![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
This article needs to be improved; it's basically written like an advertisement for Uber. I did some low-hanging fruit edits, but it needs to be properly edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.83.5 ( talk • contribs)
Someone should probably move the list of cities out to a new section - or maybe to a separate article? The current list is getting waaaay too big for the opening paragraph. -- MarkTraceur ( talk) 06:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
after reading the article, i still have no idea what uber is. how is it different from a taxi? is it a taxi that customers hail with a phone app instead of waiving the hand on the street? -- 179.161.43.236 ( talk) 18:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
"Different business model" still doesn't quite explain anything. I agree with the initial commenter that the article does nothing to explain how exactly Uber differs from traditional taxis, or what the reasons for the strong opposition to the company are, excluding lack of taxi licenses for its drivers. 203.153.104.180 ( talk) 04:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Non-Uber | Uber |
---|---|
I call them on the phone and talk to them | I call them on the phone with an app |
I tell them where I am and where I want to go | I submit a "trip request"
(by telling them where I am and where I want to go) |
They route my request to one of their available drivers | They route my request to one of their available drivers |
Their driver picks me up and takes me to my destination | Their driver picks me up and takes me to my destination |
I pay their driver for the service | I pay their driver for the service |
I also don't see where what Uber actually is or does is explained. I think the authors assume everyone knows, because, like, y'know, how can you not know? Are you a total nerd? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.212.6 ( talk) 00:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I know little about it and am not particularly interested in Uber, but this article appears to be dominated by some people who are antagonistic to the company. WP:NPOV needs to be maintained.
Really? 15.219.233.74 ( talk) 00:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The article gives no explanation at all 85.228.201.36 ( talk) 21:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
The use of the term 'Economic Equilibrium' is inappropriate because price is a function of quantities. In this description (of the economic model of supply and demand) the firm is unable to affect prices for this reason (they are determined), only quantities.
It is more appropriate to describe the firm as engaging in 'peak-load price discrimination' to create a 'partial equilibrium' condition. But this deals specifically with the firm's cost (or supply) function. It is too complicated to explain 'equilibrium' accurately in the article, so I have removed reference to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.198.19.235 ( talk) 17:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
delete this article
Hi, I've just set up an account and wanted to introduce myself here: my name is Craig and I work at Uber Technologies. The reason I've created this account is that I'm interested in working with the Wikipedia community to help keep this article and other Uber-related pages up-to-date, by providing suggested edits on discussion pages. I'm getting advice on how to contribute and best practices for conflict of interest editors such as myself, but I'm always open to any questions or suggestions you might have!
As a first point of business for this article, I have a small correction to the introduction. This sentence includes two errors:
The article that is cited here is out of date, the number of cities where Uber operates is actually more than 200. The number of cities has been reported correctly in a few places, including The Next Web and the San Francisco Business Times. Likewise, the company's valuation quoted in that article is also not quite right, as it received a valuation of $18.2 billion in June this year.
Here's an updated sentence with new links for the correct numbers:
Is anybody here able to make this edit for me? Thanks, Craig at Uber ( talk) 02:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
irrelevant commentary, inappropriate for article talk page |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I don't trust you. Nor should anyone else on Wikipedia. As an employee of the article's subject you have no place here. You are a conflict of interest. Thank you and have a nice day. 104.254.91.18 ( talk) 06:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
|
Comments below. - SantiLak ( talk) 07:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC) Until Talk Page discussion completes, please do not make changes involving uber as a cab company
Of course. (I'm actually conducting a report on the company.) Trust me, their entire model is basically that of a cab companies. The play on words is smart on their part, but let's be realistic, it's a cab service. Ride sharing for money? Yes, that's what a cab is.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
From what I've learned from my research, Uber is basically operating as a cab that you cannot hail. They try to say "we are connecting drivers with people who need rides," or claim that they are a "ride sharing service." Let's be real for a second, the first one is simply a play on words, and the second one is basically a synonym for cab services. Many cab services even have identical apps that do the same thing because all Uber is doing is basically dispatching trips to drivers. Only difference is instead of customers having to call in, they simply tap a button on their smartphone. Keep in mind that a large majority of the world classifies this company as a cab service company.
A couple of the people here were being confused by how Uber's business model is different, and kept recharging my edits. All Uber is doing is avoiding regulation/insurance fees by hiding under this so called different business model. Anyone with an IQ over 15 understands that it's merely a controversial illegal cab service. That's why I think some of the changes that were made to the article are completely justified.
There is nothing in this article telling who the drivers are. Do they work fulltime, parttime, students on weekends? I’m trying to figure out how an owner of a nice middle-class car has an incentive to cruise around Manhattan waiting for customers. Also, how much of the fare do the drivers keep and how does that compare to traditional taxis? The business model is only adequately described from the top down and for its technological novelty. Janko ( talk) 09:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Most of the recent editing on the talk page trying to equate Uber and cab services seems to be coming from brand new single-purpose accounts with similar editing interests and understanding of sourcing. If this is you, please be aware that you are expected to maintain a single account and, if you have one, sign in to that account to edit. If you came here because somebody urged you to, please note the policy on WP:MEAT. Thanks, - Wikidemon ( talk) 03:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Did I miss something, or is there any reason why this entry doesn't mention anything about Uber drivers who have criminal records or have committed crimes against Uber customers? There are many stories in WP:RS, of which this is one of the most reliable roundups:
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Risky-Ride-Uber-Investigation-256604571.html Risky Ride: Who's Behind the Wheel of Uber Cars? How safe is Uber? The NBC4 ITeam investigates. By Joel Grover and Keith Esparros May 2, 2014
Tadeusz Szczechowicz drove the streets of Chicago for a year, despite five prior arrests and two convictions for burglary and disorderly conduct.
Syed Muzzafar had a prior conviction for reckless driving, but he cleared the Uber background check and was behind the wheel New Year's Eve when he was arrested for hitting and killing a 6-year-old girl in San Francisco.
And, Jigneshkumar Patel was arrested for battery of an UberX passenger, a charge he said is "rubbish." Still, the UberX driver had a 2012 conviction for DUI.
Tanya and Daniel Sackler didn't know anything about the past of their UberX driver. He identified himself only by his first name.
The Sacklers said he stole $2,500 in cash and personal items from them after he picked them up from LAX and dropped them off at their West Hollywood condo. The Sacklers filed a police report, saying the driver arrived at their home and quickly began unloading their baggage.
"He took them all and he put them in a pile," Daniel said.
While the Sacklers were dealing with their luggage, Tanya Sackler said their driver jumped back behind the wheel and quickly drove off with her purse, her husband's briefcase, a wallet with hundreds of dollars in it, and an iPad.
They had the driver's cell number, so they texted him right away, only to be told he was too busy to talk to them at the moment. The Sacklers said when they finally spoke to him, the driver told them he was not responsible for items left in his car.
