education and healthcare
costs, and the potential for savings from new technologies.
On disruption, the community split in San Francisco and the rich Silicon Valley
where white and Asian males dominate, is a foretaste of what's to come as
routine jobs are nixed while at the bottom of the economic pyramid, demand grows
for personal care aides, maids, food servers and security staff.
We reported in
Part 2 that Apple, one of the world's most valuable listed companies and
saving a huge amount of corporate tax each year with Ireland's help, pays
the majority of its staff in the United States poorly: $25,000 was the average
income of retail workers in 2012.
Women, African-Americans and Hispanics/ Latinos are unwanted in Silicon Valley
George Packer, a writer on politics at the New Yorker,
and a native of the Silicon Valley region, writes
Young people drawn to Silicon Valley can be more insular than those in other
industries—they tend to come from educated families and top universities, and
achieve success at a very early age. “They’re ignorant, because many of them
don’t feel the need to educate themselves outside their little world, and
they’re not rewarded for doing so,” the young start-up entrepreneur said. “If
you’re an engineer in Silicon Valley, you have no incentive to read The
Economist. It’s not brought up at parties, your friends aren’t going to talk
about it, your employers don’t care.” He found that college friends who came out
to the Valley to seek their fortune subsequently lost interest in the wider
world. “People with whom I used to talk about politics or policy or the arts,
they’re just not as into it anymore. They don’t read the Wall Street Journal or
the New York Times. They read TechCrunch and VentureBeat, and maybe they happen
to see something from the Times on somebody’s Facebook news feed.” He went on,
“The divide among people in my generation is not as much between traditional
liberals and libertarians. It’s a divide between people who are inward-facing
Jill Lepore, also in The New Yorker,
takes on Clayton Christensen, the Harvard Business School professor, who is the
author of the celebrated 1997 book: 'The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New
Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail.'
This was the genesis of the popular Silicon Valley term: "innovative
Lepore who is the David Woods Kemper ’41 professor of American History at
Harvard University, says that the theory of “disruptive
innovation” is founded on anxiety, fear, and shaky evidence.
Prof Lepore delivers a tour de force:
Every age has a theory of rising and falling, of growth and decay, of bloom
and wilt: a theory of nature. Every age also has a theory about the past and the
present, of what was and what is, a notion of time: a theory of history.
Theories of history used to be supernatural: the divine ruled time; the hand of
God, a special providence, lay behind the fall of each sparrow. If the present
differed from the past, it was usually worse: supernatural theories of history
tend to involve decline, a fall from grace, the loss of God’s favor, corruption.
Beginning in the eighteenth century, as the intellectual historian Dorothy Ross
once pointed out, theories of history became secular; then they started
something new—historicism, the idea “that all events in historical time can be
explained by prior events in historical time.” Things began looking up. First,
there was that, then there was this, and this is better than that. The
eighteenth century embraced the idea of progress; the nineteenth century had
evolution; the twentieth century had growth and then innovation. Our era has
disruption, which, despite its futurism, is atavistic. It’s a theory of history
founded on a profound anxiety about financial collapse, an apocalyptic fear of
global devastation, and shaky evidence.
Most big ideas have loud critics. Not disruption. Disruptive innovation as the
explanation for how change happens has been subject to little serious criticism,
partly because it’s headlong, while critical inquiry is unhurried; partly
because disrupters ridicule doubters by charging them with fogyism, as if to
criticize a theory of change were identical to decrying change; and partly
because, in its modern usage, innovation is the idea of progress jammed into a
Declining regular work;
Rising low-paid freelancing in Ireland & elsewhere - Part 1
Knowledge workers in Ireland;
Low-paid manufacturing grafters in China? - Part 2
The rich today work longer hours than the poor -
Part 5: final
including implications for Ireland.
FT on taxi wars -- Black cabs v Uber