-- Nbauman ( talk) 20:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I have made revisions today to address recent careless additions that were made, which are also in the same vein as other edits that have sought merely to discredit Uber, rather than adding to an encyclopedic article on the subject. Can copyeditors please be careful about how updates are presented—especially the Lead section, which is not just a dumping ground for the latest issues that surface in the media. I will assert once again that I have no connection with Uber whatsoever—I just want to uphold the Wikipedia standards that have served us well so far. I also know that other copyeditors have been doing their part to retain this page's credibility. Thanks. Regards,-- Soulparadox ( talk) 10:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Given that the best we can do for the moment in regard to the Taiwan section is a Chinese-language citation—unusual, as the English-language media is adept at keeping up with Uber matters as they happen—it would be great if a copyeditor who understands the article could ensure that the section is accurate. Thanks.-- Soulparadox ( talk) 07:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I just removed a small section at the bottom concerning the alleged rape in India. The keyword here is "alleged", because it is alleged and not yet proven, inserting it in violates BLP ( he's not yet been proven guilty). Unless there's some reliable sources that show a crime really was committed it would need to remain out. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 13:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
could there be a list of services that Uber provides including their limited time only services? For instance, in Washington, DC, Uber offers UberX (regular, XL, and XL with Car-seat); Black Car (regular, SUV, and Blackcar with carseat, and SUV with carseat) and Taxi. They are also running a trial of Uber Essentials, where you can order things from the app and a driver will deliver them to you. [1]
In Miami, I've read that they have UberSelect, with high end cars. [2] Dfl8cornell ( talk) 19:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the article does not address the changes that inspired the government to make since before the arrival of looper rideshare companies would definitely be labeled as Gypsy cabs but after their arrival they convinced government officials that because they were dispatching trips via the app and still completely ignoring existing taxi laws they could relabel the term gypsy cab as a rideshare service. I think that this should be discussed at least to a little bit of an extent in the article because it definitely did change the way that taxi regulations were in effect and thus it ultimately changed eat chips the cab to move under the exploited term as a rideshare service.- Powedulninja72627 ( talk) 11:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powedulninja72627 ( talk • contribs)
The 2014 Sydney hostage crisis incident makes an excellent illustration of Uber's automated pricing model and of Uber's sensitivity and responsiveness to emergencies. That is to say, demand shot up, surge pricing kicked in to bring more drivers out to handle the demand, and Uber made an executive decision to remedy the situation. This is exactly the sort of "how a company operates" information that readers would expect under a "pricing" section in a corporate article. "NotNews" by the way, is seriously dated. I wouldn't suggest going over to the hostage crises article currently under development and telling the editors there stop there work on the basis that Wikipedia is not news. Rklawton ( talk) 05:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm reverting this material for the second time (I hadn't seen the above comment). [1] What on earth does this have to do with Uber? There are dozens or perhaps hundreds of examples where people complained about Uber's "surge pricing". The fact that the algorithm increased the prices due to a terrorist incident this time (as opposed to a holiday, natural disaster, what have you) does not help explain the pricing system, and just feeds into the weird-stuff-that-happened-on-uber meme. This is minor news of the day stuff and does not fit in with explaining what Uber is, how it works, etc. If this truly becomes the symbol of negative reaction to Uber's pricing, then we can include it — but right now, a few hours after the incident with the hostage crisis still happening and Uber tyring to explain itself, this really looks like over-eager scandal-gazing. - Wikidemon ( talk) 06:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the usage of the word "rideshare" in the first sentence, along with the link to the Carpooling page, is inaccurate and plays into a media mythology that companies like Uber have spent copious amounts of money to craft. Uber is not a ride-sharing service, though many use the phrase ride-sharing to refer to them. I believe a better term for them would be Transportation network company (as used on the Lyft page), or simply as a taxi company.
Why Uber is not a ride-sharing company: "ride sharing," and particularly with the current link to the Carpooling page in place, implies a free, friendly exchange between individuals. For instance, with carpooling people typically take turns driving their vehicles for each other in order to reduce their gas usage, environmental impact, and to give themselves a bit more flexibility. The word "ride share" typically refers to something like a carpool, or an informal arrangement like what you find on the craigslist "rideshares" section -- e.g. "Hey, I'm driving down from SF to LA this weekend and have two extra seats." People often chip in money in such arrangements, but -- crucially -- the ride-share-er does not operate as a 24/7 business, and *already has a destination in mind*, hence the phrase "ride share." They are *sharing* their *ride*, *not* sharing their vehicle, or acting as a /for hire/ driving service.
Uber, however, operates on-demand taxi and taxi-like services. Their drivers do this as a full-time or part-time job, are required to meet certain requirements, and are, crucially, not in the process of making some kind of random personal trip when they decide to pick someone up. This is a job for them.
So to be concrete here: I propose that the usage of the phrase "ridesharing" in the first paragraph be removed and replaced with Transportation network company. I am not opposed to the usage of "rideshare" further into the article, as it's a popular term used to refer to services such as Uber, but I believe that even there we owe it to readers to offer a small clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.60.54 ( talk) 00:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi all. Just wondering about moving most of the regulatory opposition section to a new article called something like "Regulatory opposition to Uber" or maybe "Regulatory views on Uber". It seems to take up an inordinate amount of space at the moment. Cheers Ballofstring ( talk) 02:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Why Wikipedia doesn´t post the revenues and profits from Uber? If the company is worth $ 40 bn. does it means that its revenues are $ 40 bn.? Or just $ 200 million, like any small company? If the company is worth $ 40 bn. does it means its profits are $ 4 bn.? Or nothing. Otherwise, it is a fraud and investors will lose 90% of their money.-- 83.37.96.205 ( talk) 22:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Judging by recent IP vandalism and edit war potential, at least. 121.220.113.177 ( talk) 00:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Even though I had no problem at all with the previous layout of the page, I have revised the subsections and headings under the History section—which reflect an earlier version of the article—as I observed that they restricted the ability to update the History section if the content did not fit under the pre-existent headings. For example, a recent update that was more appropriate for the History section, was entered in a newly created section that is unnecessary and just adds to an already lengthy article. Of course, I am open to other suggestions. Regards,-- Soulparadox ( talk) 04:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
What do you think about adding this to the third paragraph? Uber's legal problems worldwide it's cc-licensed (see infographics) and well sourced. -- 87.163.110.172 ( talk) 15:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The consensus of this RfC is:
- to move most of the information in the "Regulatory opposition" to a spin-off article, Legal status of Uber's service.
- to trim the "Regulatory opposition" section so that it complies with Wikipedia:Summary style.
A spin-off article has been created, but the trimming of the "Regulatory opposition" section has not been done yet.
If necessary, editors should further discuss how to trim the section.
Hi again, everyone. As I mentioned in my last post, my name is Craig and I work at Uber Technologies. There have been a lot of edits to the article in the last several months, many involving adding information about the legal and regulatory responses to Uber's expansion into various markets. As Uber becomes available in different cities and countries, there has been a lot of media coverage of this issue, which has then been added into this article. It's hard not to notice that the Regulatory opposition now makes up the bulk of this article's content. I see that User:Ballofstring, User:Wikidemon and User:Soulparadox have briefly discussed this above, so I'd like to add a few thoughts, and hopefully start a bigger discussion.
The regulatory and legal responses are certainly part of Uber's short history to date, and definitely have a place in this article. However, I think that the way it is covered in this article in exhaustive detail is overwhelming to readers and reads more like a news ticker than an encyclopedia entry. I appreciate that editors are working hard here and it must be extremely tricky to make sure an article stays up to date while keeping details encyclopedic. Due to my obvious conflict of interest in this case, I know it's best for me not to be bold and make any changes, so I want to open up a discussion to editors and especially those with lots of experience on company articles. Although the usual practice would be to start a discussion on this Talk page, I'd like to open a "Request for Comment" to help bring in a broader range of experienced editors who can offer an objective view on what to do about the Regulatory opposition part of the article. I hope this sounds good to everyone here. Craig at Uber ( talk) 17:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The section of the article discussing regulatory and legal responses to the Uber app ( Regulatory opposition) is very long and exhaustively detailed. As new responses are reported in the media, more is being added, creating a "news ticker" effect that is not very encyclopedic. My question for editors is how this information would be best treated, particularly whether it should be summarized here or potentially split off into its own article. Craig at Uber ( talk) 17:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Thanks all for participating in this RfC and for offering such constructive responses. It seems like everyone is agreed on 1) creating a child article for a detailed discussion of the legal and regulatory status of Uber and 2) summarizing the material in this article -- and it's great to see that User:Ballofstring has already begun work on this. I'm glad that editors have found a good way forward to stop this article becoming overwhelmed by all of the information available on this topic, and I'm interested to see the new article take shape, as well as the process of summarizing the material here. I'm not sure on the best etiquette for ending the RfC. For now I will leave it open in case of additional thoughts and while the summarizing process is still to take place. If someone more experienced wants to go ahead and close it, however, that would be fine too. Craig at Uber ( talk) 17:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
In March 2015, Uber offered luxury car-rental service in collaboration with Dream Drive in Singapore until 20 May 2015. [1] Charminrong ( talk) 08:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Cabs and Uber drivers both have the option to reject/accept trips. So what exactly about getting an uber dispatch trip is different than a cab dispatch trip? They're both dispatching. Please give me a solid explanation. The let's go with the "status quo" stuff is not going to cut it. This article needs to be an accurate representation of what the business model is. What is your rebuttal? Centenialsquare ( talk) 1:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revistayugo ( talk • contribs)
74.95.43.249 ( talk) 02:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
There appear to be some disagreements on what Uber's business model is. By definition, dispatching is offering a trip (for which payment will be given; either through credit cards or cash . These trips can be accepted/rejected) to an available driver who is working as an independent driver for any company. Now if you think about it, we could theoretically label Uber's model as "connecting passengers with drivers," but then what form of driver transportation can't be labeled this? This is too vague and broad. It's like saying, "Wal-Mart connects consumers with purchasable items, and so they are not in the retail industry" (hopefully you get the idea) Is that wrong? No, but they are in the retail industry, and they sell goods. I get that Uber is trying to establish itself as something different thank cabs, but when 90% of the cities it operates in, deems what they are doing as dispatch, should it not be recognized as that? What do you guys think? -- Pavsidhu ( talk) 07:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
74.95.43.249 ( talk) 03:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The Walmart example is a false analogy. It's plain that Walmart is a retail chain and all the sources say that. Trying to prove that Uber is a dispatch service would be more like arguing whether Ebay, or Amazon, or Groupon are retail chains based on how they sell products, who takes the money, who ships, etc. They are what they are, and the best way to describe their online presence is that they run online shopping sites. Similarly, Uber runs a mobile-based car reservation service. - Wikidemon ( talk) 08:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC) So, I blocked one the editors here about the whole dispatch thing on account of edit warring. But after searching for sources myself, editors arguing in favor of this dispatching language may have a point that Uber is described as a "taxi dispatch service":
The taxi dispatch and ride-share service Uber just got a bump from United Airlines.
The license approved Tuesday would also allow Uber to dispatch taxicabs...
UberTaxi is permitted at O’Hare International Airport and Midway Airport, because the service links to professional taxi drivers and Uber dispatches the licensed cabs themselves
At this point, I'd like editors to stop reverting each other and to start discussing these in light of actual sources. I, JethroBT drop me a line 11:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
In September 2013,California’s Public Utilities Commission classified UberX as a transportation provider because it functions like a taxi dispatch.) That said, there does appear to be Uber Taxi in many cities including NYC, Washington DC, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, and others. ( [13], [14], [15]). I do not think it is POV to describe the general functions of the application per these sources. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
It is a bit challenging to tell from the above discussion exactly what proposal is being discussed. WOuld someone be willing to clearly state what the proposal is, and then it would be easier for editors to offer support or opposition with rationale. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 04:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I do appreciate the inclusion of infographics into the article, but the one added to Regulatory opposition is outdated and no longer an accurate illustration of Uber's presence in the US and elsewhere. In many cases depicted on the map that's now in the article, new regulations have gone into effect. Many of these updates occurred in late 2014, or very recently in 2015.
For any editors who might not have seen my posts here before, as I mentioned in my first post, my name is Craig and I work at Uber Technologies. I'm not going to make any edits to the article but plan to come to the Talk page with thoughts and suggestions from time to time.
Now, in regards to the infographic, there are a lot of inaccuracies, so I've put a sampling of them in collapsed format to make this less overwhelming. You'll find each inaccuracy noted along with a news article as support:
Updates to Uber-related legislation |
---|
References
|
I'm definitely interested in hearing feedback on this. If you guys agree that the infographic is no longer an accurate depiction, I'd appreciate an editor removing it. Thanks, Craig at Uber ( talk) 23:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I've rephrased this section on a recent NYT report that Comfr added recently to this. There are some other articles about it, but they basically refer back to the NYT article (see Kansas City Business Journal, Business Insider, Fast Company). This feels a little not news-y to me, and so if folks think we should wait on this to see how this story develops first, perhaps we should. Let me know what you think. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I noticed we don't have anything on this news or any of its earlier background information. How extensive is the unionization movement? EllenCT ( talk) 05:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi again, everyone. As editors reading this might have seen, the Request for Comment discussion above ended with the consensus to move the details from this article about regulation and other legal issues into a new article, and to summarize them here in line with WP:Summary Style. While moving the text into the new article has happened, the summary of Regulatory opposition has not. As this is the more involved part, it's totally understandable that it may take a bit more time to get quite right. In the meantime, the long section is continuing to attract more and more detail, even while existing parts become outdated.
To help get editors started with the summarizing process, I'd like to present a draft summary as a starting point. The draft aims to give a general overview of the regulatory and legal landscape facing Uber, without going into all of the minutiae for every country and city. It's best for me not to be bold and add this in myself because of my conflict of interest, as I work for Uber Technologies. My hope is that this draft will work to summarize the section, or at least be a springboard to start that summarization process.
Here it is:
Regulatory and legal issues summary draft
|
---|
During the course of its expansion to over 300 cities around the world, Uber has experienced numerous regulatory and legal challenges to its operations. [1] Transportation regulators in places including California; [2] Vancouver, British Columbia; [3] Seattle, Washington; [4] and Geneva, Switzerland issued cease and desist orders, particularly upon the launch of the ridesharing product uberX, called uberPOP internationally. [5] [6] Competitors such as the Madrid Taxi Association in Spain, [7] ANTRAL in Portugal [8] and Taxi Deutschland in Germany have procured injunctions from local courts on the basis that Uber is competing unfairly. [9] However, in countries such as the United States, [10] Brazil [11] and France, courts have denied requests for injunction made by taxi companies, taxi drivers or transportation regulators. [6] Government officials in Delhi, India have banned all app-based ride services in defense of cab driver unions. [12] In Belgium, [13] The Netherlands, [7] the Philippines, [14] and South Korea, police forces have conducted sting operations to order rides from Uber drivers and arrest them if they are operating vehicles not licensed for commercial use. [15] Several locales, including Portland, Oregon [16] and the state of Virginia [17] initially banned Uber from operating, only to reverse the decision after compromising with Uber on changes in local regulations. [18] In 2015, the company signaled a departure from its previous, more aggressive expansion strategy. Uber's new commitment to cooperation and collaboration with local municipalities has increased the rate of its expansion. As of January 2015, its uberX product operated legally in 22 cities and states within the U.S., and worldwide 17 cities had passed specific pro-Uber municipal ordinances. [19] References
|
Anyone willing to look this over and start the summarizing process? Thanks, Craig at Uber ( talk) 15:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Just spotted that Wikidemon has made the edits in the article and it looks great, thanks! Craig at Uber ( talk) 16:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Man, this article is useless. The only thing that is even remotely helpful is the "illegal cab?" section on this talk page. Even it fails to answer some basic questions, but the gist appears to be that uber is operating an unregulated cab service. it is hard to imagine (other than by utilizing mobile technology to avoid detection) how it could be allowed to operate with the obvious public safety issues that it raises. Who ensures the vehicles involved are safe? Who ensures (and insures) the drivers are qualified and also safe? are the vehicles and drivers employees of uber or just people who sign up or pay some fee to be regietered as instant cabbies with their own junker cars? It will be interesting to see what happens when somebody uses uber to begin scamming, robbing, or worse hapless riders.
There needs to be some explanation of why Uber prefers to use unlicensed drivers. How are these drivers insured -- or are they? Who is liable if an unlicensed driver has an accident? What happens if one gets stopped for a traffic violation, with an passenger in the cab? How is the level of driving skill determined for the drivers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 ( talk) 01:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I've found a severe shortage of detail on what Uber drivers might earn, in reality, in various markets. If reliable sources can be found in several major markets, it may be possible to improve the article.
- Found this source where a journalist interviewed with 11 drivers and gained access to their pay statements. May be of some use: What Uber Drivers Really Make (According To Their Pay Stubs), Buzzfeed, November 2014. N2e ( talk) 16:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The intro currently says "Many governments and taxi companies have protested against Uber, alleging that its use of unlicensed, crowd-sourced drivers was unsafe and illegal." The intro is supposed to be an outline of what is covered in the article. And yet I cannot find a section in the article that goes into more detail about what governments and taxi companies have actually said. I think that is relevant and interesting. Can it be added? Invertzoo ( talk) 20:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, now I see that this is covered in the article entitled, " Legal status of Uber's service". It seems rather unfortunate that this is a separate article. Shouldn't the two be merged? Invertzoo ( talk) 20:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I have added a "see also" and a hat note notifying people about the other article. Without either of those assists, it looked almost as if the legality issues were being deliberated hidden in a separate article that readers might not notice. Invertzoo ( talk) 20:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
To Wikidemon. If that other article "chronicles different government responses" to Uber, then why is that article entitled Legal status of Uber's service, which seems to promise to tell the reader whether Uber's services are legal or not, under which laws and so on. Surely that article should be entitled something more along the lines of Protests and legal actions against Uber or something similar? Invertzoo ( talk) 20:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see that anyone would call that other article a Wp:Fork, but it did also look rather hidden away, which is why I made the hatnote and the see also. Invertzoo ( talk) 21:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
And I see the section which has that hatnote is now called "Market penetration", which I think is a misleading heading, since the paragraph is about problems with market penetration, not the degree of market penentration. That new heading looks a bit white-washy to me. Invertzoo ( talk) 20:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say that info was hidden, I said it looked hidden. I came to the article interested in that aspect of the company's history, and found it quite difficult to see where that was discussed. Invertzoo ( talk) 19:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
N2e, are you asking if I want to make a "better and more thorough summary of the legal issues"? As things currently stand, because we have two articles, that would have to go into the other article, or it risks creating a lot of duplication. Also, I am not an expert on law, especially since local, national and international law is involved. Plus some would say the legal objections are better left in chronological order. Invertzoo ( talk) 20:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
An editor recently made a Bold edit and removed the section of the article entitled "Contractors, or employees?" I have Reverted that edit, per WP:BRD, so that it might be Discussed here on the Talk page.
It would seem that the issue of Uber drivers being considered by Uber as independent contractors, as currently done, rather than employees, has been much in the news, in many cities, and has become a part of political rhetoric and argument. The material in the article is backed up by reliable sources. So my view would be to leave the "big idea" of the matter as an issue in the article on the Uber company, but of course only leave a fairly high-level summary. Others? N2e ( talk) 18:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The article currently states, "have a car less than six years old". This is simply incorrect. Uber themselves indicate your car must be "2000 or newer 2005 or newer, depending on your city"( [16]). A car that is more than 15 years old is vastly different from the current claim from Absolutelypuremilk, which in turn seems to be a misreading of the cited source. The cited source claims the car must be as modern as 2007, and the article was published in 2014, meaning the car could be more than 7 years old. Additionally, Absolutelypuremilk claims that Uber drivers must pass an English test. That's not remotely true. They have to "get through the orientation", which is very, very different. The claims that Uber reduces congestion are similarly unsupported by the provided citation, and logically laughable in any case. I'm not planning on removing these claims because I have already done so once, and don't want to engage in an edit war. -- Yamla ( talk) 18:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The article would be improved if sources could be found that detail some of the various (and, I'm guessing, diverse) local issues as Uber has entered, or left (e.g., Eugene, Oregon), various markets.
Might we make a (growing) list here of decent articles that might be used as reliable sources to improve the article? N2e ( talk) 18:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Article need more information on the app. What version number, compatible devices, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.178.150.188 ( talk) 23:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
FFAF153 You removed the benefits section, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Uber_%28company%29&type=revision&diff=684542310&oldid=684501961 saying that it read "like an advert". Which specific bits did you disagree with? Maybe we can discuss and come to a reasonable conclusion Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 15:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The article ought to include some information about why many consumers, drivers, etc., prefer Uber over traditional cab companies and other options. This should not be "claimed" or "alleged" or some other disclaimer suggesting that we are covering a business dispute, but a neutral summary in Wikipedia's voice regarding why the Uber service is different an in many cases more attractive to consumers and participants. That's relevant at the core to what this article is about. - Wikidemon ( talk) 08:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
This article needs to be improved; it's basically written like an advertisement for Uber. I did some low-hanging fruit edits, but it needs to be properly edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.83.5 ( talk • contribs)
Someone should probably move the list of cities out to a new section - or maybe to a separate article? The current list is getting waaaay too big for the opening paragraph. -- MarkTraceur ( talk) 06:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
after reading the article, i still have no idea what uber is. how is it different from a taxi? is it a taxi that customers hail with a phone app instead of waiving the hand on the street? -- 179.161.43.236 ( talk) 18:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
"Different business model" still doesn't quite explain anything. I agree with the initial commenter that the article does nothing to explain how exactly Uber differs from traditional taxis, or what the reasons for the strong opposition to the company are, excluding lack of taxi licenses for its drivers. 203.153.104.180 ( talk) 04:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Non-Uber | Uber |
---|---|
I call them on the phone and talk to them | I call them on the phone with an app |
I tell them where I am and where I want to go | I submit a "trip request"
(by telling them where I am and where I want to go) |
They route my request to one of their available drivers | They route my request to one of their available drivers |
Their driver picks me up and takes me to my destination | Their driver picks me up and takes me to my destination |
I pay their driver for the service | I pay their driver for the service |
I also don't see where what Uber actually is or does is explained. I think the authors assume everyone knows, because, like, y'know, how can you not know? Are you a total nerd? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.212.6 ( talk) 00:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I know little about it and am not particularly interested in Uber, but this article appears to be dominated by some people who are antagonistic to the company. WP:NPOV needs to be maintained.
Really? 15.219.233.74 ( talk) 00:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The article gives no explanation at all 85.228.201.36 ( talk) 21:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
The use of the term 'Economic Equilibrium' is inappropriate because price is a function of quantities. In this description (of the economic model of supply and demand) the firm is unable to affect prices for this reason (they are determined), only quantities.
It is more appropriate to describe the firm as engaging in 'peak-load price discrimination' to create a 'partial equilibrium' condition. But this deals specifically with the firm's cost (or supply) function. It is too complicated to explain 'equilibrium' accurately in the article, so I have removed reference to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.198.19.235 ( talk) 17:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
delete this article
Hi, I've just set up an account and wanted to introduce myself here: my name is Craig and I work at Uber Technologies. The reason I've created this account is that I'm interested in working with the Wikipedia community to help keep this article and other Uber-related pages up-to-date, by providing suggested edits on discussion pages. I'm getting advice on how to contribute and best practices for conflict of interest editors such as myself, but I'm always open to any questions or suggestions you might have!
As a first point of business for this article, I have a small correction to the introduction. This sentence includes two errors:
The article that is cited here is out of date, the number of cities where Uber operates is actually more than 200. The number of cities has been reported correctly in a few places, including The Next Web and the San Francisco Business Times. Likewise, the company's valuation quoted in that article is also not quite right, as it received a valuation of $18.2 billion in June this year.
Here's an updated sentence with new links for the correct numbers:
Is anybody here able to make this edit for me? Thanks, Craig at Uber ( talk) 02:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
irrelevant commentary, inappropriate for article talk page |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I don't trust you. Nor should anyone else on Wikipedia. As an employee of the article's subject you have no place here. You are a conflict of interest. Thank you and have a nice day. 104.254.91.18 ( talk) 06:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
|
Comments below. - SantiLak ( talk) 07:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC) Until Talk Page discussion completes, please do not make changes involving uber as a cab company
Of course. (I'm actually conducting a report on the company.) Trust me, their entire model is basically that of a cab companies. The play on words is smart on their part, but let's be realistic, it's a cab service. Ride sharing for money? Yes, that's what a cab is.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
From what I've learned from my research, Uber is basically operating as a cab that you cannot hail. They try to say "we are connecting drivers with people who need rides," or claim that they are a "ride sharing service." Let's be real for a second, the first one is simply a play on words, and the second one is basically a synonym for cab services. Many cab services even have identical apps that do the same thing because all Uber is doing is basically dispatching trips to drivers. Only difference is instead of customers having to call in, they simply tap a button on their smartphone. Keep in mind that a large majority of the world classifies this company as a cab service company.
A couple of the people here were being confused by how Uber's business model is different, and kept recharging my edits. All Uber is doing is avoiding regulation/insurance fees by hiding under this so called different business model. Anyone with an IQ over 15 understands that it's merely a controversial illegal cab service. That's why I think some of the changes that were made to the article are completely justified.
There is nothing in this article telling who the drivers are. Do they work fulltime, parttime, students on weekends? I’m trying to figure out how an owner of a nice middle-class car has an incentive to cruise around Manhattan waiting for customers. Also, how much of the fare do the drivers keep and how does that compare to traditional taxis? The business model is only adequately described from the top down and for its technological novelty. Janko ( talk) 09:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Most of the recent editing on the talk page trying to equate Uber and cab services seems to be coming from brand new single-purpose accounts with similar editing interests and understanding of sourcing. If this is you, please be aware that you are expected to maintain a single account and, if you have one, sign in to that account to edit. If you came here because somebody urged you to, please note the policy on WP:MEAT. Thanks, - Wikidemon ( talk) 03:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Did I miss something, or is there any reason why this entry doesn't mention anything about Uber drivers who have criminal records or have committed crimes against Uber customers? There are many stories in WP:RS, of which this is one of the most reliable roundups:
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Risky-Ride-Uber-Investigation-256604571.html Risky Ride: Who's Behind the Wheel of Uber Cars? How safe is Uber? The NBC4 ITeam investigates. By Joel Grover and Keith Esparros May 2, 2014
Tadeusz Szczechowicz drove the streets of Chicago for a year, despite five prior arrests and two convictions for burglary and disorderly conduct.
Syed Muzzafar had a prior conviction for reckless driving, but he cleared the Uber background check and was behind the wheel New Year's Eve when he was arrested for hitting and killing a 6-year-old girl in San Francisco.
And, Jigneshkumar Patel was arrested for battery of an UberX passenger, a charge he said is "rubbish." Still, the UberX driver had a 2012 conviction for DUI.
Tanya and Daniel Sackler didn't know anything about the past of their UberX driver. He identified himself only by his first name.
The Sacklers said he stole $2,500 in cash and personal items from them after he picked them up from LAX and dropped them off at their West Hollywood condo. The Sacklers filed a police report, saying the driver arrived at their home and quickly began unloading their baggage.
"He took them all and he put them in a pile," Daniel said.
While the Sacklers were dealing with their luggage, Tanya Sackler said their driver jumped back behind the wheel and quickly drove off with her purse, her husband's briefcase, a wallet with hundreds of dollars in it, and an iPad.
They had the driver's cell number, so they texted him right away, only to be told he was too busy to talk to them at the moment. The Sacklers said when they finally spoke to him, the driver told them he was not responsible for items left in his car.
-- Nbauman ( talk) 20:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I have made revisions today to address recent careless additions that were made, which are also in the same vein as other edits that have sought merely to discredit Uber, rather than adding to an encyclopedic article on the subject. Can copyeditors please be careful about how updates are presented—especially the Lead section, which is not just a dumping ground for the latest issues that surface in the media. I will assert once again that I have no connection with Uber whatsoever—I just want to uphold the Wikipedia standards that have served us well so far. I also know that other copyeditors have been doing their part to retain this page's credibility. Thanks. Regards,-- Soulparadox ( talk) 10:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Given that the best we can do for the moment in regard to the Taiwan section is a Chinese-language citation—unusual, as the English-language media is adept at keeping up with Uber matters as they happen—it would be great if a copyeditor who understands the article could ensure that the section is accurate. Thanks.-- Soulparadox ( talk) 07:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I just removed a small section at the bottom concerning the alleged rape in India. The keyword here is "alleged", because it is alleged and not yet proven, inserting it in violates BLP ( he's not yet been proven guilty). Unless there's some reliable sources that show a crime really was committed it would need to remain out. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 13:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
could there be a list of services that Uber provides including their limited time only services? For instance, in Washington, DC, Uber offers UberX (regular, XL, and XL with Car-seat); Black Car (regular, SUV, and Blackcar with carseat, and SUV with carseat) and Taxi. They are also running a trial of Uber Essentials, where you can order things from the app and a driver will deliver them to you. [1]
In Miami, I've read that they have UberSelect, with high end cars. [2] Dfl8cornell ( talk) 19:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the article does not address the changes that inspired the government to make since before the arrival of looper rideshare companies would definitely be labeled as Gypsy cabs but after their arrival they convinced government officials that because they were dispatching trips via the app and still completely ignoring existing taxi laws they could relabel the term gypsy cab as a rideshare service. I think that this should be discussed at least to a little bit of an extent in the article because it definitely did change the way that taxi regulations were in effect and thus it ultimately changed eat chips the cab to move under the exploited term as a rideshare service.- Powedulninja72627 ( talk) 11:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powedulninja72627 ( talk • contribs)
The 2014 Sydney hostage crisis incident makes an excellent illustration of Uber's automated pricing model and of Uber's sensitivity and responsiveness to emergencies. That is to say, demand shot up, surge pricing kicked in to bring more drivers out to handle the demand, and Uber made an executive decision to remedy the situation. This is exactly the sort of "how a company operates" information that readers would expect under a "pricing" section in a corporate article. "NotNews" by the way, is seriously dated. I wouldn't suggest going over to the hostage crises article currently under development and telling the editors there stop there work on the basis that Wikipedia is not news. Rklawton ( talk) 05:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm reverting this material for the second time (I hadn't seen the above comment). [1] What on earth does this have to do with Uber? There are dozens or perhaps hundreds of examples where people complained about Uber's "surge pricing". The fact that the algorithm increased the prices due to a terrorist incident this time (as opposed to a holiday, natural disaster, what have you) does not help explain the pricing system, and just feeds into the weird-stuff-that-happened-on-uber meme. This is minor news of the day stuff and does not fit in with explaining what Uber is, how it works, etc. If this truly becomes the symbol of negative reaction to Uber's pricing, then we can include it — but right now, a few hours after the incident with the hostage crisis still happening and Uber tyring to explain itself, this really looks like over-eager scandal-gazing. - Wikidemon ( talk) 06:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the usage of the word "rideshare" in the first sentence, along with the link to the Carpooling page, is inaccurate and plays into a media mythology that companies like Uber have spent copious amounts of money to craft. Uber is not a ride-sharing service, though many use the phrase ride-sharing to refer to them. I believe a better term for them would be Transportation network company (as used on the Lyft page), or simply as a taxi company.
Why Uber is not a ride-sharing company: "ride sharing," and particularly with the current link to the Carpooling page in place, implies a free, friendly exchange between individuals. For instance, with carpooling people typically take turns driving their vehicles for each other in order to reduce their gas usage, environmental impact, and to give themselves a bit more flexibility. The word "ride share" typically refers to something like a carpool, or an informal arrangement like what you find on the craigslist "rideshares" section -- e.g. "Hey, I'm driving down from SF to LA this weekend and have two extra seats." People often chip in money in such arrangements, but -- crucially -- the ride-share-er does not operate as a 24/7 business, and *already has a destination in mind*, hence the phrase "ride share." They are *sharing* their *ride*, *not* sharing their vehicle, or acting as a /for hire/ driving service.
Uber, however, operates on-demand taxi and taxi-like services. Their drivers do this as a full-time or part-time job, are required to meet certain requirements, and are, crucially, not in the process of making some kind of random personal trip when they decide to pick someone up. This is a job for them.
So to be concrete here: I propose that the usage of the phrase "ridesharing" in the first paragraph be removed and replaced with Transportation network company. I am not opposed to the usage of "rideshare" further into the article, as it's a popular term used to refer to services such as Uber, but I believe that even there we owe it to readers to offer a small clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.60.54 ( talk) 00:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi all. Just wondering about moving most of the regulatory opposition section to a new article called something like "Regulatory opposition to Uber" or maybe "Regulatory views on Uber". It seems to take up an inordinate amount of space at the moment. Cheers Ballofstring ( talk) 02:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Why Wikipedia doesn´t post the revenues and profits from Uber? If the company is worth $ 40 bn. does it means that its revenues are $ 40 bn.? Or just $ 200 million, like any small company? If the company is worth $ 40 bn. does it means its profits are $ 4 bn.? Or nothing. Otherwise, it is a fraud and investors will lose 90% of their money.-- 83.37.96.205 ( talk) 22:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Judging by recent IP vandalism and edit war potential, at least. 121.220.113.177 ( talk) 00:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Even though I had no problem at all with the previous layout of the page, I have revised the subsections and headings under the History section—which reflect an earlier version of the article—as I observed that they restricted the ability to update the History section if the content did not fit under the pre-existent headings. For example, a recent update that was more appropriate for the History section, was entered in a newly created section that is unnecessary and just adds to an already lengthy article. Of course, I am open to other suggestions. Regards,-- Soulparadox ( talk) 04:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
What do you think about adding this to the third paragraph? Uber's legal problems worldwide it's cc-licensed (see infographics) and well sourced. -- 87.163.110.172 ( talk) 15:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The consensus of this RfC is:
- to move most of the information in the "Regulatory opposition" to a spin-off article, Legal status of Uber's service.
- to trim the "Regulatory opposition" section so that it complies with Wikipedia:Summary style.
A spin-off article has been created, but the trimming of the "Regulatory opposition" section has not been done yet.
If necessary, editors should further discuss how to trim the section.
Hi again, everyone. As I mentioned in my last post, my name is Craig and I work at Uber Technologies. There have been a lot of edits to the article in the last several months, many involving adding information about the legal and regulatory responses to Uber's expansion into various markets. As Uber becomes available in different cities and countries, there has been a lot of media coverage of this issue, which has then been added into this article. It's hard not to notice that the Regulatory opposition now makes up the bulk of this article's content. I see that User:Ballofstring, User:Wikidemon and User:Soulparadox have briefly discussed this above, so I'd like to add a few thoughts, and hopefully start a bigger discussion.
The regulatory and legal responses are certainly part of Uber's short history to date, and definitely have a place in this article. However, I think that the way it is covered in this article in exhaustive detail is overwhelming to readers and reads more like a news ticker than an encyclopedia entry. I appreciate that editors are working hard here and it must be extremely tricky to make sure an article stays up to date while keeping details encyclopedic. Due to my obvious conflict of interest in this case, I know it's best for me not to be bold and make any changes, so I want to open up a discussion to editors and especially those with lots of experience on company articles. Although the usual practice would be to start a discussion on this Talk page, I'd like to open a "Request for Comment" to help bring in a broader range of experienced editors who can offer an objective view on what to do about the Regulatory opposition part of the article. I hope this sounds good to everyone here. Craig at Uber ( talk) 17:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The section of the article discussing regulatory and legal responses to the Uber app ( Regulatory opposition) is very long and exhaustively detailed. As new responses are reported in the media, more is being added, creating a "news ticker" effect that is not very encyclopedic. My question for editors is how this information would be best treated, particularly whether it should be summarized here or potentially split off into its own article. Craig at Uber ( talk) 17:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Thanks all for participating in this RfC and for offering such constructive responses. It seems like everyone is agreed on 1) creating a child article for a detailed discussion of the legal and regulatory status of Uber and 2) summarizing the material in this article -- and it's great to see that User:Ballofstring has already begun work on this. I'm glad that editors have found a good way forward to stop this article becoming overwhelmed by all of the information available on this topic, and I'm interested to see the new article take shape, as well as the process of summarizing the material here. I'm not sure on the best etiquette for ending the RfC. For now I will leave it open in case of additional thoughts and while the summarizing process is still to take place. If someone more experienced wants to go ahead and close it, however, that would be fine too. Craig at Uber ( talk) 17:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
In March 2015, Uber offered luxury car-rental service in collaboration with Dream Drive in Singapore until 20 May 2015. [1] Charminrong ( talk) 08:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Cabs and Uber drivers both have the option to reject/accept trips. So what exactly about getting an uber dispatch trip is different than a cab dispatch trip? They're both dispatching. Please give me a solid explanation. The let's go with the "status quo" stuff is not going to cut it. This article needs to be an accurate representation of what the business model is. What is your rebuttal? Centenialsquare ( talk) 1:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revistayugo ( talk • contribs)
74.95.43.249 ( talk) 02:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
There appear to be some disagreements on what Uber's business model is. By definition, dispatching is offering a trip (for which payment will be given; either through credit cards or cash . These trips can be accepted/rejected) to an available driver who is working as an independent driver for any company. Now if you think about it, we could theoretically label Uber's model as "connecting passengers with drivers," but then what form of driver transportation can't be labeled this? This is too vague and broad. It's like saying, "Wal-Mart connects consumers with purchasable items, and so they are not in the retail industry" (hopefully you get the idea) Is that wrong? No, but they are in the retail industry, and they sell goods. I get that Uber is trying to establish itself as something different thank cabs, but when 90% of the cities it operates in, deems what they are doing as dispatch, should it not be recognized as that? What do you guys think? -- Pavsidhu ( talk) 07:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
74.95.43.249 ( talk) 03:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The Walmart example is a false analogy. It's plain that Walmart is a retail chain and all the sources say that. Trying to prove that Uber is a dispatch service would be more like arguing whether Ebay, or Amazon, or Groupon are retail chains based on how they sell products, who takes the money, who ships, etc. They are what they are, and the best way to describe their online presence is that they run online shopping sites. Similarly, Uber runs a mobile-based car reservation service. - Wikidemon ( talk) 08:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC) So, I blocked one the editors here about the whole dispatch thing on account of edit warring. But after searching for sources myself, editors arguing in favor of this dispatching language may have a point that Uber is described as a "taxi dispatch service":
The taxi dispatch and ride-share service Uber just got a bump from United Airlines.
The license approved Tuesday would also allow Uber to dispatch taxicabs...
UberTaxi is permitted at O’Hare International Airport and Midway Airport, because the service links to professional taxi drivers and Uber dispatches the licensed cabs themselves
At this point, I'd like editors to stop reverting each other and to start discussing these in light of actual sources. I, JethroBT drop me a line 11:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
In September 2013,California’s Public Utilities Commission classified UberX as a transportation provider because it functions like a taxi dispatch.) That said, there does appear to be Uber Taxi in many cities including NYC, Washington DC, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, and others. ( [13], [14], [15]). I do not think it is POV to describe the general functions of the application per these sources. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
It is a bit challenging to tell from the above discussion exactly what proposal is being discussed. WOuld someone be willing to clearly state what the proposal is, and then it would be easier for editors to offer support or opposition with rationale. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 04:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I do appreciate the inclusion of infographics into the article, but the one added to Regulatory opposition is outdated and no longer an accurate illustration of Uber's presence in the US and elsewhere. In many cases depicted on the map that's now in the article, new regulations have gone into effect. Many of these updates occurred in late 2014, or very recently in 2015.
For any editors who might not have seen my posts here before, as I mentioned in my first post, my name is Craig and I work at Uber Technologies. I'm not going to make any edits to the article but plan to come to the Talk page with thoughts and suggestions from time to time.
Now, in regards to the infographic, there are a lot of inaccuracies, so I've put a sampling of them in collapsed format to make this less overwhelming. You'll find each inaccuracy noted along with a news article as support:
Updates to Uber-related legislation |
---|
References
|
I'm definitely interested in hearing feedback on this. If you guys agree that the infographic is no longer an accurate depiction, I'd appreciate an editor removing it. Thanks, Craig at Uber ( talk) 23:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I've rephrased this section on a recent NYT report that Comfr added recently to this. There are some other articles about it, but they basically refer back to the NYT article (see Kansas City Business Journal, Business Insider, Fast Company). This feels a little not news-y to me, and so if folks think we should wait on this to see how this story develops first, perhaps we should. Let me know what you think. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I noticed we don't have anything on this news or any of its earlier background information. How extensive is the unionization movement? EllenCT ( talk) 05:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi again, everyone. As editors reading this might have seen, the Request for Comment discussion above ended with the consensus to move the details from this article about regulation and other legal issues into a new article, and to summarize them here in line with WP:Summary Style. While moving the text into the new article has happened, the summary of Regulatory opposition has not. As this is the more involved part, it's totally understandable that it may take a bit more time to get quite right. In the meantime, the long section is continuing to attract more and more detail, even while existing parts become outdated.
To help get editors started with the summarizing process, I'd like to present a draft summary as a starting point. The draft aims to give a general overview of the regulatory and legal landscape facing Uber, without going into all of the minutiae for every country and city. It's best for me not to be bold and add this in myself because of my conflict of interest, as I work for Uber Technologies. My hope is that this draft will work to summarize the section, or at least be a springboard to start that summarization process.
Here it is:
Regulatory and legal issues summary draft
|
---|
During the course of its expansion to over 300 cities around the world, Uber has experienced numerous regulatory and legal challenges to its operations. [1] Transportation regulators in places including California; [2] Vancouver, British Columbia; [3] Seattle, Washington; [4] and Geneva, Switzerland issued cease and desist orders, particularly upon the launch of the ridesharing product uberX, called uberPOP internationally. [5] [6] Competitors such as the Madrid Taxi Association in Spain, [7] ANTRAL in Portugal [8] and Taxi Deutschland in Germany have procured injunctions from local courts on the basis that Uber is competing unfairly. [9] However, in countries such as the United States, [10] Brazil [11] and France, courts have denied requests for injunction made by taxi companies, taxi drivers or transportation regulators. [6] Government officials in Delhi, India have banned all app-based ride services in defense of cab driver unions. [12] In Belgium, [13] The Netherlands, [7] the Philippines, [14] and South Korea, police forces have conducted sting operations to order rides from Uber drivers and arrest them if they are operating vehicles not licensed for commercial use. [15] Several locales, including Portland, Oregon [16] and the state of Virginia [17] initially banned Uber from operating, only to reverse the decision after compromising with Uber on changes in local regulations. [18] In 2015, the company signaled a departure from its previous, more aggressive expansion strategy. Uber's new commitment to cooperation and collaboration with local municipalities has increased the rate of its expansion. As of January 2015, its uberX product operated legally in 22 cities and states within the U.S., and worldwide 17 cities had passed specific pro-Uber municipal ordinances. [19] References
|
Anyone willing to look this over and start the summarizing process? Thanks, Craig at Uber ( talk) 15:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Just spotted that Wikidemon has made the edits in the article and it looks great, thanks! Craig at Uber ( talk) 16:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Man, this article is useless. The only thing that is even remotely helpful is the "illegal cab?" section on this talk page. Even it fails to answer some basic questions, but the gist appears to be that uber is operating an unregulated cab service. it is hard to imagine (other than by utilizing mobile technology to avoid detection) how it could be allowed to operate with the obvious public safety issues that it raises. Who ensures the vehicles involved are safe? Who ensures (and insures) the drivers are qualified and also safe? are the vehicles and drivers employees of uber or just people who sign up or pay some fee to be regietered as instant cabbies with their own junker cars? It will be interesting to see what happens when somebody uses uber to begin scamming, robbing, or worse hapless riders.
There needs to be some explanation of why Uber prefers to use unlicensed drivers. How are these drivers insured -- or are they? Who is liable if an unlicensed driver has an accident? What happens if one gets stopped for a traffic violation, with an passenger in the cab? How is the level of driving skill determined for the drivers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 ( talk) 01:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I've found a severe shortage of detail on what Uber drivers might earn, in reality, in various markets. If reliable sources can be found in several major markets, it may be possible to improve the article.
- Found this source where a journalist interviewed with 11 drivers and gained access to their pay statements. May be of some use: What Uber Drivers Really Make (According To Their Pay Stubs), Buzzfeed, November 2014. N2e ( talk) 16:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The intro currently says "Many governments and taxi companies have protested against Uber, alleging that its use of unlicensed, crowd-sourced drivers was unsafe and illegal." The intro is supposed to be an outline of what is covered in the article. And yet I cannot find a section in the article that goes into more detail about what governments and taxi companies have actually said. I think that is relevant and interesting. Can it be added? Invertzoo ( talk) 20:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, now I see that this is covered in the article entitled, " Legal status of Uber's service". It seems rather unfortunate that this is a separate article. Shouldn't the two be merged? Invertzoo ( talk) 20:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I have added a "see also" and a hat note notifying people about the other article. Without either of those assists, it looked almost as if the legality issues were being deliberated hidden in a separate article that readers might not notice. Invertzoo ( talk) 20:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
To Wikidemon. If that other article "chronicles different government responses" to Uber, then why is that article entitled Legal status of Uber's service, which seems to promise to tell the reader whether Uber's services are legal or not, under which laws and so on. Surely that article should be entitled something more along the lines of Protests and legal actions against Uber or something similar? Invertzoo ( talk) 20:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see that anyone would call that other article a Wp:Fork, but it did also look rather hidden away, which is why I made the hatnote and the see also. Invertzoo ( talk) 21:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
And I see the section which has that hatnote is now called "Market penetration", which I think is a misleading heading, since the paragraph is about problems with market penetration, not the degree of market penentration. That new heading looks a bit white-washy to me. Invertzoo ( talk) 20:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say that info was hidden, I said it looked hidden. I came to the article interested in that aspect of the company's history, and found it quite difficult to see where that was discussed. Invertzoo ( talk) 19:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
N2e, are you asking if I want to make a "better and more thorough summary of the legal issues"? As things currently stand, because we have two articles, that would have to go into the other article, or it risks creating a lot of duplication. Also, I am not an expert on law, especially since local, national and international law is involved. Plus some would say the legal objections are better left in chronological order. Invertzoo ( talk) 20:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
An editor recently made a Bold edit and removed the section of the article entitled "Contractors, or employees?" I have Reverted that edit, per WP:BRD, so that it might be Discussed here on the Talk page.
It would seem that the issue of Uber drivers being considered by Uber as independent contractors, as currently done, rather than employees, has been much in the news, in many cities, and has become a part of political rhetoric and argument. The material in the article is backed up by reliable sources. So my view would be to leave the "big idea" of the matter as an issue in the article on the Uber company, but of course only leave a fairly high-level summary. Others? N2e ( talk) 18:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The article currently states, "have a car less than six years old". This is simply incorrect. Uber themselves indicate your car must be "2000 or newer 2005 or newer, depending on your city"( [16]). A car that is more than 15 years old is vastly different from the current claim from Absolutelypuremilk, which in turn seems to be a misreading of the cited source. The cited source claims the car must be as modern as 2007, and the article was published in 2014, meaning the car could be more than 7 years old. Additionally, Absolutelypuremilk claims that Uber drivers must pass an English test. That's not remotely true. They have to "get through the orientation", which is very, very different. The claims that Uber reduces congestion are similarly unsupported by the provided citation, and logically laughable in any case. I'm not planning on removing these claims because I have already done so once, and don't want to engage in an edit war. -- Yamla ( talk) 18:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The article would be improved if sources could be found that detail some of the various (and, I'm guessing, diverse) local issues as Uber has entered, or left (e.g., Eugene, Oregon), various markets.
Might we make a (growing) list here of decent articles that might be used as reliable sources to improve the article? N2e ( talk) 18:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Article need more information on the app. What version number, compatible devices, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.178.150.188 ( talk) 23:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
FFAF153 You removed the benefits section, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Uber_%28company%29&type=revision&diff=684542310&oldid=684501961 saying that it read "like an advert". Which specific bits did you disagree with? Maybe we can discuss and come to a reasonable conclusion Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 15:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The article ought to include some information about why many consumers, drivers, etc., prefer Uber over traditional cab companies and other options. This should not be "claimed" or "alleged" or some other disclaimer suggesting that we are covering a business dispute, but a neutral summary in Wikipedia's voice regarding why the Uber service is different an in many cases more attractive to consumers and participants. That's relevant at the core to what this article is about. - Wikidemon ( talk) 08:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)